/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220425.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 25, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 76

                            Headlines

11578243 CANADA: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended Until June 21
ABBVIE INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 6 Deadline
ABBVIE INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of June 6 Deadline
ABBVIE INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 6 Deadline
ABSOPURE WATER: Guy Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action

AFFILIATED CARE: Alves Wins Bid for Class Certification
AFRICAN METHODIST: Central Florida Pastor Files Class Action
AFRICAN METHODIST: Former Minister Files ERISA Class Action
AGA SERVICE COMPANY: Whiteman FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Gilmore Seeks FLSA Conditional Status

AINSWORTH PET: Court Sets Pre-trial Schedule in Kirchenberg Suit
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 13 Deadline
ALLEY TEA: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ANTHEM INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Nixon Class Action
APPLE INC: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice

APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Sued for Recording Calls Without Consent
ARES CORPORATE: Krevlin Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
ASSESSOR OF NEW HYDE PARK: Hodgson Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AZK RESTAURANT: Ramirez-Gonzalez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
BALLY'S TWIN: Employees File Class Action Over Inadequate OT Wages

BAY & BAY TRANSPORTATION: Perry Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
BELMAR MIDCO: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIG THINK CAPITAL: DeLorme Files TCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
BIT MINING: Stockholder Suit in E.D. N.Y. Dismissed
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Agreement in Principle Reached in Pearlstein

BOKF NA: Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Walker Class Action
BOSLEY INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $500,000
BRAXIA SCIENTIFIC: Settles U.S., Canadian Securities Class Actions
BRITISH AIRWAYS: July 4 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
BROWN SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Griffin Suit Alleges

BUMBLE BEE: Certification of Tuna Purchasers' 3 Subclasses Affirmed
CANADA: Black Workers Disappointed in Mental Health Measures
CANADA: Canadian Wheat Board Class Action Over Funds Certified
CANADA: Murphy Battista Pursues Class Action Over Nurse Imposter
CANTERBURY AT CEDAR: Faces Class Action Over COVID-Related Deaths

CAREGIVERS ON DEMAND: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT Compensation
CAT5 COMMERCE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CCAP AUTO: Court Compels Non-Class Arbitration in Lobel Suit
CHASING PACE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Two Former Employees Launch Class Action

CITIBANK NA: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Pre-Recorded Calls
CO2 EXCHANGE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
COINBASE: Faces Class Action Over Arbitration Policies
COLUMBIA PIPELINE: $79MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 1
CONAGRA BRANDS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit in IL Court Dismissed

CONAGRA BRANDS: Mislabeling Suit Ongoing in California
CONAGRA BRANDS: Negrete Class Suit Dismissed
COVERALL NORTH: Appeals Ruling Lifting Stay in Billie Suit
COVERGIRL COSMETICS: Faces Class Action Over PFAS in Pressed Powder
CREDIT SUISSE: $760,000 Class Settlement to be Heard on July 13

CUTTERS WIRELINE: Lindsay's Claim for Breach of Contract Tossed
DANIEL BEHROOZAN: Ramos Files Suit Over Estheticians' Unpaid Wages
DEUTSCHE BANK: August 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DILWORTH SCHOOL: Joychild Selected to Lead Independent Inquiry
DIRECTV LLC: Face TCPA Class Action in Virginia Over Robocalls

ECL GROUP: Alliance Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina
EL VALLE 794: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Linar Suit Alleges
ELEGANTE CUISINE: Fireman's Fund Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
ELLUME LTD: To Defend Class Action Over COVID Test Kits
ELON MUSK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 13 Deadline

ELON MUSK: Faces Class Action Over Handling of Twitter Investment
ELON MUSK: Robbins LLP Reminds of June 13 Deadline
ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Harrison
FACEBOOK INC: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in DZ Reserve Suit
FANNIE MAE: April 23 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

FERRO CORP: Fox Rothschild Attorney Discusses Class Action
FIAT CHRYSLER: Judge Denies Motion to Seal Jaguar Communications
FLRISH INC: Sept. 9 Deadline to File Class Status Bid Sought
FORD MOTOR: Class Certified in Weidman's Faulty Brake System Suit
FORD MOTOR: Must Face Class Action Over F-150 Faulty Brakes

GATOS SILVER: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 6 Deadline
GEICO GENERAL: Judgment in Green Class Suit Affirmed in Part
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Battle Suit Over Sale of Defective Vehicles
GENERAL MOTORS: Hackler Files Bid for Class Certification
GOORIN BROS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GRAINGER COUNTY, TN: Attorney Says Ex-Inmate Clients Traumatized
GRAINGER COUNTY, TN: Class Action Filed Over Forced Sex Shows
GRAVITY DEFYER: Loadholt Sues Over ADA Violations
HAMILTON-RYKER IT: Appeals Ruling in Gentry FLSA Suit to 5th Cir.
HERTZ CORP: Wrongful Theft Class Action Pending

HOMETOWN AMERICA: Bartok Bid for Class Status Tossed w/o Prejudice
HP INC: York County Appeals Securities Fraud Class Action Dismissal
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Oil Consumption Class Action in California
INSIGHT VENTURE: Final Certification of Settlement Class Sought
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 6 Deadline

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 6 Deadline
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 6 Deadline
JAMES KOUTOULAS: Faces Class Action Over "Let's Go Brandon" Coin
JOBCO INC: Pineda Wants Settlement Conference in Labor Class Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Finalizing Benzene Class Action Settlement

K&S FARM: Faces Figueroa Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
KURA SUSHI: Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Set for May
LONG ISLAND LIVING: Fails to Implement COVID Measures, Johnson Says
LUCID GROUP: Klein Law Firm Reminds of May 31 Deadline
MERCK & CO: Judge Nixes Zostavax Deceptive Advertising Class Action

MONTCLAIR GOLF: Caddies File Class Action Over Wage Law Violations
MYRIAD GENETICS: May 16 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Suit Wants Giants, Jets to Drop New York Name
NETFLIX INC: Ohio Court Hears Arguments in Franchise Fee Suit
NETFLIX INC: Russian Users Launch Class Action Over Loss of Service

NEW PUNCH BOWL: Phipps Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NEW SOUTH WALES: Flood-Affected Residents Mull Class Action
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Judge Grounds Class Action Over Severance Plan
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Faces Samuels Stockholder Suit in C.D. Cal.
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Faces Yuan Stockholder Suit in C.D. Cal.

NOVA LIFESTYLE: Stockholder Suit in C.D. Cal. Dismissed
NOVO NORDISK: $100MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 27
OOMA INC: Faces Chiu Class Suit in Canada
ORGAIN LLC: Patenaude Appeals Dismissal of Mislabeling Case
PFIZER: Monmouth County Hires Private Lawyers to File Class Action

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Prison Officials Agree to Independent Monitor
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 6 Deadline
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 6 Deadline
PORTLAND GENERAL: May 9 Class Settlement Hearing Set
PRECISION DRILLING: Tyger Appeals Summary Judgment in FLSA Suit

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Quinones Suit Moved to S.D. Ohio
PYRAMID ADVISORS: McCann Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
QUEENSLAND: Flood Victims Lose $440-MM Compensation Bid in Suit
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Bumpus Suit
RUTGERS BUSINESS: Budet Sues Over Deceptive Educational Rankings

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: Faces Fraud Class Action Over Rankings
SCANA CORP: $63MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 2
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Data Breach Class Actions Pending
SCULLY COMPANY: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
SCWORX CORP: Settlement in COVID Test Dispute Gets Initial Nod

SHAMROCK TOWING: Allen Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime Pay
SMART & FINAL: Pearson Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California
STARKIST CO: Must Face Class Action Over Antitrust Violations
SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Zaidi Shareholder Suit
TENANTREPORTS.COM LLC: Faces FCRA Class Action in Philadelphia

TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Settlement Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
TWITTER INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
TWITTER INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of June 13 Deadline
TWITTER INC: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of June 13 Deadline
TWITTER INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 13 Deadline

ULTA SALON: Arellano Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNISWAP LABS: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations
UNITED SERVICES: Johnson Files Suit in S.D. California
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA: Class Action Over Parking Passes Tossed
VEGA CAPITAL: Must Face Class Action Over Oil Futures Scheme

VOLTA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 31 Deadline
VOLTA INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of May 31 Deadline
WALGREEN CO: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Lidocaine Patches
WALGREEN CO: Toropek Files Lidocaine Patch Mislabeling Suit
WHOLE FOODS: Class Action Over Chocolate Ice Cream Bars Tossed

XP INC: Stockholder Suit Over IPO Dismissed
[*] Accounting Class Actions Against SPACs Tripled in 2021
[*] Accounting Securities Class Action Filings Down in 2021
[*] Biometric Information Bill Pending in California
[*] Class Actions Over Data Security Incidents More Common

[*] New Ohio Law Blocks Opt-out Option for Overtime Class Actions
[*] Sidley Attorneys Discuss Life Science Securities Litigation
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now

                            *********

11578243 CANADA: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended Until June 21
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE MCMONIGLE; AMBERLY
OGDEN; MOLLY SLIWINSKI; and LAUREN WELLS, v. 11578243 CANADA, INC.
d/b/a BLACKOXYGEN ORGANICS; BLACKOXYGEN ORGANICS USA, INC.; MARC
SAINT-ONGE; and CARLO GARIBALDI, Case No. 1:21-cv-04790-LMM (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' consent motion to extend time for Plaintiffs to file a
motion for class certification.

The motion is granted as unopposed, and Plaintiffs shall file a
motion for class certification on or before June 21, 2022, the
Court says.

11578243 Canada is located in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and is part
of the Securities and Commodity Contracts Intermediation and
Brokerage Industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36vH4Wk at no extra charge.[CC]

ABBVIE INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
ABBVie Inc. ("ABBVie" or the "Company") (NYSE: ABBV) between April
30, 2021 and August 31, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

AbbVie is one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. The
Company's biggest drug, Humira (an anti-inflammatory drug used to
treat illnesses such as Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis,
rheumatoid arthritis ("RA")) was, in 2021 (aside from COVID-19
vaccines), the world's best-selling prescription drug, with net
revenue of more than $20 billion in 2021. Humira accounts for more
than a third of AbbVie's net revenue.

While patents have protected Humira's blockbuster profits for
years, biosimilar drugs will be permitted to enter the market and
compete directly with Humira beginning in 2023. Accordingly,
AbbVie's future revenue and earnings depend in large part on the
Company's ability to develop new sources of revenue to offset
reduced Humira sales. Rinvoq, an anti-inflammatory drug
manufactured by AbbVie and used to treat RA and other diseases by
inhibiting Janus kinase ("JAK") enzymes, was touted as one such
drug.

Rinvoq was initially approved in the United States to treat only
moderate to severe RA. However, AbbVie was actively pursuing
additional treatment indications and, in 2020, asked the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (the "FDA") to approve Rinvoq for the
treatment of several other diseases, including psoriatic arthritis,
ankylosing spondylitis, and atopic dermatitis.

Rinvoq uses the same mechanism of action as other JAK inhibitor
drugs, including Xeljanz and Xeljanz XR (collectively, "Xeljanz"),
which are manufactured by Pfizer Inc. ("Pfizer"), and Olumiant,
manufactured by Eli Lilly and Company ("Eli Lilly"). Beginning in
February 2019, the FDA repeatedly warned the public that the
Xeljanz safety trial indicated that certain dosages of Xeljanz were
associated with elevated risks of serious heart-related issues,
cancer, and other adverse events.

Notwithstanding the pharmacological similarities between Rinvoq and
Xeljanz, during the Class Period, Defendants conditioned investors
to view Rinvoq as far safer than Xeljanz while downplaying the
likelihood that the FDA would take regulatory action against Rinvoq
as a result of Xeljanz's problematic safety profile.

On June 25, 2021, AbbVie revealed that contrary to a previous
announcement, the FDA would not complete its review of several of
the expanded treatment indications for Rinvoq by the end of June
due to its ongoing evaluation of safety concerns associated with
Xeljanz. On this news, the price of AbbVie common stock declined
$1.76 per share, or approximately 1.5%, from a close of $114.74 per
share on June 24, 2021, to close at $112.98 per share on June 25,
2021.

Then, on September 1, 2021, the FDA announced that final results
from the Xeljanz safety trial established an increased risk of
serious adverse events, even with low doses of Xeljanz. As a
result, the FDA determined that it would require new and updated
warnings for Xeljanz and Rinvoq because Rinvoq "share[s] similar
mechanisms of action with Xeljanz" and "may have similar risks as
seen in the Xeljanz safety trial." The FDA also indicated that it
would further limit approved indications for Rinvoq as a result of
these safety concerns.

On this news, the price of AbbVie common stock declined more than
7% to close at $112.27 per share on September 1, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 6, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased ABBV securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit AbbVie Inc. Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or
pallocco@bernlieb.com.

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

Contact Information:

Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]

ABBVIE INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of June 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against AbbVie, Inc. ("AbbVie" or the "Company") (NYSE: ABBV)
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired AbbVie securities between April 30, 2021 and
August 31, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until June 6, 2022 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

AbbVie is one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. The
company's revenues will come under significant pressure in the
coming years when its best-selling drug, Humira, will lose patent
protection in 2023. Accordingly, AbbVie's future revenue and
earnings depend in large part on its ability to develop new sources
of revenue to offset Humira's lost sales. Rinvoq -- an
anti-inflammatory drug manufactured by AbbVie and used to treat
rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other diseases by inhibiting Janus
kinase (JAK) enzymes -- was touted as one such drug. Rinvoq was
initially approved in the United States to treat only moderate to
severe RA. However, AbbVie was actively pursuing additional
treatment indications and, in 2020, asked the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to approve Rinvoq for the treatment of several
other diseases.

As is relevant here, Rinvoq is similar to other JAK inhibitor
drugs, including Xeljanz, manufactured by Pfizer Inc. When the FDA
approved Xeljanz in 2012 for the treatment of RA, it required an
additional safety trial to evaluate Xeljanz's risk of triggering
certain serious side effects. Beginning in February 2019, the FDA
repeatedly warned the public that the safety trial indicated that
Xeljanz's use could lead to serious heart-related issue, cancer,
and other adverse events. Notwithstanding the similarities between
Rinvoq and Xeljanz, during the Class Period, Defendants assured
investors that Rinvoq was far safer than Xeljanz and not subject to
the same regulatory risks.

However, investors began to learn the truth about Rinvoq's
significant risks on June 25, 2021, when AbbVie revealed that the
FDA was delaying its review of expanded treatment applications for
Rinvoq due to the safety concerns associated with Xeljanz. On this
news, the price of AbbVie common stock declined $1.76 per share, or
approximately 1.5%, from a close of $114.74 per share on June 24,
2021, to close at $112.98 per share on June 25, 2021.

Then, on September 1, 2021, the FDA announced that final results
from the Xeljanz safety trial established an increased risk of
serious adverse events, even with low doses of Xeljanz. As a
result, the FDA determined that it would require new and updated
warnings for Xeljanz and Rinvoq because Rinvoq "share[s] similar
mechanisms of action with Xeljanz" and "may have similar risks as
seen in the Xeljanz safety trial." The FDA also indicated that it
would further limit approved indications for Rinvoq as a result of
these safety concerns. On this news, the price of AbbVie common
stock declined $8.51 per share, or more than 7%, from a close of
$120.78 per share on August 31, 2021, to close at $112.27 per share
on September 1, 2021.

After the Class Period, on December 3, 2021, AbbVie announced that
the FDA had updated Rinvoq's label to require additional safety
warnings and limit marketing of Rinvoq to only its use after
treatment with other drugs has failed. On January 11, 2022,
Defendants admitted that these changes to Rinvoq's label would
negatively impact sales, forcing the Company to reduce its
long-term guidance for Rinvoq's sales in 2025.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
about the company's business and operations. Specifically,
Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
safety concerns about Xeljanz extended to Rinvoq and other JAK
inhibitors; (2) as a result, it was likely that the FDA would
require additional safety warnings for Rinvoq and would delay the
approval of additional treatment indications for Rinvoq; and (3)
therefore, Defendants' statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis, as a result of
the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant
decline in the market value of AbbVie's securities, AbbVie
investors have suffered significant damages.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired AbbVie shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, 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 Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contacts

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

ABBVIE INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges ABBVie Inc. investors who suffered significant
losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud class action
has been filed and investors with significant losses have the
opportunity to lead the case.

Class Period: Apr. 30, 2021 - Aug. 31, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 6, 2022
Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ABBV
Contact An Attorney Now:ABBV@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

ABBVie Inc. (ABBV) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The lawsuit focuses on AbbVie's statements about the safety profile
of Rinvoq, a drug intended to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other
diseases by inhibiting Janus kinase ("JAK") enzymes, and its
assurances that Rinvoq was far safer than Pfizer's competing drug
(Xeljanz) which also used the JAK mechanism.

The complaint alleges that Defendants downplayed the likelihood
that the FDA would take regulatory action against Rinvoq as a
result of Xeljanz's problematic safety profile and misrepresented
or failed to disclose that (1) safety concerns about Xeljanz
extended to Rinvoq and other JAK inhibitors, and (2) as a result,
it was likely that the FDA would require additional safety warnings
for Rinvoq and would delay additional treatment indications for
it.

But, on June 25, 2021, AbbVie revealed the FDA was delaying its
review of expanded treatment applications for Rinvoq due to safety
concerns associated with Xeljanz.

Then, on Sept. 1, 2021, the FDA announced that it would require new
and updated warnings for both Xeljanz and Rinvoq because Rinvoq
"share[s] similar mechanisms of action with Xeljanz" and "may have
similar risks as seen in the Xeljanz safety trial" and it would
further limit approved indications for Rinvoq as a result of the
safety concerns.

These events drove the price of AbbVie shares sharply lower.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving AbbVie
intentionally misrepresented Rinvoq's safety profile," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

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

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

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law.
The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and
represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers
and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by
corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its
successes can be found at hbsslaw.com.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]

ABSOPURE WATER: Guy Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN GUY, individually
on behalf of himself and others similiarly situated, v. ABSOPURE
WATER COMPANY, LLC, a domestic limited liability company, Case No.
2:20-cv-12734-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. granting conditional certification and approving timely
      notice to the proposed class of:

      "All Truck Drivers employed by Defendant in Michigan who
      worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks from October
      8, 2017 to present and: 1) drove routes exclusively within
      the state of Michigan during such workweek(s), and/or 2)
      drove vehicles that weighted less than 10,001 pounds
      during such workweek(s);"

      The putative class is limited to Defendant's Truck Drivers
      in Michigan who are similarly situated and subject to the
      Defendant's common policy and scheme that is uniformly
      applied to all members of the defined putative class. Such
      overtime wages were not paid because Defendant engaged in
      a companywide practice of misclassifying its Drivers as
      exempt under the Motor Carrier Act;

   2. directing Defendant to produce a list of all members of
      the Putative Class by providing a list of their names,
      last known addresses, social security numbers, dates of
      employment, cell phone numbers, and email addresses in
      electronic and importable format (e.g., Microsoft Excel)
      within 14 days of the entry of this Order;

   3. directing the Parties to confer and submit a proposed
      notice within 14 days after entry of the Court's Order on
      Plaintiff's MSJ and Conditional Certification, and, to the
      extent an agreement is not reached, directing Plaintiff to
      file a Motion to Approve Collective Action Notice within
      21 days of the Court's entry of the Orders on Plaintiff's
      MSJ and Motion to Conditionally Certify the Collective
      Action;

   4. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send the Court-
      approved notice and reminder notice of this action to the
      putative class members via U.S. Mail, e-mail and text
      message, and requiring Defendant to post the notice in a
      conspicuous location in its Michigan facilities; and

   5. approving a 60 day opt-in period during which the putative
      class members may join the collective action.

Founded in 1908, Plymouth, Michigan-based Absopure is a
family-owned home and office refreshment delivery services
provider.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 29,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vovggZ
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          Florida Bar No.: 85035
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (313) 739-1953
          E-mail: mhanna@forthepeople.com

AFFILIATED CARE: Alves Wins Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA ALVES, et al., on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AFFILIATED CARE OF
PUTNAM, INC., et al., Case No. 7:16-cv-01593-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and final
      certification of the collective action is granted in full.

   2. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in
      part and denied in part.

   3. The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in
      full.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied all of the
necessary Rule 23 requirements. Accordingly, the Court grants
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The lawsuit seeks to recover overtime compensation and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Article
6 of the New York State Labor Law (NYLL) and its corresponding
regulations.

The Plaintiffs were engaged as personal care aids ("PCAs") and
consumer-directed personal assistants ("CDPAs") by Affiliated, the
principal shareholder and executive officer of which is Kessman.

In particular, Alves was employed by Affiliated from October 7,
2006, through December 4, 2015. Alves' responsibilities included
"bathing and grooming patients," services Alves asserts are
"typically provided by home health aides." Alves alleges that
"despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per week," The
Defendants never provided her overtime pay.

Affiliated Home is a home care provider.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3k8A4Sx at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq.
          H. Joseph Cronen, Esq.
          Russell Gustavson Wheeler, Esq.
          CHARNY & WHEELER PC
          Rhinebeck, NY

               - and -

          Daniel C. Stafford, Esq.
          McCabe & Mack LLP
          Poughkeepsie, NY

The Counsel for the Defendants are:

          Steven Felsenfeld, Esq.
          FELSENFELD LEGAL, PLLC
          Ossining, NY

AFRICAN METHODIST: Central Florida Pastor Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Byrnes, writing for WMFE, reports that Central Florida Pastor
Charles R. Jackson has filed a federal lawsuit against the African
Methodist Episcopal Church and others over the alleged mishandling
of millions of dollars in retirement funds.

It's one of three class-action lawsuits on behalf of the thousands
of pastors who lost 70 percent of their retirement funds.

The Rev. Jackson is pastor at Mt. Tabor African Methodist Episcopal
Church in Altamonte Springs.

He tried to withdraw most of his retirement money in September, but
eventually learned only 30% remained. And that is unavailable.

He said he knows retired pastors who no longer get their monthly
payments.

Now," he said, "considering we have 13 episcopal districts on the
big island of the United States of America and there are retirees
in all of those districts who are suffering the same ills -- they
are retired with now income.

Jackson said he's a third-generation pastor whose family connection
to the AME Church goes back to 1867.

"And for this to have happened leaves much to be desired in a trust
form," Jackson said. "I've lost a great deal of trust in the
church."

On March 22, Jackson filed the federal lawsuit in Tennessee,
against the church, the financial companies involved, the
retirement fund and its former manager. The suit alleges
negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and more.


There are at least two other lawsuits. One claims that nearly $100
million was lost with risky investments.

Jackson's attorney Greg Francis says the church had mandated
retirement contributions and promised conservative, safe
investments.

"This is their hard-earned money that has now been lost," Francis
said, "and it's our intent to hold those responsible who had the
fiduciary duty to look over the fund and invest the fund."

On its website, the AME Church says it may have been the victim of
a financial crime and promises to make "every fund participant
whole." The church has not yet said how they plan to do that. [GN]

AFRICAN METHODIST: Former Minister Files ERISA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that managers of a church retirement fund
have been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging they mishandled
and lost nearly $90 million of retirement funds, affecting nearly
5,000 church employees.

Former minister Ret. Presiding Elder Cedric Alexander filed the
class action complaint against AME Church's fiduciaries Mar. 22 in
a Maryland federal court, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and breach of contractual
and fiduciary duties, according to an AARP press release. AARP is
an interest group for those over 50 years old.

The AME Church is the oldest and one of the largest U.S. Protestant
denominations and historically Black churches with more than 2.5
million members and 7,000 congregations worldwide.

The lawsuit alleges church leadership mismanaged their duties by
not honoring an earned and promised pension plan for pastors,
elders, bishops and other employees of affiliated colleges and
seminaries.  

"As a result of the African Methodist Episcopal Church's gross
financial mishandling, nearly 5,000 pastors, church elders and
other employees find themselves contemplating a future without the
retirement funds they were depending on," said William Alvarado
Rivera, AARP senior vice president of litigation. "These employees
and retirees served their community for years, some even decades,
and justice requires they receive their deserved earnings they were
promised."

AME Church Retirement Funds Allegedly Put in Risky Investments
AME Church Retirement plan participants had been told for years
that contributions from individual local churches were invested in
a conservative life insurance company, the lawsuit states.

Employees were told the fund was covered by ERISA, and that they
had federal pension protections. AME promised to contribute 12% of
each participant's annual wages into their retirement fund.

However, in reality, two-thirds of the funds, approximately $90
million, were instead invested in a risky venture capital company
and an ultimately valueless real estate deal, the lawsuit states.

AME leadership told participants in February the retirement plan
was in fact not covered by ERISA because of a religious exemption,
meaning there is no federal insurance to protect against the loss.
[GN]

AGA SERVICE COMPANY: Whiteman FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alan Whiteman, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. AGA Service Company, Inc., JetBlue
Airways Corporation, Case No. CACE-22-003979 was removed from the
17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 14,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-60738-AHS to the
proceeding.

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

Allianz Global Assistance --
https://www.allianztravelinsurance.com/ -- is a world leader in the
travel insurance and assistance industry because we really do help
people—anytime, anywhere.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alec Huff Schultz, Esq.
          HILGERS GRABEN PLLC
          1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 630-8304
          Email: aschultz@hilgersgraben.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lazaro Fernandez , Jr., Esq.
          STACK FERNANDEZ & HARRIS, P.A.
          1001 Brickell Bay Drive, Suite 2650
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 371-0001
          Fax: 371-0002
          Email: lfernandez@stackfernandez.com


AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Gilmore Seeks FLSA Conditional Status
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUES GILMORE, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY,
LLC JURY, a Delaware limited liability company, and AH 2007
MANAGEMENT, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, Case No.
2:21-cv-02661-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this action under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act ("FLSA");

   2. authorizing the Plaintiff's claims to proceed as a FLSA
      collective action for overtime violations on behalf of
      Plaintiff and other similarly situated "Chief Engineers";

   3. directing th Defendants to immediately provide the
      Plaintiff's counsel a computer-readable file containing
      the names (last names first), last known physical
      addresses, last known email addresses, social security
      numbers, dates of employment, and last known telephone
      numbers of all putative class members;

   4. providing that the Court-approved notice be posted at all
      of the Defendants' locations where putative class members
      work, as well as be mailed and emailed to the putative
      class;

   5. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class
      as of the date this is fully briefed; and

   6. requiring that the Opt-in Plaintiffs' Consent to Join
      Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.

Aimbridge Hospitality operates as a property management company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 31,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K2Tl22
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
          OWEN & BRYANT
          Attorneys at Law
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

AINSWORTH PET: Court Sets Pre-trial Schedule in Kirchenberg Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN KIRCHENBERG v.
AINSWORTH PET NUTRITIION, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00690-KJM-DMC
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dennis M. Cota entered an order setting
the following pre-trial schedule:

  1. The parties shall exchange initial       April 25, 2022
     disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule
     of Civil Procedure 26(a) by:

  2. The Plaintiff shall provide her list     January 13, 2023
     of expert witnesses no later than:

  3. The Defendants shall provide their       Feb. 17, 2023
     lists of expert witnesses no later
     than:

  4. All expert discovery shall be            May 9, 2023
     completed and all motions pertaining
     to expert discovery shall be noticed
     to be heard by:

  5. Plaintiff's motion for class             June 6, 2023
     certification shall be filed by:

  6. The Defendants' oppositions to           July 28, 2023
     Plaintiff's motion for class
     certification shall be filed by:

  7. The Plaintiff's reply brief shall        September 8, 2023
     be filed by:

  8. The Plaintiff's motion for class         November 3, 2023
     certification shall be noticed
     for hearing before the assigned
     District Judge no later than:

  9. All non-expert discovery shall           July 14, 2023
     be completed and all motions
     pertaining to non-expert discovery
     shall be noticed to be heard by:

10. All dispositive motions shall be        September 23, 2023
     noticed to be heard by:

A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com athttps://bit.ly/3KUvlzy at no extra charge.[CC]


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Akebia Therapeutics,
Inc. ("Akebia" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AKBA) of a class action
securities lawsuit.

The lawsuit on behalf of Akebia investors has been commenced in the
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York. Affected investors purchased or otherwise acquired certain
Akebia securities between June 28, 2018 and September 2, 2020.
Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a
member of our team:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/akebia-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25888&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. NEWS - AKBA NEWS

CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (i) the Company's lead
investigational product candidate, vadadustat, was not as safe in
treating non-dialysis dependent chronic kidney disease patients
with anemia as defendants had represented; (ii) as a result,
defendants overstated the clinical prospects of a Phase 3 clinical
program for vadadustat; (iii) accordingly, defendants also
overstated vadadustat's overall commercial and regulatory
prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Akebia
during the relevant timeframe, you have until May 13, 2022 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.

NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
Discuss your rights with our legal team without cost or
obligation.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/akebia-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25888&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States.

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

ALLEY TEA: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Alley Tea, Inc.
The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The Alley Tea, Inc. d/b/a The
Alley, Case No. 1:22-cv-02171 (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022).

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

The Alley Tea -- https://www.the-alley.us/ -- offers and sells all
sorts of tea.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


ANTHEM INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Nixon Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT NIXON, et al., v.
ANTHEM, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00076-GFVT-EBA (E.D. Ky.),
the Hon. Judge Edward B. Atkins entered a scheduling order as
follows:

  -- Discovery

     1. Plaintiffs shall make initial         June 30, 2022
        disclosures of expert reports
        by Rule 26(a)(2) on the issues
        relating to class certification
        by:

     2. The Defendants shall make initial     August 15, 2022
        disclosures of expert reports by
        Rule 26(a)(2) on the issues
        relating to class certification:

     3. Precertification Discovery is to      September 29, 2022
        be completed by:

     4. The parties may supplement all        October 13, 2022
        disclosures and responses if
        necessary no later than:

  -- Dispositive Motions

     1. Plaintiffs must file a Motion         October 31, 2022
        for Class Certification up to
        and including:

     2. The Defendants must file a            December 8, 2022
        Response to Plaintiff's Motion
        for Class Certification up to
        and including:

     3. The Plaintiffs must file a            December 29, 2022
        Reply to Defendant's Response
        until:

Anthem is a provider of health insurance in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JWakTH at no extra charge.[CC]


APPLE INC: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers entered an order denying without prejudice the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Consumer Plaintiffs have failed
to establish that Professor McFadden's current damages model is a
reliable means of assessing class-wide damages. Thus, without a
common approach to measuring damages, individual damages
calculations would predominate.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MhswZl at no extra charge.[CC]

APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Sued for Recording Calls Without Consent
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action claims that Aptive Environmental, LLC has violated
California law by recording calls to its toll-free phone number
without disclosing to callers that the communications are being
recorded.

The 15-page lawsuit alleges the pest control service has run afoul
of the California Penal Code, which prohibits one party to a
telephone call from recording the conversation without the other
party's knowledge or consent. According to the case, Aptive
Environmental records all incoming and outgoing calls without
disclosing that it does so at the beginning of each call or
securing the other party's consent to be recorded.

The plaintiff is a California resident who claims to have called
Aptive Environmental's toll-free customer service number in March
2022. Per the suit, the defendant recorded this communication
without disclosing to the plaintiff that the call was being
recorded, and the man only found out when he specifically asked if
Aptive was recording the call, the case relays.

The plaintiff says that he did not provide his consent to be
recorded at any point and stresses that the contents of the call
were confidential in nature given he provided his first and last
name and residential address. According to the case, Aptive
Environmental violated the plaintiff's reasonable expectation of
privacy.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who, while residing or
located in California, placed a call to Aptive Environmental's
toll-free phone number at any time since March 9, 2021 and spoke
with a representative without having first been informed or without
having first consented to the recording of the call.

The case was initially filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court
before being removed to the California's Central District Court on
April 8, 2022. [GN]

ARES CORPORATE: Krevlin Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN J. KREVLIN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARES CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES FUND III, L.P.;
ARES CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES FUND IV, L.P.; DAVID G. HIRZ; LELAND
P. SMITH, SR.; RICHARD N. PHEGLER; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC.;
and JEFFERIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2022-0336 (Del. Ch., April
14, 2022) is a class action by the Plaintiff and the Class who were
forced to cash out as a result of the Board's recommendation and
the majority shareholder's election of a medium-form merger at
$6.50 per share over better offers at a time when selling the
company as a whole was the least advantageous option for
shareholders and contrary to management's strategy and public
statements and as such harmed by the conduct of the Defendants.

According to the complaint, Ares rejected an offer higher than the
merger price for less than Ares Fund III's entire holding because,
in Ares' view, the offer was too low; immediately pressed the board
to pursue a sale of Smart and Final Stores, Inc.; remained
intimately involved in the sale process in spite of the board's
formation of a special committee; and steered the committee toward
a sale to Apollo in a medium form merger on the basis of the
proposed merger's speed and lack of complication over a higher
offer at a time when the stock price was at a historic low and the
company's performance was exceeding management projections,
consistent with management's prediction that food inflation would
increase, driving share value.

All the while, Ares repeatedly told the board that it was not
legally obligated to sell its Smart & Final shares and was not
looking to liquidate its position independent of other shareholders
when, in fact, Ares Fund III was highly motivated to liquidate its
position in Smart & Final so that its investors could exit on
schedule without adversely affecting share price at a time when
Ares Fund IV would remain a shareholder.

This self-serving and misleading conduct propelled the board first
to sell Smart & Final at a moment in time that, as the remaining
shareholders were concerned, the least advantageous in the
company's history and second to accept an offer that was fifty
cents lower per share than another.

As a direct and proximate cause of the Ares' conduct, the
shareholders suffered damages.

ARES CORPORATE OPPORTUNITIES FUND III, L.P. operates as an
investment advisory firm. The Company provides leveraged loans,
high yield bonds, private debt, private equity and other types of
investments services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil R. Lapinski, Esq.
          Phillip A. Giordano, Esq.
          Christopher P. Clemson, Esq.
          Madeline Silverman, Esq.
          GORDON, FOURNARIS & MAMMARELLA, P.A.
          1925 Lovering Avenue
          Wilmington, DE 19806
          Telephone: (302) 652-2900
          Facsimile: (302) 652-1142
          Email: nlapinski@gfmlaw.com
                 pgiordano@gfmlaw.com
                 msilverman@gfmlaw.com
                 cclemson@gfmlaw.com


ASSESSOR OF NEW HYDE PARK: Hodgson Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
Village of New Hyde Park, et al. The case is styled as William
Hodgson Jr., All other similarly situated Petitioners on the
annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioner v. The Assessor of the Village of
New Hyde Park, The Board of Assessment Review of the Village of New
Hyde Park, Respondents, Case No. 604882/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau
Cty., April 14, 2022).

The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."

New Hyde Park -- https://vnhp.org/ -- is a village in the Towns of
Hempstead and North Hempstead in Nassau County, on Long Island, in
New York, United States.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG LLP
          132 SPRUCE STREET
          CEDARHURST, NY 11516


AZK RESTAURANT: Ramirez-Gonzalez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AZK Restaurant, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Alvaro Ramirez-Gonzalez, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. AZK Restaurant, Inc.,
Konstantinos Athanasiou, Case No. 1:22-cv-03091 (S.D.N.Y., April
14, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

ASK Restaurants Ltd is a company based out of United Kingdom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street, Ste. 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 209-3933
          Fax: (212) 209-7102
          Email: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


BALLY'S TWIN: Employees File Class Action Over Inadequate OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Mulvaney, writing for The Providence Journal, reports that
more than 70 employees at Bally's Twin River Lincoln Casino Resort
are accusing the company of violating federal and state fair labor
laws by failing to pay them adequate overtime wages and
systematically undercutting their weekly paychecks.

Three employees -- Rebecca Barton, Timothy Bartholomew and Johan
Tapia, all of whom travel to work at the Lincoln casino from
Connecticut -- sued Bally's Twin River last month in U.S. District
Court, alleging the casino was willfully and repeatedly
miscalculating its pay for hourly, tipped workers. Dozens more
employees who worked at Twin River in the past three years are
seeking to join the class-action lawsuit. Those affected include
dealers and servers and other tip-based employees.

"We think there's substantial money involved," Chip Muller, one of
the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said on April 15.

Twin River, a state-operated casino that is privately owned, has
not yet responded to the lawsuit in court. Patti Doyle, a
spokeswoman for Twin River, said the company declined to comment
because the matter involves personnel and pending litigation.

What the employees say
According to the suit, the employees worked more than 40 hours some
weeks, but were paid 1 1/2 times an hourly rate that fell below the
required state minimum wage, which amounted to $10.10 per hour
before Jan. 1 and $12.25 per hour after. Federal fair labor and
state laws require the employer to pay an hourly rate of 1 1/2
times the regular rate, which cannot be lower than the state
minimum wage, for any overtime hours.

The workers also accuse the casino of failing to notify them thatit
was paying them a service wage of $2.13 per hour, while taking a
tip credit of $5.12 to bring the company up to the $7.25 federal
minimum wage. The law states that an employer cannot apply a tip
credit without informing the employee.

In addition, the workers allege that Twin River failed to comply
with legal requirements that it factor in tip credits and shift
premiums, such as an increased differential for late-night hours,
when calculating the employees' regular pay rate.

Instead, the suit alleges that the casino simply paid employees 1
1/2 times a lower service rate for overtime hours. It also accuses
the casino of not accounting for shift premiums in determining
overtime pay.

Further allegations include that Twin River relies on a time-clock
system that rounds work time to the nearest 15 minutes "but
partners that policy with instructions designed to under-count
hours worked" and prohibits workers from punching in more than
seven minutes before their shift starts.

The workers are asking the court to determine whether the casino
has miscalculated their overtime wages and whether and what damages
they are entitled to for the alleged violations in state labor
laws.

They are represented by Muller; Nancy Sheinberg; Benjamin Knox
Steffans of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and Jeffrey S. Morneau of
Springfield, Massachusetts. [GN]


BAY & BAY TRANSPORTATION: Perry Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Billy Perry, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bay & Bay Transportation Services,
Inc., Case No. 19HA-CV-22-00822 was removed from the First Judicial
District, Dakota County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on April 15, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-00973-JRT-ECW to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Bay & Bay -- https://bayandbay.com/ -- is a family-owned trucking
and logistics company that has been delivering high quality
transportation solutions since 1941.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Christopher P Renz, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Fax: (612) 336-2940
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                 crenz@chestnutcambronne.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Luke J. Wolf, Esq.
          Jessica J. Nelson
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          100 South 5th Street, Ste. 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 268-7000
          Fax: (612) 268-7001
          Email: lwolf@spencerfane.com
                 jnelson@spencerfane.com


BELMAR MIDCO: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Belmar Midco, Inc.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Belmar Midco, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03119 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022).

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

Belmar Midco, Inc. is located in Golden, Colorado and is part of
the Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BIG THINK CAPITAL: DeLorme Files TCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Think Capital,
Inc. The case is styled as Jamie DeLorme, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Big Think Capital, Inc., Case No.
0:22-cv-00968-NEB-DTS (D. Minn., April 15, 2022).

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

Big Think Capital Inc. -- https://bigthinkcapital.com/ -- is a
financial services broker specializing in helping businesses find
the capital they need.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Phone: (651) 770-9707
          Fax: (651) 704-0907
          Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com


BIT MINING: Stockholder Suit in E.D. N.Y. Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
BIT Mining Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 7, 2022, that a class action against
BIT Mining, alleging misleading statements and omissions regarding
its compliance with laws, was dismissed.

On February 13, 2020, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against BIT Mining Limited and certain of the group's current and
former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the group made materially misleading statements and omissions
regarding its compliance with applicable anti-corruption laws and
regulations.

In June 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In
November 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
The claims raised in the first amended complaint do not differ
materially from those raised in the original complaint.

The second amended complaint raises the same claims as the first
amended complaint, but alleges additional facts in support of those
claims. On December 21, 2020, the company served its Motion to
Dismiss the second amendment complaint. On January 20, 2021, lead
plaintiff served its opposition to the company's Motion to Dismiss.
On February 19, 2021, the company filed all papers associated with
its Motion to Dismiss, including the Company's reply in further
support of the Motion to Dismiss.

On August 13, 2021, a Report and Recommendation was issued to grant
the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs filed objections to the Report
and Recommendation on August 27, 2021 and the defendants responded
on September 10, 2021. On September 20, 2021, the Court dismissed
the case and the Clerk of the Court was directed to enter judgment
consistent with this Order and close the case. As such, this case
is now terminated.

BIT Mining Ltd. is a cryptocurrency mining enterprise based in Hong
Kong.


BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Agreement in Principle Reached in Pearlstein
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited disclosed in its Form 8-K Report dated April 7,
2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7,
2022, that it has reached an agreement in principle to settle the
consolidated securities class action lawsuit captioned "Pearlstein
v. Blackberry Limited, et al.," Case No. 13 Civ. 7060 (CM) (KHP)
pending against the company and certain of its former officers in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
consolidated class action complaint was filed in October 2013. The
court has granted the parties' joint request to adjourn further
proceedings in the matter pending approval of the final
settlement.

BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments based in Ontario.


BOKF NA: Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Walker Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BERKLEY V. WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BOKF, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, d/b/a Bank of Albuquerque, N.A., Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 20-2046 (10th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing the
putative class action lawsuit.

The appeal asks the Court to rule on an issue of first impression
in this circuit: Whether extended overdraft charges made to a
checking account are "interest" charges governed by 12 C.F.R.
Section 7.4001, or "non-interest charges and fees" for "deposit
account services" governed by 12 C.F.R. Section 7.4002.

Mr. Walker holds a checking account at the national bank, the BOKF.
Walker's checking account is subject to BOKF's Depository Agreement
for Transaction Accounts, which is part of BOKF's Agreement and
Disclosures. The account agreement creates a system of procedures
and attendant fees in the event an accountholder draws on his
account when the funds are not sufficient to cover the charge --
i.e., an overdraft.

Mr. Walker filed the putative class action challenging BOKF's
"Extended Overdraft Fees," claiming they are in violation of the
interest rate limit set by the National Bank Act of 1864 ("NBA"),
codified at 12 U.S.C. Section 85. The NBA provides a private cause
of action to parties who have been charged interest exceeding the
usury limit and permits recovery of "twice the amount of the
interest thus paid."

BOKF charged Walker Extended Overdraft Fees after he overdrew his
checking account, BOKF elected to pay the overdraft, and then
Walker failed to timely pay BOKF for covering the overdraft. Walker
alleges that when he overdrew his account and BOKF paid his
overdraft, BOKF was extending him credit and this extension of
credit was akin to a loan. Walker argues that the Extended
Overdraft Fees of $6.50 he was charged for each business day his
account remained negative after a grace period constituted
"interest" upon this extension of credit and were in excess of the
interest rate limit set by the NBA.

The district court concluded that BOKF's Extended Overdraft Fees
were fees for "deposit account services" and were not "interest"
under the NBA. It granted BOKF's motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) and dismissed Walker's action for failure to state a
claim. The court entered final judgment and dismissed Walker's suit
in favor of BOKF. Walker timely appealed.

The Tenth Circuit reviews a district court's ruling on a Rule 59(e)
motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. That abuse of
discretion review, however, involves verifying that the district
court's "discretion was not guided by erroneous legal
conclusions."

Mr. Walker argues on appeal that the district erred in granting
BOKF's motion to dismiss because (1) when BOKF pays an overdraft on
a customer's deposit account, it makes a "loan" within the meaning
of the NBA; and (2) BOKF's Extended Overdraft Fees that it charges
a customer who fails to timely pay back the overdraft are
"interest" the customer must pay on that "loan," as unambiguously
defined in Section 7.4001(a). If BOKF's Extended Overdraft Fees are
"interest," it is undisputed that the rate BOKF charges exceeds the
applicable usury limits.

The Tenth Circuit note that the First Circuit in Fawcett v.
Citizens Bank, N.A., 919 F.3d 133, 136 (1st Cir. 2019), addressed
the same legal question of whether extended overdraft fees
constituted interest under Section 85 and the Fifth Circuit in
Johnson v. BOKF, N.A., 341 F.Supp.3d 675, 681 (N.D. Tex. 2018),
addressed not only the same legal question but many of the same
facts. Echoing Fawcett and Johnson, the Tenth Circuit determines
that Section 7.4001(a) and Section 7.4002 are ambiguous regarding
how it should categorize extended overdraft fees, and it therefore
defers to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC")'s
interpretation in Interpretive Letter 1082 that extended overdraft
fees are not "interest" within the meaning of the NBA.

In Interpretive Letter 1082, OCC considered the legality of a
bank's overdraft fee structure, which included both initial and
extended overdraft fees and is indistinguishable from BOKF's
overdraft fee structure. OCC concluded that the bank's overdraft
fees constituted "non-interest charges and fees" for deposit
account services under Section 7.4002. Considering Interpretive
Letter 1082's applicability to BOKF's overdraft fee structure, the
Tenth Circuit must decide whether to afford Auer deference (Auer v.
Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) to OCC's conclusion that these sorts
of overdraft fees are "deposit account service charges" under
Section 7.4002(a) and therefore not interest under Section
7.4001(a).

The Tenth Circuit concludes that Auer deference to Interpretive
Letter 1082 is appropriate. Interpretive Letter 1082 represents
OCC's reasonable interpretation of genuinely ambiguous regulations,
and OCC's determination that fees like BOKF's Extended Overdraft
Fees are "non-interest charges" is neither plainly erroneous nor
inconsistent with the regulations it interprets. As "non-interest
charges" under Section 7.4002, BOKF's Extended Overdraft Fees are
not subject to the NBA's usury limits, and Walker fails to state a
claim. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in
denying Walker's motion for reconsideration.

Mr. Walker also argues that discovery is warranted even if the
Tenth Circuit concludes that BOKF's Extended Overdraft Fees are not
"interest" under the NBA because the issue is "complex and
fact-specific" and the parties should be allowed to develop the
necessary facts. Because it has taken as true Walker's well-pleaded
facts and concluded that he has failed to "state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face," the Tenth Circuit holds that
Walker's complaint is deficient under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a) and therefore he is not entitled to discovery.

For these reasons, the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/jaefd8pm from Leagle.com.

J. Aaron Lawson -- alawson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, San
Francisco, California (Ryan D. Andrews and Roger Perlstadt, Edelson
PC, in Chicago, Illinois, with him on the briefs), appearing for
the Appellant.

Sarah Wishard Poston -- sposton@fdlaw.com -- (J. Michael Medina --
mmedina@fdlaw.com -- with her on the briefs), Frederic Dorwart
Lawyers PLLC, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, appearing for the Appellee.


BOSLEY INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $500,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Bosley has agreed to pay $500,000 to
resolve claims it mismanaged cyber security, resulting in a data
breach in 2020.

The settlement benefits a nationwide Class of individuals who were
notified in 2021 of the Bosley data breach and whose information
was compromised in the breach. The settlement also covers a
California Subclass of Class Members who lived in the Golden State
at the time of the data breach.

Bosley is a hair-restoration company based in California. The
company offers surgical procedures such as hair transplants and
non-surgical options such as laser therapy, scalp
micropigmentation, and more.

In January and February 2021, Bosley informed over 100,000
individuals their information had been compromised in a data
breach. The breach, which occurred in August 2020, allegedly
compromised current and former customers' sensitive personal
information such as Social Security numbers, driver's license
numbers, financial information, medical data, and health insurance
information.

Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Bosley argue the
hair-restoration company failed to properly protect their
information and waited too long to inform customers of the breach.
As a result of this alleged negligence, Bosley customers are at the
risk for fraud and identity theft, the class action lawsuit
contends. According to the suit, consumers had to spend time and
money to protect themselves as a result of the breach.

Bosley hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve these
allegations with a $500,000 settlement deal.

Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can collect a cash
payment for ordinary and extraordinary expenses related to the data
breach. The settlement also provides an additional statutory
damages award of $50 to members of the California subclass.

Payments for ordinary expenses are capped at $300 and may include
credit report costs, credit freeze fees, card replacement fees,
late fees, interest on payday loans, other expenses, and up to four
hours of lost time (paid at a rate of $20 per hour).

Extraordinary expense payments are capped at $5,000 and may include
actual monetary losses caused by the data breach. This includes
fraudulent charges or identity theft expenses incurred by Class
Members as a result of stolen data.

Both ordinary and extraordinary expenses must be documented and
will only be compensated if they haven't already been refunded or
reimbursed.

Class Members are not limited to only one type of payment and can
claim both ordinary and extraordinary expenses, along with
statutory damages for California Subclass Members. For example, a
California Subclass member who claims both ordinary and
extraordinary expenses could receive a maximum payment of $5,350.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 7, 2022.

The court will hold a final approval hearing for the settlement on
Aug. 5, 2022.

In order to receive a payment from the settlement, Class Members
must submit a valid claim form by June 7, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits a nationwide Class of individuals who were
notified in 2021 of the Bosley data breach and whose information
was compromised in the breach. The settlement also covers a
California Subclass of Class Members who lived in the Golden State
at the time of the data breach.

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
Documentation such as receipts, bank statements, credit card
statements, copy of the bill from your telephone company, mobile
phone company, or internet service provider, other documentation
reflecting the fraudulent charges, as well as documentation
reflecting the fact that the charge was fraudulent, any and all
receipts, correspondence, confirmations, and other documents
supporting any lost time claimed.

Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
06/07/2022

Case Name
Hashemi, et al. v. Bosley, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00946 PSG (RAOx),
in the U.S. District Court Central District of California

Final Hearing
08/05/2022

Settlement Website
BosleySettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Hashemi, et al. v. Bosley, Inc.
CPT GROUP, Inc.
50 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606
BosleySettlement@cptgroup.com
888-281-3953

Class Counsel
M Anderson Berry
CLAYEO C ARNOLD

Jeffrey S Goldenberg
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA

David K Lietz
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC

Charles E Schaffer
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP

Defense Counsel
Teresa C Chow
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

Gary E Mason
David K Lietz
Gary M Klinger
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP

Charles E Schaffer
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP [GN]

BRAXIA SCIENTIFIC: Settles U.S., Canadian Securities Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Braxia Scientific Corp. ("Braxia Scientific", or the "Company"),
(CSE: BRAX) (OTC: BRAXF) (FWB: 4960) announced on April 13 that it
has reached an agreement in principle (the "US Settlement") to
settle claims alleged in a securities class action ("US Class
Action") pending against the Company and certain of its former
officers filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California in April, 2021. The Company also announced
it has signed a settlement agreement (the "Canadian Settlement") to
resolve a class action lawsuit ("Canadian Class Action") that was
filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court in May 2021 against the
Company its CEO, certain of its former officers, a shareholder, and
underwriters.

The US Settlement contemplates a cash payment by the Company of USD
$1 million to settle the US Class Action. The Canadian Settlement
contemplates a cash payment of CDN $1.9 million, of which the
Company will be paying CDN $1.6 million.

After available insurance, the total cost to the Company to settle
both class actions will be approximately CDN $1.36 million. This
does not include legal expenses incurred by the Company, estimated
at approximately CDN $950,000, of which approximately CDN $750,000
has been paid.

Both the US Settlement and the Canadian Settlement are subject to
court approval at hearings expected later in 2022. Under the
respective settlement agreement, once the US Settlement and the
Canadian Settlement receive court approval, both class actions will
be dismissed against all defendants, including the Company and its
officers.   Approval by the respective courts, notice to the
putative classes, and the satisfaction of customary conditions to
effectiveness will take several months.

As previously disclosed, given the uncertainties of litigation, the
Company had not been in a position to assess the likelihood of any
potential loss or adverse effect on its financial condition or to
reasonably estimate the amount of potential loss in connection with
the class actions. As a result of the entry into the US Settlement
and the Canadian Settlement, the Company expects that the
above-referenced total cost to settle will be incorporated into its
results of operations and financial condition for the fiscal
quarter ending June 30, 2022.

Resignation of Director
The Company announces that David Greenberg has resigned as a
director. The Company appreciates David's meaningful contribution
to the Company and wishes him well in future endeavours.

                    About Braxia Scientific Corp.

Braxia Scientific is a medical research company with clinics that
provide innovative ketamine treatments for persons with depression
and related disorders. Through its medical solutions, Braxia aims
to reduce the illness burden of brain-based disorders, such as
major depressive disorder among others. Braxia is primarily focused
on (i) owning and operating multidisciplinary clinics, providing
treatment for mental health disorders, and (ii) research activities
related to discovering and commercializing novel drugs and delivery
methods. Braxia seeks to develop ketamine and derivatives and other
psychedelic products from its IP development platform. Through its
wholly owned subsidiary, the Canadian Rapid Treatment Center of
Excellence Inc., Braxia currently operates multidisciplinary
community-based clinics offering rapid-acting treatments for
depression located in Mississauga, Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal.
[GN]

BRITISH AIRWAYS: July 4 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Did you purchase airfreight shipping services to or from Canada
(except to/from the United States) between January 2000 & September
2006?

If so, apply now to receive money from class action settlements.

What is a class action?

A class action is a lawsuit filed by one person on behalf of a
large group of people.
What is this class action about? Class actions were commenced in
Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec alleging an unlawful
conspiracy to fix prices for airfreight shipping services to or
from Canada between January 2000 and September 2006.

Previous settlements were reached with 12 groups of defendants.
Those settlement funds (less court approved counsel fees and
disbursements) were distributed to eligible class members in 2019.


Additional settlements totaling CDN$16 million were reached with
British Airways and Air Canada. Both settlements were approved by
the Ontario Court. The Air Canada settlement was also approved by
the British Columbia and Quebec Courts. With these settlements, the
class actions have been resolved against all defendants.

The settlements represent a resolution of disputed claims and are
not an admission of liability or wrongdoing. British Airways and
Air Canada expressly deny any liability or wrongdoing.

Am I eligible to receive money?

You could be entitled to compensation if you purchased Airfreight
Shipping Services to or from Canada (except to/from the United
States) between January 2000 and September 2006. You can claim in
respect of purchases from any air cargo carrier. However, you
cannot claim in respect of shipments on integrated air cargo
shippers (such as FedEx, UPS, DHL and TNT) on their own aircraft.
No wrongdoing is alleged against the integrated air cargo shippers.
See FAQ #6, online at www.aircargosettlement2.com, for more details
on who is eligible for compensation.

How much money will I receive?

Payments will be distributed on a proportional basis, based on the
value of your claim relative to the value of all approved claims.
The value of your claim will be calculated based on: (i) the amount
of your Airfreight Shipping Services purchases; and (ii) the
categorization of your purchases (i.e., whether you purchased
directly from an air cargo carrier and whether you purchased for
your own shipments or as a freight forwarder). See FAQ #6 for more
information.

How do I apply for a payment?

Claims must be filed no later than July 4, 2022.

You can apply for payments online at www.aircargosettlement2.com.
If you do not have Internet access, call the claims administrator
at the number listed below. It does not cost anything to apply to
receive a payment. Counsel fees will be paid out of the settlement
funds.

Original Claimants: If your claim was approved in the first
distribution ("Original Claimants"), you must file an abbreviated
claim that confirms your contact information and provides a
statement of release. Your claim will be valued based on the
information provided in the first distribution.

New Claimants: If you did not file a claim in the first
distribution, you must file a complete claim to be eligible for
payment. Where available, you can rely on sales records provided by
the defendants, the International Air Transport Association (IATA),
and/or freight forwarders to establish your purchases. You can also
provide your own purchase records.

When will I receive my money?

Accurate processing takes time. Depending on the number of claims
filed, it could be up to one year before you receive compensation.
Please check www.aircargosettlement2.com for regular updates.

You are represented by:
Siskinds LLP
London, Ontario, Canada

Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Liebman Legal Inc.
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Questions
Visit us at www.aircargosettlement2.com,
email administrator@aircargosettlement2.com
or call 1-888-291-9655 (U.S. and Canada)
or 1-614-553-1296 (International).


BROWN SECURITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Griffin Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIESHA GRIFFIN; and JOHN KELSEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROWN SECURITY & LEO
MANAGEMENT d/b/a SOUTHERN PROTECTION AGENCY; and JOHN BROWN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00072-TCB (N.D., Ga., April 14, 2022)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Griffin was employed by the Defendants as area manager.
Plaintiff Kelsey was employed as director of security.

BROWN SECURITY & LEO MANAGEMENT d/b/a SOUTHERN PROTECTION AGENCY is
a security company. The company's line of business includes
providing detective, guard, and armored car services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Arnold J. Lizana, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
         1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
         Atlanta, GA 30361
         Telephone: (877) 443-0999
         Facsimile: (877) 443-0999
         Email: alizana@attorneylizana.com


BUMBLE BEE: Certification of Tuna Purchasers' 3 Subclasses Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OLEAN WHOLESALE GROCERY COOPERATIVE, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs v. BUMBLE BEE FOODS LLC; STARKIST CO.; DONGWON
INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., Defendants-Appellants, and KING OSCAR, INC.;
THAI UNION FROZEN PRODUCTS PCL; DEL MONTE FOODS COMPANY; TRI MARINE
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; DONGWON ENTERPRISES; DEL MONTE CORP.;
CHRISTOPHER D. LISCHEWSKI; LION CAPITAL (AMERICAS), INC.; BIG CATCH
CAYMAN LP, AKA Lion/Big Catch Cayman LP; FRANCIS T ENTERPRISES;
GLOWFISCH HOSPITALITY; THAI UNION NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 19-56514 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to certify the
Tuna Purchasers' three subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3).

The other Plaintiffs are BEVERLY YOUNGBLOOD, PACIFIC GROSERVICE,
INC., DBA Pitco Foods, CAPITOL HILL SUPERMARKET, LOUISE ANN DAVIS
MATTHEWS, JAMES WALNUM, COLIN MOORE, JENNIFER A. NELSON, ELIZABETH
DAVIS-BERG, LAURA CHILDS; NANCY STILLER; BONNIE VANDERLAAN; KRISTIN
MILLICAN; TREPCO IMPORTS AND DISTRIBUTION, LTD.; JINKYOUNG MOON;
COREY NORRIS; CLARISSA SIMON; AMBER SARTORI; NIGEL WARREN; AMY
JOSEPH; MICHAEL JUETTEN; CARLA LOWN; TRUYEN TON-VUONG, AKA David
Ton; A-1 DINER; DWAYNE KENNEDY; RICK MUSGRAVE; DUTCH VILLAGE
RESTAURANT; LISA BURR; LARRY DEMONACO; MICHAEL BUFF; ELLEN PINTO;
ROBBY REED; BLAIR HYSNI; DENNIS YELVINGTON; KATHY DURAND GORE;
THOMAS E. WILLOUGHBY III; ROBERT FRAGOSO; SAMUEL SEIDENBURG;
JANELLE ALBARELLO; MICHAEL COFFEY; JASON WILSON; JADE CANTERBURY;
NAY ALIDAD; GALYNA ANDRUSYSHYN; ROBERT BENJAMIN; BARBARA BUENNING;
DANIELLE GREENBERG; SHERYL HALEY; LISA HALL; TYA HUGHES; MARISSA
JACOBUS; GABRIELLE KURDT; ERICA PRUESS; SETH SALENGER; HAROLD
STAFFORD; CARL LESHER; SARAH METIVIER SCHADT; GREG STEARNS; KARREN
FABIAN; MELISSA BOWMAN; VIVEK DRAVID; JODY COOPER; DANIELLE
JOHNSON; HERBERT H. KLIEGERMAN; BETH MILLINER; LIZA MILLINER;
JEFFREY POTVIN; STEPHANIE GIPSON; BARBARA LYBARGER; SCOTT A.
CALDWELL; RAMON RUIZ; THYME CAFE & MARKET, INC.; HARVESTERS
ENTERPRISES, LLC; AFFILIATED FOODS, INC.; PIGGLY WIGGLY ALABAMA
DISTRIBUTING CO., INC.; ELIZABETH TWITCHELL; TINA GRANT; JOHN
TRENT; BRIAN LEVY; LOUISE ADAMS; MARC BLUMSTEIN; JESSICA BREITBACH;
SALLY CRNKOVICH; PAUL BERGER; STERLING KING; EVELYN OLIVE; BARBARA
BLUMSTEIN; MARY HUDSON; DIANA MEY; ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF NEW
ENGLAND, INC.; NORTH CENTRAL DISTRIBUTORS, LLC; CASHWA DISTRIBUTING
CO. OF KEARNEY, INC.; URM STORES, INC.; WESTERN FAMILY FOODS, INC.;
ASSOCIATED FOOD STORES, INC.; GIANT EAGLE, INC.; McLANE COMPANY,
INC.; MEADOWBROOK MEAT COMPANY, INC.; ASSOCIATED GROCERS, INC.;
BILO HOLDING, LLC; WINNDIXIE STORES, INC.; JANEY MACHIN; DEBRA L.
DAMSKE; KEN DUNLAP; BARBARA E. OLSON; JOHN PEYCHAL; VIRGINIA
RAKIPI; ADAM BUEHRENS; CASEY CHRISTENSEN; SCOTT DENNIS; BRIAN
DEPPERSCHMIDT; AMY E. WATERMAN; CENTRAL GROCERS, INC.; ASSOCIATED
GROCERS OF FLORIDA, INC.; BENJAMIN FOODS LLC; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES
LLC; H.E. BUTT GROCERY COMPANY; HYVEE, INC.; THE KROGER CO.; LESGO
PERSONAL CHEF LLC; KATHY VANGEMERT; EDY YEE; SUNDE DANIELS;
CHRISTOPHER TODD; PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.; WAKEFERN FOOD CORP.;
ROBERT SKAFF; WEGMANS FOOD MARKETS, INC.; JULIE WIESE; MEIJER
DISTRIBUTION, INC.; DANIEL ZWIRLEIN; MEIJER, INC.; SUPERVALU INC.;
JOHN GROSS & COMPANY; SUPER STORE INDUSTRIES; W LEE FLOWERS & CO
INC.; FAMILY DOLLAR SERVICES, LLC; AMY JACKSON; FAMILY DOLLAR
STORES, INC.; KATHERINE McMAHON; DOLLAR TREE DISTRIBUTION, INC.;
JONATHAN RIZZO; GREENBRIER INTERNATIONAL, INC.; JOELYNA A. SAN
AGUSTIN; ALEX LEE, INC.; REBECCA LEE SIMOENS; BIG Y FOODS, INC.;
DAVID TON; KVAT FOOD STORES, INC., DBA Food City; AFFILIATED FOODS
MIDWEST COOPERATIVE, INC.; MERCHANTS DISTRIBUTORS, LLC; BROOKSHIRE
BROTHERS, INC.; SCHNUCK MARKETS, INC.; BROOKSHIRE GROCERY COMPANY;
KMART CORPORATION; CERTCO, INC.; RUSHIN GOLD, LLC, DBA The Gold
Rush; UNIFIED GROCERS, INC.; TARGET CORPORATION; SIMON-HINDI, LLC;
Fareway Stores, Inc.; Moran Foods, LLC, DBA Save-A-Lot; WOODMAN'S
FOOD MARKET, INC.; DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION; SAM'S EAST, INC.;
DOLGENCORP, LLC; SAM'S WEST, INC.; KRASDALE FOODS, INC.; WALMART
STORES EAST, LLC; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; WALMART STORES EAST, LP;
BASHAS' INC.; WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC; MARC GLASSMAN, INC.;
WAL-MART STORES, INC.; 99 CENTS ONLY STORES; JESSICA BARTLING;
AHOLD U.S.A., INC.; GAY BIRNBAUM; DELHAIZE AMERICA, LLC; SALLY
BREDBERG; ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC.; KIM CRAIG; MAQUOKETA
CARE CENTER; GLORIA EMERY; ERBERT & GERBERT'S, INC.; ANA GABRIELA
FELIX GARCIA; JANET MACHEN; JOHN FRICK; PAINTED PLATE CATERING;
KATHLEEN GARNER; ROBERT ETTEN; ANDREW GORMAN; GROUCHO'S DELI OF
FIVE POINTS, LLC; EDGARDO GUTIERREZ; GROUCHO'S DELI OF RALEIGH;
ZENDA JOHNSTON; SANDEE'S CATERING; STEVEN KRATKY; CONFETTI'S ICE
CREAM SHOPPE; KATHY LINGNOFSKI; END PAYER PLAINTIFFS; LAURA
MONTOYA; KIRSTEN PECK; JOHN PELS; VALERIE PETERS; ELIZABETH PERRON;
AUDRA RICKMAN; ERICA C. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and
JESSICA DECKER, JOSEPH A. LANGSTON, SANDRA POWERS, GRAND
SUPERCENTER, INC., THE CHEROKEE NATION, US FOODS, INC., SYSCO
CORPORATION, GLADYS, LLC, SPARTANNASH COMPANY, and BRYAN ANTHONY
REO.

The primary suppliers of packaged tuna in the United States appeal
the district court's order certifying three classes of tuna
purchasers who allege the suppliers violated federal and state
antitrust laws. The main issue on appeal is whether the purchasers'
statistical regression model, along with other expert evidence, is
capable of showing that a price-fixing conspiracy caused class-wide
antitrust impact, thus satisfying one of the prerequisites for
bringing a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Bumble Bee, StarKist, and Chicken of the Sea (COSI), and their
parent companies are the largest suppliers of packaged tuna in the
United States (referred to collectively as the "Tuna Suppliers").
Their products include packaged tuna sold to direct purchasers like
Costco and Walmart, and food-service-size tuna products sold to
various distributors for resale. Together, the Tuna Suppliers sell
over 80 percent of the packaged tuna in the country.

In late 2015, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) opened
an investigation into the packaged tuna industry for violations of
federal antitrust law. The DOJ investigation uncovered evidence of
a price-fixing scheme among the Tuna Suppliers, which led the DOJ
to enter multiple indictments alleging a criminal conspiracy to fix
prices of canned tuna for the period from approximately November
2011 through December 2013. Bumble Bee, StarKist, and three tuna
industry executives pleaded guilty to the conspiracy. Bumble Bee's
former CEO was convicted by a jury of a conspiracy to fix prices.
COSI cooperated with the DOJ and admitted to price fixing in
exchange for leniency.

A number of purchasers of the Tuna Suppliers' products (referred to
collectively as the "Tuna Purchasers") filed putative class actions
against the Tuna Suppliers alleging violations of various federal
and state antitrust laws. The Tuna Purchasers alleged that the Tuna
Suppliers engaged in a conspiracy from November 2010 through at
least Dec. 31, 2016 to fix prices of tuna, along with other
collusive activities in furtherance of the price-fixing conspiracy.
The Tuna Purchasers alleged that they were damaged by the
conspiracy because they paid supra-competitive prices for the Tuna
Suppliers' products.

The Tuna Purchasers' actions were consolidated in a multidistrict
litigation pretrial proceeding in the Southern District of
California. The Tuna Purchasers consist of three putative
subclasses: (i) direct purchasers of the Tuna Suppliers' products,
such as nationwide retailers and regional grocery stores, who
purchased packaged tuna between June 1, 2011 and July 1, 2015 (the
"DPPs"); (ii) indirect purchasers of the Tuna Suppliers' products
who bought bulk-sized tuna products between June 2011 and December
2016 for prepared food or resale (the "CFPs"); and (iii) individual
end purchasers who bought the Tuna Suppliers' products between June
1, 2011 and July 1, 2015 for personal consumption (the "EPPs").

In 2018, the Tuna Purchasers moved to certify the three subclasses
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to proceed as
a class action. To demonstrate class-wide antitrust impact, each
subclass proffered evidence from a different economist, each of
whom employed substantially similar methodologies, to show that
each member of the subclasses had paid an overcharge caused by the
Tuna Suppliers' conspiracy. The Tuna Suppliers contested this
expert evidence through their own economists. The district court
held a three-day evidentiary hearing on the certification motion,
and heard substantial testimony from each expert witness. In July
2019, the district court certified all three subclasses.

The Tuna Suppliers timely appealed, and a panel of the Ninth
Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded. It took
the case en banc to consider whether the district court erred in
finding that each subclass satisfied the requirement that
"questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members."

The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(e)
and Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It reviews
the decision to certify a class and "any particular underlying Rule
23 determination involving a discretionary determination" for an
abuse of discretion. It reviews the district court's determination
of underlying legal questions de novo, id., and its determination
of underlying factual questions for clear error. The Supreme Court
has indicated that a court's determination regarding what a
statistical regression model may prove or is capable of proving is
not a question of fact, even though there may be disputed issues of
fact raised by "the data contained within an econometric model."
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reviews the district court's
determination that a statistical regression model, along with other
expert evidence, is capable of showing class-wide impact, thus
satisfying one of the prerequisites of Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, for an abuse of discretion.

The Ninth Circuit concludes that in a complex market such as the
one at issue in the present case, where different purchasers with
different bargaining power purchased a range of products at
different prices from different suppliers, commentators have raised
reasonable questions whether statistical models are capable of
resolving the issue of antitrust impact with common proof. But such
statistical models and other evidence have been accepted as
probative in a range of litigation contexts, and the Supreme Court
has made clear that the permissibility of statistical evidence
"turns not on the form a proceeding takes -- be it a class or
individual action -- but on the degree to which the evidence is
reliable in proving or disproving the elements of the relevant
cause of action."

In the instant case, the Ninth Circuit opines that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in rigorously analyzing such
statistical evidence, determining that it was not flawed in a
manner that would make it incapable of providing class-wide proof,
concluding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a jury
verdict on the question of antitrust impact for the entire class,
and preserving the defendants' ability to challenge the
persuasiveness of such evidence at trial.

The Ninth Circuit, therefore, affirmed the district court's
decision to certify the Tuna Purchasers' three subclasses under
Rule 23(b)(3). Nevertheless, the Tuna Suppliers will have the
opportunity to convince a jury that not all class members were
overcharged due to their collusion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3457dvbv from Leagle.com.

Gregory G. Garre -- gregory.garre@lw.com -- (argued) and Samir
Deger-Sen -- samir.deger-sen@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
Washington, D.C.; Christopher S. Yates, Belinda S. Lee, and Ashley
M. Bauer, Latham & Watkins LLP, in San Francisco, California; John
Roberti, Allen & Overy LLP, Washington, D.C.; Kenneth A. Gallo,
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, in Washington, D.C., for
the Defendants-Appellants.

Christopher L. Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- (argued),
Michael P. Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeld.com -- Bonny E. Sweeney,
and Samantha J. Stein, Hausfeld LLP, San Francisco, California;
Jonathan W. Cuneo (argued), Joel Davidow, and Blaine Finley, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca LLP, Washington, D.C.; Thomas H. Burt (argued),
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York, New York;
Betsy C. Manifold, Rachele R. Byrd, Marisa C. Livesay, and Brittany
N. Dejong, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, in San Diego,
California; for the Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Robert S. Kitchenoff, President, Committee to Support the Antitrust
Laws, in Washington, D.C.; Warren T. Burns and Kyle K. Oxford,
Burns Charest LLP, in Dallas, Texas; for Amicus Curiae Committee to
Support the Antitrust Laws.

Ashley C. Parrish -- aparrish@kslaw.com -- and Joshua N. Mitchell
-- jmitchell@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, in Washington, D.C.;
Anne M. Voigts and Quyen L. Ta, King & Spalding LLP, in San
Francisco, California; Steven P. Lehotsky and Jonathan D. Urick,
U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, in Washington, D.C.; for Amicus
Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States.

Randy M. Stutz -- rstutz@antitrustinstitute.org -- American
Antitrust Institute, in Washington, D.C.; Ellen Meriwether,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwethier & Sprengal, in Media, Pennsylvania; for
Amicus Curiae American Antitrust Institute.

Scott L. Nelson -- litigation@citizen.org -- and Allison M. Zieve,
Public Citizen Litigation Group, in Washington, D.C., for Amicus
Curiae Public Citizen.


CANADA: Black Workers Disappointed in Mental Health Measures
------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Balintec, writing for CBC News, reports that A group of
Black federal workers behind a proposed $2.5-billion class-action
lawsuit alleging discrimination by the federal government says
they're disappointed in mental health measures included the
budget.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland promised $3.7 million over four
years for Black-led "engagement, design, and implementation" of a
mental health fund. Karen Marie Dickson and her group Black Class
Action Secretariat (BCAS) called for $100 million for a similar
fund last year.

"There has to be trauma-informed care, there has to be
culturally-competent care and there has to be race-based data
collected on mental health care for Black federal workers," the
former assistant crown attorney said.

"And $3.7 million does not pay for all of that."

Dickson, 53, told CBC News she was coerced into quitting her job in
2006 after facing targeted attacks from management for advocating
for racialized workers in the workplace. After losing her job, she
says she eventually became homeless.

Years later, Dickson says she's still recovering from trauma she
never would have experienced if she wasn't Black.

She alleges the harassment started in 2005 when she took time off
to mourn the loss of a grandparent and was told she'd have to
undergo psychiatric tests to re-enter the office.

"This was not like a psychologist or something like that. This was
a psychiatric assessment that this manager wanted in order for me
to resume my job," Dickson said.

"If I were a white employee, I would have been referred to employee
assistance."

That, in part, is what led Dickson to join BCAS, the non-profit
that launched the lawsuit against the federal government in 2020
over alleged discriminatory hiring and promoting. The allegations
in the suit have not been tested in court. It is scheduled for a
certification hearing in September.

Feds plan to stay parts of lawsuit, group says
But on April 11, BCAS learned the federal government plans to file
a formal motion to stay parts of that suit, alleging overlap with
other cases. BCAS spokesperson Nicholas Marcus Thompson says it's
hypocritical of the government to challenge their claim right after
acknowledging the state of mental health for Black workers is
worrisome.

"When it comes to overlap, the only thing consistent with this
government is their willingness to silence individuals who they
have discriminated against," said Thompson, adding the group wasn't
meaningfully consulted before the federal budget.

CBC News asked the federal government for comment on the issue but
has not yet received a response.

The idea for a mental health fund came after Black federal workers
launched a lawsuit against Ottawa, said Thompson, who's also the
lead plaintiff in the suit. After news of the suit emerged, he
said, Black workers came out in droves to share stories of the
discrimination and trauma they faced.

Dickson was one of them.

On top of being forced to quit her job, she says, she got promoted
only once while white colleagues moved through the ranks despite
working for the Department of Justice for over eight years.

The latest available figures from Statistics Canada show Black
people make up about 3.5 per cent of the federal public workforce.
However, advocates say Black people report an above-average level
of harassment and discrimination and are over-represented in the
lower ranks of the civil service.

"We've done the research. We've done consultation. We have the
experts. And now the government is saying, 'We're going to take
four years, we're going to study this issue,'" said Thompson, who
is also the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

"But we don't have that time."

While it's encouraging that the government is showing some
initiative to address the problem after promising to do so in its
2021 election campaign, Thompson says the funds earmarked in the
four-year timeline will leave workers waiting for change that could
be taking place now.

"We've seen how quickly the government can act when it faces a
crisis like the pandemic or global conflict," said Thompson.

"The government's response of $3.7 million over four years does not
meet the priority and urgency of this crisis. What do workers do
now? Can they put their trauma on hold?"

Discrimination 'nothing new,' union leader says
About 1,500 Black workers have stepped forward to be part of the
class action. But Thompson says about 30,000 Black employees dating
back to 1970 will automatically be included if it goes ahead.

Jennifer Carr, the president of the Professional Institute of the
Public Service of Canada, says it's been a reality for years that
Black, Indigenous and racialized groups experience systematic
barriers around harassment, recruitment and retention, education
and training, and the need to address past wrongs.

Carr says the institute is "fully supportive" of the class action
lawsuit.

"The discrimination, the racism and the lack of timely and
effective actions are nothing new for many of the the federal Black
employees that we represent," said Carr, adding the measures in the
budget do little to curb their skepticism.

"It's a start, but it's definitely not enough. There's a lot more
of the systemic issues that we need to address."

Thompson says BCAS is in the process of working with racial trauma
experts, Black mental health organizations and other social support
groups to create a mental health plan that it hopes to present to
the government and have implemented within the next six to 12
months.

"We want to work with the government and workers feel a sense of
cautious relief that this is a start," said Thompson.

"But it's not going to get us to creating this plan. Workers need
help now and can't wait for years." [GN]

CANADA: Canadian Wheat Board Class Action Over Funds Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a class
action lawsuit accusing the former Conservative government of
Canada of wrongly allowing a transfer of $145 million to a
contingency fund as it worked to dismantle and privatise the
Canadian Wheat Board has been granted class certification.

Plaintiff Edward Andrew Dennis claims the $145 million should have
gone to farmers, such as himself, who had earned that money from
grain they had sold to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Dennis brought the class action lawsuit on behalf of grain
producers or their estates who had sold grain through the Canadian
Wheat Board on or after Aug. 1, 2010, and before July 31, 2012.

Eligible class members are those who were entitled to "an equitable
distribution of the surplus, if any, arising from the operations of
the Board during that two year period," according to the class
action lawsuit.

Farmers would typically sell "between 18 and 24 million tonnes" of
grain through the Canadian Wheat Board annually, which would then
go to customers around the world, according to the class action
lawsuit.

"Farmers, such as Mr. Dennis, were not obliged to deal with the
Board unless they intended to have the grain sold for either export
or human consumption in Canada," the class action lawsuit states.

Canada Raised Contingency Fund Limit From $60M To $200M, Class
Action Says
Dennis claims that, in an effort to fund transforming the Canadian
Wheat Board into a privately held entity, the government of Canada
raised the amount given to a contingency fund from $60 million to
$200 million in late 2011.

The money that went into the contingency fund would have otherwise
gone to farmers, Dennis argues, and, further, he says the state of
the grain market at the time meant there was no risk of potential
losses that would have justified putting more money into the
contingency fund.

"There was therefore no lawful justification for the Minister to
increase the maximum amount that could be credited to the
Contingency Fund nor to direct profits and gains to be allocated to
increase the amount in the Contingency Fund," the class action
lawsuit states.

Dennis is requesting declaratory relief along with damages for
himself and all class members.

In January 2020, testing by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
revealed that Canadian oats and grains in popular breakfast
products contained glyphosate, a widely used herbicide.

Are you a farmer who was injured financially after the Canadian
Wheat Board was dismantled and privatised? Let us know in the
comments!

The plaintiff is represented by Steven Shrybman of Goldblatt
Partners LLP, Jordan Goldblatt of Adair Barristers LLP and Anders
Bruun.

The Canadian Wheat Board Contingency Fund Class Action Lawsuit is
Dennis v. Her Majesty The Queen in the Right of Canada, Case No.
C1-17-01-07668, in the Winnipeg Court of Queen's Bench. [GN]

CANADA: Murphy Battista Pursues Class Action Over Nurse Imposter
----------------------------------------------------------------
The May 2022 issue of Maclean's features an investigative piece by
journalist Sarah Treleaven on Brigitte Cleroux, the woman who used
fake nursing credentials to gain employment at BC Women's Hospital
& Health Centre from June 2020 to June 2021.

Read the story "The nurse imposter. Brigitte Cleroux faked her
credentials and treated hundreds of patients across Canada. Why did
no one stop her?"

Murphy Battista LLP is pursuing a class action against BC's
Provincial Health Services Authority on behalf of people who
received treatments directly or indirectly from Cleroux during the
time she worked at BC Women's. Our firm has a long history of
representing survivors of negligence in the medical and healthcare
contexts. The case is being handled by a team led by our colleague
Scott Stanley.

For more information: Cleroux (PHSA) class action and if you have
questions please email nurseclaim@murphybattista.com. [GN]

CANTERBURY AT CEDAR: Faces Class Action Over COVID-Related Deaths
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony G. Attrino, writing for NJ.com, reports that a nursing home
in Essex County where nine people died of COVID-19 and 89 were
infected is being sued by family members who say the facility
failed to take proper precautions from the start of the pandemic.

Evelyn Wells, Anthony S. Martino Jr., and Andrea Maria Rendrefy,
all died of coronavirus or complications from the virus, which they
contracted while living in Canterbury at Cedar Grove, a long-term
healthcare and rehabilitation facility, according to the lawsuits.

The deaths occurred in April 2020, a month after the nursing home
on Pompton Avenue declared a COVID-19 outbreak and two months after
coronavirus-related nursing home deaths were reported in the state
of Washington.

ProPublica reported there were 89 cases of COVID-19 among staff and
residents at Canterbury since March 2020 and that nine people have
died. The report states the facility had violated federal standards
protecting residents from the spread of other infections in 2018
and 2019 and were fined $57,100.

"At first, (managers) provided masks only to registered nurses, not
to others who also interacted with residents, including
housekeepers, recreation therapists and nursing assistants," states
the complaint for Martino, who died on April 4, 2020, from "acute
respiratory failure likely from COVID-19 infection."

The families of Martino and Wells have filed class-action suits to
represent "others similarly situated," including residents or
patients who died after contracting the virus at the nursing home,
the suits state.

The class-action suits seek to represent more than 50 people who
were infected due to alleged failures at Canterbury and were
"without next-of-kin, survivors and/or heirs." All of the
wrongful-death lawsuits were filed this month in Superior Court of
Essex County, records show.

Representatives of Canterbury and its parent company, Windsor
Healthcare Management of Bergen County did not immediately return
calls on April 12 seeking comment on the lawsuits.

The family of Wells, who died on April 4, 2020, claims in court
papers the nursing home allowed some employees to come to work
without taking their temperatures or requiring them to wear masks,
which caused Wells to contract the virus, "suffer needlessly and
die."

An attorney for Rendfrey's daughter, Maria, states her mother died
in a Belleville hospital after Canterbury employees and management
"negligently, recklessly and unnecessarily exposed" her to
COVID-19.

The older Rendfrey was a resident in Canterbury from Oct. 1, 2019,
until April 2, 2020, when she was transferred to Clara Maass
Medical Center, where she died from covid complications on April 9,
2020.

Lawsuits like the ones filed against Canterbury have been mounting
across New Jersey.

In December, the state agreed to pay nearly $53 million to the
families of 119 residents in the wake of accusations of gross
negligence and incompetence over its handling of the COVID-19
outbreak in the state-run veterans' homes. [GN]

CAREGIVERS ON DEMAND: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE HINEBAUGH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAREGIVERS ON DEMAND LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00564-DSC (W.D., Pa., April 14, 2022)
is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Hinebaugh was employed by the Defendant as home care
worker.

CAREGIVERS ON DEMAND LLC is a home care agency that provides non
medical care such as bathing, grooming, companionship, medication
management, laundry and more. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


CAT5 COMMERCE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cat5 Commerce, LLC.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Cat5 Commerce, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03116 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022).

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

Cat5 Commerce -- https://cat5.com/ -- operates e-commerce stores in
the tactical, military and work markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


CCAP AUTO: Court Compels Non-Class Arbitration in Lobel Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID LOBEL, INDIVIDUALLY and ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
SIMILARLY SITUATED NEW YORK CONSUMERS, Plaintiff v. CCAP AUTO
LEASE, LTD., SANTANDER CONSUMER USA HOLDINGS, INC., SANTANDER
CONSUMER USA INC., and CHRYSLER CAPITAL CORPORATION, Defendants,
Index No. 63753/2021 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Gretchen Walsh of the
Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the Defendants' motion
pursuant to CPLR Section 7503(a) for an Order compelling non-class
arbitration of the action and staying the action.

I. Background

The Plaintiff commenced the action by the filing of a Summons and
Class Action Complaint on Sept. 28, 2021. The Complaint alleges
that Plaintiff has commenced the putative class action lawsuit in
his individual capacity and on behalf of similarly situated
consumers who: (1) leased motor vehicles from the Defendants; (2)
"rolled" the sales tax associated with their lease transactions
into the monthly lease payments that they made thereafter; (3)
extended the vehicles' lease terms at the end of their respective
original terms; and (4) have been charged sales tax in connection
with their lease extensions on the same portions of their monthly
lease payments which already reflect prior sales tax that had been
charged, such that they paid a purported "tax upon a tax."

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that on or about July 31, 2018,
the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Chrysler to lease
a 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee for a 36-month term ending on July 21,
2021. It further alleges that the Lease provided for a total
monthly payment of $539.97, which amount included payment for the
Plaintiff's proportionate share of the New York State sales tax due
thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that on June 22, 2021, the Plaintiff executed
a one-month Lease Extension Authorization, which extended the Lease
to Aug. 30, 2021, but by which Chrysler improperly added to the
$539.97 monthly payment a charge of $45.22 for New York State sales
taxes that had already been paid, reflecting an unlawful "tax upon
a tax." It further alleges that on Aug. 3, 2021, the Plaintiff
executed a two-month Lease Extension Authorization by which the
Lease was further extended to Oct. 30, 2021, but that again
Chrysler erroneously added to the $539.97 monthly payment an
additional monthly charge of $45.22 for New York State sales taxes
that had already been paid. The Complaint alleges that the
requirements for class certification (i.e., numerosity,
commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, and
superiority) have all been met.

Based upon the foregoing allegations, the Complaint asserts a First
Cause of Action for unjust enrichment against all the Defendants,
and a Second Cause of Action for violation of New York General
Business Law ("GBL") Section 349 against all the Defendants.

On Dec. 10, 2021, the Defendants made the instant motion (Sequence
No. 1) pursuant to CPLR 7503(a) for an Order compelling non-class
arbitration of the lawsuit and staying the action pending a
determination of the arbitration. The Plaintiff opposes the
motion.

II. Discussion

In support of their motion, the Defendants submit: (1) an
affirmation from their counsel which annexes a copy of the
Complaint; (2) an affidavit from Santander's Senior Director of
Lease End and Auction Accounts, Andrew Carlstrom, which, inter
alia, annexes a copy of the Lease; and (3) a memorandum of law.

According to the Defendants, under both the FAA and New York law, a
court considering whether to compel arbitration pursuant to an
arbitration agreement must consider whether there exists a valid
agreement to arbitrate and if so, whether the specific dispute
sought to be arbitrated falls within the scope of the arbitration
agreement. It is the Defendants' contention that the Plaintiff does
not allege -- nor can he credibly allege -- that there was any lack
of mutual assent, duress, fraud or incapacity that would render the
Lease invalid. The Defendants further argue that the transaction at
issue involves interstate commerce. They also contend that the
Plaintiff is prohibited from pursuing class-wide arbitration.

In opposition to the Defendants' motion, the Plaintiff submits a
memorandum of law. He first contends that New York State tax
statutes impose a duty on vendors to collect sales taxes properly
on the sale or lease of property within New York State. He further
argues that the Defendants' motion should be denied because they
have not met their burden of proving a clear and unequivocal
agreement to arbitrate claims for the imposition of an unauthorized
"tax upon a tax." The Plaintiff further argues that the non-CCAP
Defendants cannot compel him to pursue his claims against them in
arbitration and, accordingly, the Defendants' motion should be
denied at least with respect to Santander and Chrysler.

In further support of their motion, the Defendants submit: (1) an
affidavit from Santander's Director of Auction and Inventory
Management, Eric Weber, and a reply memorandum of law. In their
reply memorandum of law, the Defendants first contend that the
Plaintiff's causes of action fall squarely within the scope of the
Lease's arbitration provision. They reiterate their argument that
the FAA applies because the underlying transaction (i.e., the
Plaintiff's Lease) involves interstate commerce. They also assert
that even though they are not all signatories to the Lease they may
nevertheless enforce the arbitration provision pursuant to the
doctrine of equitable estoppel.

First, as asserted by the Defendants, Judge Walsh finds that even a
cursory review of the Complaint reflects that it centrally alleges
that the Plaintiff, a New York resident, visited a New York
automobile dealership and obtained lease financing from CCAP, which
is a Delaware corporation. The Complaint further alleges that the
Defendants are engaged in interstate commerce by serving as
full-time finance providers for automobile dealers and consumers
throughout the country and the allegations focus upon the alleged
wrongful conduct of CCAP, a Delaware corporation, committed against
Plaintiff, a New York resident who leased his vehicle in New York.

As such, and particularly given the aforementioned broad and highly
inclusive standards for construing whether a transaction involves
interstate commerce in connection with the FAA, the Plaintiff's
Lease involves interstate commerce such that the validity of the
arbitration clause is governed by the FAA. Because the FAA applies,
Judge Walsh holds that the FAA preempts the contrary GBL provision
exempting consumer transactions from the reach of mandatory
arbitration clauses.

Second, Judge Walsh finds that the broad arbitration agreement set
forth in Article 30 of the Lease, including the class waiver
provision therein, is a valid and enforceable agreement between the
parties under both the FAA and New York law. Also, a plain reading
of the Complaint reflects that its two related causes of action
challenge the terms and conditions of the Lease, namely what amount
of sales tax, if any, should be assessed against the Plaintiff and
others who have extended their respective leases, and thus those
claims fall within the scope of the Lease's broad arbitration
clause.

Similarly, the Defendants are entitled to enforce Article 30 of the
Lease pursuant to the doctrine of equitable estoppel because
Plaintiff cannot seek to hold non-signatories Santander and
Chrysler liable pursuant to obligations owed under the Lease, while
simultaneously denying the application of Article 30 because
Santander and Chrysler are not parties to the Lease. Accordingly,
based upon the foregoing, the Defendants are entitled to enforce
Article 30 of the Lease pursuant to the doctrine of equitable
estoppel.

III. Conclusion

For all the foregoing reasons, Judge Walsh granted the motion by
the Defendants pursuant to CPLR Section 7503(a) for an Order
compelling non-class arbitration of the action and staying the
action.

The parties are directed to proceed to arbitration in accordance
with the operative provisions of the Plaintiff's lease agreement.

All further proceedings in the action are stayed pending the
determination of the arbitration.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ney287mm from Leagle.com.

DENLEA & CARTON LLP, By: James R. Denlea, Esq. --
jdenlea@denleacarton.com -- 2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410, in
White Plains, New York 10604, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.

DUANE MORRIS LLP By: Robert J. Brener, Esq. --
RJBrener@duanemorris.com -- 1540 Broadway, in New York City, New
York 10036, Attorneys for the Defendants.


CHASING PACE: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chasing Pace, LLC.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Chasing Pace, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03118 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022).

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

Chasing Pace is a Florida Limited Liability Company located in
Myakka City, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com



CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Two Former Employees Launch Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Fortney, writing for Eater New York, reports that two former
employees of the Cheesecake Factory have launched a class-action
lawsuit against the international restaurant chain, claiming it
engaged in time shaving and other illegal labor practices. The
allegations, filed in New York's Southern District Court on April
5, date back to 2011 and could affect as many as 100 employees of
the company across New York state, according to the suit.

The suit was filed against the Cheesecake Factory by Mirian
Qquehue, a former cook at the restaurant chain in Westchester and
Yonkers who was employed from 2011 until December 2021, and Daniel
Ramos, who worked as a busser in Yonkers beginning in December
2021. Qquehue and Ramos claim they and other New York employees of
the company should have been paid weekly, rather than bi-weekly,
because more than 25 percent of their job consisted of physical
tasks, such as cooking, cleaning, and moving kitchen equipment.

Employees who spend at least a quarter of their work time
performing physical duties are classified as "manual workers" under
New York labor laws and must be paid weekly, according to the New
York Department of Labor.

The lawsuit also alleges that the restaurant chain engaged in the
illegal practice of "time shaving" -- rounding down employee hours
in order to pay them less -- and failed to pay overtime wages to
Ramos and as many as 20 other employees working at the Cheesecake
Factory in Yonkers, at 140 Market Street, near Archer Street.

The class-action suit seeks a monetary amount to be determined in
court, plus attorney's fees and unpaid overtime and wages for
employees of the Cheesecake Factory in Yonkers. Louis Pechman of
Pechman Law Group, who is representing the former workers,
estimates that damages could "go into the eight digits."

The Cheesecake Factory declined to comment on the allegations.

Qquehue and Ramos filed the class-action suit on behalf of
Cheesecake Factory employees, who worked for the company at any of
its locations in New York state over the last six years, according
to the suit. The lawsuit could affect as many as 100 current and
former employees across the state, including waiters, bartenders,
and other restaurant staff who were tasked with performing physical
responsibilities on the job, the suit alleges.

Similar suits aren't uncommon in New York City. In August, former
employees of the Cecil Steakhouse filed an ongoing class-action
lawsuit against the Harlem restaurant, alleging they suffered from
time shaving and were paid bi-weekly, despite being classified as
manual workers.

The Cheesecake Factory operates 306 locations between the United
States and Canada, 12 of which are located in New York state. In
2018, the restaurant chain was forced to pay $4.5 million in lost
wages and fines by the California Labor Commissioner, after a
janitorial subcontractor hired by the company denied workers
overtime, paid them less than minimum wage, forced them to work
without pay, and denied them proper meals and breaks. [GN]

CITIBANK NA: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Pre-Recorded Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that
Citibank used an artificial voice recording to unlawfully place
pre-recorded non-emergency calls to consumers who were not account
holders, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Robert Newton claims Citibank repeatedly placed calls and
left pre-recorded voice messages for wrong or reassigned numbers
that did not belong to account holders without prior express
consent.

Citibank violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing
the calls to noncustomers and leaving messages with a pre-recorded
automated voice, the class action lawsuit alleges.

Newton says he has received a number of calls and pre-recorded
voice messages from Citibank this year despite not having any
"business relationship" with the financial institution.

Citibank Places Pre-Recorded Phone Calls To Wrong Numbers, Class
Action Says
When calling, Citibank said in its messages that it was trying to
reach a Rhonda E. Holder, according to Newton, who argues he does
not know anyone by that name nor did he give them permission to use
his phone number.

Newton claims Citibank did not receive his express consent before
placing any phone calls to him, with or without using an artificial
voice recording, and argues the bank did so and left prerecorded
voice messages "under its own free will."

Due to the phone calls, Newton argues he suffered an invasion of
privacy, an intrusion into his life and

a private nuisance and had to spend time attempting to get the
phone calls to stop.

Newton is demanding a jury trial and requesting statutory damages
for himself and all class members.

Newton wants to represent a nationwide class of non-Citibank
customers who, in connection with a credit card account, received a
pre-recorded call from the bank using an automated voice since Jan.
29, 2022.

In February, a group of noncustomers who filed a class action
lawsuit against Citibank over the prerecorded phone calls were
granted Class certification by an Arizona federal judge.

Have you received a pre-recorded phone call using an automated
voice from Citibank? Let us know in the comments!

The plaintiff is represented by Shireen Hormozdi of the Hormozdi
Law Firm, LLC; Michael L. Greenwald of Greenwald Davidson Radbil
PLLC; and Matthew R. Wilson of Meyer Wilson Co., LPA.

The Citibank Pre Recorded Automated Calls Class Action Lawsuit is
Newton v. Citibank, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-00089, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. [GN]

CO2 EXCHANGE: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CO2 Exchange LLC. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. CO2
Exchange LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02151 (E.D.N.Y., April 14, 2022).

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

Co2 Exchange LLC is located in Seymour, Wisconsin and is part of
the Beverage Manufacturing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


COINBASE: Faces Class Action Over Arbitration Policies
------------------------------------------------------
Baisakhi Mishra, writing for Techstory, reports that Coinbase has
been accused in a class-action lawsuit alleging that its
arbitration policies are unenforceable. According to the plaintiff,
its terms of service contain a legally unconscionable arbitration
agreement.

A class-action lawsuit has been launched against Coinbase, a
popular cryptocurrency exchange company based in the United States,
arguing that its arbitration policies are unenforceable. In a
recent court filing, a plaintiff contends that Coinbase's
arbitration provision in its terms of service is legally
unreasonable because it greatly favors one party.

According to California law, "substantial unconscionability refers
to the fairness of an agreement's true terms, which determines
whether they are overly harsh or one-sided."

The plaintiff, who desires to represent a group of people in a
similar scenario, requested arbitration after a scammer took more
than $31,000 from his Coinbase account but found Coinbase
unresponsive and the terms unfair, according to the court
petition.

A contract clause is invalid under California law if it was
'unconscionable at the time it was made.' . . . [The plaintiff]
does not argue that when he signed up for his user account, he
consented to be bound by the Coinbase user agreement in effect, nor
that it addresses the dispute.

Instead, he claims that the arbitration agreement is
unconstitutional since it lacks any semblance of bilaterality.

According to court records, Coinbase sought to force arbitration,
but Judge William Alsup dismissed the request, ruling that the
"broader arbitration provision [is] unconscionable."

Coinbase was slammed with a new class-action complaint last month,
alleging that they offered crypto assets as unregistered
securities.

According to three individuals, the crypto exchange platform has
been trading digital assets without registering them with the US
Securities and Exchange Commission since October of 2019.

According to the Securities Act of 1933, all securities or assets
that can be traded between parties and on the open market must be
registered with the SEC. Based on the Howey Test, the conventional
approach for determining whether an asset is a security or not, the
litigation contends that Coinbase's virtual assets can be
classified as securities. [GN]


COLUMBIA PIPELINE: $79MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP, INC.
MERGER LITIGATION

Consol. C.A. No.: 2018-0484-JTL

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

The Delaware Court of Chancery authorized this Notice. This is not
a solicitation from a lawyer.

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION: Please be advised that your
rights will be affected by the above-captioned stockholder class
action (the "Action") pending in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware (the "Court") if you were a public stockholder of
Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. ("CPG") at any time during the period
from July 6, 2015 through and including July 1, 2016 (the "Class
Period").

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT: Please also be advised that co-lead
plaintiffs Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and
Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit
("Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Class, and settling
defendants Robert C. Skaggs, Jr. and Stephen P. Smith (the
"Settling Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement for
$79,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). The proposed Settlement, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the Action as against the
Settling Defendants. The proposed Settlement does not settle or
release any of the claims asserted, or that could have been
asserted, against the remaining defendant in the Action, TC Energy
Corp. (together with its parents, affiliates, subsidiaries,
officers (except for the Settling Defendants), directors,
predecessors, successors, and assigns, "TCE" or the "Non-Settling
Defendant") (TCE and the Settling Defendants together,
"Defendants"). Plaintiffs continue to prosecute their claims
against the Non-Settling Defendant.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. This Notice
explains how Class Members will be affected by the Settlement. The
following table provides a brief summary of the rights you have as
a Class Member and the relevant deadlines, which are described in
more detail later in this Notice.

CLASS MEMBERS' LEGAL RIGHTS IN THE SETTLEMENT:

RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM THE SETTLEMENT. CLASS MEMBERS DO NOT NEED TO
SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM.

If you are a member of the Class, you may be eligible to receive a
pro rata distribution from the Settlement proceeds. Eligible Class
Members do not need to submit a claim form in order to receive a
distribution from the Settlement, if approved by the Court. Your
distribution from the Settlement will be paid to you directly.

OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT BY SUBMITTING A WRITTEN OBJECTION SO
THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN MAY 18, 2022.

If you are a member of the Class and would like to object to the
proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees
and litigation expenses, you may write to the Court and explain the
reasons for your objection.

ATTEND A HEARING ON JUNE 1, 2022, AT 9:15 A.M. E.T., AND FILE A
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAR SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN
MAY 18, 2022.

Filing a written objection and notice of intention to appear that
is received by May 18, 2022, allows you to speak in Court, at the
discretion of the Court, about your objection. In the Court's
discretion, the June 1, 2022 hearing may be conducted by telephone
or video conference. If you submit a written objection, you may
(but you do not have to) attend the hearing and, at the discretion
of the Court, speak to the Court about your objection.

This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the proposed
Settlement. For more detailed information about the matters
involved in the Action, you are referred to the papers on file in
the Action, including the Stipulation, which may be inspected
during regular office hours at the Office of the Register in
Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New
Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King
Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. Additionally, copies of the
Stipulation, the Complaint, and any related orders entered by the
Court will be posted on the Settlement website,
www.ColumbiaPipelineMergerLitigation.com. If you have questions
regarding the Settlement, you may contact the Settlement
Administrator: Columbia Pipeline Merger Litigation, c/o A.B. Data,
Ltd., P.O. Box 173074, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53217, 1-877-316-0167,
info@ColumbiaPipelineMergerLitigation.com, or Plaintiffs' Lead
Counsel: Jeroen van Kwawegen, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor, New York, New York
10020, 1-800-380-8496, settlements@blbglaw.com, or Ned Weinberger,
Labaton Sucharow LLP, 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1340, Wilmington,
Delaware 19801, 1-888-219-6877, settlementquestions@labaton.com

DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF
THE REGISTER IN CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated: March 25, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE


CONAGRA BRANDS: Consolidated Shareholder Suit in IL Court Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended February 27, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2022, that a consolidated class
action lawsuit has been dismissed after its failure to state a
claim.

The company, its directors, and several of its executive officers
are defendants in several class actions alleging violations of
federal securities laws. The lawsuits assert that the company's
officers made material misstatements and omissions that caused the
market to have an unrealistically positive assessment of the
company's financial prospects in light of the acquisition of
Pinnacle, thus causing the company's securities to be overvalued
prior to the release of the Company's consolidated financial
results on December 20, 2018 for the second quarter of fiscal year
2019.

The first of these lawsuits, captioned "West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Conagra Brands, Inc., et al.,: with
which subsequent lawsuits alleging similar facts have been
consolidated, was filed on February 22, 2019 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. That consolidated
lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on December 23, 2020 for
failure to state a claim. On January 22, 2021, the plaintiff filed
a notice of appeal of the trial court's decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Conagra Brands, Inc., headquartered in Chicago, is a food company.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Mislabeling Suit Ongoing in California
------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended February 27, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2022, that it is facing a
putative class action lawsuit challenging various product claims
made in the Company's product labeling.

These matters include "Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc." in which it
is alleged that the labeling for Wesson (R) oils as 100% natural is
false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified
plants and organisms.

In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to
pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class
certification in January 2017. The Supreme Court of the United
States declined to review the decision and the case was remanded to
the trial court for further proceedings.

On April 4, 2019, the trial court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement in this matter. In the second quarter of fiscal 2020, a
single objecting class member appealed the court's decision
approving the settlement to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. On June 1, 2021, the appellate court rejected
the settlement and remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings. On December 22, 2021, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement.

Conagra Brands, Inc., headquartered in Chicago, is a food company.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Negrete Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended February 27, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2022, that the class action
lawsuit captioned "Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al.," has
been dismissed with prejudice after the final approval of
settlement was granted by the court.

The company is a party to matters challenging the Company's wage
and hour practices. These matters include a number of class actions
consolidated under the caption "Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et
al.," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, in which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of
violations of California and/or federal law at several current and
former company manufacturing facilities across the State of
California.

On June 21, 2021, the trial court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement in this matter. Final approval of the settlement was
granted on February 7, 2022 and the case was dismissed with
prejudice.

Conagra Brands, Inc., headquartered in Chicago, is a food company.


COVERALL NORTH: Appeals Ruling Lifting Stay in Billie Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Coverall North America, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled CARIBE BILLIE and QUINCY REEVES,
Plaintiffs v. COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-92, in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut (New Haven).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 4, 2022, Judge
Janet C. Hall of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift the Stay
filed in the case. The Court lifted the stay as to Reeves' claims
against Coverall regarding a Ruling dated March 12, 2020, wherein
the Court stayed the Plaintiffs' action and compelled arbitration.

The Plaintiffs, janitorial workers who entered into "franchise
agreements" with Coverall, filed the case as a putative class
action in January 2019. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs
contended that Coverall wrongfully classified them as independent
contractors rather than employees and denied them wages owed under
Connecticut law.

Coverall moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims or to compel
arbitration on the basis of arbitration agreements in the
Plaintiffs' Franchise Agreements and subsequent releases and
amendments. The Court granted Coverall's Motion to Compel
Arbitration in March 2020, and held that the Plaintiffs "failed to
meet their burden of establishing substantive unconscionability as
to the cost-sharing provision."

After the Court's Ruling, Billie and Reeves, as well as a third
individual, Veronica Flores, separately filed claims against
Coverall before the American Arbitration Association.

Plaintiff Billie's Arbitrator found that the cost-splitting
provision in his Agreement was unenforceable, ordering Coverall to
pay the costs of arbitration. Billie's arbitration is ongoing, but
any decision issued in his arbitration will have no preclusive
effect on those of Reeves or Flores.

Ms. Flores, who is not a named plaintiff in the case, was ordered
to make a $2,500 deposit before the Arbitrator would consider the
enforceability of the cost-splitting provision in her Agreement.
Because Flores was unable to pay the required deposit, the
Arbitrator informed her that he would close her case within 30 days
of Jan. 21, 2021. Her arbitration has since been closed.

The Defendant now seeks a review of the order lifting the stay
entered by Judge Hall.

The appellate case is captioned as Bille v. Coverall North America,
Inc., Case No. 22-718, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on April 6, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant Coverall North America, Inc. is represented
by:

          Matthew Iverson, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          33 Arch Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 406-6038
          E-mail: matthew.iverson@dlapiper.com  

Plaintiffs-Appellees Caribe Bille and Quincy Reeves, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, are
represented by:

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSEMORE, LLC
          750 Main Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com

COVERGIRL COSMETICS: Faces Class Action Over PFAS in Pressed Powder
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Prance-Miles, writing for Global Cosmetic News, reports that
THE WHAT? a class action claims that Coty-owned CoverGirl's
TruBlend Pressed Powder contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) -- sometimes known as Forever Chemicals' -- and
is therefore unsafe for use.

THE DETAILS A 40-page lawsuit alleges that the powder contains PFAS
at levels that are much higher than what's deemed safe by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  

Toxin Free USA undertook independent research, which found that the
product contains 6,242 parts per million (ppm) of organic fluorine,
with the current EPA health advisory limit for safe consumption of
fluorine is just 70 nanograms per liter, according to Class
Action.org

THE WHY? The levels of PFA is said to be particularly 'worrisome'
due to consumers encouraged to use the product throughout the day,
and applied by the eyes and mouth – areas at increased risk from
exposure.

The class action states that CoverGirl and Coty have violated
federal law by misrepresenting that the ingredients of TruBlend
Pressed Powder are safe, natural and sustainable while failing to
warn that the item contains PFAS. [GN]

CREDIT SUISSE: $760,000 Class Settlement to be Heard on July 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
If You Are a U.S. Headquartered Lending Institution That Owned,
Held, Purchased, or Sold a Loan or Interest in a Loan with Interest
Payable to You at a Rate Based Upon U.S. Dollar LIBOR, Which Rates
Adjusted at Any Time Between August 1, 2007, and May 31, 2010, You
May Be Eligible for a Payment from a Settlement Totaling $760,000

JND Legal Administration announced Settlements with Credit Suisse
Group AG ("Credit Suisse") and The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ,
Ltd., N/K/A MUFG Bank, Ltd. ("MUFG") that impact lending
institutions headquartered in the United States, including its
fifty (50) states and United States territories, that originated
loans, held loans, held interests in loans, owned loans, owned
interests in loans, purchased loans, purchased interests in loans,
sold loans, or sold interests in loans with interest rates based
upon U.S. Dollar LIBOR, which rates adjusted at any time between
August 1, 2007, and May 31, 2010.

The litigation alleges that certain banks (see list of Defendant
banks on settlement website) unlawfully suppressed U.S. Dollar
LIBOR, which caused lending institutions to lose money in
connection with loans they held and their loan transactions.
Plaintiffs assert claims for common-law fraud and conspiracy to
commit fraud. Credit Suisse, MUFG and the other defendants deny all
claims of wrongdoing. The Court denied a motion to dismiss the
fraud claims asserted by one of the plaintiffs, The Berkshire Bank,
the Court has denied the plaintiff's motion to certify a litigation
class, and the Court of Appeals has denied the plaintiff's petition
to review the Court's denial of class certification prior to a
final judgment. Aside from this Class Settlement, the Berkshire
Bank is continuing to pursue only its individual claims.

Am I included?

You are included in the Settlements if you (lending institution)
are:

Headquartered in the United States; and Originated loans, held
loans, held interests in loans, owned loans, owned interests in
loans, purchased loans, purchased interests in loans, sold loans,
or sold interests in loans with interest based upon U.S. Dollar
LIBOR, which rate adjusted at any time between August 1, 2007 and
May 31, 2010.

What do the Settlements provide? The Settlements will create a
$760,000 Settlement Fund that will be used to pay eligible Class
Members who submit valid claims.

How can I get a payment?

You must submit a proof of claim to get a payment. You can submit a
proof of claim online or by mail. The deadline to submit a proof of
claim is June 22, 2022. You are entitled to receive a payment if
you have a qualifying U.S. Dollar LIBOR-based loan. At this time,
it is unknown how much each Class Member who submits a valid claim
will receive.

What are my rights?

Even if you do nothing, you will lose your right to sue Credit
Suisse and MUFG for the alleged conduct and will be bound by the
Court's decisions concerning the Settlements. The Settlements will
not result in a release of your claims against any Non-Settling
Defendant, and the litigation against Non-Settling Defendants is
ongoing. If you want to keep your right to sue Credit Suisse or
MUFG you must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by June
22, 2022. If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to
the Settlements by June 22, 2022.

The Court will hold a hearing on July 13, 2022, at 2:30 p.m. to
consider whether to approve the Settlements and approve Class
Counsel's request of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the
Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses. You or
your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own
expense.

For more information about the Settlements, visit
www.LendersLiborSettlements.com or call 1-833-609-9716.


CUTTERS WIRELINE: Lindsay's Claim for Breach of Contract Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THAD LINDSAY v. CUTTERS
WIRELINE SERVICE, INC., a Utah corporation; MESA WIRELINE, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; LONE WOLF WIRELINE, INC., a
Utah corporation; WIRELINE SPECIALITES, INC., a New Mexico
Corporation; CAPITAN CORPORATION, a Texas corporation; and CAPITAN
WIRELINE, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, collectively
d/b/a Cutters Wireline Group, Case No. 1:17-cv-01445-PAB-SKC (D.
Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order that:

   1. The plaintiff's claim for breach of contract is dismissed
      without prejudice.

   2. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied as
      moot.

   3. The case is closed.

The Court says that it will decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim for breach of contract, and
that claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

Cutters provides electrical wireline services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EtY63K at no extra charge.[CC]


DANIEL BEHROOZAN: Ramos Files Suit Over Estheticians' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY RAMOS, an individual, on behalf of the State of California,
as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all other similarly
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. DANIEL BEHROOZAN, M.D. A MEDICAL
CORPORATION, d/b/a DERMATOLOGY INSTITUTE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 22STCV12375 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 12, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
the California Labor Code.

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly
aggrieved employees overtime and compensate for all hours worked,
failed to timely pay all wages upon termination of employment, and
failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements. Further, the
Defendants engaged in retaliatory conduct and wrongful termination
in violation of Public Policy.

The Plaintiff has been an esthetician, licensed by the State of
California, working for the Defendant since approximately 2004.

Daniel Behroozan, M.D. a Medical Corporation, d/b/a Dermatology
Institute of Southern California, is a medical corporation that
provides dermatology and skin care services and products to its
patients in Los Angeles County, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen B. Felahy, Esq.
          Farbod Nourian, Esq.
          FELAHY EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (323) 645-5197
          Facsimile: (323) 645-5198
          E-mail: afelahy@felahylaw.com
                  fnourian@felahylaw.com

DEUTSCHE BANK: August 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
If you from January 1, 2004 through June 30, 2013, either (A) sold
any physical gold or financial or derivative instrument in which
gold is the underlying reference asset, or (B) bought gold put
options in transactions conducted over-the-counter or in whole or
in part on COMEX or on any other exchange operated in the United
States, you may be eligible to receive a payment from pending
Settlements.

NEW -- Please note that your rights may have changed following a
January 5, 2022 court hearing, after which the Court issued a
series of new orders, available in the "Documents" section of this
website.  There is, among other things, a new (third) settlement
and a proposed change to the Plans of Allocation.  Settlement Class
Members have new deadlines to file new or revised claim forms, to
exclude themselves from the Settlements, or to file objections on
certain issues.

Plaintiffs allege that, from January 1, 2004 through June 30, 2013
inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), Defendants (Deutsche
Bank AG, HSBC Bank plc, Barclays Bank plc, Société Générale SA,
The Bank of Nova Scotia, and The London Gold Market Fixing Limited)
conspired to drive down the price of gold around the time of a
daily, secret, and unregulated afternoon meeting (the "PM Gold
Fix").  The PM Gold Fix was intended to determine the global
benchmark price per ounce of gold (the "Fix price") based on supply
and demand fundamentals stemming from a competitive gold auction
among the Fixing members.  However, Defendants allegedly
capitalized on the lack of regulatory oversight and the private
nature of the PM Gold Fix to facilitate Defendants' agreement to
manipulate and fix gold prices and the prices of Gold Investments
during the Settlement Class Period.  Defendants' conduct harmed
other market participants like Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class.
"Gold Investments" means (i) gold bullion, gold bullion coins,
gold ingots, gold bars, or any other form of physical gold, (ii)
gold futures contracts in transactions conducted in whole or in
part on COMEX or any other exchange operated in the United States
(iii) shares in gold ETFs, (iv) gold call options in transactions
conducted over-the-counter or in whole or in part on COMEX or any
other exchange operated in the United States (v) gold put options
in transactions conducted over-the-counter or in whole or in part
on COMEX or any other exchange operated in the United States, and
(vi) gold spot, gold forwards, or gold swaps traded
over-the-counter.

The Court has not decided for or against Plaintiffs or Defendants.
Instead, Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel engaged in negotiations with
the Defendants to reach a negotiated resolution of the claims
against the Defendants in this Action.  The Settlements allow
Plaintiffs and Defendants to avoid the risks and costs of lengthy
litigation and the uncertainty of pre-trial proceedings, a trial,
and appeals.  If approved, the Settlements would permit eligible
Settlement Class Members, who file timely and valid Proof of Claim
and Release Forms, to receive compensation, rather than risk
ultimately receiving nothing.  Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Co-Lead
Counsel believe the Settlements are in the best interest of all
Settlement Class Members.

Following a January 5, 2022 hearing, there are now two sets of
settlements—the "Original Settlements" and the "Third Settlement
Agreement."  The settlements are at different stages and thus your
rights differ depending on which settlement is at issue.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS

DO NOTHING (prior claimants)

If you are a Settlement Class Member and you submitted a claim in
connection with the Original Settlements, unless you direct the
Settlement Administrator otherwise, your information will
automatically be treated as if also submitted in connection with
the Third Settlement Agreement.  Thus, if you already have
submitted a claim, you need not re-submit the same information.

FILE A NEW OR REVISED CLAIM

A change to the Plan of Allocation has been proposed that would, if
approved, allow positions opened and closed the same day to be
included in the calculations for each class member's pro rata share
under the Plan of Allocation.  If you are a Settlement Class Member
and you submitted a claim in connection with the Original
Settlements, you may submit a revised claim, including to
supplement your claim with information about positions opened and
closed on the same day.  If you did not submit a claim in
connection with the Original Settlements, you can still do so.

To qualify for payment, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release Form to the Settlement Administrator.  New or revised Proof
of Claim and Release Forms must be mailed or submitted
electronically by April 19, 2022.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF

You can exclude yourself by sending a written "Request for
Exclusion" so that it is received no later than April 19, 2022.
The request should make clear whether you seek to be excluded from
the Original Settlements, the Third Settlement Agreement, or all
the Settlements.

OBJECT

If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do not exclude
yourself, you can tell the Court what you think about the Plans of
Allocation for the Original Settlements and the Third Settlement
Agreement.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do not
exclude yourself, you can also tell the Court what you think about
the Third Settlement Agreement, any application for attorneys'
fees, reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses requested in
connection with the Third Settlement Agreement, and/or any service
or incentive awards for Plaintiffs requested in connection with the
Third Settlement Agreement.  You can give reasons why you think the
Court should approve them or not.  The Court will consider your
views. Your objection must be received no later than June 24,
2022.

The deadline for objecting to the Original Settlements and Co-Lead
Counsel's request for fees and expenses in connection with the
Original Settlements has passed.  Therefore, you have no further
right to object to any of the terms of the Original Settlements, or
the fee and expense awards the Court has already informed
Plaintiffs that it will grant in connection with the Original
Settlements.

GO TO A HEARING

The Fairness Hearing with is scheduled for Friday, August 5, 2022,
at 10:00 A.M.  Please continue to check this website for updates as
to date, time, and access information.  

DO NOTHING (if you did not already submit a claim)

If you are a Settlement Class Member and you did nothing in
connection with the Original Settlements, and you continue to do
nothing, you will not get any money from any Settlement.  You will
remain in the Settlement Classes and be bound by the decisions of
the Court in this matter.


DILWORTH SCHOOL: Joychild Selected to Lead Independent Inquiry
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scoop reports that New Zealand's leading human rights lawyer and
advocate, Frances Joychild QC has been selected by the Dilworth
Class Action group to lead the independent Inquiry into Historical
Abuse at Dilworth School.

Rachael Reed QC who is acting on behalf of the Dilworth Class
Action group said, "We are pleased to confirm Frances Joychild QC
as Dilworth Class Action Group's selection to head this Inquiry.

"Ms Joychild QC brings an incredible wealth of experience built
over an outstanding career as a lawyer, and is a deeply respected
advocate for the interests, rights, and wellbeing of New
Zealanders. Notably, she has represented a group of Lake Alice
survivors at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care and
has conducted inquiries into sexual abuse. It is critical this
Inquiry is conducted independently of Dilworth, whose failure to
protect students permitted the abuse to occur.

"Survivors of sexual abuse and their families deserve to know the
full truth about Dilworth's role in allowing boys in its care to be
sexually abused at Dilworth for more than four decades. This
involves accessing and reviewing all records and questioning senior
staff members, Trust Board members, past and present and any other
affiliated organisation to fully understand what the School knew
and what, if any, steps they took to cover it up.

"Ms Joychild QC has the skills and expertise to lead a robust
inquiry and has no connection to Dilworth. Survivors and their
families can be confident an inquiry led by Ms Joychild QC would be
conducted independently to uncover the full extent of what was
allowed to happen, and by whom," said Ms Reed QC.

"We will be announcing the Group's panel members for the Redress
Programme shortly."

In March, Dilworth released the draft terms of the Inquiry and
proposed Redress Programme, seeking input from those affected by
abuse, parents and families of survivors, and the wider Dilworth
community.

Ms Reed QC added "We have already provided substantive feedback to
Dilworth on the draft terms of inquiry and redress programme.
However, we still have significant concerns, as do many of the
survivors our clients represent. We will be providing further
detailed feedback to the School on the amendments necessary to
ensure the Inquiry and Redress Programme are truly best practice,
survivor focused and comprehensive, but in summary:

1. It is imperative that the Inquiry Head have investigatory powers
to fully and comprehensively investigate the abuse and actions of
the School. Without these powers, the Inquiry is reliant on
Dilworth to provide it with all relevant information and is likely
to be missing essential information that is held by other
organisations.
2. Dilworth should not be self-determining how much compensation
each survivor is eligible to receive, this should be decided by an
independent panel of experts.

3. Dilworth have unilaterally limited their liability to each
survivor to $200,000 – it is completely wrong and inappropriate
that the School places their own value on the abuse which they were
responsible for allowing to happen. $200,000 is also out of step
with awards made through the Courts, comparable redress schemes and
the guidance of the Royal Commission. This is particularly
important to note, because the School is requiring Survivors to
sign away their rights to bring legal proceedings if they accept a
redress payment. We question how survivors can agree to sign away
their legal rights when redress payments are capped at a maximum
that is less than the likely awards that could be obtained through
the Courts.

Ms Reed QC adds "While no amount of money could ever compensate for
the lifelong harm and trauma survivors have suffered, a cap of
$500,000 would likely to be regarded as meaningful acknowledgement
for some of the harm Dilworth caused.

The cap needs to be at the $500,000 level so that redress is
awarded to survivors takes into account (i) the role of School,
including its actions to cover up the abuse, (ii) domestic and
international Court awards for similar abuse including the
significantly higher awards made in Australian courts in similar
circumstances, and (iii) the rights of the survivors to
compensation for breaches under the Human Rights Act, exemplary
damages and compensatory damages at common law, and (iv) the
lifelong harm survivors have suffered and that Dilworth has failed
to address for decades.

"Dilworth must respect all the survivors of sexual abuse, their
families and the Dilworth community and ensure this Inquiry is
conducted properly. We look forward to receiving confirmation from
Dilworth that Ms Joychild QC has been formally appointed to lead
this Inquiry and has the scope to set the terms of reference and
investigatory powers to ensure the full truth is uncovered," said
Ms Reed QC. [GN]

DIRECTV LLC: Face TCPA Class Action in Virginia Over Robocalls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nadia Dreid, writing for Law360, reports that a group of people who
say they were on the receiving end of unwanted calls from DirecTV
have told a West Virginia federal judge that their Telephone
Consumer Protection Act suit is "about as clear-cut a case for
class certification as one can imagine. The proposed class action
made its case for certification to U.S. District Judge Preston
Bailey in a April 11 filing. [GN]




ECL GROUP: Alliance Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ECL GROUP, LLC. The
case is styled as Alliance Ophthalmology, PLLC; Dallas Retina
Center, PLLC; Texas Eye and Cataract, PLLC; on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. ECL GROUP, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00296 (M.D.N.C., April 15, 2022).

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

ECL Group doing business as Eye Care Leaders --
https://eyecareleaders.com/ -- offers the most comprehensive eye
care solutions, focused on delivering solutions, services, and
software to ophthalmology practices.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas R. Ferguson, III, Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US), LLP
          One Wells Fargo Ctr., Ste. 3500
          301 S. College St.
          Charlotte, NC 28202-6025
          Phone: (704) 331-4920
          Fax: (704) 338-7839
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal

EL VALLE 794: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Linar Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
PRISCILIANO HERNANDEZ LINAR, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EL VALLE 794 REST., CORP. (d/b/a
EL VALLE); SOUTHERN BLVD'S CAFE CORP. (d/b/a EL VALLE); YRENO
CEDANO; ANA CEDANO; and KEVI COMAS, Defendants,  Case No.
1:22-cv-03102 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2022) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate
wage statements.

Plaintiff Linar was employed by the Defendants as cook.

EL VALLE 794 REST., CORP. owns and operates a Latin American
restaurant, located at Bronx, NY, under the name "El Valle." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL, P.C
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, N.Y. 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


ELEGANTE CUISINE: Fireman's Fund Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elegante Cuisine,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
v. Elegante Cuisine, Inc., Metropolis Ballroom of Arlington
Heights, Inc., W. Maneti Thomas, Yessica Borjas, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 1:22-cv-01926
(N.D. Ill., April 14, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Declaratory
Judgement.

Elegante Cuisine -- https://www.elegante.net/ -- is a premier
source for complete catering and event planning.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Marc Chemers, Esq.
          PRETZEL & STOUFFER, CHTD.
          One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60606-4673
          Phone: (312) 578-7548
          Email: rchemers@pretzelstouffer.com


ELLUME LTD: To Defend Class Action Over COVID Test Kits
-------------------------------------------------------
Emma Koehn, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Australian COVID-19 test maker Ellume says it will mount a vigorous
defence in a lawsuit brought against it by consumers in the United
States who claim the company failed to properly refund them after
they purchased inaccurate tests.

The court action comes after Ellume, which inked a $300 million
deal with the US government in 2021, was forced to recall 2.2
million test kits last year over concerns about higher than
acceptable false positive rates.

The company has resolved the issue which led to the recall, but
affected consumers have now launched proceedings in the United
States District Court in the District of Maryland, arguing they
have not received full refunds for tests which delivered false
positives.

Indiana resident Karen Kerschen claims she spent $US65 ($87) on an
Ellume test kit ahead of a trip to Ireland with her sister, so that
she could show a negative result within 72 hours of returning back
to the United States.

Court documents outline that she took an Ellume test in October
2021 in the days before her return to the US and returned a
positive result. The operator of the tour she was taking advised
that the whole tour group would have to isolate immediately,
missing a day's excursion and meal.

When she attempted to use her sister's test kit to validate the
result, she was advised via the app that the test had been
recalled. Kerschen claims she eventually made contact with Ellume
who advised her to "go out and buy another test kit".

The tour company required that she receive a negative result, so
she travelled to a testing site and paid for a different test,
which showed her to be negative to the virus. It cost EUR40 ($58)
to travel to the site and EUR99 ($143) for the test.

Kerschen alleges she contacted the company for a refund on return
to the US but had not received one.

In a statement, an Ellume spokesman said the company was aware of
the court action but it did not have merit. "Ellume also has
provided refunds to most customers who used an affected test and
received a positive result, even if the positive test result was
accurate. The claims in this lawsuit are wholly without merit, and
Ellume intends to mount a vigorous defence," he said.

Another plaintiff, Wallace Lovejoy, claims he and his wife missed a
trip to the United Kingdom after they both took Ellume tests. His
wife tested positive while he did not, though subsequent PCR tests
showed a negative result.

Lovejoy claims he received a cheque in the mail without a cover
note from Ellume for $US215 in November, even though his eight test
kits had cost $US538 to purchase.

In their claim, the US consumers say that a failure to secure
timely refunds for tests which were recalled unfairly benefited
Ellume.

" Rather than refund the purchase price of the Ellume COVID Tests,
Ellume has unjustly retained the monies that customers spent on the
recalled test kits. Accordingly, Ellume unjustly enriched itself at
the expense of Plaintiffs and Class members," the plaintiffs said
in the complaint filed with the court.

Ellume was founded in Brisbane and has a production facility there
for its tests, though the stock it makes locally is exported to the
US.

Chief executive and founder Dr Sean Parsons has long said the US
market was the company's focus, given that Australia only gave the
green light to rapid antigen test use last year.

The tests are not registered for use in Australia, with the company
expected to file for Therapeutic Goods Administration approval this
year.

The company has been issued a summons to respond to the court
action. Ellume has been contacted for comment on the case. [GN]

ELON MUSK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you sell or otherwise dispose of securities of Twitter between
March 24, 2022 and April 1, 2022? If so, please visit Twitter, Inc.
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212)
951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com to discuss your rights.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP on April 13 disclosed that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who sold
or otherwise disposed of the securities of Twitter, Inc. ("Twitter"
or the "Company") (NYSE: TWTR) between March 24, 2022 and April 1,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Elon Musk ("Musk") is the founder of Tesla and SpaceX, and
according to Forbes, is the richest person in the world.

Beginning in January 2022, Musk started to acquire shares of
Twitter. By March 14, 2022, Musk had acquired more than a 5%
ownership stake in Twitter.

Pursuant to Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 13d-1
promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.13d-1(a), Musk was
required to file a Schedule 13 with the SEC within 10 days of
passing the 5% ownership threshold in Twitter, or March 24, 2022.

Musk did not file a Schedule 13 with the SEC within the required
time and instead continued to amass Twitter shares, eventually
acquiring a 9.1% stake in the Company before finally filing a
Schedule 13 on April 4, 2022.

When Musk finally filed the required Schedule 13, thereby revealing
his ownership stake in Twitter, the Company's shares rose from a
closing price of $39.31 per share on Friday, April 1, 2022, to
close at $49.97 per share on April 4, 2022 – an increase of
approximately 27%.

Investors who sold securities of Twitter stock between March 24,
2022, when Musk was required to have disclosed his Twitter
ownership, and before the Monday, April 4, 2022 disclosure, missed
the resulting price increase as the market reacted to Musk's
purchases and were damaged thereby.

By failing to disclose his ownership stake via Schedule 13, Musk
was able to acquire shares of Twitter less expensively during the
Class Period.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 13, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you sold or otherwise disposed of TWTR securities, and/or would
like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Twitter,
Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at
(212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.

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

Contact Information:
Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]

ELON MUSK: Faces Class Action Over Handling of Twitter Investment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
K. Bell, writing for Engadget, reports that Elon Musk has only been
Twitter's largest shareholder for a few weeks, but he's already
facing a class action lawsuit over his handling of the investment.
A Twitter shareholder has filed a class action lawsuit against Musk
over his 11-day delay in officially disclosing his investment in
Twitter to the SEC.

Under securities law, Musk was required to file paperwork with the
SEC by March 24th -- 10 days after his stake in Twitter grew to 5
percent -- but he didn't do so until April 4th. That delay might
not sound particularly significant, but it may have netted him as
much as $156 million. According to the lawsuit, those gains came at
the expense of other shareholders, who were not able to similarly
profit.

"Investors who sold shares of Twitter stock between March 24, 2022,
when Musk was required to have disclosed his Twitter ownership, and
before the actual April 4, 2022 disclosure, missed the resulting
share price increase as the market reacted to Musk's purchases and
were damaged thereby," the lawsuit states.

According to the shareholder who brought the suit, he and other
investors sold shares at "artificially deflated" prices as a result
of Musk's actions. The suit also alleges that Musk made "materially
false and misleading statements and omissions by failing to
disclose to investors that he had acquired a 5% ownership stake in
Twitter as required."

The lawsuit comes after a chaotic few days for Twitter and Musk.
The Tesla CEO and noted Twitter troll had initially agreed to join
Twitter's board of directors, much to the dismay of some employees.
But the decision was abruptly reversed following several days of
characteristically bizarre tweets from Musk, who polled his Twitter
followers whether the company should change its name, and
speculated on whether the service was "dying."

In an email to employees, Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal noted that as a
board member Musk would have been a "fiduciary of the company,
where he, like all board members has to act in the best interest of
the company and all our shareholders." He added that he believed it
was "for the best" that Musk ultimately wouldn't take the position.
[GN]

ELON MUSK: Robbins LLP Reminds of June 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP informs
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all
investors who sold or otherwise disposed of Twitter, Inc. (NASDAQ:
TWTR) securities between March 24, 2022 and April 1, 2022.

What is this Case About: Elon Musk Harmed Twitter (TWTR) Investors
by Failing to Disclose His Purchase of Twitter Shares

According to the complaint, beginning in January 2022, Elon Musk
started to acquire shares of Twitter. By March 14, 2022, Musk had
acquired more than a 5% ownership stake in the Company. Pursuant to
Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 13d-1 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.13d-1(a), Musk was required to file
a Schedule 13 with the SEC within 10 days of passing the 5%
ownership threshold in Twitter, or March 24, 2022. Musk did not
file a Schedule 13 with the SEC within the required time and
instead continued to amass Twitter shares, eventually acquiring a
9.1% stake in the Company before finally filing a Schedule 13 on
April 4, 2022.

When Musk finally filed the required Schedule 13, thereby revealing
his ownership stake in Twitter, the Company's shares rose from a
closing price of $39.31 per share on April 1, 2022, to close at
$49.97 per share on April 4, 2022 - an increase of approximately
27%. Investors who sold shares of Twitter stock between March 24,
2022, when Musk was required to have disclosed his Twitter
ownership, and before the actual April 4, 2022 disclosure, missed
the resulting share price increase as the market reacted to Musk's
purchases and were damaged thereby.

Next Steps: If you sold shares of Twitter, Inc. between March 24,
2022 and April 1, 2022, you have until June 13, 2022, to ask the
court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the
case to be eligible for a recovery.

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

Contact us to learn more:

Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against Twitter, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when
corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch
today.

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

Contacts
Aaron Dumas
Robbins LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]

ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Harrison
---------------------------------------------------------------
ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, et al., filed
an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled
ROBERT HARRISON, on behalf of himself, the ENVISION MANAGEMENT
HOLDING, INC. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), and all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. ENVISION MANAGEMENT
HOLDING, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDIN, INC.
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN COMMITTEE, ARGENT TRUST COMPANY,
DARREL CREPS, III, PAUL SHERWOOD, JEFF JONES, AARON RAMSAY, TANWEER
KAHN, and JOHN and JANES DOES 1 to 15, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00304, in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this
complaint against the Defendants pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in connection with
the purchase of the Envision stock for $163.7 million.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Corporate Defendant, who
worked as an MRI and CAT-scan technician at Envision's Health
Images at Diamond Hill location for four years. He is a vested
participant in the ESOP with the meaning of ERISA. The Plaintiff
claims that his and other employee-participants' ESOP accounts were
used to purchase 100% of Envision stock from the Sellers without
their knowledge.

According to the complaint, the Seller Defendants created the
Envision ESOP for the purpose of purchasing 100% of the Sellers'
private Envision stock for $163.7 million. Because the ESOP did not
have sufficient money to purchase it, the Seller Defendant borrowed
approximately $154.4 million from the Company itself in order to
purchase Envision on behalf of the ESOP. However, any retirement
contributions that the Envision made to the ESOP's
employee-participants' accounts would be used first to pay interest
due on the $154.4 million in debt the ESOP owed. As a result of the
imprudent and disloyal Transaction terms, the ESOP participants
suffer monetary losses in their retirement accounts.

The Plaintiff and other employee-participants asserts that they
were not given the chance to negotiate or otherwise take part in
the determination of the price the ESOP paid for the Envision
stock. They only found out about the ESOP Transaction after the
Transaction was completed and the $163.7 million purchase price was
approved.

On May 10, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration and to stay pursuant to Sections 3 and 4 of the Federal
Arbitration Act or, in the alternative, to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction, which the Court denied on March 24, 2022, through an
order entered by Judge Regina M. Rodriguez.

The Defendants are now taking an appeal from his ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Harrison v. Envision Management
Holding, Inc. Board, et al., Case No. 22-1098, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on April 6,
2022.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Envision Management Holding, Inc. Board of
Directors, et al., are represented by:

          Barbara A. Smith, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 259-2367
          E-mail: barbara.smith@bclplaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Hofmann, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 866-0257
          E-mail: michael.hofmann@bclplaw.com

               - and -

          W. Bard Brockman, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          1201 W. Peachtree St., 14th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-6600
          E-mail: bard.brockman@bclplaw.com

               - and -

          Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
          William J. Delany, Esq.
          Paul J. Rinefierd, Esq.
          GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
          1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 857-0620
          Facsimile: (202) 659-4503
          E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com
                  wdelany@groom.com
                  prinefierd@groom.com

FACEBOOK INC: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in DZ Reserve Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DZ Reserve, et al., v.
Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-04978-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
James Donato Judge entered an order certifying the proposed class
under Rule 23(b)(3) for the common law fraud claims, and under Rule
23(b)(2) for the UCL injunction claim.

The Plaintiffs DZ Reserve, Inc. and Cain Maxwell are appointed
class representatives, and their counsel at Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC and the Law Offices of Charles Reichmann are appointed
class counsel.

Meta's motion to exclude the report and testimony of Dr. Allenby is
denied. Meta's motion to exclude the report and testimony of Mr.
McFarlane is granted.

The Plaintiffs are directed to file by April 29, 2022, a proposed
plan for dissemination of notice to the classes. Plaintiffs will
meet and confer with Meta at least 10 days in advance of filing the
plan so that the proposal can be submitted on a joint basis, to the
fullest extent possible.

In this action alleging fraud against Meta Platforms, Inc. formerly
known as Facebook, named plaintiffs DZ Reserve and Cain Maxwell
have asked to certify a class of United States residents who paid
Meta for placement of advertisements on social media platforms.

Meta Platforms is an American multinational technology conglomerate
based in Menlo Park, California. The company is the parent
organization of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, among other
subsidiaries.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38Pn7dG at no extra charge.[CC]

FANNIE MAE: April 23 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL CASES

Misc. Action No. 13-mc-1288 (RCL)
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION

TO:

ALL CURRENT HOLDERS OF JUNIOR PREFERRED STOCK IN FANNIE MAE AS OF
DECEMBER 7, 2021, OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO THE EXTENT
SHARES ARE SOLD AFTER DECEMBER 7, 2021 AND BEFORE ANY FINAL
JUDGMENT OR SETTLEMENT (THE "FANNIE PREFERRED CLASS");

ALL CURRENT HOLDERS OF JUNIOR PREFERRED STOCK IN FREDDIE MAC AS OF
DECEMBER 7, 2021, OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO THE EXTENT
SHARES ARE SOLD AFTER DECEMBER 7, 2021 AND BEFORE ANY FINAL
JUDGMENT OR SETTLEMENT (THE "FREDDIE PREFERRED CLASS"); AND

ALL CURRENT HOLDERS OF COMMON STOCK IN FREDDIE MAC AS OF DECEMBER
7, 2021, OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO THE EXTENT SHARES ARE
SOLD AFTER DECEMBER 7, 2021 AND BEFORE ANY FINAL JUDGMENT OR
SETTLEMENT (THE "FREDDIE COMMON CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, that the above-captioned action
("Action") against the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), the
Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"), and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac")
(collectively, "Defendants") has been certified as a class action
on behalf of the Classes set forth above, except for certain
persons and entities that are excluded from the Classes by
definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of Class Action
("Notice").  Plaintiffs Joseph Cacciapalle, Michelle M. Miller,
Timothy J. Cassell, and Barry P. Borodkin have been appointed by
the Court to represent the Classes.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF ONE OR MORE OF THE CLASSES, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THIS LAWSUIT.  The full printed Notice is currently
being mailed to known Class Members.  If you have not yet received
a full printed Notice, you may obtain a copy from the website for
the Action, www.fannie-freddieclassaction.com or by contacting the
Administrator:

         Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Class Action
         c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
         P.O. Box 173066
         Milwaukee, WI  53217

If you did not receive the Notice by mail and you are a member of
one or more of the Classes, please send your name and address to
the Administrator so that if any future notices are disseminated in
connection with the Action, you will receive them.

If you are a member of one or more of the Classes, you have the
right to decide whether to remain a member of the Classes.  If you
choose to remain a member of the Classes, you do not need to do
anything at this time other than retain your documentation
reflecting your holdings in Fannie Mae junior preferred stock,
Freddie Mac junior preferred stock, or Freddie Mac common stock.
You will automatically be included in the Classes, and you will be
bound by the proceedings in this Action, including all past,
present and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable.  If you are a Class Member and do not
wish to remain a member of the Classes, you must take steps to
exclude yourself from the Classes.

If you timely and validly request to be excluded from one or more
of the Classes, you will not be bound by any orders or judgments in
the Action as to that Class, and you will not be eligible to
receive a share of any money which might be recovered in the future
for the benefit of the Class(es) which you timely sought exclusion
from.  To exclude yourself, you must submit a written request for
exclusion postmarked no later than April 23, 2022 in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the full printed Notice.

You must maintain ownership in the underlying security through the
date of any final judgment or settlement to remain a member of the
Classes.  If you sell your shares of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
preferred stock or Freddie Mac common stock before that time, you
will no longer be a member of the Classes.

"Final judgment" means the judgment of the Court after (1) any and
all appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (the
"Court of Appeals") have been adjudicated, or the time for appeal
to the Court of Appeals has expired with no appeal having been
taken, (2) any and all petitions for writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court (the "Supreme Court") have been adjudicated, or the
time for filing petitions for writ of certiorari has expired with
no petition having been filed, and (3) if any petition for writ of
certiorari is granted, any and all appeals to the Supreme Court
have been adjudicated.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to any
of the below Court-appointed Class Counsel:

         Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
         Samuel C. Kaplan, Esq.
         BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
         1401 New York Ave, NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 237-2727
         Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
         www.bsfllp.com
         hhume@BSFLLP.com
         skaplan@bsfllp.com

         Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
         Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (610) 667-7706
         Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
         www.ktmc.com
         ezagar@ktmc.com
         lrudy@ktmc.com

         Michael J. Barry, Esq.
         GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
         123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 622-7000
         Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
         www.gelaw.com
         mbarry@gelaw.com

         Adam Wierzbowski, Esq.
         Richard D. Gluck, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         1251 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY  10020
         Telephone: (212) 554-1400
         Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
         www.blbglaw.com
         adam@blbglaw.com
         rich.gluck@blbglaw.com

Further information may be obtained by contacting the Administrator
or visiting the website www.fannie-freddieclassaction.com.

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE COURT'S CLERK, OR THE JUDGE.
THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO ADDRESS YOUR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS.

DATED:  January 24, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


FERRO CORP: Fox Rothschild Attorney Discusses Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman, Esq., of Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that a group of employees at a coating
manufacturing company are alleging that they were shorted pay for
alleged indispensable tasks before shift, such as putting on and
taking off protective clothing. Another donning-and-duffing case.
The case is entitled Ruffa v. Ferro Corp. and was filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

The lead plaintiff claims the workers had to report early to put on
the clothing, as well as getting their work assignments and then
walking to their workstations. The employer, he claims, only
started paying when the shift started. He asserts that, as a
result, ¼ hour per shift was unpaid. The Complaint alleges that
the "plaintiff and other manufacturing/production employees were
required to arrive at work early and perform their pre-shift work
before their scheduled start times. However, defendant did not pay
them for this pre-shift work." The Complaint also makes the
necessary allegation that "the time plaintiff and other
manufacturing/production employees spent . . . was an integral and
indispensable part of their principal activities, was required by
defendant, and was performed for defendant's benefit."

The Company, according to the Complaint, manufactures paint and
similar materials for use by other manufacturers. This work
necessitates that the workers put on and take off protective
clothing. There are a number of clothing items and gear (e.g.
helmets, gloves, boots, safety glasses, earplugs, respirators) that
are necessary to safely perform the work. The gear is important to
the employees' jobs and also required by OSHA to "keep the
production floor safe and helped promote a more safe and efficient
manufacturing/production process" according to the Complaint. The
workers also must receive daily assignments before their shifts
start and to take a shower at the end of their shifts.

The lead plaintiff charges that the Company would only pay for the
scheduled shift hours. In other words, the Company would only
"start the clock" when they were at their workstations, after
completing the preliminary tasks. The Complaint asserts (as it
must) that these activities were "intrinsic elements of their
principal activities and ones with which plaintiff and other
manufacturing/production employees cannot dispense if they are to
perform their principal activities."

The Takeaway

This case is further complicated for the employer because
Pennsylvania has gone beyond the FLSA and requires payment for "all
hours worked," such as waiting in line to go through security
lines. If these activities are necessary for the performance of the
main job, then the only defense is de minimis, i.e. that these
activities only took a moment or a fleeting amount of time and are
therefore non-compensable.

Wouldn't want to put all my eggs in that basket . . .[GN]

FIAT CHRYSLER: Judge Denies Motion to Seal Jaguar Communications
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge overseeing a multidistrict litigation against Fiat
Chrysler (FCA) on April 13 denied its motion to seal communications
between itself and Jaguar revealing that FCA failed to halt the use
of a defectively designed gearshift involved in the death of actor
Anton Yelchin in 2015 and dozens of injuries involving rollaway
vehicles, according to consumer-rights attorneys at Hagens Berman.

The lawsuit has been pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan since 2016 and accuses Fiat Chrysler
of selling dangerously defective monostable gearshifts that provide
"insufficient tactile and visual feedback to driver to make them
aware whether the car has been shifted to the intended gear," and
have been linked to multiple deaths and serious injuries.

"FCA Sought to Seal a Smoking Gun"

In its 24-page order denying FCA's motion to seal the letter
between it and Jaguar, U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson
highlighted that, "The plaintiff points to the letter to show that
FCA historically had considered using an alternative and safer
design but elected to go ahead with marketing its own defective
shifter instead."

"We believe Fiat Chrysler was caught using phony excuses to hide
what it knew early on about the dangers of its gearshift design,"
said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney
representing vehicle owners in the lawsuit. "It appears FCA sought
to seal a smoking gun, and we are pleased that the court has not
only allowed the public to read this evidence in the public record,
but also allow us to amend our case based on this uncovered
evidence."

Judge Lawson said in his order, "The defendant's vaguely
articulated concerns about damaging the confidentiality of its
negotiations with Jaguar do not supply any sufficient basis for the
requested closure of the Court's records."

"FCA has taken the position in this case that the plaintiff cannot
prove a product defect under the risk-utility test because there
was no safer alternative design available at the time, including
the rotary shifter used by Jaguar," the order states. "The
defendant contends that 'IP issues' prevented the adoption of the
rotary design for Jeep models due to perceived competition with
Jaguar's own Land Rover branded SUVs. The letter undercuts that
position."

The letter clearly shows Jaguar responding to Fiat Chrysler, after
" . . . in 2010 Chrysler approached Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) to
request a licence[sic] to the technology in JLR's rotary
transmission selector." In the letter, Jaguar states, "We would
therefore like to offer Chrysler the opportunity to re-open the
negotiations for the use of this technology, which JLR remains
willing to license to Chrysler on appropriate terms."

Berman added, "FCA likely didn't want to pay the extra cash to
license Jaguar's safe designs, and instead chose to risk it,
putting the public at risk, leading to the loss of at least two
lives, and the injuries of many."

Rollaway Injuries

The named plaintiff in the case, Dedra Maneotis, experienced a
harrowing event in 2013 when her 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee began to
roll backwards after she attempted to put the vehicle in park. As
she exited the vehicle, without warning, the car began to move. Ms.
Maneotis tried to maintain control while holding onto the door and
steering wheel, with one foot already out of the vehicle.

"However, as she tried to keep up with the car, the car door
slipped a half-height decorative wall and bent backward, causing
Dedra to lose her grip on the door handle, and she struggled to
stay upright . . ." The car gained speed, and Dedra lost her hold
on the car.

The order states, "…she fell, and her leg got wrapped up in the
front driver-side wheel. The Jeep then rolled up onto the
half-height decorative wall and over her leg rolled over, and then
spun out on her leg, causing serious injuries."

The court's order allows Ms. Maneotis to file an amended complaint
adding a request for punitive damages by Apr. 22, 2022.

Recovery of punitive damages, as the order states, are assessed by
a jury for circumstances of fraud, malice or willful and wanton
conduct. "The knowing concealment from buyers of material
information about product defects, for the purpose or inducing them
to purchase or pay more for the product, is sufficient to prove the
required fraudulent conduct…" the court stated.

Learn more about the lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler for its
defective gearshift design and rollaway vehicles.

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those
harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in
1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm,"
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm
for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.

Contacts
Ashley Klann
pr@hbsslaw.com
206-268-9363 [GN]

FLRISH INC: Sept. 9 Deadline to File Class Status Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIA CALHOUN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLRISH, INC., a
California corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-08212-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties submit the following stipulation and proposed order:

  -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on or by
     September 9, 2022;

  -- The Defendant's response in opposition is due on or by
     October 21, 2022;

  -- The Plaintiff’s reply is due on or by November 4, 2022; and

  -- The hearing on class certification is scheduled for
     December 2, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.

FLRish Inc manages the harborside medical cannabis dispensaries.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 29, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/384tWI9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          Christopher E. Stiner, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com
                  cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Avi Kaufman, Esq.
          Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN, P.A.
          237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
                  rachel@kaufmanpa.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dana B. Klinges, Esq.
          C. Todd Norris, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          30 South 17th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 979-1143
          E-mail:DKlinges@duanemorris.com
          ctnorris@duanemorris.com

FORD MOTOR: Class Certified in Weidman's Faulty Brake System Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL WEIDMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-12719 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Gershwin A. Drain of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied
in part:

   (i) the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and

  (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs are purchasers and lessees of 2013-2018 F-150 trucks
from Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,
Michigan, New York, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia who
filed the instant putative class action alleging the Defendant sold
them trucks with a defective brake system. All of the Plaintiffs
allege they experienced brake system failure due to the Brake
System Defect. Plaintiffs bring claims against Ford for common law
fraud and violation of consumer protection statutes.

Ford denies knowledge of the Brake System Defect until late 2015 or
early 2016 when it first began to detect an abnormal level of
warranty claims for master cylinders leaking brake fluid into the
brake booster. In May of 2016, Ford announced a recall of all
F-150s equipped with the 3.5L GTDI engine built between Aug. 1,
2013 and Aug. 31, 2014. The 2016 Recall entitled owners of affected
vehicles to a replacement of the master cylinder with a purported
redesigned master cylinder.

The Plaintiffs' contention is that the 2016 Recall was not a "fix"
as represented by Ford, but an effort to conceal the full scope and
nature of the Brake System Defect and the 2016 Recall failed to
correct the problem. They maintain this is evidenced by the fact
Ford implemented a production level design change to address the
Brake System Defect in September of 2018. They complain that Ford
did not provide the newly designed master cylinders to Class
Vehicle owners until years later in its recall number 20S31, or the
2020 Recall.

Ford claims began to notice the warranty claim rate rise for F-150s
with the 3.5L GTDI engine built between Sept. 1, 2014 and Aug. 1,
2016 sometime in 2019. Thus, in June of 2020, Ford extended its
recall to cover that population, again providing free replacements
to affected owners, along with a reimbursement right for prior
repairs. The 2020 Recall only included F-150s equipped with a 3.5L
GTDI engine built between September of 2014 and August of 2016.

The Plaintiffs assert that because the 2020 Recall only covered a
small subset of 2013-2018 F-150s, and ignored the bypass failure
altogether, there are over one million Class Vehicles that still
have the Brake System Defect rendering those master cylinders
susceptible to failure via leak into booster or bypass mode. They
maintain the bypass failure mode is especially dangerous because it
is intermittent and does not trigger a dashboard warning light for
the driver.

After the Court resolved the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
Dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the
remaining claims in the action include: Counts 2 (violation of
Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ala. Code Sections 8-19-1
et seq.), 5 (fraudulent omission under Alabama law), 7 (violation
of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, C.R.S.A. Sections 6-1-105
et seq.), 10 (fraudulent omission under Colorado law), 12
(violation of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen.
Stat. Sections 42-110A et seq.), 15 (fraudulent omission under
Connecticut law), 17 (violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Sections 502.201 et seq.), 18
(fraudulent omission under Florida law), 20 (violation of Georgia's
Fair Business Practices Act, Ga. Stat. Ann. Sections 10-1-390 et
seq.), 22 (fraudulent omission under Georgia law), 24 (violation of
Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices — Consumer Protection Act, Tex.
Bus. & Com. Code Sections 17.01 et seq.), 27 (fraudulent omission
under Texas law), 29 (violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750 et seq.), 30
(violation of California's Unfair Competition law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Sections 17200 et seq.), 33 (fraudulent omission under
California law), 35 (violation of New York General Business Law,
Deceptive Acts and Practices, N.Y. GBL Section 349), 38 (fraudulent
omission under New York law), 40 (violation of the South Carolina
Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dealers Act, S.C.
Code Ann. Sections 56-151-10 et seq.), 43 (fraudulent omission
under South Carolina law), 45 (violation of the West Virginia
Consumer Credit and Protections Act, W. Va. Code Sections 46A-6-101
et seq.), 48 (fraudulent omission), 50 (violation of the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Sections 445.903 et
seq.), and 52 (fraud by concealment under Michigan law).

Now before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. Also, before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Class. These motions are fully briefed, and a hearing was
held on March 25, 2022.

II. Analysis

A. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

1. Damages

The Defendant argues the Plaintiffs' claims fail because the
undisputed evidence establishes they suffered no cognizable
damages. Ford maintains it has provided most the Plaintiffs with
access to a free repair, either through recall or warranty, with a
redesigned master cylinder that addresses the Brake System Defect.
Additionally, some of the Plaintiffs have sold their vehicle, thus
they have suffered no damages.

Judge Drain holds that it remains a question of fact whether the
2016 changes remedied the Brake System Defect. He also holds that
even if some of the Plaintiffs sold their vehicles, they still
suffered economic injury because their damages theory is founded on
an overpayment at the point of purchase and, that overpayment was
not recouped at trade-in or resale. On this record, Judge Drain
cannot conclude the Defendant is entitled to judgment in is favor
because the Plaintiffs have suffered no injury.

2. Knowledge

The Defendant also argues summary judgment in its favor on all of
the Plaintiffs' claims is warranted because they cannot demonstrate
Ford was aware of any material defect in their vehicles at the time
of sale. It maintains that without evidence of pre-sale knowledge,
the Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law.

Judge Drain opines that contrary to the Defendant's argument, there
is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude Ford knew
the Class Vehicles were defective but sold them to the Plaintiffs
anyway. The record reveals that in 2011, Ford's brake engineers
began to discuss a recall Subaru issued for its vehicles containing
Hitachi-made master cylinders that suffered from a bypass failure
mode like the bypass failure in the Class Vehicles. The record
further reveals that from 2012 to 2013, Ford's sale of replacement
master cylinders doubled. Ford's internal communications also
support a finding of pre-sale knowledge. Based on this record, a
reasonable jury could conclude Ford was aware of the Brake System
Defect at the time the Plaintiffs' purchased their vehicles.

3. Plaintiffs Gollott and Thuotte

Ford also argues that undisputed evidence shows that Plaintiffs
Thuotte (CA) and Gollott (TX) cannot establish the reliance on an
undisclosed material fact required for their individual fraud-based
claims. Ford asserts Thuotte's claims fail because he testified
during his deposition that he felt a "soft brake pedal" during a
test drive before leasing his 2018 F-150, an issue he believed was
indicative of the master cylinder failure he had previously
experienced with his 2016 F-150, yet he still chose to lease the
vehicle. Thus, Ford argues Thuotte's claim fails as a matter of law
for a lack of reliance.

Judge Drain opines that Ford is not entitled to summary judgment in
its favor on Thuotte's or Gollot's claims. He finds that whether
these Plaintiffs purchased one, two, or ten Class Vehicles makes no
difference if they were unaware that the subsequent vehicles were
plagued by the same Brake System Defect. As Plaintiffs Thuotte and
Gollott's testimony show, neither Plaintiff knew about the Brake
System Defect when they purchased their Class Vehicles because Ford
omitted this material information.

4. Plaintiff Bonasera

Ford also argues Plaintiff Bonasera (CA) lacks standing to enforce
her claim under California's CLRA because she does not qualify as a
"consumer."

In the case, Plaintiff Bonasera testified that she purchased her
vehicle for her tennis coaching business, Bonasera Tennis, LLC. She
purchased it specifically to haul her coaching supplies as part of
her business, and she claims the vehicle as a business expense on
her taxes since "that truck is mainly for my business." Thus,
contrary to the Plaintiffs' argument, Bonasera does not have
standing to enforce her claim where she testified use of the car
was primarily for business use and claimed her F-150 as a business
expense on her taxes. Ford is therefore entitled to judgment in its
favor on Bonasera's claims.

5. Plaintiff Epperson

Finally, Ford argues summary judgment should be granted in its
favor against Plaintiff Epperson (TX) because he disposed of his
vehicle before Ford had an opportunity to inspect it. Epperson
joined the lawsuit on Aug. 14, 2019, but disposed of his truck by
trading it in as of April 2020. He admitted that he traded it in
without being inspected by Ford and without notifying Ford. Under
these circumstances of spoliation, dismissal is the appropriate
remedy.

Judge Drain agrees. pperson's disposal of his truck is prejudicial
to Ford because it denied Ford the opportunity to inspect the
master cylinder. Ford is entitled to judgment in its favor on
Epperson's claims.

B. Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class

Plaintiffs Paul Weidman (AL), Jean Louis Thoutte, Sr. (CA), Steve
Mitchell (FL), Marty Cobb (GA), Amanda Gollett (TX) and Teresa
Perry (TX) move for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a)(1)-(4), (b)(2), and (b)(3), or in the
alternative, (c)(4), on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated and for the appointment of E. Powell Miller, W.
Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Adam J. Levitt, and Mark P. Chalos as
Co-Lead Class Counsel and class representatives pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

The Plaintiffs propose certification of the following injunctive
relief class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2): "All persons in
Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, and Texas who currently own
or lease a 2013-2018 Ford F-150 equipped with a Hitachi made
step-bore master cylinder not included in Safety Recall 20S31."

They also propose certification of the following damages classes
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):

     1. Alabama Class: All persons who purchased or leased in
Alabama a 2013-2018 Ford F-150 equipped with a Hitachi made
step-bore master cylinder not included in Safety Recall 20S31.

     2. California Class: All persons who purchased or leased in
California a 2013-2018 Ford F-150 equipped with a Hitachi made
step-bore master cylinder not included in Safety Recall 20S31.

     3. Florida Class: All persons who purchased or leased in
Florida a 2013-2018 Ford F-150 equipped with a Hitachi made
step-bore master cylinder not included in Safety Recall 20S31.

     4. Georgia Class: All persons who purchased or leased in
Georgia a 2013-2018 Ford F-150 equipped with a Hitachi made
step-bore master cylinder not included in in Safety Recall 20S31.

     5. Texas Class: All persons who purchased or leased in Texas a
2013-2018 Ford F-150 equipped with a Hitachi made step-bore master
cylinder not included in Safety Recall 20S31.

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek issue certification
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4) for the (b)(3) classes
defined.

as to injunctive relief class, Judge Drain holds that certification
of an injunctive class would be improper. The primary basis for the
Plaintiffs' lawsuit is recovery of the amount they overpaid for
their F-150 trucks. The money damages sought by the Plaintiffs in
the case are not incidental to the injunctive relief requested.
Hence, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) on this basis is denied
and Judge Drain declines to address Ford's remaining arguments
opposing certification of an injunctive relief class.

Turning to the proposed damages classes, Judge Drain holds that (i)
the class members can be defined by reference to an objective
purchase or lease of a particular vehicle, thus class members are
identifiable through Ford's records and sources otherwise available
to Ford; (ii) the Plaintiffs' claims are based on the same Brake
System Defect across all Class Vehicles; (iii) each Class member's
claims arise from the same course of Ford's conduct, and each Class
member has similar legal arguments to prove Ford's liability; and
(iv) the Plaintiffs have been and are committed to exercising good
faith and sound judgment in vigorously prosecuting the litigation.

However, Judge Drain cannot conclude that the common issues
predominate over the individual questions. First, individualized
questions of reliance defeat predominance. Moreover, there are
other individualized issues that defeat predominance. The proposed
California class also includes those who are not consumers.
Finally, under Texas law, "a downstream buyer cannot sue under the
DTPA." Because the Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden
demonstrating common issues predominate over individualized issues,
Judge Drain cannot certify the proposed state classes under Rule
23(b)(3).

Even though Judge Drain concludes the Plaintiffs have failed to
meet their burden under Rule 23(b)(3) to warrant certification of
their proposed damages classes, he says, there are issues that are
suitable for class-wide adjudication. Common questions predominate
with certain issues. The Plaintiffs' common law fraud and statutory
consumer protection claims share common elements that will be
subject to generalized proof. Resolving the certified issues could
resolve every claim against" the Defendant "in one fell swoop." If
the jury concludes there is no defect or that the defect is not
material, the Plaintiffs' claims fail. Conversely, if the jury
finds there is a material defect then the scope of subsequent
trials will be narrowed significantly. For these reasons, Judge
Drain will certify an issue class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the reasons he articulated, Judge Drain granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. He dismissed Plaintiffs Richard Epperson's and Joyce
Bonasera's claims.

Judge Drain also granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class.

Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4), a class is certified in the case
consisting of all persons who purchased or leased a 2013-2018 Ford
F-150 equipped with a Hitachi made step-bore master cylinder not
included in Safety Recall 20S31 in Alabama, California, Florida,
Georgia and Texas, for determination of the following issues:

     1) Whether the Class Vehicles' brake systems are defective?

     2) Whether Defendant possessed pre-sale knowledge of the
defect?

     3) Whether information about the defect that was concealed
would be material to a reasonable buyer?

Plaintiffs Paul Weidman, Jean Louis Thuotte, Sr., Steve Mitchell,
Marty Cobb, Amanda Gollot and Teresa Perry are designated as the
class representative for their respective jurisdictions.

E. Powell Miller, W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Adam J. Levitt, and
Mark P. Chalos are appointed as the Co-Lead Class Counsel pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

The counsel for the parties will meet and confer and present to the
Court a proposal for a notice to the class members that complies
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B), and a method of delivering notice
to absent class members.

The counsel for the parties will submit a Proposed Joint Redacted
Opinion and Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Redacted Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vcbne767 from
Leagle.com.


FORD MOTOR: Must Face Class Action Over F-150 Faulty Brakes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Curley, writing for Law360, reports that a Michigan federal
judge won't let Ford Motor Co. notch an early win in a class action
alleging it sold F-150 trucks with faulty brakes, saying there's
evidence that it was aware of the alleged defect earlier than it
contends and that it knew that a 2016 fix didn't resolve the issue
in a 43-page order filed on April 8. [GN]





GATOS SILVER: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on April 13 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

GATO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/gatos-silver-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25941&wire=1
RIVN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/rivian-automotive-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25941&wire=1
CELH Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/celsius-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25941&wire=1

This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Gatos: (a) common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to documents issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering conducted on or about October 28, 2020;
and/or (b) securities between October 28, 2020 and January 25,
2022, inclusive.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 25, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/gatos-silver-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25941&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (1) the technical report for
Gatos's primary mine, the Cerro Los Gatos deposit, contained
certain errors; (2) among other things, the mineral reserves had
been overestimated by as much as 50%; 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.

Rivian Automotive, Inc.

This lawsuit is on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise
acquired Rivian common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Rivian's
initial public offering on November 10, 2021 and/or between
November 10, 2021, and March 10, 2022.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 6, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/rivian-automotive-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25941&wire=1
Documents issued in connection with the initial public offering
contained representations that were materially inaccurate,
misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to disclose,
among other things, that the R1T electric pickup truck and R1S
electric SUV were underpriced to such a degree that Rivian would
have to raise prices shortly after the IPO and that these price
increases would tarnish Rivian's reputation as a trustworthy and
transparent company and would put a significant number of the
existing backlog of 55,400 preorders, along with future preorders,
in jeopardy of cancellation.

Celsius Holdings, Inc.

CELH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 12, 2021
- March 1, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 16, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/celsius-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25941&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Celsius
Holdings, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had improperly
recorded expenses for non-cash share-based compensation for second
and third quarters of 2021; (2) as a result, the Company's
financial statements for those periods would be restated, including
to report a net loss for the third quarter of 2021; (3) there was a
material weakness in Celsius's internal controls over financial
reporting; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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

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

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

GEICO GENERAL: Judgment in Green Class Suit Affirmed in Part
------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Below,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. YVONNE GREEN and REHABILITATION
ASSOCIATES, P.A., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. YVONNE GREEN and
REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES, P.A., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellants/Cross-Appellees
v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Below, Appellee/Cross
Appellant, Case Nos. 107,2021, 166,2021 (Del.), the Supreme Court
of Delaware affirmed in part and reversed in part the Superior
Court's judgment.

I. Background

The appeal involves a challenge to how GEICO processes insurance
claims under 21 Del. C. Section 2118. Section 2118 provides that
certain motor vehicle owners must obtain personal injury protection
("PIP") insurance. Under this statute, insurance companies must,
subject to a two-year limitation period, compensate insureds for
reasonable and necessary expenses for injuries resulting from a
motor vehicle accident. GEICO provides PIP insurance to Delawareans
under this statute.

The Plaintiffs, all of whose claims for medical expense
reimbursement under a PIP policy have been denied, in whole or in
part, are either GEICO PIP policyholders who were injured in
automobile accidents or their treatment providers. They allege that
GEICO uses two automated processing rules that arbitrarily deny or
reduce payments without consideration of the reasonableness or
necessity of submitted claims and without any human involvement.
The Plaintiffs argue that GEICO's use of the automated rules to
deny or reduce payments (1) breaches the applicable insurance
contract, (2) amounts to bad faith breach of contract, and (3)
violates Section 2118.

On March 20, 2017, the Claimants filed a class action suit in the
Superior Court against GEICO. In the action, the Claimants alleged
that GEICO violated statutory and common law, bringing claims for
breach of contract, bad faith breach of contract, declaratory
relief, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act violations on behalf of
themselves and all others whose PIP benefits claims were denied in
whole or in part because of the Rules.

On July 12, 2017, the Claimants filed a first amended class action
complaint asserting the following four counts. First, the Claimants
alleged that GEICO breached certain provisions of its PIP insurance
contract by "reducing or denying payment of covered claims for PIP
benefits through the use of the Rules" ("Count I"). Second, the
Claimants contended that GEICO committed bad faith breach of
contract because it "knowingly and intentionally violated the
applicable policies of insurance and applicable law by performing
arbitrary and improper bill reductions and denials, without
justification" ("Count II"). Third, the Claimants sought a
declaratory judgment that "(i) GEICO has violated 21 Del. C.
Section 2118; and that (ii) GEICO may not lawfully use the
Geographic Reduction Rule or Passive Modality Rule" ("Count III").
Fourth, RA argued that GEICO violated the Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, 6 Del. C. Section 2532(a)(5) and (12), by failing to disclose
its use of the GRR and PMR and to investigate claims (Count IV).

On Aug. 1, 2017, GEICO filed a motion to dismiss the Class Action
Complaint. In relevant part, GEICO alleged that Count III must be
dismissed because, under Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co., "the Delaware judiciary does not have the authority
to enforce violations of the insurance code, rather, that authority
is vested with the General Assembly and the Insurance
Commissioner." In response, the Superior Court issued an opinion
dismissing Count IV, but allowing Counts I, II, and III to remain.
On appeal, GEICO challenges the Superior Court's ruling as to its
authority to issue the Claimants' requested declaratory judgment.

On Jan. 3, 2019, GEICO filed a motion for summary judgment on
Counts I, II, and III, which the Superior Court stayed until after
it decided the Claimants' motion for class certification. After the
court granted the motion for class certification, the Claimants
also filed a motion for summary judgment. In its summary judgment
opinion, issued on March 24, 2021, the Superior Court entered
summary judgment in favor of GEICO on Counts I and II. The
Claimants challenge these rulings on cross-appeal. As to Count III
-- the declaratory judgment count -- the Superior Court ruled in
favor of the Claimants, holding that the Rules violate 21 Del. C.
Sections 2118(a)(2) and 2118B(c). GEICO challenges this ruling on
appeal.

II. Discussion

In the appeal, the Supreme Court considers the following questions:
(1) whether GEICO's use of the Rules breaches the PIP insurance
contract; (2) whether GEICO's use of the Rules constitutes bad
faith breach of contract; and (3) whether the Superior Court erred
in issuing a declaratory judgment that GEICO's use of the Rules
violates Sections 2118 and 2118B.

A. GEICO's Use of the Rules Does Not Breach the PIP Contract

Under Delaware law, plaintiffs must establish the following three
elements to succeed on a breach of contract claim: (1) the
existence of a contract, whether express or implied; (2) breach of
one or more of the contract's obligations; and (3) damages
resulting from the breach.

The Claimants allege that GEICO breached its form Delaware Family
Automobile Insurance policy ("PIP Insurance Policy" or the
"Policy") by (1) failing to comply with its common law and
statutory requirement to investigate insurance claims, which
Claimants argue the parties incorporated into the contract, and (2)
improperly imposing a sublimit, cap, or percentage reduction that
the insureds did not consent to in a signed written document, as
Delaware Insurance Regulation 603 requires.

The Supreme Court holds that the Claimants fail to show that
GEICO's use of the Rules violates a contractual obligation. In the
absence of a conflict, the Policy cannot be reformed to require
anything more than the duty to pay reasonable and necessary medical
expenses. Focusing on the only relevant contractual obligation in
the Policy -- GEICO obligation to pay reasonable and necessary
medical expenses -- GEICO is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Accordingly, the Claimants' breach of contract claim
necessarily fails. The Supreme Court affirms the Superior Court
order granting judgment in favor of GEICO on the contract claims.

The Supreme Court further holds that the Rules do not constitute a
"sublimit, cap, percentage reduction, or similar reduction" in
violation of Delaware Insurance Regulation 603. It believes the
Rules should be disclosed because they "are basically incorporated
into the GEICO Policies under GEICO's interpretation of
reasonableness" and in some instances appear to "operate like
sublimits or similar reduction." But it also "find faults with the
Claimants' breach of contract theory under Delaware Insurance
Regulation 603." Thus, the Supreme Court affirms the Superior
Court's holding that the Claimants' breach of contract theory under
Regulation 603 fails.

B. GEICO's Use of the Rules Does Not Amount to Bad Faith Breach of
Contract

The Claimants allege that GEICO has engaged in bad faith breach of
contract by relying on the Rules to arbitrarily deny PIP claims.
GEICO responds, and the Superior Court agreed, that its use of the
Rules does not amount to bad faith breach of contract because the
Claimants failed to show that GEICO's use of the Rules was without
any reasonable justification.

The Supreme Court agrees. As an initial matter, the Claimants did
not show that there was a breach of contract. Without a showing of
an underlying breach, there can be no claim for bad faith breach of
contract. Even if the Claimants could show a breach of contract,
they cannot show that GEICO's reliance on the Rules was clearly
without any reasonable justification. As a result, the Supreme
Court affirms the Superior Court's ruling that GEICO did not commit
bad faith breach of contract.

C. The Superior Court Erred in Issuing a Declaratory Judgment that
the Rules Violate Sections 2118 and 2118B

GEICO challenges the Superior Court's issuance of a declaratory
judgment that GEICO's use of the Rules violates 21 Del. C. Sections
2118 and 2118B on two grounds: (1) the judiciary lacks the
authority to issue such a declaration; and (2) the Claimants failed
to present evidence that their medical expenses were reasonable and
necessary.

The Supreme Court disagrees that the judiciary lacks authority to
issue a declaratory judgment. It agrees, however, that the
Claimants were required to first show that their medical expenses
were reasonable and necessary. First, it finds that a declaration
regarding whether GEICO can lawfully use the Rules would not amount
to judicial regulation. Second, it holds that the Superior Court's
issuance of the Claimants' requested declaratory judgment was
improper.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and
reversed the Superior Court's judgment. It affirmed the Superior
Court's ruling that the judiciary has the authority to issue a
declaratory judgment that GEICO's use of the automated rules
violates Section 2118. It also affirmed the Superior Court's
judgment as to the breach of contract and bad faith breach of
contract claims. The Supreme Court concluded, however, that the
issuance of the declaratory judgment was improper.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2ac56xfy from Leagle.co

Paul A. Bradley, Esquire -- pab@maronmarvel.com -- Stephanie A.
Fox, Esquire -- saf@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley
Anderson & Tardy, LLC, in Wilmington, Delaware, George M. Church,
Esquire, Joshua Kahn, Esquire, Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Baltimore,
Maryland, Meloney Perry, Esquire -- mperry@mperrylaw.com -- Perry
Law, P.C., in Dallas, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant GEICO General
Insurance Company.

Richard H. Cross, Jr., Esquire -- rcross@crosslaw.com --
Christopher P. Simon, Esquire -- csimon@crosslaw.com -- Cross &
Simon, LLC, in Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Yvonne Green, Wilmington Pain & Rehabilitation Center, and
Rehabilitation Associates, P.A.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Battle Suit Over Sale of Defective Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW BATTLE, JUAN CASTANEDA, DAVID FIGUEROA, ROBERT GRIBBLE, and
WALTER and JANICE HELMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-10783-MAG-KGA (E.D. Mich., April 12, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for fraudulent concealment,
breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and
violations of consumer protection laws in various states in the
U.S.

The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, marketing and
distribution of 2019-2022 model year vehicles with defective
eight-speed Hydra-Matic 8L90 or Hydra-Matic 8L45 transmission. The
first generation 8L90 and 8L45 transmissions built after March 1,
2019, have a design defect based on a common architecture that
causes harsh shifts in lower gears, which can feel like jerking,
lurching, and/or hesitations. The Defendant has known about the
shift defect and has deliberately not disclosed to the Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated customers that the Class vehicles have
defective transmissions that fail to function in a safe and
reliable manner as expected. As a result of the Defendant's
misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members have been damaged by
purchasing defective vehicles.

General Motors LLC is an automobile manufacturer, with its
principal place of business located at 300 Renaissance Center,
Detroit, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
         Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
         Telephone: (561) 515-1400
         Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
         E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com

                 - and –

         Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
         Karina G. Puttieva, Esq.
         Paul Stephan, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         1100 New York Ave. NW East Tower, 5th Floor
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 408-4600
         Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
         E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
                 kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com

                 - and –

         Robert Gordon, Esq.
         Steven Calamusa, Esq.
         Geoff S. Stahl, Esq.
         Rachel A. Bentley, Esq.
         GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A.
         4114 Northlake Blvd.,
         Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
         Telephone: (561) 799-5070
         Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
         E-mail: rgordon@fortheinjured.com
                 scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
                 gstahl@fortheinjured.com
                 rbentley@fortheinjured.com

                 - and –

         Russell D. Paul, Esq.
         Amey J. Park, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
         E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
                 apark@bm.net

                 - and –

         Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
         Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
         Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
         Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
         CAPSTONE LAW APC
         1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 556-4811
         Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
         E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                 Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
                 Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com

                 - and –

         E. Powell Miller, Esq.
         Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
         William Kalas, Esq.
         THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
         950 West University Drive, Suite 300
         Rochester, MI 48307
         Telephone: (248) 841-2200
         Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
         E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                 ssa@millerlawpc.com
                 wk@millerlawpc.com

                 - and –

         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
         Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
         Natalie Lesser, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (610) 667-7706
         Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
         E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                 mtroutner@ktmc.com
                 nlesser@ktmc.com

                 - and –

         Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
         Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
         Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
         KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
         1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-1900
         Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
         E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                 gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                 rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

                 - and –

         Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
         Beth Rivers, Esq.
         PITT McGEHEE PALMER AND RIVERS, P.C.
         117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
         Royal Oak, MI 48067
         Telephone: (248) 398-9800
         Facsimile: (248) 398-9804
         E-mail: mpitt@pittlawpc.com
                 brivers@pittlawpc.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Hackler Files Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SETH HACKLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00019-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff
Hackler asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class defined as:

      "All current owners or lessees of a 2011–2014 Chevrolet
      Avalanche, 2011–2014 Chevrolet Silverado, 2011–2014
      Chevrolet Suburban, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2011-2014
      GMC Sierra, 2011-2014 GMC Yukon, or 2011–2014 GMC Yukon XL

      manufactured on or after February 10, 2011 that was
      equipped with a Generation IV 5.3-liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9
      engine and was purchased or leased in the State of
      Florida;"

   2. appointing him as Class Representative;

   3. appointing Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles
      P.C. and DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC as Class Counsel.

Mr. Hackler seeks class certification on behalf of Florida
consumers who purchased or leased one or more of the following
General Motors LLC (GM) vehicles equipped with the defective
Generation IV 5.3-liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engines manufactured on
or after February 10, 2011: 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche;
2011-2014 Chevrolet Silverado; 2011-2014 Chevrolet Suburban;
2011-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe; 2011-2014 GMC Sierra; 2011-2014 GMC
Yukon; and 2011-2014 GMC Yukon XL (collectively, the Class
Vehicles).

Each of the Class Vehicles allegedly suffer from the same piston
ring defect that causes an abnormal and improperly high rate of oil
consumption, far in excess of industry standards (the Oil
Consumption Defect). This excessive oil consumption results in low
oil levels, insufficient lubricity, and corresponding internal
engine component damage.

GM knew that its engine was defective well before it sold them to
Plaintiff and the other Class members, but it continued selling and
leasing Class Vehicles without ever disclosing the Oil Consumption
Defect, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff claims that GM violated the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). This claim hinges on GM's
concealment of a uniform defect and does not require a showing of
individualized reliance.

Mr. Hackler currently owns a Class Vehicle equipped with a Gen IV
5.3L LC9 engine manufactured on or after February 10, 2011
that suffers from the Oil Consumption Defect.

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing corporation headquartered in Detroit, Michigan,
United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 29,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xCpvPj
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Keen, Esq.
          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          Overlook II
          2839 Paces Ferry Road SE, Suite 400
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          E-mail: Ben.keen@beasleyallen.com
                  Clay.Barnett@beasleyallen.com
                  Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com
                  Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
                  Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                  jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
                  alevitt@dicellolevitt.com

GOORIN BROS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goorin Bros., Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Goorin Bros., Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03134-JGK (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022).

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

Goorin Bros, Inc. -- https://www.goorin.com/ --- was founded in
1895. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of
hats, capps, and millinery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


GRAINGER COUNTY, TN: Attorney Says Ex-Inmate Clients Traumatized
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Gallant, writing for WATE, reports that an attorney
representing two former inmates at the Grainger County Jail suing
over what is described as "sex shows" says his clients are
traumatized.

The 57-page civil rights lawsuit claims that former Grainger County
Corrections Officer Travis Hank Davis sexually abused and exploited
the plaintiffs and other inmates for months. Along with Davis, the
suit names Sheriff James Harville, Jail Administrator Chris
Harville, and another Corrections Officer, Leonard Dalton as
defendants.

"My clients ultimately thought that the whole situation was wrong,
they're traumatized, again, they went in there to just do their
time, and that's ultimately not what they got," said attorney Lance
Baker on April 13.

"Here we are a year after this took place and Grainger County has
not done, to our knowledge, a thing about it. I don't know if
they've turned it over to the district attorney's office, if they
have, then why is this Grainger County District Attorney not set
charges? Or at least take things to the Grainger County Grand Jury
for some sort of indictment?" he said.

The class action case is open to females who were inmates from
February 2021 to March 2022.

"They know that there is a year statute of limitation on these
cases. So, I can only guess at this point that perhaps they wanted
to sweep this incident under the rug. It's not like they didn't
have the proper information," said Baker.

WATE reached out to Sheriff James Harville, who directed all
questions to the attorney for the sheriff's office, who has not
responded to questions. When Davis was contacted, he had no
comment." [GN]

GRAINGER COUNTY, TN: Class Action Filed Over Forced Sex Shows
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Greene, writing for WATE, reports that a federal class
action lawsuit filed by two former inmates accuses Grainger County
corrections officers of oppression, sexual abuse, coercion, and
intimidation for allegedly forcing female inmates to strip naked
and participate in forced-sex acts.

Jailer Travis Hank Davis was terminated on April 24, 2021 for
violating Code of Ethics, officer misconduct, and abusing his
position, the lawsuit claims. An attorney representing the women
says his clients are "traumatized."

The civil rights class action lawsuit, filed April 12, names
Grainger County Sheriff James Harville, Jail Administrator Chris
Harville, and corrections officers Travis Davis and Leonard Dalton
as defendants, along with Grainger County.

In the lawsuit, plaintiffs claim 8 violations of their rights under
the Fourth (unreasonable search), Eighth (cruel and unusual
punishment), and Fourteenth (right to bodily privacy and freedom
from bodily intrusion) Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and
violations of Tennessee statutory and common law.

Davis is accused of "repeatedly" forcing female inmates, including
the plaintiffs, to "perform various sex acts on each other while he
watched and masturbated within the confines of the control room of
the Grainger County Jail." The "shows" occurred within the female
inmate pod with Davis allegedly orchestrating, announcing and
directing using the jail's intercom or loud-speaker system, the
lawsuit states.

"Sheriff Harville and Jail Administrator Harville failed to
investigate, discipline, question or stop Officer Davis's horrific
sexual abuse and degradation of female inmates until approximately
April 24, 2021, when he was eventually fired," the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs said complaints were made to other correctional
officers but to no avail, and transfer requests were "ignored" or
denied, leading them to perceive that Davis was "untouchable." The
lawsuit alleged that a correctional officer told the women to
"contact an attorney on their own time."

The former inmates claim that a "residence request report" asking
if they could be moved was eventually met with the reply, "How good
have you been?"

The lawsuit also states that the shows "were hardly a secret in the
Jail."

The lawsuit filed in the Northeastern Division of the Eastern
District of Tennessee claims that Davis brought lighters for their
cigarettes a few days after they were booked into the jail. Over
time, the lawsuit claims that Davis became verbally sexually
aggressive toward the plaintiffs.

"For example, he [Davis] remarked that he pictured their faces
instead of his wife's when he and his wife were having sexual
relations the night before, or asked them to describe their breasts
and genitalia," the lawsuit claims.

In February and early March 2021, the lawsuit claims Davis began
using the control room's intercom to make inappropriate remarks
about female inmates' bodies. The lawsuit claims Davis using his
position of authority to intimidate the inmates.

Other officers became suspicious after seeing a stack of milk
crates on the control room floor, the lawsuit states. Inmates claim
that the view from the control room of Cell #5 was obstructed and
so Davis used the milk crates to stand on.

Grainger County Sheriff's Office detectives visited the jail in
late April 2021 and spoke with the plaintiffs separately about an
investigation concerning Davis. Davis was fired days later.

Buc-ee's in Tennessee: Crossville store hosting mass hiring event
Plaintiffs and the "class" that includes female inmates housed in
the Grainger County Jail from May 2020 until April 2022, are asking
the court to award damages of $15.5 million and court costs. A jury
trial is demanded. [GN]

GRAVITY DEFYER: Loadholt Sues Over ADA Violations
-------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER LOADHOLT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRAVITY DEFYER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03064 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.gravitydefyer.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
fail to accurately describe the contents of graphical images, (b)
fail to properly label title, (c) fail to distinguish one page from
another, (d) contain multiple broken links, (e) contain headings
that do not describe the topic or purpose, and (f) keyboard user
interfaces lack a mode of operation where the keyboard focus
indicator is visible.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Gravity Defyer Corporation is a specialty footwear retail company
doing business in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
         MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
         701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
         Asbury Park, NJ 07712
         Telephone: (732) 695-3282
         Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
         E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com

HAMILTON-RYKER IT: Appeals Ruling in Gentry FLSA Suit to 5th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Gentry v. Hamilton-Ryker IT
Solutions, Case No. 3:19-CV-320, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Opinion and Order dated
March 4, 2022, granting-in-part and denying-in-part both Defendant
Hamilton-Ryker Solutions, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment and
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Response in
Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

This suit seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff Terry Gentry, both individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued Hamilton-Ryker
Solutions, LLC alleging the company unlawfully paid him the same
hourly rate for all hours worked, with no overtime premium for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. On April 20,
2020, the parties agreed to conditionally certify this matter as a
collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Shortly
thereafter, on May 28, 2020, Opt-In Plaintiff Marc Taylor consented
to join the lawsuit.

The appellate case is captioned as Gentry v. Hamilton-Ryker IT
Solutions, Case No. 22-40219, in the US Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, filed on April 8, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions, L.L.C. is
represented by:

          Ashlee Cassman Grant, Esq.
          Paul Michael Knettel, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, L.L.P.
          811 Main Street
          Houston, TX 77002-6111
          Telephone: (713) 646-1316
          E-mail: agrant@bakerlaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Terry Gentry, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ricardo Jose Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN L.L.P.
          11 Greenway Plaza
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net

HERTZ CORP: Wrongful Theft Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Louis Llovio, writing for Business Observer, reports that The Hertz
Corp.'s new CEO is in a mea culpa kind of mood.

Stephen Scherr, who took the helm of the Lee County rental car
giant in February, went on CNBC's Squawk Box April 4 and during the
appearance apologized for the company reporting vehicles stolen
while the drivers were in good standing - a practice that's led to
dozens of false arrests.

"It's not acceptable to Hertz to have any customer, a single
customer sort of caught up in some of what's happened," he says,
adding a moment later that "we will do right where our customers
have been negatively affected and I'm looking to resolve that, you
know, very, very quickly."

Scherr said dealing with the issue was one of his priorities in his
first 30 days.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Estero company by
customers alleging they were falsely arrested after the vehicles
they rented were incorrectly reported stolen. According to the
Philadelphia law firm behind the lawsuit, more than 230 claimants
are asking for $530 million.

Scherr told the TV audience that "no one customer should be put
through that" and that Hertz "is going to deal properly" with those
affected. He said the company has changed its policies to make sure
it doesn't happen again and that, in context, only a few people
were affected when compared with the 15 million transactions it
engages in each year.

He expressed similar views in several other interviews over the
next couple of days.

As will probably surprise no one, the lawyer behind the lawsuit was
not particularly receptive to the admission of fault.

In an emailed statement from the public relations firm for attorney
Francis Malofiy, he says Scherr "did not answer why dozens of
victims are still facing active criminal proceedings. Indeed, there
still has been no explanation for Hertz's longstanding practices of
deleting rental extensions and force-charging victims in full after
reporting them for theft and saying they have not paid for the
rental."

For his part, after saying those affected would be taken care of,
Scherr added: "But in the same vein, we're not going to obviously
engage with people who look to do harm to the company." [GN]


HOMETOWN AMERICA: Bartok Bid for Class Status Tossed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN BARTOK, et al., v.
HOMETOWN AMERICA, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-10790-LTS (D.
Mass.), the Hon. Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered an order denying
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to
develop a fuller factual record that would allow the Court to
conduct a rigorous analysis into the Rule 23 requirements.

The Court envisions onefurther period of discovery. To be clear,
all merits and class certification discovery will occur during this
period, and the Court anticipates no further discovery after this
period prior to summary judgment motions or trial. After the
conclusion of discovery, the Court anticipates a renewed Motion for
Class Certification if warranted as well as potential dispositive
motions as to the named Plaintiffs, also if warranted, the Court
says.

Accordingly, the parties shall submit a joint status report within
fourteen days stating their joint or separate positions as to (1)
scheduling the remainder of this case; (2) sequencing and
resolution of the potential dispositive motions and renewed Motion
for Class Certification; (3) how such motions would bear on the
merits of the case if the class is later certified; and (4) whether
the two types of classes proposed (injunctive relief and damages)
should be dealt with differently (e.g., if the Court should
bifurcate and adjudicate the damages class first and then the
injunctive class).

In 2020, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled "we
hold that time of entry into an occupancy agreement does not create
a dissimilar class under" the Massachusetts Manufactured Housing
Act section 32L(2). On the heels of that decision, the Plaintiffs
Edwin Bartok, Barbara Lee, and the Manufactured Home Federation of
Massachusetts ("MFM") brought this putative class action arising
under section 32L(2) challenging the rent structures implemented by
Defendants in two manufactured communities.

The Plaintiffs are or represent residents of these communities and
seek (1) damages for rent charged allegedly in violation of section
32L(2) as construed by the SJC in Blake and (2) injunctive relief
to make Defendants comply with section 32L(2).

On May 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved to certify this suit as a
class action.

Hometown America is an operator of residential mobile home sites
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KXTW6p at no extra charge.[CC]

HP INC: York County Appeals Securities Fraud Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs York County on Behalf of the County of York Retire, et
al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
entitled YORK COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF YORK RETIREMENT
FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. HP INC., DION J. WEISLER and CATHERINE A. LESJAK, Case No.
3:20-cv-07835, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, Oakland.

The lawsuit is a securities fraud class action on behalf of all
purchasers of HP common stock between November 6, 2015 and June 21,
2016, inclusive.

This action is brought against HP, its former chief executive
officer, Dion J. Weisler and its former chief financial officer,
Catherine A. Lesjak for violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

HP began operations after spinning off from Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company (HPE) on November 1, 2015. Following the
spinoff, HP operated the Printing and Personal Systems businesses,
while HPE retained the enterprise technology infrastructure,
software, services, and financing businesses.

The Plaintiff contends that during the Class Period, HP, Weisler,
and Lesjak misrepresented the Company's business and financial
condition by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance, and particularly the Company's
revenue, profit margin, and earnings.

On November 5, 2015, following its spinoff from HPE, the Company
announced its financial results, including revenues, profit
margins, and earnings. The Company blamed slightly reduced revenues
and profit margins on "competitive pricing pressures." On November
24, 2015, the Company announced marginal decreased Supplies revenue
but reassured the market that Supplies revenue was "stabiliz[ing]."
Following this announcement, the price of HP stock declined 14% to
a closing price of $12.64 per share on November 25, 2015, on
trading volume of 72 million shares.

On June 21, 2016, the Company announced an overhaul to its Printing
sales model and revealed that it would reduce Supplies channel
inventory by $450 million, resulting in a corresponding reduction
of $450 million in Supplies revenue over the remainder of 2016.
Following this announcement, the price of HP stock declined 5.4% to
a closing price of $12.61 per share on June 22, 2016, on trading
volume of 18.3 million shares.

On June 21, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action complaint which the Court
granted on March 3, 2022, through an order entered by Judge Jeffrey
S. White.

The Plaintiffs are now taking an appeal from this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as York County on Behalf of the
County of York Retire, et al. v. HP, Inc., et al., Case No.
22-15501, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on April 6, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Maryland Electrical Industry Pension Fund and York
County on Behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund Mediation
Questionnaire was due on April 13, 2022;

   -- Appellants Maryland Electrical Industry Pension Fund and York
County on Behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund opening
brief is due on June 7, 2022;

   -- Appellees Richard Bailey, HP, Inc., Catherine A. Lesjak,
Enrique Lores and Dion J. Weisler answering brief is due on July 7,
2022; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants YORK COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF YORK
RETIREMENT FUND; and MARYLAND ELECTRICAL INDUSTRY PENSION FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are
represented by:

          Darryl James Alvarado, Esq.
          Steven Francis Hubachek, Esq.
          Darren Jay Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com
                  darrenr@rgrdlaw.com  

Defendants-Appellees HP, INC., DION J. WEISLER, CATHERINE A.
LESJAK, RICHARD BAILEY, and ENRIQUE LORES are represented by:

          Sara Beth Brody, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1715
          Telephone: (415) 772-1200
          E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Kahn, Esq.
          Brian Michael Lutz, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393-8316
          E-mail: blutz@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Lissa M. Percopo, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 887-3770
          E-mail: lpercopo@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Katherine Leigh Henderson, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
          One Market Plaza, Suite 3300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 947-2065

               - and -

          Steven Mark Schatz, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Oil Consumption Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Hyundai oil consumption lawsuit alleges numerous models are
equipped with defective Nu, Gamma, Theta, Lambda and Kappa
engines.

Owners say a Hyundai oil consumption recall should have been
ordered because the engines allegedly use excessive amounts of oil,
stall and eventually fail.

According to the Hyundai and Kia class action lawsuit, these models
cause owners and lessees to expend huge sums of money to constantly
purchase oil.

2012-2020 Hyundai Elantra
2009-2018 Hyundai Genesis Coupe
2019-2021 Hyundai Kona
2020-2021 Hyundai Palisade
2010-2012 and 2015-2021 Hyundai Santa Fe
2009-2010 and 2015-2021 Hyundai Sonata
2011–2021 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid
2010-2013 and 2015-2021 Hyundai Tucson
2011-2021 Hyundai Veloster
2020-2021 Hyundai Venue
2010-2021 Kia Forte
2017-2020 Kia Niro
2011-2020 Kia Optima and Optima Hybrid
2012-2021 Kia Rio
2011-2020 Kia Sorento
2012-2021 Kia Soul
2011-2020 Kia Sportage
2018-2021 Kia Stinger
2022 Kia K5

The Hyundai oil consumption lawsuit alleges drivers must constantly
check the oil levels more than normal, and oil must allegedly be
added to the engines more frequently than even the owner's manuals
recommend.

The plaintiffs also allege adding too much oil isn't the answer
because by adding oil above the maximum fill line the crankshaft
will be partially or fully submerged. The crankshaft will foam the
oil which reduces engine lubrication.

The Hyundai class action further says too much oil will strain and
damage the gaskets and seals protecting the engine which leads to
oil leaks.

Oil consumption is allegedly not the only problem because the
Hyundai lawsuit claims oil migrates to places where it shouldn't
be, and oil residue allegedly damages the combustion and exhaust
systems and keep them from operating properly.

This allegedly causes "abnormal wear of engine parts,
oversaturation of carbon, and deposits of oil sludge, ultimately
requiring a costly engine rebuild or replacement."

According to the Hyundai oil consumption lawsuit, Hyundai should
honor warranty claims even when the warranties have expired, and
even when the vehicles are still under their warranties the
automaker denies coverage if owners cannot provide maintenance
records.

Hyundai and Kia dealers allegedly don't warn customers about oil
consumption issues even when the symptoms match, then Hyundai and
Kia customers must put their vehicles through oil consumption
tests. Those tests require driving for thousands of miles so
dealers can determine if excessive amounts of oil is consumed.

The Hyundai oil consumption lawsuit was filed by these plaintiffs:

Davy Cho / California / 2022 Hyundai Santa Fe
Bryan Rothmaler / Illinois / 2017 Hyundai Tucson Sport
Beth Makie / Massachusetts / 2016 Kia Sorento
Anna Chmura / Wisconsin / 2018 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport
Anthony Banderas / Nevada / 2020 Hyundai Kona
Michelle Smith / Florida / 2016 Hyundai Sonata
Catherine Little / Texas / 2017 Hyundai Sonata
Luticia and Thomas Thompson / Kentucky / 2016 Kia Sorento

Those owners claim Hyundai and Kia not only cannot adequately
repair the oil consumption problems, but the automakers allegedly
don't offer to reimburse customers for out-of-pocket expenses
related to oil consumption problems.

And the class action also says customers must suffer through long
wait times for replacement parts, "and in most cases do not receive
required engine replacements."

The Hyundai oil consumption lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California: Cho, et al., v.
Hyundai Motor Company, LTD., et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Nye, Stirling, Hale & Miller LLP,
Sauder Schelkopf LLC, and Walsh, PLLC. [GN]


INSIGHT VENTURE: Final Certification of Settlement Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Colacurcio, et al. v.
Insight Venture Partners VII LP et al., Case No. (), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order finally certifying the Settlement
Class and granting final approval to the Settlement.

  -- The Settlement terms

     A. The Settlement Class: The Settlement Class is defined as
        follows:

        "All individuals and entities who sold stock in
        Smartsheet, Inc. in connection with the tender offer for
        stock of Smartsheet, Inc. dated June 2, 2017;"

        Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) the
        Defendants and all of their respective employees,
        officers, directors, agents, immediate family members,
        legal representatives, parent corporations,
        subsidiaries, controlled affiliates, insurers,
        guarantors, heirs, successors, and assigns, (2) all
        other Smartsheet shareholders who offered to purchase
        shares in the June 2017 tender offer, (3) Mark Mader,
        Brent Frei, Kara Hamilton, and Andy Lientz, (4) the
        Judge presiding over this Action and all members of her
        or his family, (5) and persons who timely and validly
        request exclusion from the Settlement Class.

     B. Monetary benefits:

        In exchange for the dismissal of this action and the
        release in the Settlement, Defendants have agreed to pay
        $26,200,000.00, to be used for direct payments to
        Settlement Class Members (the Settlement Fund), after
        deductions of Court-approved attorneys’ fees and
        expenses, service awards, and administration costs.
        Settlement.

        This is a non-reversionary fund, meaning that no portion
        shall revert to Defendants unless the Settlement is
        voided, cancelled, or terminated. Payments to Settlement
        Class Members -- those who do not opt out—will be made
        by check mailed to them at their last known address.
        Each Settlement Class Member will receive their pro rata
        share of the Net Settlement Fund based on their
        participation in the Tender Offer.

     C. Releases of liability:

        In exchange for the relief described above, Defendants
        and non-party Smartsheet, Inc. will receive a full and
        final release of all claims related to the Tender Offer.
        In addition, Defendants have agreed to release
        Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Members for any claims
        they may have had related to the Tender Offer.

     D. Attorneys' fees and expenses, costs, and service awards:

        Contemporaneously with the filing of this motion, Class
        Counsel are filing a motion for attorneys' fees,
        expenses, and service awards.

This case centers on a transaction involving shares of Smartsheet
Inc. From its founding in 2005 until its April 2018 IPO, Smartsheet
was privately-held, and its shares could not be resold or
transferred without the consent of the company.

The Defendants are a collection of private equity funds that invest
money from outside investors, as well as limited liability
companies and partnerships that manage those investments. Defendant
Ryan Hinkle is a principal of Insight 4 and was a member of
Smartsheet’s Board of Directors.

This case revolves around a 2017 tender offer (the "Tender Offer"),
in which Insight purchased shares of Smartsheet directly from
existing Smartsheet shareholders -- including the Plaintiffs and
the Settlement Class. The Plaintiffs allege that during the Tender
Offer, Insight omitted material, nonpublic information in its
possession concerning Smartsheet's forthcoming IPO plans. The
Plaintiffs and the putative class asserted four claims against
Defendants relating to Insight's alleged misconduct in the 2017
Tender Offer: (1) violation of the Washington State Securities Act
(WSSA); (2) control personal liability under the WSSA, RCW
21.20.430(3); (3) breach of fiduciary duty against Mr. Hinkle; and
(4) unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in Washington State Superior
Court (King County) in Plaintiffs fended off Defendants' early
efforts to end the litigation. In March 2020, Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss all claims, which that court denied on May 1,
2020.

In early May 2020, after the Court denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss, Insight attempted to end the case extrajudicially: it
began a campaign to get waivers from putative  class members as to
those putative class members’ rights not only to participate in
this class action, but to sue Insight on an individual basis.

The Plaintiffs include PATRICK COLACURCIO, MARIS and DAVID HANSON,
and JAMES McMURCHIE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.

The Defendants include INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS VII, L.P., a Cayman
Islands limited partnership; INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS (CAYMAN) VII,
L.P., a Cayman Islands limited partnership; INSIGHT VENTURE
PARTNERS VII (CO-INVESTORS), L.P., a Cayman Islands limited
partnership; INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS (DELAWARE) VII, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership; INSIGHT VENTURE PARTNERS COINVESTMENT
FUND II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; INSIGHT VENTURE
ASSOCIATES VII, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; INSIGHT
VENTURE ASSOCIATES VII, LTD., a Cayman Islands limited company;
INSIGHT VENTURE ASSOCIATES COINVESTMENT II, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership; INSIGHT
VENTURE MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
INSIGHT HOLDING GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
and RYAN HINKLE.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 25, 2022 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37RYMUh at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          Cecily C. Jordan, Esq.
          Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
                  jdennett@tousley.com
                  cjordan@tousley.com
                  kpowell@tousley.com

               - and -

          Avi J. Lipman, Esq.
          Malaika M. Eaton, Esq.
          Ai-Li Chiong-Martinson, Esq.
          Michael P. Hatley, Esq.
          McNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC
          600 University Street, Suite 2700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone (206) 467-1816
          E-mail: meaton@mcnaul.com
                  alipman@mcnaul.com
                  achiongmartinson@mcnaul.com
                  mhatley@mcnaul.com

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
International Business Machines Corporation.

Shareholders who purchased shares of IBM during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

CONTACT US HERE:

https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/international-business-machines-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=25863&from=4

CLASS PERIOD: April 4, 2017 to October 20, 2021

ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Strategic Imperatives Revenue
and growth, CAMSS and CAMSS Components' revenue and growth, and the
Company's Segments' revenue and growth were artificially inflated
as a result of the wrongful reclassification of revenues from
non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for
treatment as Strategic Imperatives Revenue; (ii) the Company's
present success and positive future growth prospects concerning its
Strategic Imperative business strategy were being fueled by the
wrongful reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to
strategic to make those revenues eligible for treatment as
Strategic Imperative Revenue and, as a result (iii) the Company
misled the market by portraying the Company's Strategic
Imperative's financial performance and future prospects more
favorable than they actually were as a result of the wrongful
reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to strategic to
make those revenues eligible for treatment as Strategic
Imperatives.

DEADLINE: June 6, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in registering
for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/international-business-machines-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=25863&from=4

NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of IBM during the timeframe listed above, you will
be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with
status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline
to seek to be a lead plaintiff is June 6, 2022. There is no cost or
obligation to you to participate in this case.

WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on April 12 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of International
Business Machines Corporation (NYSE: IBM) alleging that the Company
violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: April 4, 2017 to October 20, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 6, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in IBM:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/international-business-machines-corporation-loss-submission-form?id=25802&from=4

International Business Machines Corporation NEWS - IBM NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
International Business Machines Corporation made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Strategic Imperatives Revenue and growth, CAMSS and CAMSS
Components' revenue and growth, and the Company's Segments' revenue
and growth were artificially inflated as a result of the wrongful
reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to strategic to
make those revenues eligible for treatment as Strategic Imperatives
Revenue; (ii) the Company's present success and positive future
growth prospects concerning its Strategic Imperative business
strategy were being fueled by the wrongful reclassification of
revenues from non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues
eligible for treatment as Strategic Imperative Revenue and, as a
result (iii) the Company misled the market by portraying the
Company's Strategic Imperative's financial performance and future
prospects more favorable than they actually were as a result of the
wrongful reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to
strategic to make those revenues eligible for treatment as
Strategic Imperatives.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in IBM you have until June 6, 2022 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased IBM securities during the relevant
period, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out-of-pocket fees.

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the IBM lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/international-business-machines-corporation-loss-submission-form?id=25802&from=4.

ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. 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
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of International Business Machines
Corporation (NYSE: IBM) between April 4, 2017 and October 20, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important June 6, 2022 lead
plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased IBM 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 IBM class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=5104 or 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 June 6, 2022. 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. Many of these firms do not
actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen
that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate
the cases. 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) Strategic Imperatives Revenue
and growth, CAMSS (the sectors of "Cloud," "Analytics," "Mobile,"
"Security," and "Social") and CAMSS Components' revenue and growth,
and the Company's Segments' revenue and growth were artificially
inflated as a result of the wrongful reclassification of revenues
from non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for
treatment as Strategic Imperatives Revenue; (2) IBM's present
success and positive future growth prospects concerning its
Strategic Imperative business strategy were being fueled by the
wrongful reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to
strategic to make those revenues eligible for treatment as
Strategic Imperative Revenue; (3) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants misled the market by portraying IBM's Strategic
Imperative's financial performance and future prospects more
favorable than they actually were as a result of the fraudulent
scheme and/or the wrongful reclassification of revenues from
non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for
treatment as Strategic Imperatives; and (4) Total Revenue and IBM's
Segments' revenue and growth were artificially inflated as a result
of the fraudulent scheme and/or the wrongful reclassification of
revenues from non-strategic to strategic and/or the wrongful
recognition of revenue. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the IBM class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=5104 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

CONTACT:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827

lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

JAMES KOUTOULAS: Faces Class Action Over "Let's Go Brandon" Coin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Kirsch, writing for Daily Beast, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit filed by an investor in Trumpworld's favorite
"Let's Go Brandon" meme coin claims that some of the token's key
players orchestrated a pump-and-dump scheme.

The news marks the latest bit of drama that has plagued the coin
since its inception last year and which has persisted since the
cryptocurrency relaunched in February. A number of former President
Donald Trump's most loyal fans bought into the crypto hype, only to
see the value of their investments plummet.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, an investor in the coin named Eric De
Ford, claimed that the token's executives and insiders "made false
or misleading statements" and "disguised their control over the
[c]ompany." Ultimately, the 79-page suit filed in Florida alleges,
those insiders "cynically marketed the LGB Tokens to investors so
that they could sell off their portion…for a profit," even as the
selloff caused the value of the coin to drop precipitously for the
remaining crypto holders.

The defendants included the Trumpy hedge funder James Koutoulas,
NASCAR, and conservative media personalities Candace Owens and
David Harris Jr., among others.

Koutoulas fired back at the allegations in text messages to The
Daily Beast. "The plaintiff's behavior frankly, is
disturbing—almost like a stalker," he wrote.

Koutoulas sent a document that showed apparent email exchanges
between De Ford and other individuals affiliated with the coin in
February, in which De Ford said he was "inspired by what this token
can do for our nation" and offered to help market the coin for
free. Evidently his perspective on the coin's management quickly
changed.

"One moment he's praising our vision and offering to promote the
coin, now suddenly, he's filed a bizarre conspiracy claim,"
Koutoulas said.

In a statement, a lawyer representing the plaintiff, Aaron Zigler,
sought to rebut Koutoulas' version of events. "We are disappointed
to learn that Mr. Koutoulas would resort to such a misleading
characterization of the facts in this case in what appears to be a
desperate attempt to continue to prop-up the value of the token and
to scare away other defrauded investors from seeking their day in
court," he wrote.

"That a litigant and lawyer like Mr. Koutoulas would expose himself
to potential defamation claims and bar discipline in response to
being named in a thoroughly researched and well-founded federal
lawsuit is consistent with the same poor judgment alleged in the
Complaint," he added.

Some of Trumpland's most vocal influencers got behind the coin and
subsequently were named in the class action suit, including Owens
and Harris. Donald Trump Jr. -- who has hawked the coin publicly --
wasn't named, however.

"This #ad has one purpose and it's to let you know that free speech
is about to make a major comeback. Stay tuned @letsgo," Trump. Jr.
wrote in an April 7 tweet that garnered over 30,000 likes.

A source close to Trump Jr. with direct knowledge told The Daily
Beast that Trump Jr. hasn't entered into any agreement with the
Let's Go Brandon coin.

Owens billed the lawsuit as a frivolous filing that "borders on
hilarity."

"For starters, I was not paid a single red cent 'to promote' the
LGB coin," she told The Daily Beast. "Beyond that, I myself lost
money on the coin which removes me unequivocally from any notion of
an inside ‘pump and dump' scheme."

Harris did not immediately respond to The Daily Beast's request for
comment.

The original Let's Go Brandon coin was inspired by a televised
mishap at a NASCAR race last year. After driver Brandon Brown won
the event, the crowd loudly chanted "F*ck Joe Biden," which an NBC
reporter inaccurately relayed as "Let's Go Brandon." The slogan
soon caught on as a pro-Trump rallying cry and a critique of what
his fans perceived as media bias.

For a time, it looked like the cryptocurrency would become an
official sponsor of Brown's NASCAR team, but the deal was
ultimately kaboshed. That caused the token's price to fall, and the
class action lawsuit claims that insiders made things worse by
selling their stakes. (The suit further alleges that NASCAR didn't
adequately distance itself from the crypto token; the company did
not respond to a request for comment as of publication time.)

By February, the coin's market value had fallen more than 99
percent from its peak—leading a number of its key players to hash
out a plan to rebrand and relaunch.

The aggressive marketing strategy hasn't slowed. Last month, when
former President Trump appeared on Harris' podcast, he was
presented with 500 billion of the new Let's Go tokens by Koutoulas.
The value of those coins then stood at a measly $45,000; prices
have stayed roughly flat over the past 30 days.

"Sounds good to me!" Trump replied. "I don't know exactly what it
means, but it sounds good to me." It is unclear whether the former
president ultimately accepted the tokens. [GN]

JOBCO INC: Pineda Wants Settlement Conference in Labor Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pineda v. Jobco
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-05321-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order setting a settlement
conference concerning the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action
settlement filed on May 20, 2021.

The Plaintiff believes that a settlement conference may be the most
efficient method to address any and all issues that the Court may
have concerning the proposed settlement in order for notice to be
sent to the proposed class members.

Jobco takes no position on Plaintiffs' request for a settlement
conference.

The Plaintiff alleges wage and hour claims against his former
employers, Jobco Incorporated, Commercial Contracting Services Inc.
and Jaime Delahunt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 29, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rzjD5H at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          STEVENSON MARINO LLP
          75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402
          New York, NY  10038
          E-mail: jmaguire@stevensonmarino.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Finalizing Benzene Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Nelson, writing for HBW Insight, reports that already in
receipt of more than $9m in refund requests from purchasers of
potentially benzene-contaminated Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreen
products following a July 2021 recall, J&J now is finalizing a US
multidistrict class action settlement that will add to those costs
and require steps to prevent further benzene issues. [GN]

K&S FARM: Faces Figueroa Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
HEBER FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. K&S FARM BROOKLYN INC. d/b/a K&S FRUIT STORE
and SHIN JUNG, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02138 (E.D.N.Y., April
13, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act
including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread of
hours compensation, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
and failure to provide written wage notice.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a vegetable sorter,
produce sorter, stocker and cashier while performing related
miscellaneous duties from August 2016 until December 2021.

K&S Farm Brooklyn Inc., doing business as K&S Fruit Store, is a
vegetable and fruit retailer, with a principal executive office
located at 5111 Church Ave., Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

KURA SUSHI: Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Set for May
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kura Sushi USA, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2022, that a hearing for the
preliminary approval of a settlement of a putative class action
complaint is set in May 2022.

On May 31, 2019, said was filed by a former employee, Brandy Gomes,
in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws.

On July 9, 2020, plaintiff's counsel filed a first amended class
action complaint to add Jamar Spencer, another former employee, as
a plaintiff to this action. In addition, the first amended class
action complaint added new causes of action alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws including a cause of action brought
under the California Private Attorney General Act. On August 7,
2020, the Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint,
generally denying the allegations in the complaint.

In May 2021, a joint stipulation was filed requesting a delay in
the class certification hearing date to March 3, 2022, and a
mediation was scheduled for September 24, 2021. During the
mediation, a settlement was agreed upon in the amount of $1.75
million. A court hearing to seek preliminary approval of the
settlement has been scheduled for May 9, 2022.

Kura Sushi USA, Inc. is a technology-enabled Japanese restaurant
concept based in California.


LONG ISLAND LIVING: Fails to Implement COVID Measures, Johnson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA JOHNSON, as Proposed Administratrix of the Estate of DOLORES
NEWMAN, Deceased, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LONG ISLAND LIVING CENTER, Defendant, Case
No. 707965/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., April 12, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of New York's
Public Health Law, gross negligence, and wrongful death.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide, among
other things, adequate infection control, supervision, treatment,
dignity, hygiene, and medical attention for its residents, staff,
volunteers, visitors, and other individuals. As a result of the
Defendant's failures and negligence, the Decedent and other
residents were infected with COVID-19, which resulted to their
untimely death.

Long Island Living Center is an assisted living facility with its
principal place of business at 431 Beach 20th Street, Far Rockway,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Michael E. Duffy, Esq.
         DUFFY & DUFFY, PLLC
         1370 RXR Plaza
         Uniondale, NY 11556
         Telephone: (516) 394-4200
         Facsimile: (516) 394-4229

LUCID GROUP: Klein Law Firm Reminds of May 31 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on April 12 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Lucid Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ: LCID) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.

This lawsuit is on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Lucid common stock between
November 15, 2021, and February 28, 2022, inclusive.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 31, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in LCID:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/lucid-group-inc-loss-submission-form?id=25801&from=4

Lucid Group, Inc. NEWS - LCID NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about Lucid's business
and operations. Specifically, the Company overstated its production
capabilities while concealing that "extraordinary supply chain and
logistics challenges" were hampering Lucid's operations. As a
result of the defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
significant decline in the market value of Lucid's common stock,
Lucid investors have suffered significant damages.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Lucid you have until May 31, 2022 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Lucid securities during the
relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the LCID lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/lucid-group-inc-loss-submission-form?id=25801&from=4.

ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. 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
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

MERCK & CO: Judge Nixes Zostavax Deceptive Advertising Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that an Ohio federal judge has dismissed a
proposed class action accusing Merck of deceptively advertising its
shingles vaccine Zostavax, ruling that vaccines are not consumer
goods, therefore there was no consumer transaction as required by
the state's Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA).

In an April 11 order, Judge James L. Graham of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio further found that as a
consumer, plaintiff Rebecca Gentile lacked standing to bring a
claim under the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ODTPA). [GN]

MONTCLAIR GOLF: Caddies File Class Action Over Wage Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hall, writing for Monthly Golf, reports that caddies have
launched a class-action lawsuit against a private US golf club for
allegedly violating state wage laws.

According to a report in Golfweek.com, Montclair Golf Club in New
Jersey is alleged to have paid caddies lower than the minimum wage
and failed to pay them overtime. Lawyers acting for around 250
caddies who have worked for the club since 2019 have launched the
legal action, with the suit filed at the Superior Court in Newark
on 7 April.

The complaint states that caddies at the club don't receive wages.
Instead, players are said to pay a $60 fee for each caddie's golf
bag and generally tip them. Caddies typically work between one and
two shifts a day. Meanwhile, it states that the most recent raise
to the $60 fee was in 2016. The complaint, which names four
caddies, also alleges that peak season hours can involve 14-hour
days working six or seven days a week.

The complaint also claims that a "caddy master" controls the
caddies, including setting them unpaid chores, such as cleaning
golf carts and bathrooms, setting up for tournaments, and fetching
drinks for the players from the clubhouse bar. It is also alleged
that late arrival for work or unavailability during busy periods
sees caddies made to wait for work that sometimes doesn't appear,
leaving them unpaid for the day. The caddies allege that the club
is in violation of New Jersey's Wage and Hour Law and seek their
unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay, damages and reimbursement of
lawyer fees.

According to the complaint, initiation fees to become a member of
Montclair Golf Club are reportedly between $40,000 and $70,000,
with annual dues of between $5,000 and $15,000. The club, which
opened in 1893 and has hosted both the men's and women's US Amateur
Championships, also recently unveiled an $18 million renovation
scheme.

Golf Monthly has contacted Montclair Golf Club for comment, but it
has yet to respond. [GN]

MYRIAD GENETICS: May 16 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH

IN RE MYRIAD GENETICS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Case No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB
District Judge David Barlow

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

To: All persons who purchased or acquired Myriad Genetics, Inc.
("Myriad") common stock from August 9, 2017 until February 6, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the
"Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Utah that the above-captioned action (the
"Action") has been certified to proceed as a class action on behalf
of the Class as defined above.

In the Action, Lead Plaintiff Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions
alleges that Defendants, in violation of the federal securities
laws, made false or misleading statements about Myriad, a molecular
diagnostic company, including about its products and financial
results, which caused the price of Myriad common stock to be
artificially inflated during the Class Period and caused damages to
investors when they ultimately learned the truth about Defendants'
prior misrepresentations. Lead Plaintiff further asserts that
Defendants Mark C. Capone (Myriad's former President and CEO) and
Bryan Riggsbee (Myriad's CFO) sold Myriad stock while in possession
of material non-public information concerning a Myriad test known
as GeneSight and Myriad's hereditary cancer tests, in violation of
federal securities law, and that members of the Class purchased
stock contemporaneously with those sales. Defendants deny all of
Lead Plaintiff's allegations and deny any wrongdoing or violation
of law. Please note: at this time, there is no judgment,
settlement, or monetary recovery. Trial in this Action has not yet
been scheduled.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CERTIFIED CLASS (A "CLASS MEMBER"), YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION. A full printed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action (the "Notice") is currently being mailed
to persons who have been identified as potential Class Members. If
you have not yet received the full printed Notice, you may obtain a
copy of the Notice by downloading it from
www.MyriadGeneticsSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the
Notice Administrator at:

          Myriad Genetics Securities Litigation
          c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
          P.O. Box 170500
          Milwaukee, WI 53217
          877-331-0728

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to the
following representative of Class Counsel:

          Abe Alexander, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ
          BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          800-380-8496

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you want to remain a Class Member,
you do not need to do anything at this time other than to retain
your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings in
Myriad common stock. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude
yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in
this Action, including all past, present, and future orders and
judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you
move, or if the Notice was mailed to an old or incorrect address,
please send the Notice Administrator written notification of your
new address.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment entered in this Action, however you will not
be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be
recovered for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion
postmarked no later than May 16, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the full printed Notice. Please note: If
you decide to exclude yourself, you may be time-barred from
asserting claims covered by the Action by a statute of repose and
your claims could be dismissed.

Further information regarding this notice may be obtained by
writing to the Notice Administrator at the address provided above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

United States District Court
for the District of Utah

Dated: March 29, 2022


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Suit Wants Giants, Jets to Drop New York Name
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Simpson, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that
plaintiffs upset that the National Football League teams Giants and
Jets call themselves New York teams when in fact they play their
games in New Jersey have amended their class action complaint to
demand that the teams drop New York from their franchise names.

The original complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan in
January, had requested that the teams move their home games to New
York and out of New Jersey.

The plaintiffs allege that the NFL, the teams and MetLife Stadium
in New Jersey where both teams play have engaged in false
advertising, deceptive practices, fraudulent misrepresentation and
negligence.

Now, however, the plaintiffs, New Yorkers Abdiell Suero and Maggie
Wilkins, maintain that because the teams have refused to move, they
want the teams to stop using New York in their names.

The complaint also seeks $2 billion in damages and asks MetLife
Stadium to discontinue its "cash-free" policy at concessions, which
the plaintiffs say violates New Jersey law.

The NFL, the teams and the stadium have moved to have the complaint
dismissed, arguing in court documents that the claims are without
merit and not worth the court's time. Instead, they are "calculated
to score points in headlines, not in the courtroom," the defendants
claim.

"There is nothing misleading about the Giants' and Jets' use of New
York in their names, at all," the motion to dismiss says, noting
that both teams have been using the New York name for decades. The
Giants have played in New Jersey since 1976 and the Jets since
1984.

The plaintiffs' action seeks to represent all who have attended NFL
games at MetLife Stadium since 2016 and were deceived and confused
by the defendants' marketing.

The complaint takes pointed aim at claims by MetLife Stadium that
it is the "number one stadium in the world," that it "sets the
standard for venue excellence with state-of-the-art technology,
comfort and amenities," that it "hosts the World's Biggest Events,
on the World's Biggest Stage," and that it "tops the industry
charts annually since opening."

The complaint alleges that all of these statements are "false and
materially misleading." The complaint says MetLife Stadium is
located in the "swamps of East Rutherford, New Jersey" and "the
Giants, Jets, and MetLife Stadium have absolutely no connection
whatsoever" with New York.

The Giants, Jets, and MetLife Stadium pay no taxes to the city,
county, or state of New York while using its name and landmark
buildings for advertising, the complaint further claims.

The plaintiffs allege that if these businesses can "engage in this
blatant interstate false advertising, then other individuals and
entities can misname their franchises, businesses, and products
after a neighboring state that has superior marketability without
consequence, causing a likelihood of confusion." [GN]

NETFLIX INC: Ohio Court Hears Arguments in Franchise Fee Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kasler, writing for The Statehouse News Bureau, reports that
the Ohio Supreme Court is considering whether Netflix and Hulu
should be covered by a 2007 state law that requires cable companies
to pay franchise fees to cities.

A decision could have national implications in a class-action suit
filed by 2,000 communities against those streaming services.

The city of Maple Heights filed a class-action lawsuit in the
Northern District of Ohio in 2020, saying Netflix and Hulu should
be authorized as video service providers under that 2007 law, which
allowed video service providers to install lines on public owned
rights-of-way and set up a fee totaling 5% of the gross revenues
earned in each city.

The cities claim Netflix and Hulu should be authorized as video
service providers by the Ohio Department of Commerce and pay those
franchise fees.

The federal court asked the Ohio Supreme Court to settle the
questions of whether they are video service providers under the
2007 law and whether Maple Heights can sue.

Justin Hawal with the city of Maple Heights said Netflix and Hulu
are video service providers under that law, because they're using
cables and wires in the rights-of-way to provide their content. And
with many people "cord-cutting" and leaving cable, Hawal noted they
are racking up subscribers.

"They're going toward Netflix and Hulu, who are using the exact
same infrastructure but aren't being required to pay any fee,"
Hawal said.

Netflix and Hulu argued that they don't provide a video service as
cable companies do, but that the streaming services rely on others
to get their content out.

"The person who is providing over the wires and cables is the ISP.
Not Hulu, not Netflix. We don't control it. We don't dictate it. We
simply make it available on the internet, like this court does this
session," Hulu lawyer Victor Jih said, who also noted schools,
churches and local governments provide livestreams, and even the
Ohio Supreme Court shares live sessions on its website and the Ohio
Channel.

And Mathura Sridharan of the Ohio Attorney General's Office, which
filed a brief in support of Netflix and Hulu, said video service
providers are only those which built or own the cables and wires in
the rights-of-way.

"This about those who dig. They must pay. If they don't dig, they
don't pay," Sridharan said.

But Hawal said Hulu and Netflix are competing with cable companies,
which pay the fees that allow for investment in the infrastructure
that the streaming services use. And he said they're also competing
with broadcasters with their variety of programming, while other
entities that offer livestreams aren't.

Again noting the court's sessions are livestreamed, Justice Pat
Fischer said, "These are pretty good broadcasts."

"I agree, Your Honor, but they don't provide the same content,
quality, genre entertainment that Netflix and Hulu do," Hawal
said.

"Whoa, how do you know we don't?" Justice Melody Stewart said, as
those in the courtroom laughed.

Hawal was asked about other services such as Roku, Apple TV and
YouTube, and said they weren't included, but acknowledged Netflix
and Hulu aren't the only entities that could be affected.

Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the Ohio
Supreme Court appeared skeptical of a Cleveland suburb's arguments
that Netflix Inc. and Hulu LLC are subject to local franchise fees
paid by cable TV and internet service companies.

The city of Maple Heights seeks to represent a class of potentially
over 2,000 Ohio local governments that argue streaming services
should pay them up to 5% of their subscription revenue because they
are "video service providers" under the state's Fair Competition in
Cable Operations Act. [GN]

NETFLIX INC: Russian Users Launch Class Action Over Loss of Service
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Sweney, writing for The Guardian, reports that Russian Netflix
users are suing the streaming firm for suspending its service as a
result of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

Netflix, which has only about 1 million subscribers in Russia,
suspended its services in March and has halted the development and
acquisition of all Russian-made or commissioned TV shows and
films.

A law firm has launched a class action legal action against
Netflix, which has more than 220 million global subscribers, on
behalf of Russian users who believe the decision to block access is
a violation of their rights. The subscribers, who pay 599-799
roubles a month (£5.55-£9.26) to access content, from Bridgerton
to Don't Look Up, are demanding 60m roubles (£560,200) in
compensation.

"Today, a law firm representing the interests of Netflix users
filed a class action lawsuit against the American Netflix service
with the Khamovnichesky district court of Moscow," the law firm
Chernyshov, Lukoyanov & Partners said, according to a report by the
news agency RIA. "The reason for the lawsuit was a violation of
Russian users' rights due to Netflix's unilateral refusal to
provide services in Russia."

Netflix had not yet responded to a request for comment.

In February, Netflix said it would refuse to carry the 20 Russian
free-to-air propaganda channels that service providers were meant
to host under a new law to be introduced on 1 March. "Given the
current situation, we have no plans to add these channels to our
service," the company said at the time.

In December, the Russian media regulator, Roskomnadzor, added
Netflix to its register for audiovisual services because it was
reaching more than 100,000 subscribers.

Last month, amid the Kremlin's sweeping crackdown on western social
media, a Russian court banned Facebook and Instagram in the
country, labelling the platforms' parent company, Meta,
"extremist". Access to Facebook and Instagram had already been
restricted earlier in the month after Meta confirmed it was
relaxing its policies on hate speech towards Russian soldiers and
Putin in relation to the war in Ukraine. Meta later said the laxer
rules would apply only to people posting from Ukraine. [GN]

NEW PUNCH BOWL: Phipps Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Punch Bowl
Sacramento, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Devynn E. Phipps, on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. New Punch Bowl
Sacramento, LLC, Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2022-00317838-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 4, 2022).

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

Punch Bowl Social -- https://punchbowlsocial.com/ -- offers the
best in fun with a great lineup of arcade games, karaoke, food,
craft cocktails and drinks, and hosting events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hague Kashif, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM PC
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 949-379-6250
          Fax: 949-379-6251
          Email: khaque@aegislawfirm.com


NEW SOUTH WALES: Flood-Affected Residents Mull Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leah White, writing for ABC North Coast, reports that hundreds of
flood-affected residents on the NSW north coast are threatening to
sue the state and federal governments over concerns the new Pacific
Highway made the recent floods worse by acting as a "dam wall".

The February 28 disaster surpassed all previous flood heights on
record, damaging thousands of homes and businesses across the
Northern Rivers region.

Residents in towns downstream of Lismore like Woodburn, Broadwater
and Wardell say they were hit like never before.

Many are questioning the impact the newly completed Pacific Highway
upgrade has had on flooding.

The 657-kilometre dual carriageway between Newcastle and the
Queensland border was finished in late 2020 after 24 years and a
cost of $15 billion.

Residents interested in class action
Lyndall Murray, who is one of the Woodburn residents behind the
push for a class action lawsuit, said the community had questions
about the way the highway was built.

Ms Murray said she saw firsthand the highway acting as a "dam wall"
during a helicopter flight on day seven of the flood disaster.

"Visually from the air I could see on one side of the highway the
water was banked up and it couldn't move and on the other side it
was drained," Ms Murray said.

She said the town was fully behind a class action, with 280 of the
360 houses in Woodburn registering within the first 24 hours, and
475 registering from the broader region.

Ms Murray said the community's preference was for government action
over a court case that could span years, but they would not
hesitate given the extent of the damage.

"The impact meant the water was inundating people's houses for up
to 12 days where in other areas, that didn't have the new dam wall
that the highway is, [it] went up and down within two or three
days."

Fellow Woodburn resident Vanessa Allport said her 80-year-old
house, which had previously never flooded, was inundated by two
metres of floodwater.

"I think the highway was definitely a factor," Ms Allport said.

"It's obvious when you drive up the highway that it was like a
dam."

Flood model review underway
The government agency responsible for the highway upgrade,
Transport for New South Wales, said there were limits during the
design phase on how much impact the new highway could have on flood
levels.

North regional director Anna Zycki said the highway was not allowed
to impact flood levels by more than 50 millimetres or extend the
flood duration by more than 5 per cent.

"We had to do quite a number of flood studies [and] there's quite a
lot of information that was gathered as part of that process to
demonstrate that we could keep our impact on flood levels back to
those minimum standards," she said.

Ms Zycki said there would now be a review into whether the
floodwaters behaved in line with the flood modelling.

She said the organisation would review the data on any individual
cases raised to see if the floodwaters behaved differently from
expectations.

Concerns raised before highway built
Woodburn Business and Community Chamber secretary Pam Bellingham
said "something definitely made it a very different flood" this
time.

"In a normal flood we have some time after Lismore floods for the
water to get to Woodburn and be a problem to us," Ms Bellingham
said.

"Something was obviously holding back the water that had already
fallen in Woodburn and the Bungawalbin catchment, so the whole lot
came at once.

Long-time Woodburn resident Bert Plenkovich was part of a community
liaison group when the then Roads and Transport Authority (RTA) was
planning for the new highway.

After the Disaster: Before the Next
Once you're aware of the risks from disasters, you can plan for
them -- and it can help mitigate some of the impacts.

Mr Plenkovich said a number of residents raised concerns about the
new highway being built on a low-lying floodplain.

"Those of us that have lived here that long and been in the area
said why would you put a highway in the lowest possible area on the
floodplain when you've got an option to put it on higher ground?"
he said.

Both Ms Bellingham and Mr Plenkovich said they raised concerns
about insufficient draining along the new stretch of raised
highway, but were told all the relevant modelling had been done.
[GN]

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Judge Grounds Class Action Over Severance Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge grounded a class action lawsuit facing aerospace
giant Northrop Grumman, a defeat for former employees who alleged
the company came up short on severance payments.

U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood issued an opinion March 31,
settling cross motions for summary judgment and ending a suit from
named plaintiffs Alan Carlson and Peter DeLuca, who were among a
group of employees Northrop Grumman subsidiary Northrop Grumman
Technical Services laid off in 2013. The employees say under
Northrop Grumman's severance plan, governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, they were entitled to continued
benefits and severance pay they never received.

Wood said a 2012 document governing severance eligibility
explicitly stated that employees only qualified if they had written
confirmation signed by a human resources vice president. She
explained the administrator of the plan denied severance claims for
workers who "had not received the HR memo and therefore had not
been designated as eligible."

In their initial complaint, the plaintiffs alleged Northrop Grumman
interpreted the severance plan inconsistently by providing benefits
regardless of whether an employee received the memo but paying out
cash severance only to those who received the memo. They also took
issue with the fact the memo was not a condition of receiving
severance until 2012. In moving for summary judgment, the
plaintiffs said they met all other eligibility criteria.

However, Wood, wrote, their "proposed interpretation contradicts
the basic, unambiguous reading of the plan document's terms."

Wood said the plaintiffs' other arguments that the company's
interpretation of its own documents were capricious or arbitrary
failed to persuade her to rule in their favor. Although the workers
cited U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinions, Wood said
those involved companies adding new requirements without reflecting
the changes in plan language, whereas the Northrop Grumman
"document expressly conditions severance benefits on receipt of the
HR memo."

She further rejected arguments based on the way the contract was
constructed, reiterating the importance of the memo requirement as
a condition for collecting severance. Terminated employees who
didn't get cash severance continued to be given medical, dental and
vision benefits as part of their severance, but Wood said companies
are allowed to establish different criteria for different benefits,
among other permissible conduct."

"There is no evidence that Northrop Grumman misrepresented the
truth to plan participants to prevent a condition from occurring,"
Wood wrote. "Northrop Grumman merely set terms for eligibility,
which included designation of eligibility by means of the HR memo.
Benefits governed by ERISA often rely on events within the
employer's control, such as the beneficiary's continued employment.
Indeed, employers may have the power to abolish their plans
entirely."

The plaintiffs also alleged Northrop discriminated against them,
because declining to issue the HR memo interfered with their
ability to get severance benefits. But Wood said the company was
only exercising discretion, writing that "some ability to
'discriminate' was built into the plan, as Northrop could choose
which employees would receive the contested severance benefits and
which would not. But when a benefits plan expressly affords an
employer such discretion over eligibility, it is not prohibited
discrimination for the employer to exercise that discretion."

Wood said the company didn't intervene to prevent eligible
employees from getting benefits, nor are their allegations the
eligibility determinations had rooting in animus toward employee
groups.

"To the contrary," Wood wrote. "Even the evidence to which
plaintiffs point indicates that the decision to treat employees in
the Technical Services sector differently than employees of other
sectors was based on financial considerations."

Finally, Wood rejected the argument Northrop breached a fiduciary
duty. She said the company didn't withhold any critical
information. It started enforcing the HR memo requirement in
October 2011, but that clause was already in the plan.

"Employees who were concerned about their own eligibility for
severance could have read the plan document, seen the requirement,
and inquired about the HR memo at any time," Wood wrote. She
granted summary judgement to Northrop on all counts.

Plaintiffs have been represented by attorneys Michael Bartolic and
Rebecca Kay Bryant, of Chicago, and Robert J. Barton and Vincent
Cheng, of Block & Leviton LLP, of Washington, D.C.

Northrop has been defended by attorneys Nancy Ross, Samuel Myler
and Abigail M. Bartine, of Mayer Brown, of Chicago. [GN]

NOVA LIFESTYLE: Faces Samuels Stockholder Suit in C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nova Lifestyle, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 8, 2022, that it facing a derivative
lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the company against its former and
current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang
and Yuen Ching Ho), directors (Charlie Huy La, Bin Liu, Umesh
Patel, and Min Su), and vice president (Steven Qing Liu) seeking to
recover any losses the Company sustains as a result of alleged
securities violations filed in May 15, 2019, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California by Wilson
Samuels.

Samuels claims that, in announcing its change of auditing firms in
September 2016, the company asserted that this change was made
because its existing auditor ceased auditing public companies
subject to regulation in the United States without disclosing that
its new auditing firm was created in a merger of three accounting
firms, including a firm whose registration was revoked by the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Samuels also claims that
the Company redeemed its stock in reliance upon the same purported
fraudulent recognition of revenues claimed in the putative class
action. He purports to state direct claims under Sections 10(b) and
20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

Nova LifeStyle, Inc. is a US-headquartered designer and marketer of
contemporary styled residential and commercial furniture formerly
known as Stevens Resources, Inc.


NOVA LIFESTYLE: Faces Yuan Stockholder Suit in C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
Nova Lifestyle, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 8, 2022, that it facing a derivative
lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the company against its former and
current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang
and Yuen Ching Ho), directors (Charlie Huy La, Bin Liu, Umesh
Patel, and Min Su), and vice president (Steven Qing Liu) seeking to
recover any losses the Company sustains as a result of alleged
securities violations filed in March 8, 2019, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California by Jie Yuan.

The derivative lawsuit alleges that the defendants caused the
company to make the alleged false and/or misleading statements
giving rise to the putative securities class action. The Plaintiff
also alleges that President and CEO Lam engaged in self-dealing by
leasing her property to Diamond Bar, a company subsidiary, and
asserts, in conclusory fashion, that Ms. Lam, former CEO and
director Ya Ming Wong, former CFO and director Yuen Ching Ho, and
director Umesh Patel sold securities during the period of time when
the alleged false and/or misleading statements were made "with
knowledge of material nonpublic information."

Nova LifeStyle, Inc. is a US-headquartered designer and marketer of
contemporary styled residential and commercial furniture formerly
known as Stevens Resources, Inc.


NOVA LIFESTYLE: Stockholder Suit in C.D. Cal. Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Nova Lifestyle, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 8, 2022, that the parties to a
putative class action complaint filed by a George Barney against
the company and its former and current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam,
Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, filed
a Stipulation of Settlement with the court on March 8, 2022.

Under the terms of the settlement, and without admitting to any
wrongdoing, fault, or liability, the company agreed to a payment of
$750,000 to completely resolve said action. The $750,000 will be
funded by the remainder of any retention under applicable directors
and officer liability insurance with the remainder paid by the
directors and officer liability insurer. The settlement provides
for the class members' complete release of all claims against the
Company and the named defendants with respect to any of the matters
alleged in the litigation. The settlement is subject to various
conditions, including preliminary approval by the Court, notice to
all class members, an opt-out period, and a final hearing and
approval by the court.

On December 28, 2018, George Barney filed said action claiming that
the defendants violated federal securities laws and pursuing
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Security Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and, on June 18, 2019, plaintiffs filed
an Amended Complaint which sought to represent a putative class of
entities purchasing stock in Nova from December 3, 2015 through
December 20, 2018. They claim that during this period the company
overstated its purported strategic alliance with a customer in
China to operate as lead designer and manufacturer for all
furnishings in such customer's planned $460 million senior care
center in China and inflated its reported sales in 2016 and 2017
with two major customers.

Nova LifeStyle, Inc. is a US-headquartered designer and marketer of
contemporary styled residential and commercial furniture formerly
known as Stevens Resources, Inc.


NOVO NORDISK: $100MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 27
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

In Re Novo Nordisk
Securities Litigation

No. 3:17-cv-209-ZNQ-LHG

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF
ALLOCATION; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

This notice is for all persons or entities who purchased the
American Depository Receipts of Novo Nordisk A/S ("Novo Nordisk")
between February 3, 2015 and February 2, 2017, inclusive, and who
were damaged thereby (the "Class").

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition and others are excluded pursuant to request.  The full
definition of the Class including a complete description of who is
excluded from the Class is set forth in the full Settlement Notice
referred to below.

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), that co-lead
plaintiffs and class representatives Lehigh County Employees'
Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System, Boston Retirement System, Employees' Pension Plan of the
City of Clearwater, and Central States, Southeast and Southwest
Areas Pension Fund (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of
themselves and the Court-certified Class in the above-captioned
securities class action (the "Action"), have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action with defendants Novo Nordisk, Lars Rebien
Sorensen, Jesper Brandgaard, and Jakob Riis (collectively,
"Defendants") for $100,000,000 in cash that, if approved, will
resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on June 27, 2022 at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi, by videoconference to, among other
things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms
and conditions provided for in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated November 23, 2021 (the "Stipulation") is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be finally
approved by the Court; (ii) determine whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and the Settlement
Notice should be granted; (iii) determine whether the proposed Plan
of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; (iv)
determine whether Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses (including awards to the Lead Plaintiffs)
should be approved; and (v) consider any other matters that may
properly be brought before the Court in connection with the
Settlement.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net
Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet received the full printed
Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II)
Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Litigation Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") and the Proof of
Claim and Release Form (the "Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Novo
Nordisk Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O.
Box 91154, Seattle, WA 98111, by telephone at 1 (833) 674-0167, or
by email at info@NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com.  Copies of
the Settlement Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from
the website for the Action,
www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked (if mailed), or online through the case website,
www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com, no later than July 27,
2022.  If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead
Counsel and counsel for Defendants such that they are received no
later than June 6, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Settlement Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Novo Nordisk,
any other Defendants in the Action, or their counsel regarding this
notice.  All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement,
or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be
directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel.  Or you may
visit www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com or toll-free at 1
(833) 674-0167.

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

         Novo Nordisk Securities Litigation
         c/o JND Legal Administration
         P.O. Box 91154
         Seattle, WA 98111
         1 (833) 674-0167
         info@NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com
         www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com

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

         Luke O. Brooks, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101-8498
         1 (800) 449-4900
         rickn@rgrdlaw.com

         Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq.
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         1251 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10020
         1 (800) 380-8496
         settlements@blbglaw.com

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

United States District Court
District of New Jersey


OOMA INC: Faces Chiu Class Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 8, 2022, that on February 3, 2021, plaintiff
Fiona Chiu filed a class action complaint against the company and
Ooma Canada Inc. in the Federal Court of Canada, alleging
violations of Canada's Trademarks Act and Competition Act.

The complaint seeks monetary and other damages and/or injunctive
relief enjoining the company to cease describing and marketing its
Basic Home Phone using the word "free" or otherwise representing
that it is free.

On November 9, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada removed Ms. Chiu
and substituted John Zanin as the new plaintiff in the proceeding.
In connection with the substitution of Mr. Zanin as the new
plaintiff, the Federal Court of Canada deemed the proceeding as
having commenced on November 8, 2021 instead of February 3, 2021.
During the week of January 17, 2022, the Federal Court of Canada
heard arguments from counsel representing each of the Company and
Mr. Zanin regarding jurisdiction and class action certification
issues, and the parties are awaiting the Court to issue its
ruling.

Ooma provides communications services and related technologies that
bring ease of use, and affordability to businesses through smart
software-as-a-service and unified communications platforms.


ORGAIN LLC: Patenaude Appeals Dismissal of Mislabeling Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Douglas Patenaude appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit
entitled DOUGLAS PATENAUDE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. ORGAIN, LLC, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 21-40018-TSH, in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (Worcester).

Mr. Patenaude brought this putative class action against the
Defendant alleging that the labeling on the Defendant's vanilla
flavored milk is deceptive and misleading. The Plaintiff asserts
claims against the Defendant for unfair or deceptive acts pursuant
to Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A, Section 2, Section 9; untrue and
misleading advertising pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c. 266, Section
91, and for unjust enrichment.

The Defendant "labels, markets, and sells a food product, known as
a 'Vanilla' almond milk, under the brand name of 'Orgain.'" in an
"Unsweetened Vanilla" flavor. The front label of the Product
prominently displays the word "vanilla" without additional language
modifiers, the asserted.

In his Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff claims he purchased
the Product on several occasions at a Target store in Framingham,
Massachusetts. He alleges that the label's reference to the
Product's flavor -- Unsweetened Vanilla -- misled him and other
consumers to the conclusion that the Product contains vanilla, not
as an exclusive ingredient, but as one of its characterizing
ingredients, contributing to the Product's Characterizing Flavor.

On May 7, 2021, the Plaintiff made a formal demand pursuant to the
Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A, Section 9,
requesting the Defendant to cease its alleged deceptive practice
and agree to renumerate the Plaintiff and the class he represents.
The Defendant did not respond within the statutorily prescribed 30
days, but on June 9, 2021, it responded claiming that they strictly
comply with all food labeling regulations and that the Plaintiff
had no claim. The Plaintiff alleges unfair or deceptive acts
pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A, Section 2 and 940 Code of
Massachusetts Regulations Sections 3.02, 3.05(1), 3.05(2), 3.16(2),
3.16(3) and 3.16(4), alleges untrue and misleading advertising
pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c. 266, Section 91, and alleges recovery
upon a theory of unjust enrichment.

The Defendant moved to dismiss all claims in the Second Amended
Complaint arguing that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in
all counts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 4, 2022, Judge
Timothy S. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as DOUGLAS PATENAUDE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant
v. ORGAIN, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-1255, in the United
States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit, filed on April 6,
2022.[BN]

PFIZER: Monmouth County Hires Private Lawyers to File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that New Jersey's
Monmouth County has hired private lawyers to file a class action
lawsuit against Pfizer over Chantix, a drug that helps smokers
quit.

David Magagna of Levin Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia is
representing the county, along with two colleagues at the firm and
New Jersey lawyer Michael Fitzgerald. The suit claims Chantix is
not of the quality advertised by Pfizer.

Because of this, Monmouth County, as a third-party payor for
smokers hoping Chantix helps, says it has overpaid for the drug.
The suit says the Food and Drug Administration and other global
health organizations have determined that Chantix contains
dangerous levels of nitrosamine, a probable human carcinogen.

Pfizer recalled Chantix last year.

"Plaintiff paid for (varenicline-containing drugs) that were
illegally and willfully introduced into the market by Defendant,
which caused them and hundreds of other TPPs paying for or
reimbursing prescriptions for these VCDs to sustain substantial
economic damages," the suit says.

"Defendant's VCDs were not fit for their ordinary use and Defendant
has been unjustly enriched through the sale of these knowingly
adulterated and misbranded drugs. Defendant's conduct, as detailed
in this Complaint, also constitutes actionable common law fraud,
consumer fraud, and violates state and federal law." [GN]


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Prison Officials Agree to Independent Monitor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Melamed, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports
that after more than two years of escalating staff shortages,
prolonged lockdowns, and heightened violence at the Philadelphia
jails, the city has pledged in court to address those conditions
under the watch of an independent monitor.

In a settlement agreement filed on April 12 in the U.S. District
Court for Eastern Pennsylvania, the city committed to paying hiring
and retention bonuses for correctional officers and increasing
incarcerated people's time out of their cells to at least four
hours a day by May 15.

"It's a significant step forward," said David Rudovsky, one of a
team of civil rights lawyers representing incarcerated people in a
class-action lawsuit filed in April 2020. "Both sides agree that
it's best to return the prison systems to normal operations. The
agreement provides benchmarks and support in terms of a monitor to
get there, and it also provides the possibility of sanctions."

The agreement, pending approval by Senior U.S. District Judge Berle
M. Schiller, proposes to keep the jails under the court's
jurisdiction for two more years.

The majority of the 4,300 people incarcerated at the Northeast
Philadelphia jail complex are awaiting trial and have not yet been
convicted of their charges.

The Philadelphia Department of Prisons did not admit to any civil
rights violations in the agreement. A spokesperson for the
department said the settlement will enable all parties to focus on
restoring normal operations, provided a COVID-19 resurgence does
not get in the way.

However, the department promised to reestablish a mental-health
program for people in solitary confinement, and to provide them
with at least 30 minutes a day out of their cells. It also agreed
to make whole those who had been disciplined in jail without
legally required hearings, such as by expunging disciplinary
records or releasing them from punitive segregation.

Other commitments included addressing a significant medical care
backlog -- which, due to staff shortages, had resulted in delays of
13 days, on average, for sick visits, according to testimony by the
Department of Prisons medical director, Bruce Herdman. "We've just
been trying to keep up with the inundation," he said. Going
forward, Herdman said that a $1.4 million "blitz" was planned to
address that backlog.

The city also pledged to finish replacing hackable cell locks that
had contributed to riots and assaults, and to test and repair
emergency call buttons.

In addition, the city said it would consider implementing new rules
around phone access, in response to an expert report that found
prisoners were left to divide up phone time on their own. "This
procedure is ripe for violence and conflict," retired Nebraska
state prison warden Brandon Hansen wrote in his report.

Claire Shubik-Richards, who heads the Pennsylvania Prison Society,
said the improvements outlined were essential, particularly to
address the needs of those in segregated housing. On a recent
visit, she visited a segregated housing unit where out-of-cell time
appeared to be a rarity. "They couldn't remember how often they
were getting out of their cells. They were like, 'I think it's once
a week?' . . . These are people who are being subjected to trauma
and mental health strain."

But she warned that, given the loss of staff due to mandatory
overtime and unsafe working conditions, the city might not be able
to comply with its agreement.

Currently, just 64% of correctional jobs are filled, with 644
positions open. In the last fiscal year, twice as many officers
left as were hired.

"All the hiring and retention bonuses in the world won't make
someone want to put their life at risk and also work for 72-plus
hours with three hour breaks," she said. She believes urgent
action, such as calling in the National Guard or another temporary
staffing source, is necessary to stabilize the jails.

Over the last two years, the city repeatedly failed to keep up with
court orders governing out-of-cell time, and twice agreed to pay
$125,000 into community bail funds to avoid contempt findings.

David Robinson, president of the correctional officers' union,
Local 159 of AFSCME District Council 33, said the impact of the
settlement will hinge in part on whether the promised bonuses
provide a substantial pay bump. He had not been informed of any
numbers, and the settlement does not specify them.

The union, now in contract arbitration, has advocated lifting the
city residency requirement and demanded pay parity with other law
enforcement agencies. Correctional officers start at $43,000 -- 24%
less than Philadelphia police officer recruits and 13% less than
new deputy sheriffs.

"If they pay the correctional officers exactly what they should, if
they put the right people in place, this could be a better place,"
Robinson said. [GN]

PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed against PLAYSTUDIOS, Inc. ("PLAYSTUDIOS") (NASDAQ: MYPS;
MYPSW) f/k/a Acies Acquisition Corp. ("Acies") (NASDAQ: ACAC;
ACACW). The action charges PLAYSTUDIOS with violations of the
federal securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent
misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations,
and prospects. The lawsuit also includes claims relating to a
merger transaction with Acies and asserts claims on behalf of
investors who held Acies common stock as of May 25, 2021, were
eligible to vote at Acies' June 17, 2021 special meeting, and who
exchanged their shares of Acies stock for PLAYSTUDIOS stock in
connection with the merger. As a result of PLAYSTUDIOS' materially
misleading statements to the public, PLAYSTUDIOS' investors have
suffered significant losses.

CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR PLAYSTUDIOS LOSSES. YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON
THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/playstudios-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=playstudios


LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: JUNE 6, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: JUNE 22, 2021 THROUGH MARCH 1, 2022

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:

James Maro, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at info@ktmc.com

THE CLASS INCLUDES: Investors who (1) purchased or acquired
PLAYSTUDIOS securities between June 22, 2021 and March 1, 2022,
including, but not limited to, those who purchased or acquired
PLAYSTUDIOS securities pursuant to the offering of the private
investment in public equity; (2) held Acies common stock as of May
25, 2021, and were eligible to vote at Acies' June 17, 2021 special
meeting who exchanged their Acies stock for PLAYSTUDIOS stock; or
(3) purchased or acquired PLAYSTUDIOS common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Acies' Registration Statement and Proxy Statement
issued in connection with the June 2021 merger.

Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected
among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have
recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of
shareholders we represent.

PLAYSTUDIOS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

On February 1, 2021, Acies, a special purpose acquisition company,
announced that it had reached a merger agreement with "Old
Playstudios," a privately-held gaming company (the "Merger").
PLAYSTUDIOS' flagship game was Kingdom Boss. PLAYSTUDIOS told
investors that "Kingdom Boss, which began development in 2020, will
launch as expected in the second half of 2021."

On June 17, 2021, Acies held a General Meeting where Acies
shareholders were asked to approve

the Merger. The Merger closed on June 21, 2021, and on June 22,
2021, PLAYSTUDIOS stock and warrants began publicly trading on
NASDAQ.

The truth began to be revealed on August 11, 2021, when PLAYSTUDIOS
released its financial results for the second quarter of 2021
wherein PLAYSTUDIOS revealed for the first time that the Kingdom
Boss launch was being delayed until later in the year and that
investors should expect decreased revenues and profits during the
year as a result. These quarterly financial results were finalized
on June 30, 2021, just nine days after the Merger closed. Thus,
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded prior to the merger close
(June 21, 2021) and prior to the merger vote by the Acies
shareholders (June 17, 2021), that Kingdom Boss would not be ready
to launch within just a matter of weeks. Following this news,
PLAYSTUDIOS stock price fell $.66 to close at $5.09 per share on
August 12, 2021, a decline of 13%.

Then, on February 24, 2022, during an earnings call for the fourth
quarter ended December 31, 2021, PLAYSTUDIOS' CEO, much to
investors' surprise, disclosed that Kingdom Boss would not be
launched at all. Following this news, PLAYSTUDIOS stock price fell
$.24 to close at $4.86 per share on February 25, 2022, a decline of
5%. Two days later, on February 26, 2022, PLAYSTUDIOS' CEO
attributed the failure to meet the projections made for revenue and
earnings to the failure to launch Kingdom Boss, and revealed that
Kingdom Boss was not only delayed, but indefinitely "suspended."

WHAT CAN I DO?

Current PLAYSTUDIOS investors and/or former Acies shareholders may,
no later than June 6, 2022 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. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages
PLAYSTUDIOS investors and/or former Acies shareholders who have
suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire
more information.

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. 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.
(484) 270-1453
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]

PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on April 12 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Playstudios,
Inc. (NASDAQ: MYPS) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.

This lawsuit is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than defendants who: (a) purchased, or otherwise
acquired securities of Playstudios between June 22, 2021 and March
1, 2022, both dates inclusive, including, but not limited to, those
who purchased or acquired Playstudios securities pursuant to the
offering of the private investment in public equity ("PIPE"
offering); (b) held common stock of Acies as of May 25, 2021, and
were eligible to vote at Acies' June 16, 2021 special meeting who
exchanged their shares of Acies stock for shares of Playstudios
stock pursuant to the merger of Acies and Old Playstudios (the
"Merger"); and/or (c) purchased or otherwise acquired Playstudios
common stock pursuant to or traceable to Acies' documents issued in
connection with the June 2021 Merger.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 6, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in MYPS:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/playstudios-inc-loss-submission-form?id=25803&from=4

Playstudios, Inc. NEWS - MYPS NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
Playstudios, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Playstudios was
having significant problems with its flagship game, Kingdom Boss;
(ii) Playstudios would not be releasing Kingdom Boss as expected;
and (iii) Playstudios had not revised its financial projections to
account for the problems it had encountered with Kingdom Boss. As a
result of defendants' wrongful conduct, Class members paid
artificially inflated prices for their Playstudios securities and
suffered substantial losses and damages.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Playstudios, Inc. you have until June 6, 2022 to petition
the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Playstudios, Inc. securities
during the relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket fees.

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the MYPS lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/playstudios-inc-loss-submission-form?id=25803&from=4.

ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. 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
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

PORTLAND GENERAL: May 9 Class Settlement Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company (NYSE: POR) provided notice of
proposed settlement of derivative actions and settlement hearing.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

JS HALBERSTAM IRREVOCABLE
GRANTOR TRUST, Derivatively and on
Behalf of PORTLAND GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Plaintiff,
    
JACK E. DAVIS, JOHN W. BALLANTINE,
RODNEY L. BROWN, JR., KIRBY A.
DYESS, MARK B. GANZ, MARIE OH
HUBER, KATHRYN J. JACKSON, PH.D.,
MICHAEL A. LEWIS, MICHAEL H.
MILLEGAN, NEIL J. NELSON, M. LEE
PELTON, PH.D., MARIA M. POPE,
CHARLES W. SHIVERY, JAMES P.
TORGERSON, AND JAMES LOBDELL,

  Defendants,
    
and
    
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Nominal Defendant.

Case No. 3:21-cv-00413-SI

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

TO:     ALL OWNERS OF PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ("PGE")
COMMON STOCK AS OF MARCH 28, 2022.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the parties to the above-captioned
shareholder action pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon (the "Action"), have reached a Settlement to
resolve the issues raised in the Action and related shareholder
derivative actions captioned Berning v. Pope et al., No.
21-cv-00783-SI, filed in this Court, and Shimberg v. Pope et al.,
No. 21CV02957, and Ashabraner v. Pope et al., No. 21CV13698, filed
in Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County (collectively, the
"Actions"). The parties to the Actions have entered into a
Stipulation dated February 11, 2022, setting forth the terms of the
Settlement. The Settlement, if approved by the Court, would fully,
finally and forever resolve this Action on the terms set forth in
the Stipulation.

The Stipulation and a detailed Notice of Settlement describing in
greater detail the Actions, the proposed Settlement, and the rights
of Current PGE Shareholders with regard to the Settlement are
available on PGE's website at
https://investors.portlandgeneral.com/.

You have the right to participate in a Settlement Hearing to be
held on May 9, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. at the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon, Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse,
Room 15B, 1000 Southwest Third Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204 to
determine:

(i) whether the Court should approve the Settlement as fair,
reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Portland General
Electric Company ("PGE" or the "Company") and PGE's shareholders
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23.1; (ii) whether
to enter a judgment dismissing the Action with prejudice and
extinguish and release all Settled Claims; (iii) whether the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due
process have been satisfied in connection with notice of the
Settlement; and (iv) whether the Court should approve Plaintiffs'
Fee and Expense Amount, as well as to consider such other matters
as may properly come before the Court.

Unless otherwise defined, all capitalized terms contained in this
Summary Notice shall have the same definitions as set forth in the
Stipulation.

The Settlement, reached with the substantial assistance and
oversight of an experienced mediator, addresses allegations that
certain current and former directors and officers of PGE breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to maintain an adequate system of
internal controls to oversee PGE's energy trading and purportedly
disseminating materially false and misleading statements relating
to the Company's energy trading activities. As part of the
Settlement, PGE has implemented or, to the extent PGE has not
already done so, will implement certain corporate governance
reforms specifically set forth in Exhibit A of the Stipulation.

After negotiating the principal terms of the Settlement,
Plaintiffs' counsel and PGE separately negotiated at arm's-length
with the assistance of the mediator the amount of attorneys' fees
and expenses to be paid to Plaintiffs' counsel, agreeing that PGE
or its insurance carriers shall, subject to and upon Court
approval, pursuant to the timetable provided in the Stipulation,
pay or cause to be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and
expenses in the total amount of $750,000.

The individual defendants have denied, and continue to deny, all
allegations of wrongdoing and that they have any liability on the
claims asserted in the Actions. PGE also has denied and continues
to deny the claims in the Actions.

If you are a Current PGE Shareholder, your rights to pursue certain
derivative claims on behalf of PGE may be affected by the
Settlement. Any Current PGE Shareholder wishing to assert an
objection to the Settlement or Fee and Expense Amount must, at
least fourteen (14) days prior to the Settlement Hearing, (i) file
with the Clerk of the Court a written objection to the Settlement
and/or Plaintiffs' Fee and Expense Amount setting forth: (a) the
nature of the objection; (b) proof of ownership of PGE common stock
at the time the Preliminary Approval Order was entered through the
date of the Settlement Hearing, including the number of shares of
PGE common stock held by the shareholder and the date(s) of
purchase; and (c) any documentation in support of such objection;
and (ii) if a Current PGE Shareholder intends to appear and
requests to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, such shareholder
must have, in addition to the requirements of (i) above, filed with
the Clerk of Court: (a) a written notice of such shareholder's
intention to appear; (b) a statement that indicates the basis for
such appearance; and (c) the identities of any witnesses the
shareholder intends to call at the Settlement Hearing and a
statement as to the subjects of the testimony of each witness. Any
Current PGE Shareholder who fails to object in the manner provided
above will be deemed to have waived all objections (including the
right to appeal) and will be bound by the Order and Final Judgment
to be entered and the releases to be given, unless otherwise
ordered by the Court.

Any inquiries regarding the Settlement or the Action should be
directed to Plaintiffs' Counsel:

         David C. Katz Mark D. Smilow WeissLaw LLP
         305 Broadway, 7th Floor
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 682-3025
         dkatz@weisslawllp.com
         msmilow@weisslawllp.com

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR PGE REGARDING THIS NOTICE

A copy of the Parties' Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the
"Stipulation") fully executed as of February 11, 2022, is available
on PGE's website at https://investors.portlandgeneral.com/.

           About Portland General Electric Company

Portland General Electric (NYSE: POR) is a fully integrated energy
company based in Portland, Oregon. The company serves approximately
900,000 customers with a service area population of 2 million
Oregonians in 51 cities. PGE owns 16 generation plants across
Oregon and other Northwestern states and maintains and operates 14
public parks and recreation areas. For more than 130 years, PGE has
powered the advancement of society, delivering safe, affordable,
and reliable energy to Oregonians. PGE and its approximately 3,000
employees are working with customers to build a clean energy
future. Together with its customers, PGE has the No. 1 voluntary
renewable energy program in the U.S. PGE is committed to achieving
at least an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from power
served to customers by 2030 and 100% reduction by 2040. In 2021,
PGE became the first U.S. utility to join The Climate Pledge. For
the eighth year in a row PGE achieved a perfect score on the 2021
Human Rights Campaign Foundation's Corporate Equality Index, a
national benchmarking survey and report on corporate policies and
practices related to LGBTQ workplace equality. In 2021, PGE,
employees, retirees, and the PGE Foundation donated $4.8 million
and volunteered 15,760 hours with more than 300 nonprofits across
Oregon. For more information visit www.PortlandGeneral.com/news.


PRECISION DRILLING: Tyger Appeals Summary Judgment in FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rodney Tyger, et al., from a appeal summary judgment
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RODNEY TYGER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. PRECISION DRILLING CORP., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 4:11-CV-01913, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania.

Rodney Tyger and Shaun Wadsworth, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, filed this Fair Labor Standards Act collective
action complaint on October 17, 2011. The Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on January 4, 2012, and Defendants Precision
Drilling Corp., Precision Drilling Oilfield Services, Inc., and
Precision Drilling Company, LP answered on February 7, 2012. The
Defendants thereafter moved for summary judgment on all claims on
February 29, 2012, and Plaintiffs moved to conditionally certify a
collective action on February 24, 2012.

The Honorable Christopher C. Conner, to whom the matter was
originally assigned, denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment
on December 18, 2012 "without prejudice to defendant's right to
refile such a motion at the close of discovery." On January 7,
2013, Chief Judge Conner conditionally certified a class of "all
Precision hourly rig employees who worked for Precision in the
United States within the last three years" based on the three FLSA
claims identified in the Amended Complaint. Approximately 1,000
hourly, non-managerial employees have since joined this suit.

On January 17, 2013, this matter was reassigned to Judge Matthew W.
Brann. Following an extensive discovery period, including expert
discovery, the parties both moved for summary judgment. Defendants
filed a motion for partial summary judgment on April 10, 2017. The
Plaintiffs cross moved for summary judgment on April 14, 2017.

On March 25, 2022, Judge Brann entered a Memorandum and Order,
denying Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to liability.
The Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted; final
judgment was entered in favor of Defendants Precision Drilling
Company, LP, Precision Drilling Corp., and Precision Drilling
Oilfield Services, Inc. and against Plaintiffs; and Plaintiffs'
remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Rodney Tyger, et al. v.
Precision Drilling Corp, et al., Case No. 22-1613, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 6,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RODNEY TYGER and SHAWN WADSWORTH, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          Nicholas D. George, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER
          1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 265-4620
          E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com
                  ngeorge@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com
                  jswidler@swartz-legal.com

Defendants-Appellees PRECISION DRILLING CORP., PRECISION DRILLING
OILFIELD SERVICES INC., and PRECISION DRILLING CO LP, are
represented by:

          Michael C. Crow, Esq.
          Kimberly Cheeseman, Esq.
          Jamila S. Mensah, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
          1301 McKinney Street
          Fulbright Tower, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 651-5151
          E-mail: carter.crow@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  kimberly.cheeseman@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  jamila.mensah@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Mark T. Phillis, Esq.
          Marcy L. McGovern, Esq.
          Terrence H. Murphy, Esq.
          Emilie R. Hammerstein, Esq.         
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          625 Liberty Avenue
          EQT Plaza, 26th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 201-7636
          E-mail: mphillis@littler.com
                  mmccullough@littler.com
                  tmurphy@littler.com
                  ehammerstein@littler.com  

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Mercer, Esq.
          PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR
          6 PPG Place, Third Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 235-1491
          E-mail: jeremy.mercer@nortonrosefulbright.com

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Quinones Suit Moved to S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled GLORIA QUINONES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-09595, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on April 12, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 2:22-cv-01941-MHW-CMV to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unjust enrichment,
breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act by failing to
disclose to consumers that its over-the-counter aerosol
antiperspirant products sold under the brand names "Old Spice" and
"Secret" contain benzene, a known human carcinogen.

The Procter & Gamble Company is a consumer goods manufacturer based
in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
         Sara D. Avila, Esq.
         Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
         MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
         10990 Wilshire Blvd., 8th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (310) 396-9600
         Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
         E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                 savila@mjfwlaw.com
                 mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com

PYRAMID ADVISORS: McCann Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pyramid Advisors
Limited Partnership. The case is styled as David McCann, Ronald
Migyanko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pyramid Advisors Limited Partnership doing business as:
Pyramid Hotel Group, Case No. 2:22-cv-00560-WSS (W.D. Pa., April
14, 2022).

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

Pyramid Hotel Group -- http://pyramidhotelgroup.com/-- provides
superior operations, owner relations, and support services to its
assets and investors throughout the investment horizon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          CARLSON BROWN
          222 Broad Street
          PO Box 242
          Sewickley, PA 15143
          Phone: (724) 730-1753
          Email: bcarlson@carlsonbrownlaw.com


QUEENSLAND: Flood Victims Lose $440-MM Compensation Bid in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that victims of
Queensland's 2011 floods have lost their legal bid for $440m in
compensation in the high court.

They were denied special leave to challenge the court win for the
government-owned dam operator, Seqwater, in Australia's highest
court on April 12.

Rebecca Gilsenan, from law firm Maurice Blackburn, which has been
representing the victims, confirmed the result and said it was a
disappointing end to the decade-long legal fight.

"This is the end of the case against Seqwater and there are no
further avenues for appeal because the high court is the highest
court in Australia," Gilsenan said.

In 2019, the New South Wales supreme court had found Seqwater was
one of three parties to have failed almost 7,000 Brisbane and
Ipswich residents during the floods. In that decision, it was found
engineers in control of the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams failed, and
their actions made downstream flooding even worse.

In all, about 23,000 homes and businesses went under after huge
water releases to make sure the dams did not fail.

The court had ruled Seqwater, the Queensland government and another
state-owned dam operator, SunWater, exacerbated flooding by failing
to properly operate Wivenhoe and Somerset dams.

The Queensland government and SunWater accepted the 2019 ruling,
agreeing to pay $440m in compensation.

But Seqwater successfully appealed in the NSW court of appeal,
leading to the final high court challenge.

The April 12 ruling is the end of the road for victims involved in
the 11-year legal battle.

Ipswich councillor Paul Tully said the high court decision was the
final "kick in the guts" for 6,800 people affected by the 2011
floods.

Tully said "justice has not prevailed in Australia".

"We have waited 11 long years since the flood for the class action
to be finalised and now this is the final kick in the guts," he
said.

"Seqwater has broken people's hearts."

New procedures were put in place for the release of water after the
2011 floods.

During flooding in February, those procedures had been used by
Seqwater when it began controlled releases of water from Wivenhoe
Dam.

Last month, Queensland's premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, defended
the releases of water from Wivenhoe Dam that occurred the previous
month.

"Critics have accused the dam's operators of contributing to the
floods, how they explain what happened in Gympie and Maryborough,
let alone Lismore and Sydney, is beyond me," Palaszczuk said at the
time. [GN]

REALOGY HOLDINGS: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Bumpus Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled SARAH BUMPUS, et al., individually,
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v.
REALOGY BROKERAGE GROUP LLC (F/K/A NRT LLC), et al., Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-03309-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

Sarah Bumpus, Micheline Peker, and Cheryl Rowan sought
certification of multiple classes for Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) claims against Defendants Realogy and Mojo Dialing
Solutions. Realogy operates large real estate conglomerates, which
include brands like Coldwell Banker and Sotheby International
Realty. It contracts with thousands of real estate agents across
the country to identify and reach out to leads for residential
sales. Mojo is an autodialing and lead generation platform used by
real estate agents, including Realogy's agents.

The Named Plaintiffs are individual home owners in California,
Minnesota, and Florida. The Plaintiffs allege that they received
unwanted calls from Realogy Agents affiliated with Coldwell Banker
asking them to list their homes for sale. Plaintiffs Rowan and
Peker also received prerecorded messages from Realogy agents. The
Plaintiffs allege that the unwanted calls violated the TCPA.

The Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify four classes under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3):

     (1) A National Do Not Call Registry Nationwide (NDNC) class
under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) consisting of all persons in the
United States who received two or more calls made by a Coldwell
Banker-affiliated Agent using a Mojo, PhoneBurner, and/or Storm
dialer in any 12 month period on a residential landline or cell
phone number that appeared on the National Do Not Call Registry for
at least 31 days for the time period beginning June 11, 2015, to
present;

     (2) A National Internal Do Not Call (Internal DNC) class under
Rule 23(b)(2) consisting of all persons in the United States who
received, in any 12-month period, two or more calls promoting
Coldwell Banker's services and made by a Coldwell Banker-affiliated
Agent to their residential landline or cell phone number, for the
time period beginning June 11, 2015, to present;

     (3) A National Artificial or Prerecorded Message (Prerecorded
Message) class under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) consisting of all
persons in the United States who received a call on their
residential telephone line or cell phone number with an artificial
or prerecorded message, as indicated by the following call
disposition codes: (1) 'Drop Message' (if using the Mojo dialer);
(2) 'ATTENDED_TRANSFER' (if using the Storm dialer; and (3)
'VOICEMAIL' (if using a PhoneBurner dialer) in the call records
listed in Appendix A and made by a Coldwell Banker-affiliated Agent
for the time period beginning June 11, 2015, to present; and

     (4) An Artificial or Prerecorded Message Mojo (Prerecorded
Message Mojo) class under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) consisting of
all persons in the United States who received a call on their
residential telephone line or cell phone number with an artificial
or prerecorded message, as indicated by the call disposition code
Drop Message in the call records listed in Appendix A and made by a
Coldwell Banker-affiliated Agent using a Mojo dialer for the time
period beginning June 11, 2015, to present.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 8, 2022, Judge
James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Defendants now challenging the Court's class certification
ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Sarah Bumpus, et al. v. Realogy
Holdings Corp., et al., Case No. 22-80027, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 7,
2022.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., REALOGY INTERMEDIATE
HOLDINGS LLC, REALOGY GROUP LLC, REALOGY SERVICES GROUP LLC,
REALOGY BROKERAGE GROUP LLC, FKA NRT LLC, and MOJO DIALING
SOLUTIONS, LLC are represented by:

          Matthew G. Ball, Esq.
          K&L GATES, LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 249-1014

               - and -

          Calvin E. Davis, Esq.
          Candice S. Nam, Esq.
          Aaron P. Rudin, Esq.
          GORDON & REES, LLP
          633 W 5th Street, 52nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 576-5000

               - and -

          David R. Fine, Esq.
          K&L GATES, LLP
          17 N. Second Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507
          Telephone: (717) 231-4500

               - and -

          Molly K. McGinley, Esq.
          Joseph C. Wylie, Esq.
          K&L GATES, LLP
          70 W Madison Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 807-4419  

Plaintiffs-Respondents SARAH BUMPUS, DAVID GRITZ, MICHELINE PEKER,
and CHERYL ROWAN, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, are represented by:

          Glenn Chappell, Esq.
          Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900

               - and -

          George Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 393-0070

               - and -

          Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN, PA
          237 S Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881  

               - and -

          Michael Reese, Esq.
          REESE, LLP
          100 W 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300

               - and -

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808

RUTGERS BUSINESS: Budet Sues Over Deceptive Educational Rankings
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO BUDET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUTGERS BUSINESS SCHOOL, RUTGERS THE STATE
UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02134
(D.N.J., April 12, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from Rutgers' fraudulent and deceptive business
practices of inflating its educational rankings by submitting false
and misleading employability statistics to educational ranking
organizations. Specifically, Rutgers intentionally reported false
data and made misleading claims in its marketing materials, falsely
asserting that unemployed students were purported gainfully
employed in full-time Master of Business Administration (MBA)-level
jobs with a third-party company. As a result of Rutgers' fraudulent
and deceptive business practices, its students paid a premium
tuition but received an education less than and different from what
they expected given the tainted rankings. The Plaintiff and Class
members would not have enrolled and paid this premium but for
Rutgers' deceit. Rutgers was unjustly enriched through its
retention of tuition premiums paid by the Plaintiff and Class
members.

Rutgers Business School is a business school located in Newark, New
Jersey.

Rutgers University is a higher education institution with its
principal place of business located at 57 US Highway 1, New
Brunswick, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Matthew A. Luber, Esq.
         Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
         Tyler J. Burrell, Esq.
         MCOMBER MCOMBER & LUBER, P.C.
         39 E. Main Street
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Telephone: (856) 985-9800
         Facsimile: (856) 263-2450

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: Faces Fraud Class Action Over Rankings
----------------------------------------------------------
Ted Sherman, writing for NJ Advance Media, reports that a Rutgers
MBA student filed a federal class action suit against the
university on April 12, charging that its business school violated
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by allegedly creating fake jobs
for graduates simply to boost its U.S. News & World Report program
rankings.

The complaint comes days after a similar lawsuit was filed on
behalf of a Rutgers administrator, who charged the university had
fraudulently sought to punch up its national rankings by creating
those bogus positions to show the success its business school
graduates had in finding employment.

In the new filing, Lorenzo Budet, 33, of Atlantic City charged that
Rutgers intentionally reported false data and made misleading
claims in its marketing materials, falsely asserting that
unemployed students were gainfully employed in full-time MBA-level
jobs.

"The fraud worked," said Budet's attorneys in a complaint filed in
U.S. District Court in New Jersey. "In 2018, the very first year of
the scheme, Rutgers was suddenly propelled to, among other things,
the No. 1 business school in the Northeast region of the United
States. But Rutgers Business School was undeserving of its high
rankings, having obtained this and other ranking positions through
deceit."

The lawsuit claimed that as a result of Rutgers' fraudulent and
deceptive business practices, its students paid a premium tuition,
but received an education less than what they expected given the
flawed rankings.

"This was a massive fraud on Rutgers' prospective students," the
complaint charged, estimating at least 100 others could become
parties to the lawsuit. "For (Rutgers), ensuring each graduate
student received a meaningful education is of little import. Their
focal point is 'rankings,' 'employment rates,' and other crucial
statistics that keep students flocking to Rutgers under the guise
that it will, or could, land them a highly coveted, highly paid
job."

In a statement, Rutgers said as a matter of university policy, it
was unable to comment on the specifics of litigation.

"We will say without equivocation, however, that we take seriously
our obligation to accurately report data and other information to
ranking and reporting agencies. We are confident in our process and
procedures to accurately report to rankings publications," the
university said.

Officials said the Rutgers Business School team followed the
guidelines set by the standards agencies, maintained control over
their statistics and methodically reported the information in
submitting employment statistics to rankings agencies.

"Rutgers Business School is confident that it conforms to the MBA
Career Services and Employer Alliance guidelines and similarly
follows the National Undergraduate Business Symposium and the
National Association of Colleges and Employers guidelines," the
university said.

In a separate lawsuit on April 8 filed by the same law firm, Deidre
White, the business school's human resources manager, alleged the
program had used an outside temp agency to hire MBA students who
were having trouble finding jobs. It charged that Rutgers placed
them into sham positions at the university itself — for no other
reason than to make it appear like a greater number of graduates
were getting full-time jobs after getting their diplomas.

In one case, the White lawsuit referred to emails regarding the
interviews of two students, who were characterized by an
administrator as "significantly overqualified" for the position
being offered.

Colleges nationwide have faced pressure to improve their rankings
by U.S. News and other ranking publications, which administrators
say matter greatly to parents and students.

Earlier this year, a former dean of Temple University's business
school was sentenced to prison after he was found guilty in 2021 of
using fake numbers in a complex fraud operation aimed at boosting
the school's national rankings and increase revenue.

Moshe Porat, 74, was convicted of federal wire fraud and conspiracy
charges for his role in the cheating scandal that sought to raise
the ranking of the university's Fox School of Business in
Philadelphia. The school's online MBA program had been ranked best
in the country by U.S. News & World Report in the years that he
provided falsified data.

In his lawsuit, Budet -- who attorneys say is enrolled as a
graduate student at Rutgers in its Supply Chain Management MBA
program -- claimed that by bolstering its employment data, Rutgers
Business School "created an impression that post-graduation
employment was virtually guaranteed."

Instead of telling the truth to prospective and current students,
his lawsuit alleged that Rutgers continued to make claims that
nearly all of its graduates were gainfully employed.

"Rutgers Business School allegedly reported misleading data to U.S.
News and World Report, among other educational ranking
organizations, to boost its rankings. But just as falsification of
data is a violation of Rutgers' own Academic Integrity Policy,
Rutgers needs to be held accountable here under the law," said
Budet's attorney, Charles Kocher of McOmber McOmber & Luber in
Marlton.

Kocher said the class action seeks to recover the tuition paid by
Budet and other students who would be part of the proposed class
action for Rutgers' MBA and other master degree programs as a
result of what he called "tainted rankings."

Rutgers, in its statement, said that as a public business school, a
core tenet of its mission is to educate and prepare students for
successful careers.

"Rutgers Business School invests heavily in the career resources
offered to our students. Through our dedicated Office of Career
Management, we prepare students for career opportunities aligned
with their goals, knowledge, and skills," officials said. "We
consider this as one of our core differentiators as a business
school. Our faculty, program and curriculum innovations, case
competitions, alumni mentoring, corporate partnerships, and
experiential learning projects all help contribute to an
exceptional business school experience for our students." [GN]

SCANA CORP: $63MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 2
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
filed a statement regarding the SCANA Corporation Merger
Litigation:

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF RICHLAND

KBC ASSET MANAGEMENT NV, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN MARSH, GREGORY E. ALIFF, JAMES A. BENNETT, JOHN F.A.V. CECIL,
SHARON A. DECKER, D. MAYBANK HAGOOD, LYNNE M. MILLER, JAMES W.
ROQUEMORE, MACEO K. SLOAN, ALFREDO TRUJILLO, JIMMY ADDISON, and
STEPHEN BYRNE,

Defendants.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
Civil Action No.: 2019-CP-4002522

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF RICHLAND

TERESA PARLER, derivatively on behalf of SCANA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN MARSH, GREGORY ALIFF, JAMES BENNETT, JOHN CECIL, SHARON
DECKER, MAYBANK HAGOOD, LYNNE MILLER, JAMES ROQUEMORE, MACEO SLOAN,
ALFREDO TRUJILLO, JIMMY ADDISON, and STEPHEN BYRNE,

Defendants,

- and -

SCANA CORPORATION,

Nominal Defendant.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
Civil Action No.: 2017-CP-40-06621

CLASS ACTION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
Civil Action No.: 2017-CP-40-06621

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF ACTIONS

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO OWNED COMMON STOCK OF SCANA
CORPORATION ("SCANA") CONTINUOUSLY FROM JANUARY 3, 2018, THROUGH
AND INCLUDING JULY 31, 2018 (THE "CLASS")

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the South Carolina
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the South Carolina Court
of Common Pleas, Fifth Circuit, that Plaintiffs KBC Asset
Management NV ("KBC"), Teresa Parler ("Parler"), Metzler Asset
Management GmbH ("Metzler"), and City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System ("City of Warren," and together with KBC, Parler,
and Metzler, "Plaintiffs"), in connection with claims that relate
to SCANA's abandonment of a nuclear power plant construction
project (the "Nuclear Project") and subsequent merger (the
"Merger") with Dominion Energy, Inc. ("Dominion") against Kevin
Marsh, Gregory E. Aliff, James A. Bennett, John F.A.V. Cecil,
Sharon A. Decker, D. Maybank Hagood, Lynne M. Miller, James W.
Roquemore, Maceo K. Sloan, Alfredo Trujillo, Jimmy Addison, and/or
Stephen Byrne (collectively, "Individual Defendants") and also
SCANA (collectively with the Individual Defendants, the
"Defendants," and with Plaintiffs, the "Parties"), have reached a
proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned actions
(the "Actions") in the amount of $63,000,000 (the "Settlement"). Of
the $63,000,000, $33,000,000 will be paid in cash and $30,000,000
will be paid in cash or shares of freely-tradable Dominion common
stock at the option of SCANA, plus earned interest, for the benefit
of eligible Class Members, less any attorneys' fees and expenses
awarded by the Court, Administrative Costs, and Tax Expenses.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable J. Mark Hayes, II
either in person or via teleconference or video conference, on June
2, 2022 at 10:30 a.m., in Courtroom West B of the Spartanburg
County Courthouse, 180 Magnolia Street, Spartanburg, S.C. 29306
(the "Settlement Hearing"), where the Court will consider whether:
(i) the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be
finally approved; (ii) the Plan of Allocation is fair and
reasonable, and should be approved; and (iii) Plaintiffs' Counsel's
Fee and Expense Application and Plaintiffs' service awards are
reasonable and should be approved. The Court may change the date of
the Settlement Hearing, or hold it telephonically or via video
conference, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to
attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the
Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY
PAYMENT. A full Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Actions ("Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim
Form") can be obtained by visiting the Settlement website,
www.SCANAMergerLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

         SCANA Merger Litigation Claims Administrator
         c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
         P.O. Box 43349
         Providence, RI 02940-3349
         1-866-748-5166

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to
Plaintiffs' Class Counsel:

         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         Attn: David T. Wissbroecker
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: 1-800-449-4900

         BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
         Attn: Lawrence P. Eagel
         810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (212) 308-5888

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or submitted online no later than May 26, 2022. If
you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form,
you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all
judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the
Settlement.

If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that
it is received no later than May 12, 2022. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether
favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plaintiffs' Counsel's
Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation
must be mailed in accordance with the instructions in the Notice,
such that they are received no later than May 12, 2022.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
RICHLAND COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

DATED: February 4, 2022


SCRIPPS HEALTH: Data Breach Class Actions Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Paul Sisson, writing for La Jolla Light, reports that in recent
weeks, San Diego has seen a second flurry of data breach letters
related to the Scripps Health ransomware attack that took place
nearly a year ago.

Receiving such letters so long after the initial incident, which
took critical systems down for most of May last year, has been
surprising for many, especially since Scripps already mailed a
first round of breach notices to an estimated 144,000 affected
patients in 2021.

What took so long for the second batch to arrive?

Scripps, San Diego County's second-largest health care system with
a hospital group including Scripps Memorial and Scripps Green in La
Jolla, said in a statement that a recently concluded manual review
of internal documents found that "additional patient information"
was stolen by the hackers. The cyberattack forced the health system
to cancel hundreds of medical appointments and temporarily return
to paper charts because ransomware caused the shutdown of its
electronic medical records system.

Scripps offers free credit monitoring to anyone whose Social
Security or driver's license number was found in documents taken
during the breach.

To date, Scripps says it has found "no indication that this data
has been used to commit fraud."

How the attackers managed to penetrate Scripps' defenses remains a
mystery to the public.

Scripps also has so far declined to say how many additional
patients are affected beyond the initial 144,000 notified last
year.

In a court filing in February, the nonprofit health company's
lawyers said the organization "determined the information of
additional individuals may have been impacted" by the attack,
requiring the second round of notifications.

A company spokesman said in an email that more specific information
will not be provided "due to ongoing litigation."

The attack and its aftermath have plunged Scripps into a thicket of
class-action litigation.

Though several lawsuits filed in federal court have been dismissed,
the dismissals are being appealed.

Meanwhile, in San Diego County Superior Court, Judge Gregory
Pollack granted a consolidation of six different class-action
lawsuits, each alleging that Scripps should be held financially
responsible for failing to protect medical records and other
sensitive information, including Social Security numbers.

In a ruling Feb. 13, Pollack said he is essentially "pulling up the
drawbridge" on additional suits pertaining to the ransomware attack
until the consolidated cases are resolved.

Court papers indicate that Scripps is in settlement discussions
with lawyers appointed by the court to represent the class.

Rachele Byrd, one of those appointed attorneys, declined to
comment.

If the matter is ultimately settled, whatever amount Scripps ends
up paying will come on top of costs incurred during the breach
itself. A quarterly financial report filed in mid- 2021 estimated
that the health care giant missed out on about $113 million in
revenue in May 2021, when its systems were being held hostage.
Though insurance policies reduced that expense somewhat, the bulk
came directly from Scripps' bottom line. [GN]


SCULLY COMPANY: Mahoney Files ADA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scully Company, Inc.
The case is styled as John Mahoney, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Scully Company, Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-01448 (E.D. Pa., April 14, 2022).

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

Scully Company -- https://www.scullycompany.com/ -- specializes in
multifamily real estate in both ownership and management
capacities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Glanzberg, Esq.
          GLANZBERG TOBIA & ASSOCIATES PC
          123 S. BROAD STREET SUITE 1640
          PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109
          Phone: (215) 981-5400
          Email: dglanzberg@aol.com


SCWORX CORP: Settlement in COVID Test Dispute Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
SCWORX Corp. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for the quarterly
period ended March 25, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 8, 2022, that on March 25, 2022, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily
approved a settlement resolving three shareholder derivative
lawsuits involving the company filed on June 15, August 21, and
September 30, 2020 against SCWorx (as nominal defendant) and
certain of its directors (Marc S. Schessel, Charles K. Miller,
Steven Wallitt and Robert Christie in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, New York State Supreme
Court and the Chancery Court in Delaware. Each of the lawsuits
alleged that the Director Defendants named therein breached their
fiduciary duties to the company, including by misleading investors
in connection with its April 13, 2020 press release with respect to
the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits, failing to correct false and
misleading statements and failing to implement proper disclosure
and internal controls.

On December 24, 2021, the company entered into a binding agreement
with the shareholder derivative plaintiffs to settle the derivative
litigation. Under the terms of this agreement, the insurers for the
defendants will make a cash payment to legal counsel for the
shareholder derivative plaintiffs to cover their legal fees and the
company will adopt certain corporate governance reforms within 60
days of court approval of the settlement, in exchange for which all
parties will be released from all claims related to the derivative
class action litigation. This agreement provides that the parties
will negotiate in good faith to enter into a definitive settlement
agreement within thirty days, which agreement will be subject to
court approval.

On February 15, 2022, the company and the defendants entered into a
stipulation of settlement (subject to court approval) with the
shareholder derivative plaintiffs to settle said action as well as
another derivative action. On March 25, 2022, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily approved
the settlement.

SCWorx Corp. is into miscellaneous amusement & recreation services
based in New York.


SHAMROCK TOWING: Allen Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMY ALLEN and BROOKE ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SHAMROCK TOWING, INC.;
TIMOTHY L. DUFFEY; and MICHAEL NELSON, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01948-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, April 12, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for their failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Amy Allen and Brooke Allen worked for the Defendants as
dispatchers from July 7, 2016 until December 14, 2021 and from
September 16, 2019 until October 1, 2020, respectively.

Shamrock Towing, Inc. is an operator of a towing business, with its
headquarters in Westerville, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Chris P. Wido, Esq.
         SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S LAW FIRM
         25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200
         Beachwood, OH 44122
         Telephone: (216) 291-4744
         Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
         E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com

SMART & FINAL: Pearson Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KEVIN PEARSON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SMART & FINAL LOGISTICS LLC and DOES 1
through 100, Case No. 22STCV04115, was removed from the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April
13, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-02513-FLA-E to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay final wages, and
unfair business practices.

Smart & Final Logistics LLC is an owner and operator of grocery
stores, headquartered in Commerce, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Maria C. Roberts, Esq.
         Dessi N. Day, Esq.
         Noel J. Meza, Esq.
         GREENE & ROBERTS
         402 West Broadway, Suite 1025
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 398-3400
         Facsimile: (619) 330-4907
         E-mail: mroberts@greeneroberts.com
                 dday@greeneroberts.com
                 nmeza@greeneroberts.com

STARKIST CO: Must Face Class Action Over Antitrust Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Competition Policy International reports that a federal appeals
court in San Francisco ruled on April 8 that canned tuna
multinational StarKist must face class action antitrust litigation
over its alleged scheme to inflate the price of canned tuna by
colluding with its largest rivals, Bumble Bee Foods and Chicken of
the Sea International, reported Bloomberg.

A divided US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a
decision certifying the case as a class action on behalf of
consumers, restaurants that bought tuna from wholesalers, and large
retailers that made their purchases directly from StarKist and the
other suppliers.

StarKist faced a criminal fine of up to $100 million, the statutory
maximum, for its participation in a conspiracy to fix the prices of
canned tuna fish from as early as November 2011 through at least as
late as December 2013.  As part of today's sentencing hearing, US
District Judge Edward M. Chen found that StarKist had not proven
that its financial circumstances justified a lower criminal fine.

The Antitrust Division opposed StarKist's request for a fine
reduction, arguing that StarKist had sufficient financial resources
to pay a $100 million criminal fine.  In addition to the criminal
fine and term of probation, StarKist has also agreed to cooperate
in the Antitrust Division's ongoing investigation.

Starkist's is the latest instance of antitrust violations in the
canned fish industry in recent years involving the largest firms,
including Bumble Bee's price-fixing scheme in 2016 and Chicken of
the Sea's run-in with retail giant Walmart in 2018. [GN]

SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Zaidi Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2022, that it is
facing a putative class action lawsuit filed in December 10, 2019,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

Said action was filed by Ali Zaidi against Adamas and certain of
Adamas's former directors and officers in federal court in the
Northern District of California (Case No. 4:19-cv-08051). This
lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by Adamas and certain of Adamas's former directors and officers.

On October 8, 2021, the presiding judge dismissed the litigation,
and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On November
5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their second amended class action
complaint. On December 10, 2021, Adamas filed a motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed the motion to
dismiss. The motion to dismiss remains pending.

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on developing and commercializing products for the
treatment of central nervous system diseases.


TENANTREPORTS.COM LLC: Faces FCRA Class Action in Philadelphia
--------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio reports that Tenantreports.com LLC, a tenant
background check company used by landlords, violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by pulling up records into applicants'
criminal histories older than the law's seven-year limit, according
to a proposed class action filed in Philadelphia court. [GN]

TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Settlement Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that a second group of individuals
insured in Pennsylvania by Travelers are now able to file a claim
with a rental car class action settlement -- no proof of purchase
required.

The settlement benefits individuals who had a Travelers auto
insurance policy (or a policy through Travelers affiliates) in
Pennsylvania and received one to 30 days of rental coverage after
sustaining a total loss between Jan. 16, 2011, and May 28, 2021.

Although many consumers are included in this Class, only some
consumers are eligible to take action at this time. Group I in the
settlement already received notice and had the opportunity to file
a claim. Group II received a notice from the settlement in late
March stating there was a mailing error. This group now has their
own deadlines.

Travelers Insurance provides a number of insurance policies such as
renters insurance, home insurance, and auto insurance. The
company's auto insurance includes coverage for liability,
collision, personal injury, and other costs including rental cars.

Despite promising to cover rental cars in the case of a total loss,
Travelers allegedly failed to provide all promised benefits to its
consumers.

A class action lawsuit against the company claims Travelers failed
to pay for the full 30 days of rental car coverage it promised
Pennsylvania drivers. Instead, drivers were only covered for
shorter periods of time, the plaintiffs contend.

Travelers hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve
these claims with a class action settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can collect a cash
payment of up to $300. Payment amounts will vary depending on the
number of car rentals already paid by Travelers.

Class Members who received payment for only one to eight days can
recover $300.

Those who received payments for nine to 15 days of rental car
coverage can recover $200.

Individuals who were paid for 16 to 25 days of car rentals can
receive $75.

Class Members who were paid for 26 to 30 days of rental car
coverage can recover $25.

The deadlines for settlement Group I have already passed. Group I
had until March 25, 2022, to exclude themselves, object to the
settlement, or file a claim.

Members of settlement Group II have until May 27, 2022, to exclude
themselves or object to the settlement.

Group II can file a valid claim form to receive a payment, but must
do so by May 27, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits individuals who had a Travelers auto
insurance policy (or a policy through Travelers affiliates) in
Pennsylvania and received one to 30 days of rental coverage after
sustaining a total loss between Jan. 16, 2011, and May 28, 2021.

Potential Award
Up to $300

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase applicable

Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
05/27/2022

Case Name
Stechert v. The Travelers Home and Marine Ins. Co., Case No.
17-CV-784, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania

Final Hearing
06/09/2022

Settlement Website
StechertClassSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Stechert v. The Travelers Home and Marine Ins. Co.
P.O. Box 6546
Portland, OR 97228-6546
855-866-8960

Class Counsel
Richard M Ochroch Esq
Brett N Benton Esq
Andrew R Ochroch Esq
RICHARD M OCHROCH & ASSOCIATES PC

Marc P Weingarten Esq
James Barry Esq
LOCKS LAW FIRM

Defense Counsel
Mark L Hanover
DENTONS US LLP

Brooks R Foland
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN PC [GN]

TWITTER INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockleviton.com), a national securities
litigation firm, on April 12 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders of Twitter, Inc. (NYSE:
TWTR) common shares against Elon Musk for securities law
violations. The complaint was brought in United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned
Rasella v. Elon Musk, No. 1:22-cv-03026 (S.D.N.Y.) and is brought
on behalf of investors that incurred damages on their sales in
Twitter common stock between March 24, 2022 and April 1, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

A class 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.

Investors who sold Twitter shares between March 24, 2022 and April
1, 2022 are strongly encouraged to contact Block & Leviton
attorneys at (617) 398-5600, via email at cases@blockleviton.com,
or to visit our website for information on the case.

The deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff is June 13,
2022.

What is this all about?

Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla and Space-X, and according to
Forbes, the richest person in the world, started to acquire shares
of Twitter beginning in January 2022. By March 14, 2022, Musk had
acquired more than a 5% ownership stake in Twitter, requiring him
to file a Schedule 13 with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") within 10 days, or March 24, 2022.

Musk did not file a Schedule 13 with the SEC within the required
time and instead continued to amass Twitter shares, eventually
acquiring a 9.1% stake in the Company before finally filing a
Schedule 13 on April 4, 2022. By the time Musk filed the required
Schedule 13, revealing his ownership stake in Twitter, the
Company's share rose from a closing price of $39.31 per share on
April 1, 2022, to close at $49.97 per share on April 4, 2022 -- an
increase of approximately 27%.

Investors who sold shares of Twitter Stock between March 24, 2022,
and before the actual April 4, 2022 disclosure, missed the
resulting share price increase as the market reacted to Musk's
purchases. By failing to timely disclose his ownership stake, Mush
was able to acquire shares of Twitter less expensively during the
Class Period.

If you sold or otherwise disposed of Twitter shares between March
24, 2022 and April 1, 2022 or have questions about your legal
rights or possess information relevant to this matter, please
contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600, via email at
cases@blockleviton.com, or visit our website. The deadline to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff is June 13, 2022.

Block & Leviton LLP is a firm dedicated to representing investors
and maintaining the integrity of the country's financial markets.
The firm represents many of the nation's largest institutional
investors as well as individual investors in securities litigation
throughout the United States. The firm's lawyers have recovered
billions of dollars for its clients.

This notice may constitute attorney advertising.

CONTACT:
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin St., Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Email: cases@blockleviton.com
www.blockleviton.com [GN]

TWITTER INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of June 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on April 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Twitter, Inc. ("Twitter" or the "Company")
(NYSE: TWTR) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who sold
or otherwise relinquished Twitter securities between March 24, 2022
and April 1, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until June 13, 2022 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla and Space-X, and according to
Forbes, the richest person in the world, started to acquire shares
of Twitter beginning in January 2022. By March 14, 2022, Musk had
acquired more than a 5% ownership stake in Twitter, requiring him
to file a Schedule 13 with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") within 10 days, or March 24, 2022.

Musk did not file a Schedule 13 with the SEC within the required
time and instead continued to amass Twitter shares, eventually
acquiring a 9.1% stake in the Company before finally filing a
Schedule 13 on April 4, 2022. By the time Musk filed the required
Schedule 13, revealing his ownership stake in Twitter, the
Company's share rose from a closing price of $39.31 per share on
April 1, 2022, to close at $49.97 per share on April 4, 2022 – an
increase of approximately 27%.

Investors who sold shares of Twitter Stock between March 24, 2022,
and before the actual April 4, 2022 disclosure, missed the
resulting share price increase as the market reacted to Musk's
purchases. By failing to timely disclose his ownership stake, Musk
was able to acquire shares of Twitter less expensively during the
Class Period.

If you sold or otherwise relinquished Twitter shares and failed to
fully realize these shares' value, are a long-term stockholder,
have information, 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 Brandon
Walker or Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contacts

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

TWITTER INC: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of June 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow, a nationally ranked and award-winning shareholder
rights firm, on April 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of Twitter, Inc. (NYSE: TWTR)
common shares against Elon Musk for securities law violations. The
complaint was brought in United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and is captioned Rasella v. Elon
Musk, No. 1:22-cv-03026 (S.D.N.Y.) and is brought on behalf of
investors that incurred damages on their sales in Twitter common
stock between March 24, 2022 and April 1, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff
is June 13, 2022.

Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla and Space-X, and according to
Forbes, the richest person in the world, started to acquire shares
of Twitter beginning in January 2022. By March 14, 2022, Musk had
acquired more than a 5% ownership stake in Twitter, requiring him
to file a Schedule 13 with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") within 10 days, or March 24, 2022.

Musk did not file a Schedule 13 with the SEC within the required
time and instead continued to amass Twitter shares, eventually
acquiring a 9.1% stake in the Company before finally filing a
Schedule 13 on April 4, 2022. By the time Musk filed the required
Schedule 13, revealing his ownership stake in Twitter, the
Company's share rose from a closing price of $39.31 per share on
April 1, 2022, to close at $49.97 per share on April 4, 2022 – an
increase of approximately 27%.

Investors who sold shares of Twitter Stock between March 24, 2022,
and before the actual April 4, 2022 disclosure, missed the
resulting share price increase as the market reacted to Musk's
purchases. By failing to timely disclose his ownership stake, Musk
was able to acquire shares of Twitter less expensively during the
Class Period.

If you sold or otherwise disposed of Twitter shares between March
24, 2022 and April 1, 2022 or have questions about your legal
rights or possess information relevant to this matter, please
contact David J. Schwartz using the toll-free number (800)
321-0476, via email at david@labaton.com, or by filling out this
form.

About the Firm

Labaton Sucharow LLP is one of the world's leading complex
litigation firms representing clients in securities, corporate
governance and shareholder rights, consumer, and cybersecurity and
data privacy litigation, as well as whistleblower representation.
Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the
courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry
publications. Offices are located in
New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information
about Labaton Sucharow is available at labaton.com.

Contacts
David J. Schwartz
(800) 321-0476
david@labaton.com [GN]

TWITTER INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 12
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of sellers
of the common stock of Twitter, Inc. (NYSE: TWTR) between March 24,
2022 and April 1, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 13, 2022.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Twitter 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 Twitter class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=5134 or 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 June 13, 2022. 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: Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla and Space-X,
and according to Forbes, the richest person in the world, began to
acquiring shares of Twitter in January 2022. By March 14, 2022,
Musk had acquired more than a 5% ownership stake in Twitter,
requiring him to file a Schedule 13 with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") within 10 days, or March
24, 2022. However, Musk did not file a Schedule 13 with the SEC
within the required time and instead continued to amass Twitter
shares, eventually acquiring over a 9% stake in the Company before
finally filing a Schedule 13 on April 4, 2022.

Upon Musk belatedly filing the required Schedule 13, which first
revealed his ownership stake in Twitter to the public, the
Company's shares rose from a closing price of $39.31 per share on
April 1, 2022, to close at $49.97 per share on April 4, 2022 – an
increase of 27%.

Investors who sold shares of Twitter between March 24, 2022 and
April 4, 2022 missed the resulting share price increase as the
market reacted to Musk's purchases. By failing to timely disclose
his ownership stake, Musk was able to acquire shares of Twitter
less expensively during the Class Period.

To join the Twitter class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=5134 or 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.

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220412006160/en/

CONTACT:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827

lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

ULTA SALON: Arellano Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KATIA ARELLANO, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC.; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2202356, was removed from
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 13, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00639-JGB-KK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum
wage, failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked,
failure to authorize or permit meal periods, failure to authorize
or permit rest periods, failure to indemnify employees for
employment-related losses/expenditures, failure to timely pay
earned wages during employment, failure to provide complete and
accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay all earned wages
and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment, and
unfair business practices.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. is an American chain of
beauty stores headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jon D. Meer, Esq.
         Leo Q. Li, Esq.
         Sofya Perelshteyn, Esq.
         Justin J. Jackson, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP         
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
         Telephone: (310) 277-7200
         Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
         E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                 lli@seyfarth.com
                 sperelshteyn@seyfarth.com
                 jujackson@seyfarth.com

UNISWAP LABS: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aislinn Keely, writing for The Block, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit from a Uniswap user alleges that Uniswap Labs
and its investors are culpable for her losses due to a failure to
comply with securities laws.

Nessa Risley of North Carolina is alleging a lack of
know-your-customer due diligence and failure to register as a
broker-dealer with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
allowed scammers to execute pump and dump schemes with the Uniswap
protocol. Risley says she and others lost funds as a result of
these actors and has accused Uniswap Labs of doing little to root
out fraudulent activity.

Plaintiff Risley claims the tokens traded on Uniswap constitute
unregistered securities, and Uniswap Labs' failure to register with
the SEC as a broker-dealer and comply with securities laws put
investors at risk. Risley argues that had she had access to
disclosures consistent with securities laws, she and other
investors may have avoided some fallout in markets around tokens
including EthereumMax, Bezoge Earth, Matrix Samurai, Alphawolf
Finance, Rocket Bunny and BoomBaby.io. The complaint also alleges a
lack of KYC or other identification checks "has led to rampant
fraud on the exchange."

Uniswap Labs is the legal entity that manages the decentralized
Uniswap protocol, but as regulators have yet to fully hammer out
how to regulate decentralized exchanges, it's unclear what
regulatory burdens rest on entities like Uniswap Labs.

However, regulators may be looking into this area. Last September,
reports circulated that the SEC was investigating Uniswap Labs,
asking for information on how investors use the Uniswap protocol
and how Uniswap Labs markets the platform.

With Uniswap Labs, the complaint also names Uniswap founder Hayden
Adams, and backers Paradigm, AH Capital Management, Andreessen
Horowitz and Union Square Ventures.

The lawsuit alleges these backers "together participated in, and/or
aided and abetted" Uniswap's failures to do more to protect
customers from scams for the sake of profit.

"Defendants are well aware of the fraud perpetrated on the
Exchange, but have done nothing to stop these activities, even
though they could easily do so," said the complaint. "Instead,
Defendants encourage fraudulent conduct by guaranteeing fees on all
trades to issuers of tokens on the Exchange. To date, Uniswap has
siphoned over $1 billion in fees from its users so that issuers of
tokens may continue to profit from their conduct—no matter how
fraudulent."

Uniswap Labs told The Block it plans to fight the case.

"These allegations are meritless and the complaint is riddled with
factual inaccuracies," said a Uniswap Labs spokesperson. "We plan
to vigorously defend against this suit."

Risley is seeking a declaration that Uniswap is in violation of
federal securities laws as well as damages, disgorgement and
interest to be determined at trial. [GN]

UNITED SERVICES: Johnson Files Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Services
Automobile Association, et al. The case is styled as Philip
Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. United Services Automobile Association, USAA Casualty
Insurance Group, USAA General Indemnity Company, Garrison Property
and Casualty Insurance Company, Does 1 through 20, Case No.
3:22-cv-00518-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal., April 14, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

The United Services Automobile Association (USAA) --
https://www.usaa.com/ -- proudly serves millions of military
members and their families with competitive rates on insurance,
banking and investment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Asaf Agazanof, Esq.
          ASAF LAW
          8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (424) 254-8870
          Fax: (888) 254-2651
          Email: asaf@lawasaf.com

               - and -

          Chloe A. Raimey, Esq.
          Robert L. Schug, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER PLLP
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 256-3232
          Email: craimey@nka.com
                 schug@nka.com

               - and -

          George Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
          6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Phone: (323) 940-1697
          Fax: (323) 238-8095
          Email: tom@mblawapc.com
                 Nick@mblawapc.com

               - and -

          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          MANFRED, APC
          600 Broadway Avenue, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 550-4005
          Fax: (619) 550-4006
          Email: mmuecke@manfredapc.com


UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA: Class Action Over Parking Passes Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bock Mackin, writing for North Shore News, reports that a BC
Supreme Court judge has thrown out a University of Victoria
graduate's bid for a class action lawsuit over the university's
refusal to refund parking passes when the pandemic hit.

In September 2019, fifth-year mechanical engineering student Aaron
Timothy Elsser paid $568.05 for a parking permit lasting through
the end of August 2020. In March 2020, after the World Health
Organization declared the coronavirus pandemic, the university
moved classes online and much of the campus closed.

Elsser argued that because the university switched to remote
learning, there was no reason to park on campus. Thus, his contract
was "frustrated and/or breached" and pass holders should be
reimbursed on a prorated basis.

The university refused to issue partial refunds. Had the pandemic
affected operations during the first four months of the contract,
Justice Catherine Murray said, Elsser would have been entitled to a
refund.

Elsser did not dispute the decision to move to online learning and
told the court that he did not attend the campus between March 23
and Aug. 31, 2020.

While the judge accepted switching to online learning and closing
the campus made the parking contract less useful, it was not
rendered useless.

"The plaintiff argues that it is common sense to conclude that only
people that were attending the University or working there would
buy an annual parking permit," said Murray's April 11 judgment.
"That may be so, but it was not a term, either express or implied,
of the contract. The plaintiff did not need a reason to park on
campus to purchase a permit. Parking permits are not only available
to people that work or attend classes on campus. The parking
contract is quite simply that -- a contract for a parking spot. The
pandemic did not change the fundamental contractual obligations.
The plaintiff could still park at the University after learning
went online and the gym closed."

Elsser contested the university's application to quash the lawsuit,
claiming it was premature because he had not received disclosure
from the university. But Murray called that irrelevant. How or why
the university chose not to offer refunds would not determine
whether the contract was breached or frustrated.

"The University's 'decision-making process,' the amount of parking
permit money refunded, what the University did with the money it
did not refund, or cost savings to the University during the
pandemic do not need to be investigated in order for the plaintiff
to put his best foot forward on this application or for the court
to determine whether the breach of contract or frustration claims
should be dismissed," Murray wrote. "Nor will any of that
disclosure raise a triable issue."

Murray found the claim the parking contract was breached had no
chance of success and dismissed the action with costs to the
university. [GN]

VEGA CAPITAL: Must Face Class Action Over Oil Futures Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that eight London
commodities traders lost their bid to end federal antitrust
litigation in Chicago over claims that they participated in a $500
million scheme to rig oil futures markets when the price of a
barrel briefly fell into negative territory, but their trading
house and several colleagues are off the hook.

Judge Gary Feinerman let part of the case move forward in a ruling
made public early on April 12, saying the allegations make it
plausible that traders at Vega Capital London Ltd. conspired to
drive oil prices negative for the first time in April 2020 and
subsequently concealed their market manipulation.

"There may be explanations for the correlated trading that do not
involve collusion," but those defenses are for later in the case,
Feinerman wrote. As an initial matter, "the high degree of
correlation" among the traders makes the "allegation of parallel
conduct eminently plausible," he said.

The lawsuit, filed in August 2020, targets Vega, its owner, and a
dozen traders there who reportedly made $500 million in a single
day when crude oil futures fell $56 a barrel on April 20, 2020, to
close at - $37 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange - the
only time oil has ever gone negative.

The suit accuses Vega and its traders of dumping certain May 2020
oil futures contracts at a loss in a coordinated scheme to drive
down the cost of "trading at settlement" contracts pegged to the
closing price that day, of which they'd bought "a large volume"
beforehand.

Prices recovered to $10 a barrel the next day, allegedly giving
Vega a huge windfall. The proposed class action, led by coin
collector Mish International Monetary Inc., alleges violations of
antitrust laws and the Commodities Exchange Act.

Vega and the traders, meanwhile, insist they did no more than
observe the market signals forecasting a "once-in-a-century storm"
caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Feinerman in May 2021 granted
their unopposed request to face the case anonymously.

In the ruling docketed on April 12, the judge cited incriminating
communications among eight of the traders, who made statements like
"you've just got to keep selling," "wanna see negative" prices, "we
f-cking blitzed it boys," and "please don't tell anyone what
happened today lads."

He also noted that "a significant portion of the record price
decline" that day took place when the traders "increased the
quantity, rate, and manipulative quality of their selling,"
including the sharpest price drops, which "occurred when their
allegedly manipulative trading was at its peak."

Among the eight traders implicated by the suspicious chat logs,
trading activity that day allegedly showed a 91.9% to 99.7%
correlation, Feinerman said. The parallel trades and "statements
reflecting real-time trade coordination" are enough for the case to
advance, he found.

But the judge tentatively dismissed claims against four of the
traders who weren't involved in those conversations, saying there
wasn't enough to tie them to the alleged conspiracy.

He also let Vega and its owner out of the case, saying the suit
"does not allege parallel conduct as to Vega or its owner,
Individual A," or "any conduct" at all by them on the day in
question. The structure of Vega's contracts with its traders
doesn't support an inference of collusion, Feinerman found.

The dismissed portions of the suit can be refiled by April 28, the
judge said. The ruling was originally filed under seal March 31.

Mish is represented by Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP and
Miller Law LLC. Vega is represented by Akerman LLP. The traders are
represented by MoloLamken LLP and Dechert LLP. [GN]

VOLTA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 31 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Volta Inc. ("Volta" or the "Company") between August 2, 2021 and
March 28, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Volta partners with real estate and retail businesses to locate and
deploy its electric vehicle charging stations. The Company
generates revenue from advertising on its content-driven charging
stations, installing and maintaining the charging stations, and
delivering electricity at the charging stations.

On March 2, 2022, after the market closed, Volta revealed that the
financial impact of the restatement of its third quarter 2021
financial results -- first announced after-market on February 25,
2022 -- was greater than previously disclosed, with the Company
expecting to report a net loss of $69.7 million for the quarter. On
this news, the Company's share price fell $0.11, or 2.6%, to close
at $4.01 per share on March 3, 2022.

Then, on March 21, 2022, Volta announced that it would reschedule
its fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $0.38, or 8.4% to close at
$4.12 per share on March 21, 2022.

Finally, on March 28, 2022, Volta announced that its founders,
Scott Mercer and Christopher Wendel, had resigned from their
positions as CEO and President, respectively, and from the Board of
Directors of the Company. On this news, the Company's share price
fell $0.76, or 18%, to close at $3.37 per share on March 28, 2022,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Volta had improperly accounted for restricted
stock units issued in connection with the Business Combination; (2)
that, as a result, the Company had understated its net loss for
third quarter 2021; (3) that there were material weaknesses in the
Company's internal control over financial reporting that resulted
in a material error; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company would restate its financial statements; (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Volta's founders would imminently exit the
Company; (6) that, as a result, the Company's financial results
would be adversely impacted; and (7) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 31, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased VLTA securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit Volta Inc. Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or
pallocco@bernlieb.com.

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

Contact Information:

Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]

VOLTA INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of May 31 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on April 12 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Volta Inc.
(NYSE: VLTA) alleging that the Company violated federal securities
laws.

Class Period: August 2, 2021 to March 28, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 31, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in VLTA:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/volta-inc-loss-submission-form?id=25800&from=4

Volta Inc. NEWS - VLTA NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Volta
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Volta had improperly accounted for
restricted stock units issued in connection with the business
combination of Volta Industries, Inc. ("Legacy Volta") and Tortoise
Acquisition Corp. II; (2) as a result, the Company had understated
its net loss for third quarter 2021; (3) there were material
weaknesses in the Company's internal control over financial
reporting that resulted in a material error; (4) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company would restate its financial statements; (5)
as a result of the foregoing, Legacy Volta's founders would
imminently exit the Company; (6) as a result, the Company's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (7) 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.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Volta you have until May 31, 2022 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Volta securities during the
relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the VLTA lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/volta-inc-loss-submission-form?id=25800&from=4.

ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. 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
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

WALGREEN CO: Faces Class Action in N.Y. Over Lidocaine Patches
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Fay, writing for Law Street, reports that on April 11,
Michael Toporek filed a class action lawsuit in the Eastern
District of New York against Walgreen Co. alleging deceptive and
misleading trade practices in association with its lidocaine
patches.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff and members of the class
bought lidocaine patches in reliance on Walgreen's marketing and
advertising, which claims that its lidocaine patches provide "pain
relief," that is "maximum strength," through a "stay-put flexible
patch," that will work for "up to 12 hours."  

However, the plaintiff argues that these claims are false and
misleading. Toporek argues that, despite proper application, within
a short time, the lidocaine patches commonly fall off of consumers'
bodies and do not stay put for 12 hours to provide the represented
maximum strength pain relief, thus depriving consumers of the
advertised benefits. Further, he argues that Walgreens' claims that
the lidocaine patches are "maximum strength" are false and
misleading because Walgreen's patches only contain 4% lidocaine
despite other lidocaine patches on the market containing 5%
lidocaine.

Toporek alleges that he and other class members paid a premium for
the lidocaine patches based on the false representations by
Walgreen Co. and thus suffered an injury in the amount of the
premium paid.

The complaint alleges that the defendant's deceptive and misleading
marketing is in violation of New York General Business Law, in
breach of express warranty and in violation of the principles of
unjust enrichment. Therefore, the plaintiff seeks class
certification, injunctive relief, disgorgement of funds, monetary
damages, treble, punitive and statutory damages, including damages
of $50 per transaction and treble damages for knowing and willful
violations, and statutory damages of $500 per transaction,
attorney's fees and costs.

The plaintiff is represented by the Sultzer Law Group P.C. [GN]

WALGREEN CO: Toropek Files Lidocaine Patch Mislabeling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Toporek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Walgreen Co., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-02084 (E.D.N.Y., April 11, 2022) is a class action seeking
to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of
Walgreen Co. with respect to the marketing and sale of its various
pain relief lidocaine patch products throughout the state of New
York and throughout the U.S. in violation of the New York General
Business Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, sells, and
distributes the products using a marketing and advertising campaign
that represents that its lidocaine patches provide "pain relief,"
that is "maximum strength," through a "stay-put flexible patch,"
that will work for "up to 12 hours." However, Defendant's claims,
representations, and warranties are allegedly false and misleading.
Despite proper application, within a short time the products
commonly fall off of consumers' bodies, thus depriving consumers of
the advertised benefits.

The Plaintiff purchased the products during the Class Period in
2021 and 2022 at Walgreens brick-and-mortar locations in Long
Island, New York.

Walgreen Co. provides online medical products. The Company sells
prescription refills, health info, contact lenses, and other
products. Walgreen serves customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: ultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

WHOLE FOODS: Class Action Over Chocolate Ice Cream Bars Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP disclosed that on April 8, 2022, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern
Division dismissed a class action lawsuit which alleged that Whole
Foods had deceptively advertised its "Organic Chocolate Ice Cream
Bars" as a chocolate product even though, according to the
ingredient list, it contained more palm kernel oil than organic
chocolate.

The court held that the Plaintiff's interpretation of the labeling
was unreasonable. Specifically, the court noted that Whole Foods
had accurately disclosed the ingredients in the ingredient list and
had never advertised its product as exclusively or 100% chocolate,
nor made any representation regarding the proportion of cacao
ingredients to other ingredients in the chocolate coating.
Interestingly, while the court accepted that definitions of
chocolate, including FDA's definition of "milk chocolate" in 21 CFR
163.130, "universally exclude fats from sources other than cacao
ingredients," it did not find this fact dispositive since plaintiff
had not alleged that "consumers were aware of those definitions or
would expect a chocolate coating on ice cream to conform precisely
to those definitions."

This case, along with other similar decisions (See e.g., Mars
Chocolate Case and Kellogg Strawberry Pop-Tart Case) suggest that
challenges to the addition of "other" ingredients (e.g., vegetable
oils) into a product advertised and named according to another
primary ingredient (e.g., cocoa) are unlikely to succeed where the
defendant has (1) not made a claim about the relative proportions
of the ingredients and (2) accurately disclosed the ingredients on
the ingredient list. [GN]

XP INC: Stockholder Suit Over IPO Dismissed
-------------------------------------------
XP Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 13, 2022, that in February 8, 2021 and March 8,
2021, respectively, the New York State and federal district courts
dismissed actions filed against XP in their entirety and with
prejudice.

From March to April 2020, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed against the company and certain of its
officers and directors and our then controlling shareholder, XP
Controle, one of which was filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York and two of which were filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In June 2020,
the federal actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and
co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel were appointed. The New York
State plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, which
added as defendants certain of its directors. Thereafter, co-lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action also filed an amended
complaint, which added XP Controle, and one of our directors as
defendants. The complaints alleged, among other things, that
certain offering documents filed with the SEC in connection with
our IPO misrepresented and/or omitted to state certain material
facts. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss both the New York
State action and the consolidated federal action in their
entirety.

On February 8, 2021 and March 8, 2021, respectively, the New York
State and federal district courts dismissed both actions in their
entirety and with prejudice. The plaintiff in the New York State
action has not appealed or sought re-argument of the relevant
dismissal decision. On April 7, 2021, the plaintiff in the
consolidated federal action filed a notice of appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal was
denied on November 22, 2021.

XP Inc. is a securities broker, dealers and flotation company based
in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


[*] Accounting Class Actions Against SPACs Tripled in 2021
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Iacone, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that accounting
class actions involving blank check companies tripled in 2021 amid
a surge in the use of the fast-track process to take a firm
public.

About one in five accounting-related class actions filed last year
involved special purpose acquisition companies even as the total
number of suits related to financial reporting dropped, according
to a Cornerstone Research Inc. report released on
April 13.

Shareholders filed just 46 accounting-related class actions last
year, the second-lowest number in a decade and a notable drop from
the 70 filed in 2020. [GN]



[*] Accounting Securities Class Action Filings Down in 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------
Securities class action filings and settlements with accounting
allegations fell in 2021—both in terms of numbers and as
percentages of total securities class actions. Settlement dollars
and defendant market capitalization losses in case filings also
dropped to low levels, according to a report released on April 13
by Cornerstone Research.

Accounting Case Filings
The report, Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements—2021
Review and Analysis, found that plaintiffs filed 46 securities
class actions with accounting allegations (accounting case
filings), the second-lowest level in the last 10 years and down
from 70 filings in 2020. Accounting case filings made up 24% of all
federal securities class action filings in 2021, compared to 31% in
2020.

Filings involving special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) was
one area of focus that grew. Approximately 20% of accounting case
filings in 2021 involved a SPAC, and in the second half of the year
that figure was nearly one in three.

Filings referencing financial statement restatements and/or
allegations of internal control weaknesses declined to the lowest
level in more than 10 years.

Accounting Case Settlements
There were 33 settlements that involved accounting allegations
(accounting case settlements) in 2021, down from 38 settlements in
the previous year. The percentage of accounting case settlements
fell to 38% of all securities class actions settled in 2021,
compared to 49% in 2020.

The total value of securities class action settlements with
accounting allegations dropped sharply from $3.7 billion in 2020 to
$755 million in 2021. The median settlement value for accounting
cases was $7.5 million, down from a median settlement value of
$11.3 million in 2020 (adjusted for inflation), despite an increase
in the size of issuer firm defendants.

Market Capitalization Losses
For defendant companies named in accounting case filings, the
Disclosure Dollar Loss Index®, a measure of market capitalization
losses, fell from $70.9 million to $29.4 million, its lowest level
since 2017.

Author Commentary
Elaine M. Harwood, senior vice president and head of the firm's
accounting practice: "SPAC filings that include accounting
allegations tripled in 2021 as compared to the prior year.
Allegations of inappropriate revenue recognition and weaknesses in
internal control have been the most common accounting issues in
these cases, followed by allegedly omitted disclosure of
related-party transactions."

Frank T. Mascari, principal: "Given the overall decline in
financial statement restatements by public issuers in recent years,
the decline in accounting-related class actions involving
restatements is not surprising. However, this trend could reverse,
in light of the SEC's recent focus on registrants' evaluation of
accounting errors and the need for restatements."

Laura E. Simmons, senior advisor: "The decline in accounting case
settlement amounts was part of a broader decline for all types of
securities class actions settled in 2021. One factor that is
typically associated with higher settlement amounts is public
pension plan involvement as a lead plaintiff. In 2021, the
proportion of accounting case settlements involving a public
pension plan lead plaintiff declined to its lowest level in the
last 10 years."

About Accounting Cases
Cases are considered "accounting cases" if they involve allegations
related to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
violations, violations of other reporting standards, auditing
violations, or weaknesses in internal controls over financial
reporting.

This year's report focuses on federal securities class action
filings containing Rule 10b-5, Section 11, or Section 12(a) claims,
previously referred to as "core" filings. [GN]

[*] Biometric Information Bill Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------
Tony Oncidi, Esq., of Proskauer, reports that Pablo Neruda once
said "you can cut all the flowers but you cannot keep spring from
coming."  Likewise, California businesses' protests against
oppressive employment legislation don't seem to stem the tide of
the Legislature's latest batch of anti-employer bills.

The California Chamber of Commerce has just identified a host of
recently introduced "Job Killer" Bills pending before the
California Legislature.  This year's list includes bills that
would, among other things, inflate employer data reporting
requirements and further expand the scope of the Fair Employment
and Housing Act ("FEHA").  Here are a few from the list:

SB 1189 (Wieckowski; D-Fremont) New Private Right of Action for
Biometric Information.  Would prohibit private entities from
collecting or receiving biometric information unless they provide
notice and receive consent from the individual, similar to
Illinois' Biometric Privacy Act, which has spawned an avalanche of
class action lawsuits.  SB 1189 would provide a private right of
action and allow for recovery of statutory or actual damages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief
the court determines appropriate. [GN]


[*] Class Actions Over Data Security Incidents More Common
----------------------------------------------------------
HIPAA Journal reports that the law firm BakerHostetler has
published its 8th Annual Data Security Incident Response (DSIR)
Report, which provides insights based on 1,270 data security
incidents managed by the firm in 2021. 23% of those incidents
involved data security incidents at healthcare organizations, which
was the most targeted sector.

Ransomware Attacks Increased in 2021
Ransomware attacks have continued to occur at elevated levels, with
them accounting for 37% of all data security incidents handled by
the firm in 2021, compared to 27% in 2020 and there are no signs
that attacks will decrease in 2022. Attacks on healthcare
organizations increased considerably year over year. 35% of
healthcare security incidents handled by BakerHostetler in 2021
involved ransomware, up from 20% in 2022.

Ransom demands and payments decreased in 2021. In healthcare, the
average initial ransom demand was $8,329,520 (median $1,043,480)
and the average ransom paid was $875,784 (median $500,846) which is
around two-thirds of the amount paid in 2020. Restoration of files
took an average of 6.1 days following payment of the ransom, and in
97% of cases, data was successfully restored after paying the
ransom.

Data exfiltration is now the norm in ransomware attacks. 82% of the
ransomware attacks handled by BakerHostetler in 2021 included a
claim that the attackers had exfiltrated data prior to encrypting
files. In 73% of those incidents, evidence of data theft was
uncovered, and 81% required notice to be provided to individuals.
The average number of notifications was 81,679 and the median
number of notifications was 1,002.

The threat of the exposure of stolen data prompted many
organizations to pay the ransom. 33% of victims paid the ransom
even though they were able to partially restore files from backups
and 24% paid even though they had fully restored files from
backups.

There was also an increase in business email compromise (BEC)
attacks, where phishing and social engineering are used to access
organizations' email accounts, which are then used to trick
organizations into making fraudulent payments. While there was an
improvement in detection in time to recover transferred funds –
43% compared to 38% in 2020 – there was an increase in the number
of organizations that had to provide notifications about the
incident to individuals and regulators, jumping from 43% of
incidents in 2020 to 60% in 2021.

Class Action Lawsuits are More Common, Even for Smaller Data
Incidents
It is now more common for organizations to face class action
lawsuits after data security incidents. While class action lawsuits
tended to only be filed for large data incidents, it is now
increasingly common for smaller data incidents to also result in
lawsuits. In 2021, 23 disclosed data incidents resulted in lawsuits
being filed, up from 20 in 2020. 11 of the lawsuits related to data
incidents involving the data of fewer than 700,000 individuals,
with 3 lawsuits filed in relation to incidents that affected fewer
than 8,000 individuals.

BakerHostetler identified a trend in 2021 for multiple class action
lawsuits to be filed following a data incident. More than 58
lawsuits were filed related to the 23 incidents, and 43 of those
lawsuits were in response to data breaches at healthcare
organizations.

"There was always a risk of multidistrict litigation following
large data incidents. However, now we are seeing multiple lawsuits
following an incident notification in the same federal forum. Or,
in the alternative, we see a handful of cases in one federal forum
and another handful of cases in a state venue," explained
BakerHostetler in the report. "This duplicative litigation trend is
increasing the "race to the courthouse" filings and increasing the
initial litigation defense costs and the ultimate cost of
settlement, due to the number of plaintiffs' attorneys involved."

OCR is Requesting Evidence of "Recognized Security Practices"
2021 saw record numbers of data breaches reported by healthcare
organizations. 714 incidents were reported to the HHS' Office for
Civil Rights in 2021 compared to 663 in 2020, and more data
breaches were referred to the Department of Justice to investigate
possible criminal violations than in previous years.

In 2021, there was an amendment made to the HITECH Act to include a
HIPAA Safe Harbor for organizations that have adopted recognized
security practices for at least 12 months prior to a data breach
occurring. BakerHostetler said that out of the 40 OCR
investigations of organizations that it worked with, OCR frequently
asked about the recognized security practices that had been in
place in the 12 months prior to the incident occurring.
BakerHostetler strongly recommends organizations examine their
security practices and ensure they match the definition of
"recognized security practices" detailed in the HITECH amendment,
and to consider further investments in cybersecurity to meet that
definition if their security practices fall short of what is
required. [GN]

[*] New Ohio Law Blocks Opt-out Option for Overtime Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Morrison, reporting for Fox8, writes should you be paid for
answering work emails or messages after hours? A new bill signed
into law makes what qualifies as overtime more concrete.

What will change?

State Senators Andrew Brenner (R-Delaware) and Bob Peterson
(R-Washington Court House) co-sponsored Senate Bill 47, which makes
it so workers cannot receive overtime payments for things like
traveling to and from their jobs and activities that would take
"insubstantial or insignificant periods of time" outside of work,
(which could definitely mean email).

The law also blocks class-action lawsuits for overtime violations
from being opt-out. Instead, lawsuits must be classified as opt-in
for workers.

"This bill reduces the burden on employees and employers of having
to keep track of minimal minutes of unrequired time outside of
normal work hours," Peterson said in a statement. "It also reduces
the likelihood of liability and lawsuits arising from unpaid
overtime."

What will not change?

The new rules still allow employees to receive overtime when they
are asked to do specific tasks by their boss, or if something is
written in a contract.

When does this go into effect?

The new rules go into effect July 6.

The move comes as more people are working from home, blurring the
lines between a work/life balance. Opponents of the new rules say
they could be harmful to hourly employees who attempt to be paid
for all of their work.

Countries like France have given employees the right to choose not
to answer work emails after hours, passing a law in 2017 aimed at
stopping an "explosion of undeclared labor." [GN]


[*] Sidley Attorneys Discuss Life Science Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Brody, Esq., Robin Wechkin, Esq., Francesca Brody, Esq.,
Matthew J. Dolan, Esq., and Sarah Hemmendinger, Esq.,of Sidley,
disclosed that securities class actions against life sciences
companies are almost always second-order problems. The first-order
problem is a business or regulatory setback that, when disclosed by
the company or a third party, is followed by a stock price drop.
Following the decline, plaintiffs' class-action attorneys will
search the company's previous public statements in search of
inconsistencies between past positive comments and the current
negative development. In most cases, plaintiffs' attorneys will
seek to show that any arguable inconsistency amounts to fraud --
that is, they will claim that the earlier statement was knowingly
or recklessly false or misleading. Where a company makes the
challenged statement in a public offering document (that is, a
registration statement or prospectus), plaintiffs need only show
that the statement was materially false or misleading, not that it
was made with scienter, i.e., the requisite state of mind.

Many securities class actions are followed by tagalong derivative
lawsuits, in which stockholder plaintiffs seek to assert claims,
purportedly on behalf of the company, against the company's
officers and directors. The plaintiffs' theory in these cases is
that the company was exposed to securities litigation as a result
of fiduciary breaches by officers and directors, and that the
officers and directors therefore must indemnify the company for
losses associated with securities litigation. Derivative plaintiffs
often allege that the company's officers and directors are
responsible for enabling or causing the company to make the same
allegedly false or misleading statements challenged in the
securities litigation. These derivative actions generally rise and
fall with the companion securities cases. As a result, it is
helpful for counsel representing a company or its officers and
directors in tagalong derivative litigation to understand the
trends in related securities litigation.

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
securities fraud plaintiffs must meet heightened pleading standards
to survive a motion to dismiss, and they are typically not entitled
to discovery while the motion is pending. As a result, securities
defendants file motions to dismiss in virtually every case. These
motions are generally lengthy and complex. For the most part,
federal courts consider the motions carefully and hold plaintiffs
to the demanding statutory pleading requirements.

In 2021, life sciences companies succeeded in 58% of the motions to
dismiss they filed. Sidley prepares an annual Survey of Securities
Class Actions in the Life Sciences Sector, from which we summarize
key points below. We believe that analyzing legal developments by
reference to the stage of drug or device development at which a
setback occurs may yield useful insights and assist in risk
mitigation. Accordingly, our analysis is structured around cases
based on setbacks that occur at the pre-approval stage (i.e., in
the course of clinical trials and in pre-clinical studies) and
post-approval (i.e. the launch and marketing of the product).

Six Takeaways From New Decisions Issued in 2021
The Numbers: Two Takeaways

1. Success rate in the district courts was consistent with the
success rate in 2020. District courts issued 33 new decisions on
motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment filed by life
sciences companies. Defendants were successful in 19 of the cases.
This 58% success rate was in line with a 57% success rate in 2020,
but down from the five-year high of 65% in 2018.

2. The success rate in post-approval cases was the same as that in
pre-approval cases. Companies in 2021 prevailed as often in the
post-approval as in the pre-approval cases. This is in marked
contrast with the normal trend, in which success rates in the
pre-approval cases can be as much as 40% higher than in the
post-approval cases. The diminished success rate in the
pre-approval context may be the result of stronger-than-usual
confidential witness allegations in the cases decided in 2021. The
increased success rate in the post-approval context appears to
reflect the weakness of a series of complaints filed against
companies with quarterly misses unrelated to any regulatory setback
or issue.

The Substance: Four Takeaways

1. Mixed results the first round of COVID-19-related cases. Courts
ruled on motions to dismiss in four cases involving
COVID-19-related products in 2021, granting dismissal in two and
denying dismissal in two. Companies won dismissal in cases
involving development of a rapid antigen test and a monoclonal
antibody treatment. In both cases, the courts placed the companies'
highly optimistic statements in the context of the early months of
the pandemic, when reasonable investors knew that many steps
remained before the FDA could grant approval. Courts denied motions
to dismiss in two cases involving the development of vaccines,
concluding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that statements
about manufacturing partnerships were deliberately misleading in
light of undisclosed obstacles facing the manufacturers.

2. The progeny and significance of Endologix. In its 2020 decision
in Nguyen v. Endologix, 962 F.3d 405 (9th Cir. 2020), the Ninth
Circuit introduced a key insight: Most alleged frauds in the
pre-approval context are inherently unsustainable. Eventually, a
product will fail to gain approval, which means that defendants can
only delay the inevitable. Given that reality, many theories of
scienter in pre-approval cases are simply implausible. The notable
exception comes in cases in which plaintiffs are able to allege
that defendants obtained a financial benefit from the purported
fraud by selling stock during a period of temporary inflation. In
2021, district courts began to apply the Endologix analysis, which
in principle should apply to all stages of product development up
to approval. Application of Endologix in 2021 led to dismissal.

3. The securities law overhang of post-approval regulatory issues.
Nearly all of the 2021 decisions denying motions to dismiss in the
post-approval cases involved securities claims piggybacked onto
adverse regulatory scrutiny of or action related to sales, market,
or billing practices. The courts in these cases often embraced the
proposition that when a company puts its sources of revenue "at
issue," it must also disclose that its performance was driven by
(purportedly) improper conduct. Stated at this level of generality,
the proposition appears dangerously open-ended: Companies cannot
help but put the sources of their revenue at issue. In practice,
however, the proposition may be checked by the more
defendant-friendly principle that companies need not disclose
uncharged wrongdoing, or by arguments that plaintiffs have failed
to adequately plead scienter. Careful tailoring of risk disclosures
in this area may ward off securities liability.

4. Mixed approaches and results related to "core operations." In
both the pre-approval and the post-approval setting, plaintiffs who
are unable to plead particularized facts supporting a strong
inference of scienter may fall back on the generalized theory that
a court can infer scienter when the alleged fraud occurred in an
area at the "core" of a company's business. District courts in the
Second and Third Circuits rejected such allegations in 2021, while
district courts in the Ninth Circuit in two cases accepted the
allegations. In both of the unfavorable decisions, however, many
factors were in play beyond the importance of a product to the
company's business.

Five Takeaways From New Complaints Filed in 2021
1. Securities plaintiffs filed 49 new class actions against
publicly traded life sciences companies in 2021, up slightly from
class action filings in 2019 (44) and 2020 (45).

2. The most significant trend in the new filings relates to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Six of the new cases arose from setbacks in the
development of COVID-19-related products. Such products proceeded
through a distinct procedural pathway at the FDA, the Emergency Use
Authorization.

3. Geographically, the cases are concentrated in three regions,
corresponding to three federal appellate circuits:
13 new cases in the Second Circuit, which includes New York
7 new cases in the Third Circuit, which includes New Jersey
19 new cases in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California

4. Roughly 80% of the new cases (39) involve pre-approval drugs or
devices.

5. Of the pre-approval cases, nearly half (18) arise from setbacks
at the final stages of the approval process, after a company has
submitted an NDA, BLA, or premarket clearance application. [GN]

[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now
------------------------------------------------------------------
Register for the 6th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference,
Monday, May 2nd, at the Harmonie Club.

New speakers are announced weekly.  If your firm is interested in
sponsorship or a speaking opportunity, please contact:

     Bernard Toliver, CMP
     Tel: (240) 629-3300 ext. 149
     E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com

For more conference information, visit us at
https://www.classactionconference.com/



                            *********

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 2022. 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 ***