/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200214.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, February 14, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 33

                            Headlines

1010 CARPENTERS WAY: Hinson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Water Contamination Lawsuits
500.COM LIMITED: Hagens Berman Reminds of March 16 Deadline
500.COM LIMITED: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action

ALLIANCEMED: Fax Class in Retina Associates Suit Gets Certified
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Ordered to Open Books to Class Action Lawyers
AMGEN INC: Restrains Competition for Sensipar, MSP Recovery Says
ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT: Judge Has Yet to Rule on PFAS Case Motion
ARSTRAT LLC: Aleman Sues Over Illegal Collection Letter

ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Faces Dier Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection
ATHENS ORTHOPEDIC: Attorney Analyzes Significance of Court Ruling
BITFINEX: Sued for Manipulating Bitcoin and Futures Contracts
BLUE CROSS: Cawthon Hits Delayed/Denied Cancer Treatment
BUMBLE BEE: Court Takes Into Consideration Bankruptcy Status

CALIFORNIA: Faces Pregnant Correction Officers' Class Action
CANADA: B.C. Hunting Guides Class Action Hearing Set for March
CANADA: July 2022 Deadline Set for Day School Survivor Claims
CAPITAL FITNESS: Faces Fongaro Suit Alleging Violation of BIPA
CASPER: Social Media Influencers May Pose Class Action Risk

CBS ENTERTAINMENT: Redstone & Ianniello Dismissed From Case
CIOX HEALTH: Montana Residents Balk at Fee for Medical Records
COINBASE: Settles Cryptsy Cryptocurrency Class Action
COLORTREE GROUP: Employees Set to Get Settlement Checks
COOK COUNTY, IL: Jones Seeks Okay of Notice to Therapists Class

COVINGTON RIDGE: Fabricant Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
DENNY'S CORP: Cooley Seeks to Stop Sending of Marketing Texts
DUPONT: Clean Cape Fear Joins Petition to Call PFAS Hazardous
ENERGY TRANSFER: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
ENERGY TRANSFER: Securities Class Action Assigned to Judge McHugh

EXELON CORP: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
FEDEX GROUND: Cuadra Sues in California Over Wrongly Paid Wages
FONDUE 26 LLC: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Tavarez Claims
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 2 Deadline
FUNDIT LENDING: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California

GILEAD SCIENCES: Hit With Second Truvada Antitrust Class Action
GLOBAL ENTERPRISE: Perez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Fund Hit with Homestead Class Action Payment
GOOGLE LLC: Molander Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Data
GREEN DOT: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of Feb. 18 Deadline

GREEN DOT: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 18 Deadline
GREEN DOT: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
GT'S LIVING: Mislabels Enlightened Kombucha Drinks, Sharpe Claims
HIGH BRIDGE: Motion to Certify Class in Moore Suit Denied
HIGHMARK INC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Hotel's Suit

HORNBLOWER YACHTS: Murray Sues Over Improper Wage Statements
HYATT HOTELS: Faces Potential Biometrics Privacy Class Action
IFINEX INC: Ebanks Sues Over Bitcoin Price Manipulation
IFINEX: Two Firms Seek to Lead 3 Class-Action Suits on Bitcoin
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Mold Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status

INFOSYS: Chair Defends Concealing Whistleblowers' Complaints
JAGUAR LAND: Air Suspension Leak Class Settlement Gets Prelim. OK
JAKARTA: Flood Victims File Class Action Against Governor
KALAMATA RESEARCH: Mizrahi Sues Over Unauthorized Marketing Texts
KGN ENTERPRISES: Pereira Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Pay

KRAFT HEINZ: Misrepresented Crystal Light Products, Stewart Says
LIBERTY INSURANCE: 6th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Richelson Lawsuit
MADISON COUNTY, MS: Simpson Thacher Help Curb Police Bias
MAJOR LEAGUE: Dodgers Super Fan Considering Class Action Lawsuit
MATTEL INC: Zhang Investor Announces Class Action Lawsuit

MCCLATCHY CO: Business as Usual While in Chapter 11
MELBA UTICA: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Hernandez Claims
MERIT MEDICAL: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
MERIT MEDICAL: Klein Law Firm Reminds of March 3 Deadline
MG LUNA INC: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under MSPA, Labor Code

MICROSOFT CORP: 9th Cir. Barely Acknowledges Dukes Case in Ruling
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 3 Deadline
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Prongay & Murray Reminds of March 3 Deadline
NEBRASKA: Correctional Service Department Faces Class Action
PATTERN ENERGY: Andrews & Springer Discloses Class Action Filing

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Jones Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site
PETSCRIPT INC: Pet Parade Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Faxes
PLAINS ALL: Seeks to Decertify Class in Oil Spill Suit
PLAZA SERVICES: Wheeler Sues Over Harassing Collection Calls
PORTOLA PHARMA: Bragar Easel Reminds of March 16 Deadline

PROFRAC SERVICES: Faces Singleton Suit over Unpaid Wages
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Crawford Hits Share Drop from Bad Forecast
PUTNAM INVESTMENTS: SCOTUS Won't Review ERISA Causation Dispute
RFR CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
RIPPLE LABS: Class Action Win Won't Mean Much for XRP

RIPPLE LABS: Fate of XRP Crypto Market Now in Judge's Hands
RUNWAY TOWING: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Deceiving Customers
SNC LAVALIN: Judge Addresses Question on Parallel Class Action
SOUTHERN CROSS: Beltrame Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
SUNRISE, FL: White and Bulzone Seek Overtime Pay for Cops

TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Feb. 28 Deadline
TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Pawar Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Borusan Mannesmann Says Tariffs Illegal
UP PROPERTIES: Gailes Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
US AUTO PARTS NETWORK: Tallie Alleges Abusive Telemarketing Acts

WEST VIRGINIA: Faces Class Action Over Biweekly Pay Schedule
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Doesn't Have to Disclose Customers List
WINNEBAGO COUNTY: Abresch Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Premiums
[*] Guardians of Opioid-Defendant Kids Seek to Join Class Action
[*] Workplace Class Actions Continue to Grow, Seyfarth Shaw Notes


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had 51,000 Open Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had 13,000 Open Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Faces Stearns PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Prager Unit Still Has PI Claims in Dec.


                            *********

1010 CARPENTERS WAY: Hinson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lionel Hinson, on behalf of himself and other employees and former
employees similarly situated v. 1010 Carpenters Way Operations, LLC
and CMC II, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-00283-SCB-JSS (M.D. Fla., Feb. 6,
2020), is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for failure to pay overtime wages.

The Defendants required the Plaintiff to cover multiple night and
weekend shifts each week as a regular floor nurse, in addition to
his regular shifts as a unit manager. As a result of the extra
shifts, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40
hours within a work week in most work weeks, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed at Wedgewood by the Defendants in part
as a nursing unit manager. He alleges that the Defendants failed to
compensate him at a rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

The Defendants operate a nursing home known as Wedgewood Healthcare
Center at 1010 Carpenters Way, in Lakeland, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Kemp Brinson, Esq.
          BLOODWORTH LAW, PLLC
          801 N. Magnolia Ave., Suite 216
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Phone: 407-777-8541
          Email: KBrinson@LawyerFightsForYou.com
                 CAcedo@LawyerFightsForYou.com


3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Water Contamination Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen M. Gilmer, writing for Bloomberg Environment, reports that
court dockets are ballooning with litigation over PFAS, a vexing
family of chemicals used in many consumer and industrial products.

Some types of the man-made per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are
called "forever chemicals," a shorthand for their ability to build
up and stick around indefinitely in people and the environment.

Health risks of some types of PFAS have become clearer in recent
years, prompting a rush to the courtroom by people exposed to the
chemicals, utilities dealing with contamination, and shareholders
facing the financial risks. Lawyers have compared the legal
onslaught to litigation over asbestos, tobacco, and lead paint.

Here's a rundown of key cases.

Multidistrict Litigation

Hundreds of high-stakes PFAS cases are bundled together in
multidistrict litigation in Ohio and South Carolina. MDLs are
federal court proceedings that roll numerous individual cases into
a single docket, allowing a presiding judge to efficiently handle
pre-trial motions and other procedural issues.

A judge in South Carolina is handling hundreds of lawsuits against
3M Co., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., and other manufacturers over
PFAS present in firefighting foam used across the country. The
fast-growing docket is in its early stages.

A judge in Ohio, meanwhile, is fielding dozens of lawsuits
involving PFAS water contamination near a manufacturing site on the
Ohio River. Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP attorney Rob Bilott,
who brought PFAS concerns to light in a related case 20 years ago,
is involved in the Ohio MDL.

Class Actions Over Contamination

Other PFAS cases are proceeding as proposed class actions, in which
a set of named plaintiffs aim to represent a broader group of
people who have experienced the same alleged harms. A judge must
approve the class status.

Residents of communities in Vermont, Michigan, North Carolina, and
New York have filed class actions targeting companies with local
manufacturing sites that made PFAS chemicals or used them in their
operations, including 3M, DuPont, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics
Corp., and shoemaker Wolverine World Wide Inc.

In another proposed class action, former Ohio firefighter Kevin
Hardwick is pushing the court the recognize a nationwide class of
plaintiffs exposed to PFAS and order major manufacturers to fund a
scientific panel to study health impacts.

Class Actions Over Securities

Shareholders have filed several cases accusing chemical companies
of misleading investors on the extent of PFAS liabilities. The
litigants say company executives knew about the financial risks for
decades, but only recently disclosed them.

The cases, which allege violations of securities laws, target 3M
and DuPont spinoff The Chemours Co.

Corporate Lawsuits

Businesses are also battling one another over PFAS. The most
high-profile fight is between DuPont and Chemours. DuPont spun off
its performance chemicals business into Chemours in 2015. The young
company says DuPont left it holding the bag for PFAS liability.

Other corporate legal skirmishes are playing out between Valero
Energy Corp. and chemical manufacturers for alleged PFAS
contamination at refineries in Oklahoma and California.

State Actions

Many states have been busy taking legal action to address PFAS.

New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey, and Ohio have all
filed lawsuits over the past two years targeting chemical
companies. Some of the cases address alleged contamination linked
to firefighting foam and have been folded into the multidistrict
litigation in South Carolina.

New Mexico, meanwhile, is going after the federal government over
fouled water at two Air Force bases in the state.

Military Cases

Other cases also center on military operations. Pennsylvania
residents are suing the Navy over PFAS in groundwater near two
naval sites, and the Air Force is facing litigation over
contamination claims from a water utility in Colorado and a farmer
in New Mexico.

Other lawsuits against chemical manufacturers involve military
sites, and similar litigation is expected to pile up.

Utilities Cases

Water utilities that have found PFAS in their supplies have lined
up in court to get 3M, DuPont, and other companies to take
responsibility.

Lawsuits are pending from utilities in New York, California, New
Jersey, and Alabama.

In New Hampshire, meanwhile, the Plymouth Village Water & Sewer
District has teamed up with 3M to sue the state over stricter
limits on PFAS in drinking water. [GN]


500.COM LIMITED: Hagens Berman Reminds of March 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman encourages 500.com Limited investors who have
suffered significant losses to submit their losses now to learn if
they qualify to recover their investment losses.  A securities
class action was recently filed against the company and senior
executives, and certain investors may have valuable claims.

Class Period: Apr. 27, 2018 – Dec. 31, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Mar. 16, 2020

Sign Up: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/WBAI

Contact An Attorney Now:
WBAI@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

500.com Limited (WBAI) Securities Class Action:

The complaint alleges that Chinese online gambling operator 500.com
concealed that its executives were bribing Japanese lawmakers to
influence Japanese gaming policy and secure the development of a
casino resort project in Japan.

The market began to learn the truth on Dec. 27, 2019, when media
outlets reported that a Japanese elected official was arrested by
Tokyo prosecutors and charged with receiving 3 million yen
($27,400) in cash from 500.com.

Then, on Dec. 31, 2019, 500.com announced the initiation of an
internal investigation into alleged illegal money transfers, the
concurrent resignation of its Chairman of the Board, and the
"temporary" departure of its Chief Executive Officer pending the
outcome of the internal investigation.

News of 500.com illegal money transfers caused the price of WBAI
ADRs to decline sharply.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving 500.com concealed
its involvement in an illicit lobby scheme," said Reed Kathrein,
the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you purchased shares of 500.com and suffered significant losses,
click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
500.com 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 WBAI@hbsslaw.com.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:
          Reed Kathrein
          Tel: (844) 916-0895
          E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com [GN]


500.COM LIMITED: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors in
500.com Limited who purchased American Depositary Receipts
("ADR's") of 500.com from April 27, 2018 through December 31, 2019,
inclusive ("Class Period").

All investors who purchased American Depositary Receipts of 500.com
Limited and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm
immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212)
545-4774.

On December 31, 2019, 500.com issued a press release announcing
"that the Company's Board of Directors has formed a Special
Investigation Committee (‘SIC') to internally investigate alleged
illegal money transfers and the role played by consultants
following the arrest of one consultant (also a former director of
the Company's subsidiary in Japan) and two former consultants by
the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office."

500.com further disclosed the resignation of Xudong Chen as
Chairman of the Company's Board, effective December 30, 2019, and
that "the Board has accepted the request from Mr. Zhengming Pan,
Director and Chief Executive Officer, to temporarily step aside
from his positions, effective December 30, 2019, until the
conclusion of the SIC's investigation in order to ensure a thorough
and fair investigation."

On this news, 500.com's ADR price fell $1.08 per share, to close at
$7.52 per share on January 2, 2020, the following trading day.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:

          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Kevin Cooper, Esq.
          Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
          Email: gstone@whafh.com
                 kcooper@whafh.com
                 classmember@whafh.com
          Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]


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

Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ADMS)

Investors Affected : August 8, 2017 - September 30, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) health insurers were excluding
Adamas's primary product, GOCOVRI, from their prescription
formularies or requiring patients to use "step therapy" - i.e.,
making patients try immediate-release amantadine prior to covering
GOCOVRI; (2) the rapid increase in physicians prescribing GOCOVRI
during the Class Period was not due to its efficacy; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements about
Adamas's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/adamas-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=5245&from=1

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

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


ALLIANCEMED: Fax Class in Retina Associates Suit Gets Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason M. Ingber -- jason.ingber@squirepb.com -- of Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for National Law Review, relays that
another TCPA fax class was certified in Retina Associates Medical
group v. Alliancemed et al., in the Central District of California.
Retina alleged that it received an unsolicited fax ad from the
Defendants (from among 5,438 total faxes sent) without compliant
opt-out notices to recipients.  On that basis it sought
certification against AllianceMed only.  AllianceMed argued the
Plaintiffs have no standing as there's no real injury.  The court
however agreed with Retina that per Van Patten, a TCPA violation is
a concrete de facto injury.  The court found that the class met the
prerequisites to maintain a class action, and thus certified it.

Mr. Ingber noted that the development "feels ancient."  Both
because this case is about fax machines, and this was decided
pre-SCOTUS agreeing to review the TCPA.

There's a pending Motion for Summary Judgment that was filed by
Alliancemed in which there are no freedom of speech constitutional
arguments raised.  TCPAWorld will monitor this case as it proceeds.
[GN]


AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Ordered to Open Books to Class Action Lawyers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Delaware
judge has ordered pharmaceutical distributor AmerisourceBergen to
open its books and records to lawyers investigating a possible
lawsuit over the company's allegedly improper sales of opioids,
opening a potentially expensive new front in litigation that has
already cost the industry billions.

In a lengthy decision released on Jan. 13, Vice Chancellor J.
Travis Laster ruled that shareholders have a right to examine
Amerisource's internal records to determine whether officers and
directors violated their duties to remain in compliance with the
federal Controlled Substances Act and other laws.

Amerisource, like virtually every other company involved in the
opioid business, has been sued by states and thousands of cities
and counties that accuse it of causing the opioid crisis by failing
to flag suspicious orders of narcotics that wound up being diverted
into medically unnecessary or illegal use.

"The flood of government investigations and lawsuits relating to
AmerisourceBergen's opioid-distribution practices is sufficient to
establish a credible basis to suspect wrongdoing warranting further
investigation," Laster wrote, citing specific allegations by West
Virginia and other plaintiffs that the big distributor had shipped
orders to high-volume pharmacies without properly investigating why
they were selling so many pills.

Delaware law gives investors numerous reasons to inspect a
company's records, including to investigate improper transactions
or mismanagement and to evaluate the independence of the board. To
discourage "indiscriminate fishing expeditions," plaintiffs must
show by a preponderance of evidence - the lowest possible threshold
- that further investigation is warranted.

Armed with internal records, shareholder lawyers can go on to file
so-called Caremark claims holding directors liable for failing to
fulfil their duty to oversee a company's compliance with laws and
regulations. Delaware law doesn't allow directors off the hook if
they are guilty of "consciously failing to attempt to take action
in good faith to prevent a corporate trauma," the judge wrote.

In this case, the judge ruled, there was plenty of evidence. He
cited oft-stated plaintiff allegations that opioid prescriptions
skyrocketed after "pharmaceutical companies reassured doctors that
patients would not become addicted."

After the Drug Enforcement Administration suspended the company's
license for a Florida distribution center that was allegedly
shipping to rogue pharmacies in 2007, Amerisource agreed to develop
a more effective compliance program to rapidly identify suspicious
orders. In its public filings, Amerisource said its senior officers
and directors oversaw the effort to control the risk of improper
distribution.

Yet the company paid $16 million in 2015 to settle a lawsuit by
West Virginia after the state accused it of slacking off on those
efforts, shipping 16 million doses and reporting on 53 suspicious
orders. New York also sued the company, detailing how it supplied
several pharmacies known to be the busiest in the state that also
served prescribers who were later indicted or convicted on
opioid-related charges.

And in federal multidistrict litigation in Ohio, plaintiffs cited
the company's failure to ensure customers had the proper
documentation to purchase controlled substances.

The litigation has cost the company more than $1 billion so far. In
May of last year, plaintiffs served a books-and-records demand
under Delaware law to investigate whether the officers and
directors had breached their fiduciary duties. Amerisource rejected
the demand, saying the request was overbroad and plaintiffs hadn't
stated "a credible basis to suspect wrongdoing." The case went to
trial in October before the Delaware Court of Chancery, and the
judge issued his decision Jan. 13.

"The plaintiffs have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
there is a credible basis to infer that AmerisourceBergen possibly
violated the Controlled Substances Act," he wrote.

Amerisource argued the many investigations by state and local
governments weren't enough to justify an intrusive search through
its records, since they are directed against the entire industry.

"That may be true, but the argument that 'everyone else is doing
it' is rarely a persuasive response," the judge countered. He cited
a decision involving the mining company Massey Energy, in which the
court said: "Telling your parents that all the kids are getting
caught shoplifting, cheating, or imbibing illegal substances is
not, fortunately, a good excuse."

Bad practices often spread within industries, Judge Laster wrote,
as with rampant backdating of stock options in the early 2000s,
during which companies gave executives can't-lose option grants by
adjusting the issue date to ensure they could be exercised at a
profit. Further, Amerisource is under particular pressure, having
spent $1 billion so far and facing potential settlement costs in
the tens of billions of dollars.

Shareholders are entitled to investigate whether officers didn't
just preside over bad business decisions but violated Delaware
corporate law, he wrote.

"Directors cannot take an ostrich-like approach to their fiduciary
obligations, and so they must take active steps to oversee the
operations of the corporation and become informed about the risks
confronting the company," he wrote. It's not enough to put in place
compliance systems, he wrote, but officers and directors must
actively monitor those systems and make sure they are effective.

Those duties are particularly strong when it comes to "red flags"
indicating the corporation might be breaking the law, he wrote.

"Taken as a whole, the evidence surrounding the volume of
AmerisourceBergen's distribution of opioids through rogue
pharmacies, the minimal levels of reporting of suspicious orders,
and the changes over time in reporting levels is sufficient to
support an inference that AmerisourceBergen's directors and
officers may have pursued the maximization of profit at the expense
of legal compliance," he wrote.

Directors may have breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders
by "failing to monitor a mission-critical source of regulatory
risk" and "failing to respond to red flags," he wrote.

He ordered the company to turn over formal board materials, showing
how directors reached their decisions, as well as records on the
company's anti-diversion and compliance programs. [GN]


AMGEN INC: Restrains Competition for Sensipar, MSP Recovery Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MSP Recovery Claims LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. AMGEN INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.;
ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.; and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; Case No.
1:20-cv-20549-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 6, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' anticompetitive scheme to restrain competition in the
market for Sensipar and its AB-rated generic equivalents sold in
the United States.

Sensipar is a drug used to treat certain conditions associated with
chronic kidney disease and thyroid cancer. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants have engaged in anticompetitive conduct that
has prevented a less expensive generic equivalent of Sensipar from
entering the market, in violation of federal and state law. The
Plaintiff seeks damages, an order enjoining the Defendants'
anticompetitive conduct, and other appropriate relief.

Amgen received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
for Sensipar in March 2004. Sensipar's sales grew rapidly. As of
2017, Amgen's United States sales were over $1 billion in sales,
and were at or near $1 billion in the first three quarters of 2018.
One of Amgen's patents for Sensipar, U.S. Patent No. 6,011,068 (the
"'068 Patent"), was set to expire on March 8, 2018. This patent,
stating claims related to calcimimetic compounds, was the primary
patent setting forth the chemical composition of Sensipar. Because
Sensipar was a blockbuster drug, numerous generic manufacturers
filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDAs") with the FDA
seeking the approval of generic versions of Sensipar.

Between March 8, 2018, and December 27, 2018, the FDA approved
ANDAs from Cipla, Aurobindo, Strides Pharma Global, Piramal
Healthcare, Sun Pharma, Mylan, and Teva. As part of their
applications, these generic manufacturers were required to make
certain certifications against the patents covering Sensipar. Among
these patents was U.S. Patent No. 9,375,405 (the "'405 patent"),
titled "Rapid dissolution formulation of a calcium receptor-active
compound."

In connection with the ANDAs, Amgen sued each generic manufacturer
that filed an ANDA for allegedly infringing the '405 patent.
Several generics manufacturers thereafter settled with Amgen. Teva,
Amneal, Piramal, and Zydus, on the other hand, took their claims to
a bench trial in the District of Delaware in March 2018.

On December 27, 2018, while the appeal was pending, the FDA
approved Teva's ANDA for a generic version of Sensipar. Teva
immediately launched its generic product. Within the one week that
followed, Teva flooded the market with roughly six weeks of product
sales. In that short time, Teva reportedly made $59 million in
profits while Amgen lost an estimated $79 million in profits.

Despite Teva's tremendous profits, on January 2, 2019, after only
one week of availability of generic Sensipar, Teva and Amgen
entered a confidential agreement in which Teva agreed to stop
selling its generic version of Sensipar.

According to the complaint, harm to the Plaintiff and the Class is
ongoing, as there still is no generic alternative to Amgen's
branded Sensipar available to purchase. An agreement by competing
companies to cease competing is "anticompetitive regardless of
whether the parties split a market within which both do business or
whether they merely reserve one market for one and another for the
other," the Plaintiff contends.

Accordingly, to redress the economic injury the Defendants have
already caused and continue to cause, the Plaintiff seeks
injunctive and other equitable relief under the federal antitrust
laws, as well as damages and other monetary relief under state
antitrust, consumer protection, and common laws.

Plaintiff MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, is a Delaware series
limited liability company with its principal place of business in
Coral Gables, Florida.

Amgen engaged in the worldwide marketing, production and
distribution of generic pharmaceutical products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andres Rivero, Esq.
          Jorge A. Mestre, Esq.
          Charles E. Whorton, Esq.
          David L. Daponte, Esq.
          RIVERO MESTRE LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
          Miami, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 445-2500
          Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
          Email: arivero@riveromestre.com
                 jmestre@riveromestre.com
                 cwhorton@riveromestre.com
                 ddaponte@riveromestre.com
                 npuentes@riveromestre.com


ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT: Judge Has Yet to Rule on PFAS Case Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
judge has not yet ruled on a motion filed in October that asks him
to reconsider his decision to let continue a PFAS lawsuit that does
not allege the chemicals have caused any of the diseases to which
they are linked.

The lawsuit seeks to create a nationwide class of everyone who has
been exposed to PFAS, a group of chemicals that accumulate in the
human body and has earned the nickname "forever chemicals."

However, the toxicity level has been the subject of intense debate
as high up as Congress. As the EPA considers setting a maximum
contaminant level and as states have begun to set their own,
lawsuits like Kevin Hardwick's make their way through the judicial
system.

In October, defendants Archroma Management and Daikin Industries,
Ltd. filed a motion asking U.S. District Court Judge Edmund A.
Sargus, on the bench in Ohio's southern district, to reconsider his
earlier denial of motions to dismiss filed by foreign companies
named in the case. The motions to dismiss claimed lack of personal
jurisdition.

"This Court's reliance on Plaintiff's claim that AMLLC and DIL
'released [PFAS] into the world' was made in clear error.  Nowhere
does Mr. Hardwick, his counsel, or this Court cite to any facts
that would justify exercising jurisdiction under the 'plus'
factor," the motion says.

"Both companies submitted affidavits explicitly denying, inter
alia, that they have had any contact with Ohio, such as never
having distributed, sold, or advertised PFAS products directly to
Ohio consumers over the past 40 years. In fact, AMLLC does not even
design or make products, a fact that appears to have been
completely lost in this analysis."

The following month, Hardwick's lawyers responded with a response
asking Sargus to deny Archroma and Daikin's motion, saying the
companies "failed to demonstrate any error related to the court's
threshold jurisdictional determination that rises to the level of a
'manifest injustice.'"

The motion followed Sargus' decision last September to allow
Hardwick's case to move forward, though Sargus did not claim in his
original complaint, filed the previous year, to have been made sick
by PFAS. In his decision, Sargus did not grant class certification
to the case but could later.

In addition to suggesting almost everyone in the country is a party
in his putative class action, Hardwick asked the court for "the
establishment of an independent panel of scientists" who would be
"jointly selected by the parties" and funded by defendants. The
panel would research alleged health effects of PFAS and report
their findings, which would be "definitive and binding on all the
parties," the original complaint said.

Previously, DuPont funded a medical monitoring settlement in
lawsuits over PFOA release around one of its plants in western West
Virginia. The research provided by that alleged a link to six
diseases, including certain cancers. But critics say those findings
shouldn't be viewed as legitimate.

Archroma and Daikin are among 11 defendant PFAS producers still in
the Hardwick case. Other remaining defendant companies are 3M
Company; Arkema France, S.A.; Arkema, Inc.; Daikin America, Inc.;
Dyneon, L.L.C.; E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company;
SolvaySpecialty Polymers, USA, LLC; and The Chemours Company.

Asahi Glass Co. Ltd., was dismissed from the case in March. [GN]


ARSTRAT LLC: Aleman Sues Over Illegal Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------
Indiana Aleman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Arstrat, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-60105 (S.D. Fla., January 16, 2020), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Arstrat, LLC operates as "Arstrat Collections" and is engaged in
the business of soliciting consumer debts for collection. It
attempted to collect an alleged consumer debt via collection
letter. Aleman claims that Arstrat did not send a written notice
that included the statement " . . . that unless the consumer,
within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the
validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be
assumed to be a valid by the debt collector . . ." as required by
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. [BN]

Aleman is represented by:

      Thomas J. Patti, Esq
      Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
      110 SE 6th Street
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 907-1136
      Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
      Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
             tom@jibraellaw.com


ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Faces Dier Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avrohom Dier, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. ASSOCIATED CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00670-KAM-RML (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2020), is brought to seek
redress for the Defendant's illegal debt collection practices that
violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

On September 5, 2019, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection
letter seeking to collect on a personal debt. The Defendant sought
to collect on a balance, purportedly owed to National Grid-NY for
an account associated with the Plaintiff's old address. Upon the
termination of his tenant-lease, the Plaintiff says he had timely
notified National Grid of his move and requested that they
terminate his National Grid account. The Plaintiff subsequently
paid off the remaining balance owed to National Grid.

The balance that the Defendant was seeking to collect was,
therefore, non-existent, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant made
the Plaintiff believe that he in fact owed such an amount to
National Grid when it was not the case, he asserts. He adds that
the Defendant deceptively engaged in the collection of an invalid
debt that he purportedly owed.

The Plaintiff is a consumer and a citizen of the State of New
York.

The Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection
of debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (516) 668-6945
          Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


ATHENS ORTHOPEDIC: Attorney Analyzes Significance of Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Kolbasuk McGee, writing for HealthInfoSec, reports that
after a data breach, if individuals' stolen information is offered
for sale on the dark web, that potentially bolsters class action
lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against the breached organization,
says technology attorney Steven Teppler of the law firm Mandelbaum
Salsburg P.C.

Data offered for sale "actually shows that someone is attempting to
monetize the victims' information," he says in an interview with
Information Security Media Group. "And the likelihood of it being
purchased or used is very much more heightened because you have
proof that the information is for sale or available and connecting
the dots . . . is much more clear."

Those arguments were spotlighted in a Dec. 23 ruling by the Georgia
Supreme Court to reverse an earlier Georgia Court of Appeals
decision that had upheld the dismissal of a class action lawsuit
filed against Athens Orthopedic Clinic in the wake of a 2016
cyberattack.

The clinic reported a health data breach in July 2016 to the
Department of Health and Human Services as a "unauthorized
access/disclosure" incident involving its electronic health records
and affecting 201,000 individuals.

The attack was allegedly committed by the hacking group The Dark
Overlord, the clinic told ISMG in July 2016.

"The hacker offered at least some of the stolen personal data for
sale on the so-called 'dark web,' and some of the information was
made available, at least temporarily, on Pastebin, a data-storage
website," the Georgia Supreme Court wrote in its ruling.

"The court of appeals concluded that the plaintiffs' negligence
claim was properly dismissed because the plaintiffs 'seek only to
recover for an increased risk of harm," the state supreme court
noted in its decision to reverse that ruling.

The high court stated that the plaintiffs in the case alleged that
"a thief stole a large amount of personal data by hacking into a
business's computer databases . . . the thief offered at least some
of the data for sale, and all class members now face the 'imminent
and substantial risk' of identity theft given criminals' ability to
use the stolen data to assume the class members' identities and
fraudulently obtain credit cards, issue fraudulent checks, file tax
refund returns, liquidate bank accounts and open new accounts in
their names."

The court adds: "Assuming the truth of these allegations, as we
must at this stage, [we] presume that a criminal actor has
maliciously accessed the plaintiffs' data and has at least
attempted to sell at least some of the data to other wrongdoers.
Moreover, an important part of the value of that data to anyone who
would buy it in that fashion is its utility in committing identity
theft."

'Heightened Risk'
In the Athens Orthopedic breach case involving medical data,
"there's a heightened risk because of the richness of the
information and amount of information per victim that was exposed,"
says Teppler, who is not involved in the case.

"The defendant's alleged negligence exposed the plaintiffs to risk
of harm that was more likely to occur because the fact that the
threat actor -- the criminal who stole the information - was
actually offering it for sale on the dark web. So, you could more
likely connect the dots between the sale of this information and an
imminent identity compromise."

In the interview, Teppler also discusses:

   * What else stands out about the recent Georgia Supreme Court
ruling;
   * The significance of the ruling in the context of other data
breach litigation trends;
   * Predictions about other cyber trends and related litigation in
2020.

Teppler leads the electronic discovery and technology-based
litigation practice at the law firm Mandelbaum Salsburg P.C. He's
the co-chair of the American Bar Association's IoT Committee; a
member of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Electronic Discovery
Pilot Program; and a founder and co-chair of the American Bar
Association's IoT National Institute as well as the ABA's National
Institute on Electronic Discovery and Information Governance. [GN]


BITFINEX: Sued for Manipulating Bitcoin and Futures Contracts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary DeWaal, Esq. -- gary.dewaal@katten.com -- of Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that companies
associated with Bitfinex and its associated stablecoin, tether,
were named in a putative class action lawsuit, alleging that, from
October 1, 2014 through the present, they manipulated bitcoin and
futures contracts based on bitcoin traded on the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange and the Cboe Futures Exchange (CFE). According to the
plaintiffs, defendants effectuated their manipulation by issuing
tether digital tokens that were not backed 100 percent by reserves
to purchase bitcoin. The plaintiffs claimed that statistical
analysis demonstrated that "[b]itcoin returns generally declined
just before [tether] issuance dates and improved afterwards. This
suggests that Defendants printed [tether] to manipulate and support
the price of Bitcoin upwards."

Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in a federal court in New York City.


During November 2019, two of the three current named plaintiffs
-- Eric Young and Adam Kurtz -- filed the same essential lawsuit in
a federal court in Washington State then withdrew that lawsuit on
January 7. David Crystal is a new plaintiff added to the latest
action. At the time of the prior action, Bitfinex issued a
statement denying plaintiffs' allegations, claiming that "Bitfinex
and its affiliates have never used Tether tokens or issuances to
manipulate the cryptocurrency market or token pricing. All Tether
tokens are fully backed by reserves and are issued and traded on
Bitfinex pursuant to market demand, and not for the purpose of
controlling the pricing of crypto assets."

In April 2019, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of
New York obtained an ex parte order from a New York State court
prohibiting companies associated with the management of the
cryptoasset exchange Bitfinex as well as the stablecoin tether from
accessing, loaning or encumbering in any way US dollar reserves
supporting tether digital coins. The NY AG had applied for such
order without giving respondents notice or having an opportunity to
object, claiming such emergency action was necessary because of the
potential danger of respondents compromising tether's supporting
balances to help fund Bitfinex's operations.

In December 2019, the NY AG opposed efforts by respondents to have
all legal proceedings against them by the AG dismissed. Defendants
claimed such action was warranted because of improper service of
court papers initiating the legal action; because the dispute does
not emanate from activity in New York; and because tether is not
covered by the reach of the relevant law -- the Martin Act --
because the stablecoin is neither a commodity nor a security.

In other legal and regulatory developments involving cryptoassets:

Defendant Charged by SEC With Unlicensed Securities Offering in
Connection With Proposed ICO at Least Temporarily Prevails in
Challenge to Commission's Subpoena of Bank Records: A federal court
in New  York City denied, without prejudice, a request by the
Securities and Exchange Commission to compel Telegram Group Inc.,
and its wholly owned subsidiary, TON Issuer Inc. to produce
subpoenaed bank records. Defendants had claimed that such
production could violate foreign data privacy laws. On January 10,
the SEC renewed its motion to compel defendants to produce the
subpoenaed bank records, claiming that their claim of potential
violation of foreign data privacy laws was too vague but, in any
case "insufficient to rebut the presumption in favor of discovery
that applies in federal courts even in the face of an assertion
that foreign blocking statutes impede production."

In October 2019, the SEC sued the defendants and obtained a
temporary restraining order, claiming that, beginning in January
2018, they engaged in an unregistered securities offering to fund
the development of a proprietary blockchain -- the Telegram Open
Network -- as well as their mobile messaging application, Telegram
Messenger. Subsequently, defendants denied that their proposed
issuance of "Gram" digital tokens would have been part of an
illegal securities offering because, said the defendants, when
issued, Grams would have constituted a virtual currency and/or a
commodity and not a security under federal law. [GN]


BLUE CROSS: Cawthon Hits Delayed/Denied Cancer Treatment
--------------------------------------------------------
George Cawthon and David Simpkins, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Florida, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00016, (N.D. Fla., January
16, 2020), wants Blue Cross Blue Shield to disgorge the funds it
has saved in delaying treatment to policyholders, declaratory and
injunctive relief resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of
contract and for violation of fiduciary obligations under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Proton Beam Radiation Therapy is a radiation therapy to treat a
tumor while reducing doses to healthy tissues and organs, which
results in fewer complications and side effects than traditional
radiation treatments. Plaintiffs are Blue Cross Blue Shield policy
holders who claim to spend a significant amount of time in appeals,
and pleas, to Blue Cross Blue Shield to reverse its initial denials
and approve the treatment despite proton beam radiation therapy
being recognized as an established, medically appropriate treatment
for various forms of cancer for decades. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
     Maria D. Garcia, Esq.
     Robert Neary, Esq.
     Frank A. Florio, Esq.
     KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP
     2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Telephone: (305) 372-1800
     Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
     Email: hst@kttlaw.com
            mgarcia@kttlaw.com
            rn@kttlaw.com
            fflorio@kttlaw.com

            and

     Dean C. Colson, Esq.
     Stephanie A. Casey, Esq.
     COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
     255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Telephone: (305) 476-7400
     Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
     E-mail: eservice@colson.com
             scasey@colson.com
             dean@colson.com

BUMBLE BEE: Court Takes Into Consideration Bankruptcy Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Demi Korban and Rachel Sapin, writing for IntraFish, report that a
California US District Court is taking into consideration Bumble
Bee's bankruptcy status in relation to several plaintiffs who say
they have been harmed by price-fixing that occurred between three
biggest US tuna producers -- Starkist, Bumble Bee, among others.
[GN]



CALIFORNIA: Faces Pregnant Correction Officers' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
CBS News reports that for Michelle Durham, it was the perfect job:
a paramedic for a national ambulance service in Alabama. She was
22, and her dream of a career in medicine was about to take off, or
so she thought.

"Being able to help people, that was my favorite part," Durham
said. "I loved being able to help people when they needed help the
most."

Then, another reason to celebrate: a baby. "I was only on the truck
for six months before I found out I was pregnant with my son," she
said. "Went to the doctor and had my visit, and she told me I
couldn't lift more than 50 pounds. It's a normal weight restriction
for women when you're pregnant."

"And if you can't lift 50 pounds?" asked correspondent Jan
Crawford.

"I couldn't even lift the stretcher. It was 100 pounds without a
patient on it."

Durham saw it as a temporary hurdle, assuming she could transfer to
one of several open desk jobs for a few months. But her employer,
Rural/Metro, told her they were reserved for people injured on the
job.

Her only option? Twelve weeks of unpaid medical leave that would
run out before she even had her baby.

"It was baffling, it really was," Durham said. "To help so many
people and then not have help from the company that was hiring you
to help these people."

It's a story told hundreds of thousands of times every year across
America: you can get the job.

Just don't get pregnant

Hacheler Cyrille was a passenger services representative at JFK
Airport in New York City. With a six-year-old son and another baby
on the way, she was determined to keep working throughout her
pregnancy. "I have a son, I have to feed him when he needs
something, I have bills to pay," she said.

But one day she stumbled while putting a heavy suitcase on a
luggage belt, and got pulled onto it.

"I'm screaming, 'Anybody can hear me? Stop the belt!' I'm thinking
about, am I gonna die?" Cyrille said.

She was rushed to the emergency room. She didn't lose the baby. But
she said she effectively lost her job. She, too, had asked for a
less physically strenuous assignment during the remainder of her
pregnancy, but her employer refused to reassign her.

"They're only thinking about them," Cyrille said. "They don't think
about you as a worker, because we do the most, hardest job. They're
not thinking about you."

According to Gillian Thomas, a senior attorney with the ACLU's
Women's Rights Project, "Roughly a quarter of a million women a
year don't get the accommodations they need to keep working."

Thomas said even though the Pregnancy Discrimination Act passed in
1978, from Wall Street to WalMart, pregnant women are still being
forced to leave their jobs every day.

Getting pregnant, she said, "really is an economically disastrous
decision for many working women.

That's because under the current federal law, while employers are
prohibited from firing or refusing to hire pregnant workers, they
aren't always required to make any on-the-job accommodations, such
as offering more bathroom breaks or temporary desk jobs.

Thomas said, "Between 1997 and 2011, the number of pregnancy
discrimination charges filed at the EEOC went up by 50%."

And sometimes it leads to even more tragic consequences.

Sarah Coogle, who earned a bachelor's degree in criminal justice
and psychology, was always interested in criminal justice. "And
then when I found the prison system, I felt like that was a good
fit."

Coogle worked as a corrections officer at the California
Correctional Institution. "I wanted to do things the right way: Go
to school, then get the career, and then have the family. And we
put things off for a while."

In 2017, after three years on the job, Coogle got the news that she
and her husband, Michael, had been waiting for: she was going to
have a baby. "Extremely excited, yeah, but then scared," she said.
"'Cause then, oh my gosh, now what?"

She spoke with her manager: "She goes, if you bring in any note
from your doctor that restricts you, you'll be unfit for duty. You
cannot work."

"So, they were willing to make no accommodations whatsoever?" asked
Crawford.

"Whatsoever."

Needing to pay the bills, Coogle saw no choice but to keep working.
Everything was fine for a while. Then, in her seventh month of
pregnancy, a prison alarm goes off. "It's an instinctive run," she
said. "And the next thing I know, I'm going down. And immediately
felt pain in my lower abdomen."

Coogle went to the ER, where doctors reassured her, thankfully, her
baby was OK.

Nine weeks later, she went into labor: "And the doctor's in there
and he's lookin' for the heartbeat. And he's over here on my left
side. And he says, 'There's no heartbeat.' It didn't occur to me
that my baby was gone."

When Coogle fell in the prison yard, she had a placental abruption
– her placenta had separated from the uterus. Her baby,
Mackenzie, was delivered stillborn.

"They wheeled in the baby, and she's wrapped in a pink blanket, and
that's when I found out I had a girl," she said.

The ACLU's Gillian Thomas said, "It really is a Hobson's choice
that, frankly, no woman should have to be faced with. A woman who's
been told by her physician, 'You have to take the following
precautions at work in order to have a healthy pregnancy,' she
presents those to her employer and is told, 'No. You either work at
full capacity, or you go home.'"

The Supreme Court weighed in on this issue in 2015, ruling in favor
of a pregnant UPS employee, Peggy Young, who was denied light duty
during the last months of her pregnancy.

But despite that decision, two-thirds of pregnant women asking for
accommodations at work have still lost in court.

Thomas said, "I think that there is some unconscious bias there
that, because pregnancy is voluntary or a chosen condition, that in
some way, it's less deserving."

There's been some progress. Twenty-seven states have passed laws
that require employers to offer pregnant women the same
accommodations they would make for workers with a disability.

But many say what's really needed is a new federal law.

"Under the 41-year-old law, it's very, very challenging for
pregnant women to bring a claim and to prevail to get the support
and relief that they need," said Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici, a
Democrat from Oregon. She and Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler,
a Republican from Washington are co-sponsors of a new bill, the
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, that would make it easier for women
to get temporary accommodations during their pregnancies.

"It's good for the health of the economy, as women make up over
half the workforce," said Herrera Beutler. She has some firsthand
experience; she's had three babies while serving in Congress.

"We're asking for a reasonable accommodation, which is basically
the exact same standard as the Americans With Disability Act," she
said. "I think most people would assume that it is required to say,
'Yeah, okay, you can have an extra bathroom break here.' 'The
policy is no water here, but you get to carry your water with you.'
These are reasonable things. Most people would expect this already
in the law, I would think."

"And it's not," Bonamici added, "But we hope it is soon."

But Congress has considered this bill with different sponsors
before, for the past seven years. In October it finally got a
hearing. But there's still a long road ahead.  As Rep. Jahana Hayes
of Connecticut noted, "I don't think this is an equality issue;
this is an equity issue, 'cause last time I checked, men couldn't
get pregnant."

Since our interview, Sarah Coogle settled with the Department of
Corrections. She's also joined a class action lawsuit to try to
change the policy on accommodations for pregnant corrections
officers in California … and she's pregnant again.

Indicating an empty crib, she said, "I look at this as hope. This
is what I'm still fighting for. If there's a woman that was
thinking about getting into law enforcement, I would at this point
right now steer them away from the Department of Corrections
because this is not a department for you, because they won't care.
And if you don't want to accommodate me, accommodate the baby."

Hacheler Cyrille gave birth to a healthy baby girl in October.
She's filed a discrimination complaint with New York City's
Commission on Human Rights, and is still unemployed.

"If all of us make a voice, things can change," she said.

And Michelle Durham sued her former employer, ambulance service
Rural/Metro, but a judge ruled in favor of the company, saying the
state law does not require an employer to provide special
accommodations to its pregnant employees. Her appeal was set to be
heard in January.

"I know it won't change what's happened to me," she said. "I know
it won't change where my path is going. But it needs to be
corrected for somebody else."

After having her son, Aedan, in 2016, Durham is now working at a
pet store. She feels her dreams of a medical career are dashed.

"I changed my whole life path with one decision," she said.

"To get pregnant?"

"I couldn't have the EMT job and my son.."

Crawford asked, "Is that a decision men have to make?"

"No." [GN]


CANADA: B.C. Hunting Guides Class Action Hearing Set for March
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Lazaruk, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that in the two
years since British Columbia banned grizzly bear hunting, at least
13 bears have been illegally killed, Postmedia News has learned.

"Since the grizzly bear hunt was closed, there have been 13 reports
of illegally killed grizzly bears," said a spokesperson for the
Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural
Development who wouldn't give their name.

"Illegal kills include poaching, self-defence without reporting the
incident or a found grizzly bear where the use of a firearm is
considered the cause of death," the spokesperson said in an email.

B.C. banned the hunt in December 2017, with Minister Doug Donaldson
saying British Columbians told the province that "the grizzly hunt
is not in line with their values."

The ban was first proposed against trophy hunting of grizzlies and
any hunting in the Great Bear Rainforest but it was extended to
include hunting the bears for sustenance anywhere in the province
after consulting with First Nations, stakeholder groups and the
public, and finding 78 per cent called for an outright ban, the
province said at the time.

First Nations can harvest the bears for food, social or ceremonial
purposes under their Aboriginal or treaty rights.

The ban wasn't implemented to control the population of grizzlies,
estimated at 15,000 in B.C., the ministry said. "The closure of the
licensed grizzly bear hunt was not in response to a conservation
concern," the spokesperson said.

A year ago, B.C.'s hunting guides launched a class-action lawsuit
against the province, accusing the government of going ahead with
the ban knowing it would harm the province's 245 guide outfitters
and of not taking proper wildlife management practices into
account. A certification hearing for the class action is scheduled
for court in March.

The suit filed in B.C. Supreme Court said 118 guides held
allocations and quotas for the grizzly hunt when the ban was
called. It said about 250 grizzlies were killed every year.

Guides at the time said outfitters were hit hard by the ban. All
non-resident bear hunters must use a guide outfitter and fees were
around $25,000 per trip.

The lawsuit said outfitters have been guiding hunts for over 100
years and the industry directly employed 2,000 people and added
$116 million to the economy.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation said there was no scientific basis for
the ban and it predicted the death of more prey animals, such as
moose and more grizzly-human conflicts. The Tahltan Central
Government said it and other First Nations and other stakeholders
weren't consulted before B.C. banned the hunt and called it
irresponsible, counterproductive and dangerous.

The Forest Ministry said the previous grizzly bear harvest was
conservative and sustainable and the "overall hunting mortality" of
the bears had averaged one to two per cent of the population each
year. The spokesperson said the ban is "not anticipated to have a
significant or measurable impact on grizzly bear populations or the
ecosystems they live in."

When the ban was announced, opponents said the $10-$25 portion of
the hunting-guide fee that went to conservation would be lost and
could hurt conservation efforts.

But last year, the 70 B.C. bear-watching guides began charging
their customers a $10-$25 fee that was donated to conservation
groups, said Nicholas Scapillati, executive director of the Grizzly
Bear Foundation. In 2019, $114,500 in conservation fees were
collected and about half went to the foundation and the other half
to the Nanwakolas Council, whose member First Nations own the
bear-watching Knight Inlet Lodge and will use it to support grizzly
bear conservation on the coast, according to the Commercial Bear
Viewing Association.

The fees collected are triple the yearly amount the guide
outfitters collected for conservation, said the association's
executive director, Kathy MacRae, in an email.

Bear-viewing tours charge about $400-a-night per person and
visitors spend on average $10,000 a week in B.C., in addition to
what they pay for the tours, she said.

The industry has grown since the hunting ban was announced, she
said. [GN]


CANADA: July 2022 Deadline Set for Day School Survivor Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Robertson, writing for Winnipeg Free Press, reports that
thousands of indigenous Manitobans have become eligible for
payments to compensate them for abuse they suffered in day schools;
while thousands of others have been left out because of a
jurisdictional issue.

The federal Liberals settled a class-action lawsuit involving
Indian Day Schools last August. As of Jan. 13, survivors can apply
for compensation, but the limited eligibility means a decades-long
quest for justice is hardly over.

"We have to start by starting," Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister
Carolyn Bennett told the Free Press.

"We want to do the right thing by everybody who suffered by these
terrible government policies."

An estimated 120,000 to 140,000 people will be eligible for
compensation as a result of a push by Manitobans who suffered
physical, psychological and sexual abuse.

These survivors of Indian Day Schools were not included in the 2007
settlement for residential school students. Students at day schools
often returned home in the evenings. Many experienced similar
discipline, sometimes in the same building as residential school
students.

"They were abused. They were sodomized, raped; you name it," said
Ray Mason, a member of Peguis First Nation who has spent three
decades pushing for recognition and compensation.

Mason remembers being whipped with a strap and forced to clean
floors with a toothbrush. The day schools often focused more on
discipline than learning.

"It's horrendous, what went on in those schools," he said.

Garry McLean of Lake Manitoba First Nation was the main plaintiff
in the class-action suit when it was filed in Winnipeg in 2009.
McLean, who died last year, suffered sexual and physical abuse
during five years in day schools, and went on to become a key
figure in First Nations politics.

Ottawa believes about 200,000 First Nations, Métis and Inuit
children attended day schools that were under federal
jurisdiction.

Depending on the harm they suffered, former students may be
eligible for payments ranging from $10,000 to $200,000. It's not
known how much compensation in total will be paid, or how many
people will file a claim. Survivors will be required to submit
claims in writing and have them assessed by a third-party
administrator.

Bennett said the process takes into consideration survivors'
demands. They wanted to avoid the trauma experienced by residential
school students who had to testify in person. Their compensation
was based on a points system that ranked physical abuse and
molestation.

Mason, who has supported survivors since 1988 with the group Spirit
Wind, said he'll be monitoring the process to make sure claimants,
who have limited literacy skills or access to technology, don't get
overlooked.

The deadline for submitting claims is July 2022.

The settlement includes a $200-million commemoration fund for
events, counselling and projects to restore languages and cultures,
channelled through an independent non-profit.

The compensation program only applies to schools that operated
under Ottawa's control. Provincial governments and churches ran
many day schools in places such as Teulon, in the Interlake, and
Cranberry Portage, in northern Manitoba. Students experienced
similar trauma in those schools, but legally it didn't happen on
Ottawa's watch.

"To me that's a feeble, ludicrous excuse to weasel out of their
responsibilities," said Mason, who noted federal workers were often
the ones to put kids in church-run schools, despite the federal
government being required, under the Constitution, to keep
Indigenous people from harm.

Mason, who is First Nations, is particularly concerned for Métis
and Inuit. "It's leaving out a lot of people," he said, noting that
many have died.

Day-school students have filed at least two other class-action
lawsuits that have not been settled -- one of which Mason is
involved in -- and there are other lawsuits involving urban
boarding schools. Bennett said the Liberals intend to resolve all
such cases.

"We are very interested in making sure that no one is left out, and
that anybody who deserves compensation will be able to achieve
that," she said.

"We always felt that it was better to negotiate than litigate,"
said Bennett, pointing to her government's compensation for
survivors of the Sixties Scoop and evacuees of the 2011 Manitoba
flood.

"We learn every time. And I think the survivors' leadership has
been hugely important in us trying to get this right, this time,"
she said.

Ottawa controlled about 700 schools, and the class-action lawyers'
own research suggests schools operated under federal jurisdiction
in at least 59 towns and reserves in every region of Manitoba.

It's unclear how many Manitobans could qualify for compensation. A
spokeswoman for the case claimed it would violate solicitor-client
privilege to disclose the number or location of class-action
members, if that information hasn't already been listed court
documents. [GN]


CAPITAL FITNESS: Faces Fongaro Suit Alleging Violation of BIPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Fongaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CAPITAL FITNESS, INC., an Illinois corporation, and
EXECUTIVE AFFILIATES, INC., an Illinois corporation, Case No.
2020CH01555 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 6, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for violating the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Despite the substantial privacy risks created by the collection and
storage of biometric data, and the decade-old prohibition on
collecting and retaining biometric data in Illinois without
informed consent, the Defendants uses a biometric time-tracking
system that requires workers at one of the Defendants' locations to
use their fingerprints as a means of authentication, the Plaintiff
contends.

When the Defendant's Illinois workers began their time, the
Defendants require them to scan their fingerprints into a time
management database. The Defendants' scanning and retention of
workers' fingerprints without informed consent is clearly unlawful
in Illinois, says the complaint.

Steven Fongaro is a natural person and a citizen of the State of
Tennessee residing in Knox County.

Capital Fitness, Inc. owns and operates fitness gymnasiums across
the state of Illinois under the name XS port Fitness.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
          Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.741.5220
          Email: amz@kellerlenkner.com
                 ajd@kellerlenkner.com


CASPER: Social Media Influencers May Pose Class Action Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that U.S. mattress-in-a-box company Casper has
underscored the increasing power of social media influencers to
propel or hinder brands. The firm, moreover, cited its own digital
advocates as a potential risk factor to its initial public offering
(IPO).

Launched in 2014, the company shot to immediate online fame when
celebrity Kylie Jenner -- with more than 150 million followers on
her Instagram account -- featured Casper photos, and positively
reviewed the company. Preparing for an IPO last Jan. 10, Casper
cautioned investment backers that the company was powerless over
any future influencer messaging, and that lack of control could
consequently put investor money at higher risk.

"Use of social media and influencers may materially and adversely
affect our reputation," the company said. "Influencers with whom we
maintain relationships could also engage in behavior or use their
platforms to communicate directly with our customers in a manner
that reflects poorly on our brand, and may be attributed to us or
otherwise adversely affect us."

Influencer marketing has grown significantly to "an $8 billion
business as celebrities, experts" and other individuals with large
social media followings charge companies high prices to promote
products. Casper noted that influencers could "subject us to
regulatory investigations, class action lawsuits, liability, fines
or other penalties" that could negatively impact its financial
health.

"If we are not able to develop and maintain positive relationships
with our network of over 3,500 influencers, our ability to promote
and maintain awareness of our sites and brands, [as well as]
leverage social media platforms to drive visits to our sites, may
be adversely affected," the company added.

Children have become significant influencers, so much so that an
industry summit was initiated last year to discuss the current lack
of regulation in the powerful influencer community. [GN]


CBS ENTERTAINMENT: Redstone & Ianniello Dismissed From Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that now re-melded
with Viacom, CBS doesn't really corporately exist anymore, but a
federal judge's order Jan. 15 on a long-battled shareholder lawsuit
will make Shari Redstone and former interim CBS CEO Joe Ianniello
pretty happy.

The empress of all things ViacomCBS and the current chairman of CBS
Entertainment Group were let go on Jan. 15 from the putative
securities class action first filed in the dying days of Les
Moonves' reign in 2018. However, Moonves was not so fortunate and
will have to face what is left of the legal move by the
shareholders.

"CBS and all individual Defendants except Moonves made a joint
motion to dismiss, and Moonves made a separate motion to dismiss,"
U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni writes in her opinion and order
(read it here). "Both argue that the Amended Complaint fails to
state a claim and must be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6)," the NYC-based judge adds. "The Court grants in
part and denies in part both motions.

"On November 29, 2017, Moonves stated at an industry event hosted
by Variety that '[#MeToo] is a watershed moment. . . . It's
important that a company's culture will not allow for this. And
that's the thing that's far-reaching. There's a lot we're learning.
There's a lot we didn't know, " Caproni says, putting the
ex-executive's words against him, as the original complaint of
August 2018 did. "The Amended Complaint, read in the light most
favorable to Plaintiffs, adequately—though barely—alleges that
this was a misleading statement of material fact."

And then there is the kicker for Moonves, who will have to square
off against now-ViacomCBS shareholders the Construction Laborers
Pension Trust for Southern California and others.

"The Amended Complaint adequately alleges that Moonves's statement
was misleading," the judge wrote to put it mildly, with all the
allegations that have come out that led to Moonves' axing from his
CBS perch on September 9, 2018. The once near omnipotent TV boss
subsequently lost out on his $120 million severance when a CBS
probe unveiled an apparent pattern of misconduct and deemed his
termination was for cause.

The lawsuit at issue here claims Moonves and other defendants made
"materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies." Those statements
may not turn out to be securities violations in the judge's POV,
but Moonves certainly skated over the line, in her opinion.

"Although it is a very close case, it is barely plausible that a
reasonable investor would construe his statement as implicitly
representing that he was just learning of problems with workplace
sexual harassment at CBS," Caproni notes. "His statement implied
that he had not known of these problems previously, even though, in
truth, he was at that time actively seeking to conceal his own past
sexual misconduct from CBS and the public."

In the middle of a corporate spinal realignment of sorts, and
ex-NBC Entertainment co-chair George Cheeks looking to return to
the Redstone fold, CBS unsurprisingly did not respond to request
for comment on the order. Neither did representatives for Moonves.

As for the plaintiffs, while their suit is presently sliced up
considerably, they have been offered an opportunity by Caproni to
make a new motion by January 29 to rebuild their case. It may
explain why CBS, Redstone and Ianniello are keeping their
celebration powder dry right now. [GN]


CIOX HEALTH: Montana Residents Balk at Fee for Medical Records
--------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN DEMING, BRIANA FRASIER, MICHAEL MCFARLAND and LUCAS GRISWOLD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CIOX HEALTH, LLC, SCL HEALTH f/k/a ST. VINCENT
HEALTHCARE, BOZEMAN DEACONESS HEALTH SERVICES, KALISPELL REGIONAL
HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION f/k/a KALISPELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
INC., ST. JAMES HEALTHCARE, CMC MISSOULA, INC., SISTERS OF CHARITY
OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants,
Case No. 9:20-cv-00016-DWM (D. Mont., February 10, 2020) contends
that the Defendants charge Plaintiffs and Class Members an
unreasonable $0.50 cent per page fee for electronic copies of
medical records, illegally charge an unreasonable electronic data
archive fee, and/or illegally charge an unreasonable shipping fee
when medical records were in fact delivered electronically.

Plaintiffs and Class Members claim that they have been damaged by
Defendants' unfair and deceptive acts and practices. They also
request that all issues of fact so triable be determined by a
12-person jury.

Ciox Health, LLC, is a Georgia corporation and one of the largest
medical-records providers in the U.S. that is authorized to do
business in Montana with statutory home office in Fulton County,
Georgia.

St. Vincent Healthcare is a Montana corporation whose statutory
home office is in Yellowstone County, Montana. St. Vincent provides
quality health care to the people of Montana and Northern Wyoming
for more than 115 years.

Bozeman Deaconess Health Services is a Montana corporation whose
statutory home office is in Gallatin County, Montana. Bozeman
Deaconess provides healthcare services governed by a community
board of directors responsible for overseeing the entire health
system.

Kalispell Regional Healthcare Foundation is a Montana corporation
whose statutory home office is in Flathead County, Montana. The
Foundation provides philanthropic support that assures the
tradition of excellent health care to continue for patients and
their families for future generations.

St. James Healthcare is a Montana corporation whose statutory home
office is in Silver-Bow County, Montana. St. James has its
reputation as a technological leader in Montana’s healthcare
industry and the largest acute-care hospital in southwest part of
the state.

CMC Missoula, Inc., is a Montana corporation whose statutory home
office is in Missoula County, Missoula. CMC Missoula provides sales
leads and sales intelligence data on over 120 million companies
like CMC Missoula, Inc. around the world, including contacts,
financials, and competitor information.

Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., is a
Colorado corporation that is licensed to do business in Montana and
whose statutory home office is in the consolidated city and county
of Broomfield, Colorado.  SCL owns and operates hospitals in Miles
City, Butte, and Billings including St. Vincent Healthcare and St.
James Healthcare.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Domenic A. Cossi, Esq.
       Maxwell E. Kirchhoff, Esq.
       Jory C. Ruggiero, Esq.
       WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES, PLLC
       303 West Mendenhall Street, Suite 1
       Bozeman, MT 59715
       Telephone: (406) 587-1900
       Email: info@westernjusticelaw.com



COINBASE: Settles Cryptsy Cryptocurrency Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Coindesk reports that Coinbase has settled a class action lawsuit
brought by users of the former Cryptsy cryptocurrency exchange.

According to a set of court documents dated Nov. 27 and Dec. 10,
2019, Coinbase has agreed to turn $962,500 over to an escrow agent
responsible for handling class action claims related to a previous
lawsuit against Cryptsy. Lawyers for the plaintiffs, who announced
the settlement on Jan. 13, have already won 11,325 BTC from this
previous case.

The plaintiffs created a webpage for potential Cryptsy victims --
any individuals who used the exchange before 2015 -- listing
upcoming key dates and outlining how they can submit claims.

The settlement concludes a three-year legal action that nearly saw
a jury trial.

A hearing will be held on April 17, 2020, to either approve the
preliminary settlement agreement or add further modifications as
needed, according to the filing.

Brandon Leidel, designated the class representative in the class
action lawsuit, will receive $2,500 due to his efforts. He brought
the suit in 2016 alleging Cryptsy CEO Paul Vernon used the exchange
to launder millions of dollars' worth of user funds over a
multi-year period.

The case was originally filed by the Silver Miller law firm and
Wites Law Firm, both of which were designated class counsel. In a
statement, attorney Marc Wites said the case against Coinbase, as
well as the previous lawsuit filed against Cryptsy, "were difficult
cases" to resolve.

"When companies go out of business, founders flee the country and
the amount at issue is relatively small, most plaintiff law firms
would decline to pursue the case," he said. "We were the only
lawyers in the country to pursue a case against Cryptsy or
Coinbase, individually or as a class action, and we were able to
obtain multiple meaningful recoveries for victims who would have
otherwise been left without any recourse."

David Silver of Silver Miller said he commended Coinbase "for
stepping up and resolving" the case. The Cryptsy case shows how
early exchanges, "especially unregulated exchanges like Cryptsy,
shunned regulators, laws and ultimately stole from its own
clientele," he said.

"This case shows that businesses in the cryptosphere bear a large
measure of responsibility, from with whom they decide to do
business and with whom they choose to associate," he said.

Coinbase did not immediately return a request for comment. [GN]


COLORTREE GROUP: Employees Set to Get Settlement Checks
-------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Gilligan, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports
that checks should start being issued to employees who are owed
money after being abruptly laid off at Henrico County-based
Colortree Group last June 2019.

A total of about $315,800 will be distributed to the 240 former
employees, according to Jeremy Williams, a lawyer with Kutak Rock
who represents the court-appointed Chapter 7 trustee Peter J.
Barrett. Williams said he and Barrett were advised of the
distribution by lawyers handling the class action lawsuit for the
employees.

A deal was approved in December by a federal bankruptcy court judge
to put $500,000 into a pot of money to pay the former employees who
were let go from the printing company without the required federal
60-day termination notice. The $500,000 pot of money won't all go
entirely to the employees. After fees and expenses, $315,800 will
be divided among the workers.

About $14,918 in expenses will come from the $500,000 pool of
funds. American Legal Claim Services, the disbursing agent, will
get paid $8,850.

After those expenses are paid, a third of the remaining money --
$157,910 -- will go toward lawyers representing the workers in the
case for their fees.

What's left is the $315,800 for workers.

Exactly how much each worker might get isn't known. But federal and
state withholding taxes will be deducted from the base amount each
employee receives.

Barrett, the court-appointed trustee, devised a deal to pay the
employees now before the Chapter 7 bankruptcy case is finalized.
The employees are creditors in the company's bankruptcy case.

The agreement settles a class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District
Court in Richmond alleging that Colortree violated the federal
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, or WARN Act.
That law requires companies with a large number of employees who
are being laid off as part of a mass layoff or plant closing to
provide 60 days notice or to pay them their wages and benefits for
the 60 days.

Barrett has said the settlement deal is reasonable and in the best
interest of the company, its creditors and former employees.

After operating for more than 30 years printing direct-mail
envelopes, flyers and brochures, Colortree abruptly closed its
offices and plant at 8000 Villa Park Drive, off East Parham Road.

The company was forced into Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation in
September. Its equipment and other assets were sold at auction in
September. [GN]


COOK COUNTY, IL: Jones Seeks Okay of Notice to Therapists Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as RAYMOND L. JONES, on behalf
of himself, and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and
unknown v. COOK COUNTY GOVERNMENT LE, D/B/A STROGER HOSPITAL OF
COOK COUNTY, Case No. 1:18-cv-07577 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion to send notice to the
      Plaintiff class consisting of:

      "all similarly situated past and present employees who have
      worked as Respiratory Therapists for Cook County through
      Cook County Health and Hospitals Systems at Stroger Hospital

      and were regularly scheduled to work 12-hour shifts any time

      between May 2017 and May 2019;"

   2. requiring Defendant to provide Plaintiff's counsel with a
      list of the Putative Class members, with personal contact
      information, within seven days of the Court's Order; and

   3. requiring Defendant to provide a certification as to the
      accuracy and completeness of list, concurrent with the
      production of the list of Putative Class members.

The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages and other relief pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a public hospital in Chicago, Illinois.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450

COVINGTON RIDGE: Fabricant Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Covington Ridge Financial, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00123 (D. Ariz., January 16, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Covington Ridge Financial operates as A.M.P. Payment Systems, a
sales marketer that recruits new customers for merchant processing
companies via telemarketing. Fabricant claims to have received
auto-dialed telemarketing calls on his phones. Fabricant's phone is
registered in the National Do-Not-Call registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Penny L. Koepke
     MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C.
     4854 E. Baseline Rd., Suite 104
     Mesa, AZ 85206
     Tel: (480) 833-1001
     Fax: (480) 969-8267
     Email: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz

            - and -

     Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
     Taylor T. Smith
     Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
     3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
     Denver, Colorado 80210
     Telephone: (720) 213-0675
     Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
     Email: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
            tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


DENNY'S CORP: Cooley Seeks to Stop Sending of Marketing Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------
LaDarrius Cooley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DENNY'S CORPORATION, a Delaware company, Case
No. 2:20-cv-00255 (D. Nev., Feb. 6, 2020), is brought under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act to stop the Defendant's practice
of sending unauthorized text messages promoting its restaurants,
and to obtain redress for all persons similarly injured by its
conduct.

The case challenges the Defendant's practice of sending
unauthorized text messages to consumers promoting its restaurants.
The Defendant's text messages violated the TCPA, and caused the
Plaintiff to suffer actual harm, including the aggravation,
nuisance, loss of time, and invasions of privacy that result from
the receipt of such calls, lost value of cellular services paid
for, among other harms, says the complaint.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the
Defendant to cease sending unsolicited text messages to consumers,
as well as an award of actual and/or statutory damages and costs.

The Plaintiff is a Las Vegas, Nevada resident.

The Defendant is a company that owns, operates, and/or franchises
Denny's branded restaurants nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Friedberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG B. FRIEDBERG, ESQ.
          4760 South Pecos Rd., Suite 103
          Las Vegas, NV 89121
          Phone: (702) 435-7968
          Email: attcbf@cox.net

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
                 rachel@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 474-9111
          Fax: (310) 474-8585
          Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                 bking@ahdootwolfson.com


DUPONT: Clean Cape Fear Joins Petition to Call PFAS Hazardous
-------------------------------------------------------------
PortCityDaily reports that Clean Cape Fear has joined several other
groups nationwide in petitioning the United States Environmental
Protection Agency to classify the PFAS as 'hazardous waste,' a move
that would allow much stronger enforcement actions against
polluters.

The petition, filed by the Environmental Law Clinic at Berkeley,
asks the EPA to consider dozens of the most common per- and
polyfluorinated chemicals as hazardous wastes under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, sometimes pronounced
'rick-rah'). The petition was made on behalf of Clean Cape Fear,
Michigan's PFAS Alliance, the Green Science Policy Institute, and
others -- all groups that hope the move will be a game-changer.
Clean Cape Fear is an "of alliance established advocacy groups,
community leaders, educators, and professionals," founded to help
hold corporate polluters and government regulators accountable.

Classifying PFAS as hazardous waste would have several major
effects, including shifting regulatory efforts from studying
whether or not PFAS are definitively toxic for humans to regulating
their disposal and cleaning up contaminated areas. It would also
unlock Superfund resources and could help deter the importation of
PFAS waste to the United States, according to the petition. While
environmentalists claim it's often cheaper to ship PFAS waste
products to the US were disposal guidelines are looser than they at
the point of production, Chemours -- which produces GenX among
other PFAS -- claims they only re-import waste for recycling, not
disposal.

In North Carolina, the petition could also unshackle state
regulators from limitations imposed by the Hardison Amendment,
which prevents the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) from enforcing any regulation stricter than what
exists at the federal level (right now, there's no enforcement
standard for PFAS).

It's worth noting that over the last year, the EPA has taken a
number of steps to consider to rule-making action on PFAS. But
while environmental advocates agree those steps are important, the
EPA hasn't moved the ball on actual enforcement, according to Dr.
Tom Bruton, senior scientist at the Green Science Policy
Institute.

"It's true the EPA is doing a lot to gather more information and
study the problem, but they're not doing enough to really take
strong enforcement action and hold polluters responsible and stop
future contamination -- and that's what we hope to do with this
petition,"Bruton said.

Toxic chemicals vs. hazardous waste

There's compelling evidence that the precursors of PFAS, most
notable C8 (PFOA), are dangerous to humans; that evidence has been
the basis of several class-action lawsuits against DuPont which
forced the company's decision to abandon the use of C8.

Unfortunately, one of the major problems with regulating PFAS is
that there are hundreds of chemicals -- just a few dozens are
tested for, and almost none have been the subject of clinical
toxicological trials.

Ask most scientists studying the chemicals and they'll tell you
PFAS are likely harmful, based both on animal studies, limited
human exposure studies, and the chemicals' close similarity to
known toxins. But when it comes to clinical evidence showing
statistically significant causation of specific health effects,
duplicated for hundreds of different chemicals -- the kind of thing
usually required to change EPA regulations -- there's still a lot
of work to do.

Many environmentalists and health advocates argue that the system
is literally preposterous -- absurdly reversed. Allowing polluters
to release chemicals into the ground, water, and air until those
chemicals are proven dangerous strikes many of these advocates as a
dangerous and backward approach. Changing that approach, however,
is likely to take as long -- if not far longer -- than building a
toxicological case against thousands of individual PFAS, or even
just the smaller number of sub-classes of the chemical family.

But hazardous waste? That's already regulated, and could be
addressed immediately by local, state, and federal regulators.

Congress enacted RCRA in 1976 "to promote the protection of health
and the environment" by requiring health-protective and
environmentally protective hazardous waste management practices.
RCRA authorizes EPA to "regulate hazardous wastes from cradle to
grave" to ensure that at each stage of their lifecycle, hazardous
wastes are safely handled, processed, and disposed of, according to
the Berkeley petition.

RCRA would allow local and federal regulators to hold companies
like Chemours to a much higher standard when it comes to disposing
of PFAS. It would also help prevent companies from using the United
States as a dumping ground to avoid stricter regulations impacting
their overseas facilities, according to the petition.

It would also change the approach to future lawsuits against PFAS
polluters. Currently, lawsuits often have to prove that polluters
violated regulations, or -- in the case of unregulated chemicals
like PFAS -- that there was a clear causal link between PFAS and
specific health impacts. In a court of law, that's a difficult case
to make. The change might not impact current lawsuits, but if
companies kept dumping PFAS in the future, lawsuits wouldn't have
to prove that the chemicals were toxic if the EPA already
considered them hazardous waste.

Shipping waste to the U.S. for disposal?

The United States isn't the only market for PFAS -- used in
everything from fire-fighting foam to non-stick pans and
grease-resistant pizza boxes — and it's not the only place where
Chemours, DuPont, and other companies manufacture the chemicals.

But it is one of the cheapest places to dispose of PFAS waste,
owing to limited regulations, according to the Green Science Policy
Institute and other members of the petition.

According to the petition, "[p]erhaps one of the most egregious
consequences of the lack of regulation of PFAS wastes in the United
States is import of these substances for disposal and incineration.
Absent regulation, disposal of PFAS-containing waste is presently
easier and cheaper in the U.S. than it is abroad. In February of
2019, a news article documented that the Chemours Company had been
importing GenX wastes from the Netherlands to the United States."

The EPA issued a 'temporary objection,' but ultimately didn't halt
the practice, because PFAS does not meet the regulatory definitions
of hazardous waste under RCRA, according to the petition.

In response to this claim, Chemours stated that the company does
import shipments of recovered GenX material into the United States,
but for recycling, not disposal.

According to a statement from Chemours, "Chemours has historically
recycled GenX materials from our Dordrecht [Netherlands] facility
at our Fayetteville Works plant, as well as at a contractor site in
Europe, in order to reduce the quantity that is emitted or becomes
waste. This is material that was originally created at the
Fayetteville site for use in our Dordrecht production processes,
and we have historically transported the material to its point of
origin to ensure we continue to recycle the vast majority of the
GenX rather than dispose of it. The re-importation of material from
Dordrecht allows for responsible recycling, not as it is falsely
portrayed in the petition to EPA. It's also important to note that
fewer emissions result from recycling material than from making new
material."

Chemours does not deny that the recycling process creates PFAS
waste, but notes the process reduces overall net waste.

"The recycling process does not create any more waste than there
would be from disposal of the recovered material and the
manufacture of new product. Through recycling, we make less new
material, which generates less waste overall,"according to a
Chemours spokesperson, speaking based on their "knowledge and
understanding."

Superfund resources

RCRA is designed to handle the current production, handling, and
disposal. It is, in other words, a good tool for addressing current
and future pollutions, according to Bruton.

But what about remediation, including contaminated groundwater,
riverbeds, aquifers, and other issues?

According to Bruton, while RCRA doesn't address past pollution, it
does trigger another federal program that was specifically designed
for legacy contamination -- the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, also known as
the federal Superfund law.

"If EPA listed these chemicals as RCRA hazardous waste, they would
automatically get encompassed by the Superfund rules -- Superfund
is the retroactive part,"Bruton said. "That makes it easier to get
money for clean up of past pollution."

By way of analogy, take the Navassa creosote Superfund site.
Creosote was used at the timber and wood treatment facility for
decades before the EPA, RCRA, or Superfund even existed.
Thirty-five years after the site shut down, the EPA added it to the
list of Superfund sites; the federal program allows clean-up, even
if the chemical or hazardous waste involved wasn't regulated at the
time of pollution. Thus, even though PFAS has been unregulated for
decades, Superfund resources could still be used to clean up
decades' worth of pollution.

[Editor's note: The NCDEQ has not yet responded to questions about
the petition sent.]

What next?

The petition was filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6974(a), which requires
the administration to respond within a 'reasonable' amount of time.
Those familiar with the government's highly subjective
interpretation of the word 'subjective' will note this does not
necessarily mean 'soon.' Still, the petitioners say they are
hopeful that the petition process will be considerably more
expedient than the EPA's current trajectory. [GN]


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

Energy Transfer LP (ET)

Investors Affected : February 25, 2017 - November 11, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Energy Transfer LP. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Energy Transfer's permits to conduct the Mariner
East pipeline project in Pennsylvania were secured via bribery
and/or other improper conduct; (ii) the foregoing misconduct
increased the risk that the Partnership and/or certain of its
employees would be subject to government and/or regulatory action,
thereby depreciating the Partnership's unit value; and (iii) as a
result, the Partnership's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/energy-transfer-lp-loss-submission-form/?id=5245&from=1

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

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


ENERGY TRANSFER: Securities Class Action Assigned to Judge McHugh
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prominent investor rights law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") disclosed that the securities class action
lawsuit filed by the firm on January 10, 2020 against Energy
Transfer LP ("Energy Transfer" or the "Partnership") and certain of
the Partnership's senior executives (collectively, "Defendants")
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania has been assigned to Judge Gerald A. McHugh.

The complaint is based on an extensive investigation and a careful
evaluation of the merits of this case.  A copy of the complaint is
available on BLB&G's website by clicking here.  This case is
related to a previously-filed securities class action pending
against Energy Transfer: Reinhardt v. Energy Transfer LP, No.
3:19-cv-02771 (N.D. Tex.).  Pursuant to the November 20, 2019,
notice published in connection with the Reinhardt action, under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors who
purchased Energy Transfer common units during the Class Period may,
no later than January 21, 2020, seek to be appointed as Lead
Plaintiff for the Class.

Energy Transfer's Alleged Fraud

Energy Transfer operates, through its subsidiaries, as a Dallas,
Texas-based natural gas and energy transportation and storage
company.  It operates some of the largest oil and gas pipelines in
the United States.  Its projects include the Mariner East pipeline,
a multibillion-dollar, 350-mile pipeline that carries highly
volatile natural gas liquid from the Marcellus and Utica Shales
areas in Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Eastern Ohio to
destinations in Pennsylvania.  On February 13, 2017, Energy
Transfer obtained approval from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection ("PaDEP") to construct an expansion of the
Partnership's Mariner East pipeline, referred to as Mariner East 2
and 2X.  According to news sources, approval of the Partnership's
permits was believed to be the final regulatory hurdle to begin
construction of the pipeline.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly assured
investors that Energy Transfer had lawfully obtained valid permits
to begin construction on Mariner East 2.  Unknown to the investing
public, however, the Partnership, acting either independently or in
concert with Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf's administration, made
use of coercion, bribery, and other illicit means of forcing PaDEP
to approve the critical construction permits.

On November 12, 2019, the truth began to be revealed when the
Associated Press published an article, "FBI Eyes How Pennsylvania
Approved Pipeline," which cited interviews with current and former
state employees who reported that Energy Transfer's Mariner East
pipeline project was under investigation by the FBI, and that the
investigation "involves the permitting of the pipeline, whether
[Pennsylvania Governor Tom] Wolf and his administration forced
environmental protection staff to approve construction permits and
whether Wolf or his administration received anything in return."
On this news, the price of Energy Transfer's common units fell
precipitously, and this decline in the market value of the
Partnership's common units caused significant losses and damages to
the investor Class.

BLB&G filed this action on behalf of Allegheny County Employees'
Retirement System, and the case is captioned Allegheny County
Employees' Retirement System v. Energy Transfer LP, No.
2:20-cv-00200-GAM and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than January 21, 2020, which is
the first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania is open that is 60 days after the
November 20, 2019 notice was published in connection with the
Reinhardt action.  Any member of the proposed Class may seek to
serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Michael D.
Blatchley of BLB&G at (212) 554-1281, or via e-mail at
MichaelB@blbglaw.com.

                           About BLB&G

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

CONTACT:

Michael D. Blatchley
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, New York 10020
(212) 554-1281
MichaelB@blbglaw.com
[GN]


EXELON CORP: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issued a
notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded
company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during
the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.

Exelon Corporation (EXC)

Investors Affected : February 9, 2019 - November 1, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Exelon Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Exelon and/or its employees were engaged in
unlawful lobbying activities; (ii) the foregoing increased the risk
of a criminal investigation into Exelon; (iii) Exelon subsidiary
Commonwealth Edison's revenues were in part the product of unlawful
conduct and thus unsustainable; and (iv) that, as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/exelon-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=5245&from=1

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

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


FEDEX GROUND: Cuadra Sues in California Over Wrongly Paid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Cuadra, on behalf of himself and other employees v. FEDEX
GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware corporation; FEDEX, a
business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No.
20STCV04992 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 6, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the California
Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay wages for
all hours worked at the employees' minimum wage rate or overtime
rate, to provide all legally required and legally compliant meal
and rest periods and meal and rest period premium wages, to provide
complete and accurate wage statements, to timely pay all unpaid
wages following separation of employment, and to maintain
temperatures providing reasonable comfort.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse
employee.

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. is a foreign entity domiciled and
a citizen of Delaware and Pennsylvania, incorporated in
Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                 jbello@lelawfirm.com


FONDUE 26 LLC: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Tavarez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
SHARLYNE TAVAREZ, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff, v. FONDUE 26, LLC d/b/a THE AINSWORTH,
AINSPH, LLC d/b/a THE AINSWORTH, PARK33 RESTAURANT LLC  d/b/a THE
AINSWORTH MIDTOWN,  BURGER FULTON, LLC  d/b/a THE AINSWORTH FIDI,
MATTHEW SHENDELL, BRIAN MAZZA, ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZ, and  DENNIS
BOGART, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01128 (S.D.N.Y., February 10,
2020) alleges that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from
Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, including those due to time shaving
and an invalid tip credit, (2) unpaid overtime, (3) liquidated
damages, and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

Tavarez and other Class members sustained similar losses, injuries
and damages arising from the unlawful policies, practices and
procedures of the Defendants.

Fondue 26, LLC d/b/a THE AINSWORTH is a domestic limited liability
company organized under the laws of the State of New York, with a
principal place of business and an address for service of process
located at 122 West 26th Street, New York, New York 10001.

AINSPH, LLC d/b/a THE AINSWORTH is a domestic limited liability
company organized under the laws of the State of New York, with a
principal place of business located at 64 Third Avenue, New York,
New York 10003 and an address for service of process located at c/o
The Limited Liability Company, Ains Holding Company, LLC, 333 West
39th Street, Suite 704, New York, New York 10018.

Park33 Restaurant LLC d/b/a THE AINSWORTH MIDTOWN is a domestic
limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
New York, with a principal place of business located at 45 East
33rd Street, New York, New York 10016 and an address for service of
process located at c/o Park South Hospitality, 167 Madison Avenue,
Suite 501, New York, New York 10016.

Burger Fulton, LLC d/b/a THE AINSWORTH FIDI is a domestic limited
liability company organized under the laws of the State of New
York, with a principal place of business located at 121 Fulton
Street, New York, New York 10038 and an address for service of
process located at c/o Matthew Shendell, 160 East 38th Street, Apt.
10C, New York, New York 10016.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: 212-465-1188
          Facsimile: 212-465-1181   


FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Forescout Technologies, Inc.
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff.

Forescout Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:FSCT)

Class Period: February 7, 2019 to October 9, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 2, 2020

On October 10, 2019, during pre-market hours, Forescout issued a
press release announcing preliminary third quarter 2019 ("3Q19")
financial results. That press release lowered 3Q19 revenue guidance
to $90.6 million to $91.6 million, compared to prior revenue
guidance of $98.8 million to $101.8 million, and market consensus
of $100.52 million. In explaining these results, defendants cited
"extended approval cycles which pushed several deals out of the
third quarter," which "was most pronounced in EMEA."

On this news, Forescout's stock price fell $14.63 per share, or
37.32%, to close at $24.57 per share on October 10, 2019.

The complaint, filed on January 2, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Forescout
was experiencing significant volatility with respect to large deals
and issues related to the timing and execution of deals in the
Company's pipeline, especially in Europe, the Middle East, and
Africa ("EMEA"); (ii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a
material negative impact on the Company's financial results; and
(iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the Forescout class action go to:
https://bespc.com/fsct

                About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact:

         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Tel: (212) 355-4648
         E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com [GN]


FUNDIT LENDING: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fundit Lending
Solutions Inc. The case is styled as Abante Rooter and Plumbing
Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Fundit Lending Solutions Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-00919-DMR (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 6, 2020).

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

FUNDiT Lending Solutions is a Long Island-based company that
focuses on providing working capital to US-based small and medium
sized businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GILEAD SCIENCES: Hit With Second Truvada Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard of Bloomberg Law reports that Gilead Sciences Inc.,
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Johnson & Johnson, and Japan Tobacco Inc.
were sued in Miami federal court on Jan. 15 over their alleged
conspiracy to corner the market for HIV prevention therapies like
Gilead's $11-billion-a-year drug Truvada.

"The scheme enabled Gilead and its co-conspirators to unlawfully
extend patent protection for their drugs, impair entry by generic
competitors, and charge exorbitant, supra-competitive prices for
the drugs that people living with HIV need to survive," the lawsuit
said. [GN]



GLOBAL ENTERPRISE: Perez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yuleidy Perez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GLOBAL ENTERPRISE SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., a Florida
corporation, and TIVADAR BODORLO, individually, Case No.
0:20-cv-60262-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 6, 2020), seeks to recover
under the Fair Labor Standards Act all minimum wages that the
Defendants refused to pay the Plaintiff during her employment.

The Defendants have unlawfully deprived the Plaintiff of federal
minimum wages during the course of her employment, the Plaintiff
alleges. She contends that the Defendants were expressly aware of
the work she performed but they refused to pay her for any of the
work she performed for them.

The Plaintiff tells the Court that she made efforts to obtain her
unpaid wages without having to file suit. Instead of agreeing to
pay her for the work she performed, she notes, the Defendants told
her to hire a law firm and sue them.

The Plaintiff performed non-exempt work for the Defendants as an
administrative assistant.

GLOBAL ENTERPRISE provides disaster restoration services throughout
the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 East Broward Blvd., Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 871-0050
          Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                 melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com
                 jake@jordanrichardspllc.com


GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Fund Hit with Homestead Class Action Payment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren McDonald, writing for The Brunswick News, reports that the
Glynn County Board of Education and local school district leaders
have kicked off the planning season for the fiscal year 2021
budget.

Lawsuits this past year significantly reduced the school system's
general fund balance. The school district began fiscal year 2020
with a general fund balance of nearly $25 million. That fund
balance dropped to $15.5 million after a lawsuit settlement
payment.

The school board heard a presentation on the parameters and
priorities of this year's budget.

More than 13,000 students are currently enrolled in Glynn County
Schools. The school system, one of the largest employers in Glynn
County, has 1,994.5 full- and part-time employees.

Around 56 percent of the school system's expenses are funded
through local property taxes. About 44 percent of expenses are
funded by the state, through Quality Basic Education (QBE) funding.
And less than 1 percent of funding comes from the federal
government.

The school system's millage rate has remained the same, at 16.157,
since 2015.

Because of lawsuit payments made this year, the school system will
need to find ways to begin building up its general fund balance
again, said Virgil Cole, superintendent of Glynn County Schools,
during the work session.

The biggest hit to the fund this year, Cole said, was the payment
required after the ruling in a class-action lawsuit, resolved in
2019 after seven years in the court system, which dealt with Glynn
County's misapplication of the Scarlett Williams property tax
homestead exemption.

"Of course, we weren't a part of this lawsuit," Cole said. "This
was a lawsuit that was made against the county, or the tax
assessor's office. It's been going on apparently for years. We
found out about it a little over a year ago."

The county announced a $17.5 million settlement in October. Because
the school system receives a significant portion of local property
tax money, the district had to pay a larger portion of the
settlement.

"Ours was a little over $10.5 million," Cole said. "Thankfully, we
have done a very good job, I think, over the years of building our
reserve to the point where we could pay that all at one time.
Certainly, it was the biggest check I've ever signed."

The Senate Bill 486 homestead exemption annually leads to a loss in
revenue for the school system, Cole said. The bill provides a
homestead tax exemption on property taxes collected for the school
board to residents who are at least 65 years old and whose net
income does not exceed $40,000.

"For this past fiscal year, it cost this district about $6.6
million," Cole said. "Cumulatively, that's a little over about $50
million over the last seven years."

The school system is also challenged by gaps in what state funding
covers. The state began to fully fund the QBE formula in 2018, but
Cole said that funding does not cover the costs of social security,
extra curricular and athletic activities, pre-kindergarten,
retirement for employees not covered by the Teacher Retirement
System, substitute teachers, school resource officers or
transportation. And nurses are 81 percent unfunded, he said.

Teacher retirement and classified employee health insurance costs
for the school system have also increased in recent years.

Andrea Preston, assistant superintendent of finances for Glynn
County Schools, said the teacher retirement rate has inclined
steadily since at least 2012. In fiscal year 2012, the school
system covered 10.28 percent of the cost. In fiscal year 2020, the
school system covered 21.14 percent.

"The good news is, next fiscal year it's going down to 19.06
(percent,) which will save us $1.5 million," Preston said.

School system leaders have numerous priorities going into this
year's budget planning period, Cole said. Those priorities include
maximizing state funding, allocating at least 75 percent of the
general fund to local schools and maintaining a competitive
compensation/extra-curricular supplement structure.

The school system also needs to work to get as close as possible to
a balanced budget this year, Cole said.

"As y'all know, in years past, we've kind of had this number around
$18 (million) to $20 million, maybe a little bit more obviously,
and we've kind of had a budget deficit of $2 (million) or $3
million," Cole said. "But through very conservative budgeting, we
end up not really spending all that and kind of coming back into
the number we originally started with."

The school system needs to begin building up its reserve again, he
said.

The system hopes to move toward maintaining a fund balance of about
$21 million. Other priorities this year include continuing to have
a transparent budgeting process and continuing to demonstrate
sustainability related to budget recommendations, which means
ensuring that any budget addition can be afforded year after year.

And while no word has come yet from the governor's office or state
legislature about potential pay increases for school employees,
Cole said Glynn County Schools will prioritize passing along pay
increases for teachers, both in and outside of the classroom. [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Molander Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Molander, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 5:20-cv-00918 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2020), arises
from the Defendant's illegal actions in collecting, storing, and
using the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric
information without informed written consent, in direct violation
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

In violation of the provisions of the BIPA, Google is actively
collecting, storing, and using--without providing notice, obtaining
informed written consent, or publishing data retention
policies--the biometrics of millions of unwitting individuals whose
faces appear in photographs uploaded to Google Photos in Illinois,
the Plaintiff alleges.

Specifically, the Plaintiff avers, Google created, collected, and
stored, in conjunction with its cloud-based "Google Photos"
service, millions of "face templates" (or "face prints")--highly
detailed geometric maps of the face--from millions of Google Photos
users. Each face template that Google extracts is unique to a
particular individual in the same way that a fingerprint or
voiceprint uniquely identifies one and only one person. The
Plaintiff asserts that Google failed to obtain consent from anyone
when it introduced its facial recognition technology.

Plaintiff Brandon Molander is a resident and citizen of Illinois.

Google is a Delaware limited liability company with its
headquarters located in Mountain View, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore Maya, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                 radhoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                 tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          David P. Milian, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 372- 7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
          Email: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com


GREEN DOT: Brodsky & Smith Reminds of Feb. 18 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC reminds investors of important approaching
deadlines regarding class action lawsuits against the following
companies for violations of federal securities laws. If you
purchased any of the below-listed stocks during the referenced time
periods and want to discuss your legal rights, please contact Marc
Ackerman, Esquire or Jordan Schatz, Esquire at 877-534-2590. There
is no cost or financial obligation to you.

GREEN DOT CORPORATION (GDOT)

Shares purchased between May 8, 2018 and November 7, 2019

Deadline: February 18, 2020

According to the complaint, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Green Dot's strategy to attract "high-value" long-term
customers was at the expense of "one and done" customers; (2) Green
Dot's "one and done" customers represented a significant source of
revenues in its legacy segment; (3) consequently, Green Dot's
strategy was self-sabotaging; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements about its business and operations were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

Additional information can be found at
http://www.brodskysmith.com/cases/green-dot-corporation-nyse-gdot/
, or call 877-534-2590. No cost or obligation to you.

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


GREEN DOT: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of the following company. There is
no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Green Dot Corporation (GDOT)
Class Period: May 9, 2018 to November 7, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 18, 2020

The GDOT lawsuit alleges that Green Dot Corporation made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Green Dot's strategy to attract "high-value" long-term
customers was at the expense of "one and done" customers; (2) Green
Dot's "one and done" customers represented a significant source of
revenues in its legacy segment; (3) consequently, Green Dot's
strategy was self-sabotaging; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about its business and operations were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in GDOT:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/green-dot-corporation-loss-submission-form?id=5243&from=1

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

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

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


GREEN DOT: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Green Dot
Corporation for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 9,
2018 and November 7, 2019, inclusive, are encouraged to contact the
firm before February 17, 2020.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click to participate:
https://schallfirm.com/join-action-form/?slug=green-dot-corporation&id=2196

The Schall Law Firm also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of
the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com.

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Green Dot's focus on attracting "high
value" consumer banking customers came at the expense of so-called
"low value" or "one-time use" customers, which are an important
part of the Company's revenue stream. During the November 7, 2019,
conference call following the release of its financial results for
the third quarter ending September 30, 2019, the company's CEO
admitted a continuing decline of active accounts which were mostly
"one-time use accounts." Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Green Dot,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

Contact:

         The Schall Law Firm
         Brian Schall, Esq.,
         www.schallfirm.com
         Office: 310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         info@schallfirm.com [GN]


GT'S LIVING: Mislabels Enlightened Kombucha Drinks, Sharpe Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DELANEY SHARPE, ERIN WEILER, JENNA LEDER, and ADRIANA DIGENNARO on
Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated v. GT'S
LIVING FOODS, LLC, Case 2:19-cv-10920-FMO-GJS (C.D. Cal., Dec. 27,
2019), accuses the Defendant of breach of express and implied
warranties, fraud, and unjust enrichment arising from its alleged
misleading advertising and labeling of Enlightened Kombucha
beverages, in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and New York's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, GT's Living Foods has passed off
millions of bottles of its wildly successful Enlightened Kombucha
beverages as non-alcoholic, when, in fact, the beverages contain
18-442% more alcohol than the legal limit for non-alcoholic
beverages. Having been caught selling alcoholic kombucha beverages
to unsuspecting customers in 2006 and 2010, Millennium Products,
Inc. (GT's parent) decided to market and distribute an alcoholic
version of its kombucha products (the "Classic" kombucha line) and
a so called "non-alcoholic" version (the "Enlightened" line),
knowing that omitting information on true alcohol content to give
the impression there is a nonalcoholic line provides much greater
market appeal and enables sales in far more retail locations. But
the purported distinction between the "Classic" and "Enlightened"
lines is a sham designed to confuse the public and government
regulators, as both lines of products contain alcohol levels far
surpassing the legal limit for non-alcoholic beverages, says the
complaint.

The Defendant's advertising of Enlightened Kombucha as the
non-alcoholic version of Millennium's "Classic" line and the fact
that the labels of Enlightened Kombucha do not bear the requisite
government warnings concerning the presence of significant amounts
of alcohol causes the products to pose a threat to public health,
safety, and morality, the Plaintiffs contend.  They add that
consumers are unwittingly purchasing and consuming Enlightened
Kombucha products prior to driving a car or operating machinery and
while pregnant or under 21 years of age.

The Plaintiffs purchased bottles of the Defendant's Enlightened
Kombucha beverages based on misleading advertising and labeling of
the products.

GT's Living Foods, LLC, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Vernon, California. The Company manufactures, advertises, sells,
distributes, and markets Enlightened Kombucha nationwide, including
in California. The Company offers a range of probiotic foods to
help improve gut health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com

               - and -

          Jeff Westerman, Esq.
          Ken Remson, Esq.
          WESTERMAN LAW CORP.
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 698-7450
          Facsimile: (310) 775-0777
          E-Mail: jwesterman@jswlegal.com
                  kremson@jswlegal.com


HIGH BRIDGE: Motion to Certify Class in Moore Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Monte Moore v. High Bridge
Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06240 (N.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge Charles P. Kocoras entered an order denying as moot a
motion to certify class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Feb. 7, 2020,
pursuant to the notice of dismissal filed on Feb. 3, 2020, the
Court ruled that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are dismissed
without prejudice with each party to bear their own fees and
expenses. In light of the dismissal, the motion to certify class is
denied as moot. The civil case is terminated.

High Bridge provides professional engineering services. The company
offers project management and controls, construction management,
performance measurement, process re-engineering, and maintenance
services.[CC]

HIGHMARK INC: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Hotel's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as COLE'S WEXFORD HOTEL, INC.,
on its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
HIGHMARK INC., Case No. 2:10-cv-01609-JFC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Joy Flowers Conti entered an order on Feb. 11, 2020:

   1. preliminarily certifying the action to proceed as a class
      action for purposes of the Settlement with Highmark, Inc.,
      on behalf of:

      "all persons, whether natural or fictitious, who purchased
      small group health insurance coverage in Western
      Pennsylvania from, or otherwise paid any small group plan
      premiums or portion thereof to, Highmark Health Insurance
      Co. or a similar for profit subsidiary of Highmark, Inc.
      between July 1, 2010 and Mar. 21, 2012." Excluded from the
      Settlement Class are any putative Class Members who exclude
      themselves from the Class, as well as UPMC, Highmark Inc.,
      and their respective officers, employees, agents,
      representatives, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates.

   2. certifying Plaintiff as class representative for the
      Settlement Class; and

   3. authorizing Settlement Class Counsel to act on behalf of the

      Settlement Class with respect to all acts required by, or
      which may be undertaken pursuant to, the Agreement or such
      other acts that are reasonably necessary to consummate the
      proposed Settlement set forth in the Agreement.

The Parties entered into the Settlement Agreement dated December
19, 2019.

On April 16, 2016, the Court certified the same class for purposes
of a settlement with UPMC.

Highmark is a non-profit healthcare company and Integrated Delivery
Network based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[CC]

HORNBLOWER YACHTS: Murray Sues Over Improper Wage Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Murray, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HORNBLOWER YACHTS, LLC, a California limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2020-00007070-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Feb. 6,
2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements as required under the California Labor
Code, and the applicable Wage Orders of the California Industrial
Welfare Commission.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have disregarded the
rights of their employees by failing to provide complete and
accurate wage statements to the Plaintiff and Class Members.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a boat engineer in San
Diego.

Hornblower Yachts, LLC, is a California limited liability company
doing business in the State of California providing yacht charter
and dining services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Max W. Gavron, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Phone: (831) 531-4214
          Fax: (831) 634-0333


HYATT HOTELS: Faces Potential Biometrics Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Loop North, reports that faced with a
potentially massive class action accusing it of violating an
Illinois biometrics privacy law, Hyatt Hotels Corporation is
attempting to rope in the vendor that supplied the employee punch
clocks at the heart of the complaint.

For more than two years, Chicago-based Hyatt has sought to defend
itself against the potential class action sought by lawyers
representing named plaintiff Robin Rapai. First filed in October
2017 in Cook County Circuit Court, the lawsuit accuses Hyatt of not
abiding by the provisions of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act in the way the hotel chain has required Rapai and other
workers to scan their fingerprints when punching in and out of work
shifts.

The lawsuit was initially brought by attorney James Bormes and
attorneys from The Khowaja Law Firm LLC, of Chicago. However, late
last year, lawyers Jad Sheikali and Timothy Kingsbury, of
Chicago-based McGuire Law, P.C., began representing the
plaintiffs.

Many employers are now using biometric time clocks that require
shift workers to verify their work hours by scanning some kind of
biometric identifier, most commonly a fingerprint. The technology
has been touted as a way of reducing so-called punch fraud, in
which an employee might input the information of a coworker to make
it appear the coworker was on the job, when they had either arrived
late or departed early.

While supporters say the law's purpose was to protect Illinois
residents against the risk of data breach and identity theft,
plaintiff attorneys have used the law to launch a barrage of class
action lawsuits against employers of all sizes and types. Many of
these lawsuits have centered on employers' use of biometric time
clocks.

Typically, the lawsuits have attempted to extract damages of $1,000
to $5,000 per violation from employers for allegedly failing to
notify employees of how the business intended to collect, use,
share, and ultimately destroy their biometric data, as they assert
the law requires.

Legal observers believe the law's damages provisions could be read
in such cases to define a "violation" under BIPA as each time a
worker punches the clock. This, attorneys have argued, could drive
the potential damages well into the millions of dollars, even for
small shops, and potentially into the billions for large
employers.

While some defendants have settled, Hyatt and others have contested
the action. Last fall, a Circuit Court judge denied Hyatt's attempt
to dismiss the lawsuit. Hyatt has continued to seek a win in the
case and either absolve itself of liability or greatly reduce its
risk.

About a month after its motion to dismiss was rejected, Hyatt
countersued Kronos Incorporated, the Massachusetts-based vendor the
hotel chain said supplies its biometric time clocks and supports
the technology. In the counterclaim, Hyatt asserts Kronos should
stand as the real target of the BIPA action. It is Kronos, Hyatt
claims, under the terms of its contract with Hyatt, that actually
collects, stores, and transmits the fingerprint scans for Hyatt
employees.

According to Hyatt's complaint, Kronos rejected Hyatt's demand that
Kronos help it defend against Rapai's lawsuit. The Hyatt
counterclaim accuses Kronos of breaching its contract with the
hotel chain and seeks a court order declaring Kronos "did not
perform its obligations in compliance with applicable laws,
including BIPA," and wrongly rejected responsibility to assist
Hyatt in the BIPA class action. The counterclaim asks the court to
order Kronos to cover Hyatt's legal costs to defend against the
BIPA class action.

According to a court filing in November, Kronos had until January
24 to respond to Hyatt's counterclaim.

Hyatt is represented in the action by attorneys Lisa Ackerman and
Jacob Graham, who are with the Chicago law firm of Wilson Elser
Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Dylan's Candybar is also being sued over the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act. The Michigan Avenue candy shop, owned by
the daughter of fashion designer Ralph Lauren, is accused of
violating the privacy law by failing to give its employees written
notice of plans and policies concerning fingerprint data collected
when they punched in at the beginning of their shifts. [GN]


IFINEX INC: Ebanks Sues Over Bitcoin Price Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ebanks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. IFINEX Inc., BFXNA Inc., Tether Holdings
Limited, Tether Limited, Tether Operations Limited, Digfinex Inc.,
Jean-Louis Van Der Velde, Giancarlo Devasini and Philip Potter,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00453, (S.D. N.Y., January 16, 2020),
seeks remedies under the Commodity Exchange Act and the Sherman
Act.

Defendants issued and maintained a stablecoin known as "Tether," a
digital token whose value is anchored to the U.S. dollar.
Defendants allegedly manipulated prices of Bitcoin by issuing
Tether unbacked by a 1:1 U.S. dollar reserve and using it to
purchase Bitcoin through U.S.-based cryptocurrency exchanges
Bittrex and Poloniex. This artificially inflated the price of
Bitcoin, which enabled Defendants to extract supra-competitive
profits from Bitcoin traders, says the complaint.

Joseph Ebanks is a Bitcoin trader. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 674-4674
      Fax: (312) 674-4676
      Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      George W. Cochran, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE W. COCHRAN
      1385 Russell Drive, Suite B
      Streetsboro, OH 44241
      Telephone: (330) 607-2187


IFINEX: Two Firms Seek to Lead 3 Class-Action Suits on Bitcoin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kollen Post, writing for Cointelegraph, reports that one legal team
looks to lead the three ongoing suits against IFinex alleging that
illegal conduct involving iFinex's subsidiaries Tether and Bitfinex
was behind Bitcoin's (BTC) 2017 bull run.

Per a Jan. 13 filing with the court of the Southern (NYSE:SO)
District of New York (SDNY), the counsel for Eric Young, Adam Kurtz
and David Crystal are asking to be deemed "Interim Lead Counsel"
for a number of parties filing similar class-action suits.  Young,
et al., are represented by law firms Radice and Kirby McInerney.

Meaning of the new classification for the case

Such a classification would make Young's counsel the flagship of a
trio of class-action suits against iFinex that also includes
Leibowitz et al v. iFinex - originally filed in October - and
Laubus et al v. iFinex. It would, moreover, put them at the head of
a more general "class" of those similarly situated as having lost
money due to iFinex's alleged market manipulation, which is a
potentially massive group of Bitcoin investors.

As Young's legal team argues, their case:

   "Contains expert analyses and original statistical analyses
   that are not found in the Leibowitz Complaint. Further, Kirby
   and Radice possess extensive, specialized experience
   representing parties in data-intensive financial, commodities,
   and antitrust class actions."

Who will lead the class?

Karen Lerner, a partner at Kirby McInerney spearheading the case,
told Cointelegraph that: "Interim class counsel will be responsible
for protecting the interests of the class at this stage. That can
include representing the class through motions, conducting
discovery, and eventually moving for class certification."

Lerner reiterated the assertion in the recent filings that Kirby
McInterney's experience both in this general area of law and
particularly in assembling expert analysis for the allegations were
working in favor of their spearheading the class action.

Shifting jurisdictions and the history of the accusations

As Cointelegraph reported in January, Young et al refiled their
case from Washington State to SDNY, only to be followed the next
day by Laubus's case, which copied much of the language from
Young's complaint.

IFinex, for its part, has responded to the allegations with strong
language. Upon Young's initially filing in Washington in November,
subsidiaries Bitfinex and Tether dubbed the accusations "mercenary
and baseless" in simultaneously published posts on their respective
websites.

Suspicion as to Tether's role in manipulating the bull market for
BTC in 2017 date back to research originally published in June
2018. [GN]


INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Mold Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
TheIndyChannel.com reports that a lawsuit filed against Indiana
University for mold issues inside dorms has now been granted class
action status.

An order filed January 10, approves the lawsuit to officially
become a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit was initially filed back
in 2018 against Indiana University in regards to mold issues inside
dorms that allegedly left students sick and forced dozens of
students out of their dorms mid-semester.

The lawsuit claims that the university knew about the mold
conditions in the dorms for several years and misled students about
how bad it actually was. It also claims that the university
encouraged doctors at the campus health center not to tell students
that their symptoms could be caused by mold.

Two of the impacted dorms, McNutt and Foster, were supposed to be
renovated during the 2021-22 and 2023-24 school years, but their
renovations were moved up because of the mold issues. In April
2019, the state budget committee approved Indiana University's $56
million plan to replace heating, ventilation and cooling systems in
those residence halls. Both are closed at this time and expected to
re-open sometime in 2021.

Mold was also detected in nearly two dozen rooms at Teter Quad.
[GN]


INFOSYS: Chair Defends Concealing Whistleblowers' Complaints
------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Thambala, writing for Livemint, reports that global software
major Infosys was absolutely right in concealing the
whistleblowers' complaints from the regulators and the media,
Infosys chairman Nandan Nilekani has said.

"It is not the job of companies to take a whistleblower's complaint
coming every morning and issue a media release on it.

"That is going to create a new set of issues. So, we did absolutely
the right thing," Nilekani told IANS, which red-flagged the
complaints in October and the co-founder acknowledged it later.

Admitting that a company was duty-bound to take on record a
whistleblower's complaint, Nilekani said a report was made on it
(plaint) after due diligence and investigation by an audit
committee, set up to probe the charges against its Chief Executive
Officer (CEO) Salil Parikh and Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
Nilanjan Roy.

Based on the findings of the audit committee, Nilekani claimed on
Jan. 10 that there was no wrongdoing by Parikh or Roy in the
financial dealings with its global clients.

Infosys' audit committee arrived at this conclusion after
investigating 77 people, including some employees, through 128
interviews on the myriad allegations.

The company entrusted 46 custodians to collect relevant documents
and electronic data which ran into 2,10,000 documents, amounting to
8 tera bytes data.

In the audit committee key findings, explaining an unnamed large
deal, the report said the reasons for choosing Percentage of
Completion (POC) cost method were neither discussed nor disclosed
to the audit committee. It said no evidence was found to say that
POC method was forced for recognition of application maintenance
revenue.

"The company notes that it has historically applied the straight
line method (SLM) of revenue recognition for substantial majority
of its fixed price maintenance contracts," said the audit committee
report.

It also said that POC method adheres to the company's accounting
policy, therefore, no specific disclosure was required to be made
to the audit committee.

"Revenues from such maintenance contracts where this method has
been applied are not material and hence, a separate disclosure in
the financial statements was not considered necessary," claimed the
report.

Before briefing the media on the company's third quarterly results,
Nilekani absolved Parikh and Roy of all the charges as the audit
panel gave a clean chit to them on the grounds that they
(allegations) were unsubstantiated or not backed by evidence by the
whistleblowers.

"I am pleased that after rigorous investigation, the audit
committee has found no wrongdoing by the company or its
executives," reiterated Nilekani.

The audit committee roped in legal counsel Shardul Amarchand
Mangaldas & Co and PricewaterhouseCoopers to inquire into the
charges.

Nilekani also asked the media what evidence it had to know that the
whistleblowers were the company's employees, as claimed by one of
them working in the company's finance department.

When asked about the safety of the employees who raised the
concerns over the lack of transparency in deals with the clients,
Nilekeni said the company had no plans to identify the
whistleblowers or the unethical employees.

"That will vitiate the purpose; we are not going around looking for
whistleblowers. We have no intention of finding them or doing
anything about that," added Nilekani.

On October 21, 2019, a complaint to the company board purportedly
from unidentified 'ethical employees' came to light, accusing
Parikh and Roy of serious misconduct and unethical practices.

Nilekani's defence for not informing the regulators (SEBI and SEC)
about the plaints forced the whistleblowers to share them with the
media that resulted in its blue-chip scrip of ₹5 face value (per
share) plunge 17 per cent on October 22, wiping off a whopping
INR50,000 crore of its market capitalization in a single day.

The gravity of charges also made Nilekani step into the imbroglio
and admit to the media that an unnamed board member received two
anonymous complaints on September 30 and another on September 20
titled 'Disturbing unethical practices' and the second undated with
the title, "Whistleblower complaint'.

The BSE sought a clarification on October 23 from the $11 billion
IT behemoth over the non-disclosure of the complaint.

"We work with a large number of regulators and stock exchanges. We
are in constant touch with all the regulators and other agencies.
We are giving them full cooperation, we are keeping them fully up
to date and we will take those discussions to the logical
conclusion," said Nilekani.

In spite of knowing about the charges, especially far more serious
against the CEO, the outsourcing firm chose to keep them under
wraps till the whistleblower raised the alarm, making it file a
slew of clarifications on the BSE.

"It is observed that Infosys has not made disclosures under
regulation 30 of SEBI (LODR) Regulations, 2015, w.r.t. receipt of
whistleblower complaint mentioned in the announcement," said the
BSE to the company on October 23.

Similarly, the US regulator SEC (Securities and Exchange
Commission) on October 24 initiated an inquiry into the charge of
unethical business practices by Parikh and Roy.

"We have been in touch with the SEC on the anonymous whistleblower
complaints and has learnt that the SEC has initiated an
investigation into this matter," said the beleaguered company in a
statement on October 24.

On November 12, IANS reported on the second whistleblower's letter
to the board detailing Parikh's alleged misdeeds and urging the
Chairman (Nilekani) and the Directors to act against the CEO.

Claiming to be an employee in the company's finance department, the
second whistleblower complained that he was unable to disclose his
identity fearing retaliation for the damning disclosures he was
making against Parikh.

"Though it is a year and 8 months since Parikh joined the company,
he operates from Mumbai in violation of the condition that the CEO
has to be based in Bengaluru and not Mumbai. What is stopping the
board to insist on his movement to Bengaluru," said the second
whistleblower in the unsigned and undated letter to Nilekani and
the Independent Directors.

On December 12, the Schall Law Firm, a shareholder rights
litigation firm based in Los Angeles, announced the filing of a
class action lawsuit against Infosys.

The Schall Law Firm said Infosys made false and misleading
statements to the market and used improper recognition of revenue
to boost short-term profits. It encouraged investors with losses in
excess of $100,000 to contact the firm.

The class action lawsuit against Infosys was for violation of 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated there under by SEC, said the law firm.

The SEBI, SEC and American law firms' probe results are awaited.
[GN]


JAGUAR LAND: Air Suspension Leak Class Settlement Gets Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Range
Rover air suspension leak class action lawsuit has been
preliminarily approved for consumers who leased or purchased
2003-2006 Range Rovers on or before December 31, 2018.

According to the lawsuit, 2003-2006 Range Rovers have defective air
suspensions that crack and leak, causing a loss of air pressure in
the suspensions and affecting the height of the vehicles. In
addition, the plaintiffs claim the vehicles cannot travel straight
once air leaks from the systems.

The plaintiffs say they are forced to pay their own money to
replace the front air springs, something the automaker should pay
for since the air suspensions are defective.

The plaintiffs also allege Land Rover has known about the
electronic air suspension system leaks since 2003 and issued a
technical service bulletin (TSB) to dealer technicians in 2006.

TSB LM204-006 told dealers about Range Rover customers of models up
to 2004 who complained their SUVs lowered in height.

Land Rover said no obvious system leaks may be found, but vehicles
in mileage ranges of 30,000-60,000 may develop hairline cracks in
the rubber material of the front air springs. Those cracks were
likely located at the points where the air springs roll over the
plastic bases.

Dealerships were told to replace the affected front suspension
components with upgraded spring material, if necessary. However,
the lawsuit alleges the new air springs are just as defective as
the original springs.

Jaguar Land Rover says it decided to settle the class action after
the judge dismissed multiple claims against the automaker while
allowing others to continue. The automaker denies any wrongdoing
and says there is nothing wrong with the air suspensions, but it is
settling the matter to save on the cost of extended litigation.

The plaintiffs told the judge Jaguar Land Rover should stop selling
the vehicles, give up all profits from sales of the 2003-2006 Range
Rovers and replace the front air suspension systems. But according
to the settlement, that's not going to happen.

Instead, Land Rover customers may receive reimbursements for past
expenses related to the air springs, but there are specific
conditions that must be met. Maximum amounts of reimbursements,
time and mileage limits will apply.

To qualify for reimbursement there are two specific conditions. The
Range Rover at the time of the front air spring replacement must
have been in service for less than the applicable number of years
below, and it must have been driven for less than the maximum
number of miles within the applicable mileage period.

   -- Up to 5 years, between 50,001 miles and 62,500 miles:
      Maximum reimbursement amount - $500

   -- Up to 6 years, between 62,501 miles and 75,000 miles:
      Maximum reimbursement amount - $250

   -- Up to 7 years, 75,001 miles and 87,500 miles: Maximum
      reimbursement amount - $125

   -- Up to 8 years, between 87,501 miles and 100,000 miles:
      Maximum reimbursement amount - $100

If the Range Rover had been in service for more than eight years or
driven more than 100,000 miles when the first air suspension
replacement occurred, the customer will not be eligible for
reimbursement. And service records must prove it was the front air
spring replaced. Rear air suspensions are not eligible for
reimbursements.

In addition to filing a valid claim, a customer must provide proof
of repairs that include:

   1. The date and mileage when the front air spring was replaced.

   2. The exact amount of the out-of-pocket costs to replace the
      front air spring. Estimates or unpaid invoices will not
      suffice.

   3. Proof the customer who files a claim owned or leased the
      Range Rover when the front air spring was replaced.

Reimbursement is only available if the front air spring was
replaced due to an air leak caused by a crack or failure of the
rubber material of the component.

"A claim will not be eligible for reimbursement if the vehicle's
repair documentation indicates that the repair was due to a
collision, accident, vandalism, puncture from road debris, customer
abuse, noise complaint unrelated to an air leak, or any other
reason other than an air leak."

Additionally, the front air spring must have been one of the
original springs installed on the new Range Rover at the factory.

If a replacement was performed by a service center other than an
authorized Land Rover dealer, the replacement will not qualify for
reimbursement.

If the Range Rover customer paid out-of-pocket for strut
replacement, the replacement is eligible for reimbursement only if
service records prove the strut was replaced in order to replace a
failed front air spring due to an air leak.

Although the automaker and plaintiffs agreed to the settlement
agreement, the judge will hold a fairness hearing February 3,
2020.

Attorneys for Land Rover customers may receive nearly $1.4
million.

The Range Rover air suspension leak class action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey:
Majdipour et al. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mazie, Slater, Katz & Freeman,
and Strategic Legal Practices. [GN]


JAKARTA: Flood Victims File Class Action Against Governor
---------------------------------------------------------
Diana Mariska, writing for Jakarta Globe, reports that Jakarta
residents who were badly affected by the New Year's Day floods and
landslides that killed at least 67 people in the Jakarta
metropolitan area submitted a class action against Governor Anies
Baswedan to the South Jakarta District Court on Jan. 13.

The class action, launched by an advocacy group called the Jakarta
Flood Victims Advocacy Team, demands compensation for losses
experienced during the disaster and its aftermath.

The lawsuit involved 243 flood victims represented by five
residents and a group of lawyers.

More than 670 flood victims had applied to join the class action.
After being verified, 243 of them went ahead with the lawsuit. Each
of the five representatives represented a district of Jakarta.

The class action claims losses of up to Rp 42.3 billion ($3.1
million) from the floods and landslides, which the victims felt
could have been handled better by the city administration.

A spokesman for the advocacy team, Azas Tigor Nainggolan, said
Anies as governor had failed at least on two counts in his handling
of the disaster.

The first was his inability to provide an early warning system to
alarm the city's residents of potential floods.

"The system had worked in previous years. Sub-district officials
usually get the information quite early, which they then passed on
to residents using mosques loudspeakers," Azas said at the district
court.

The second was the ineffective emergency response carried out by
the provincial government. According to the advocacy team, help
came very late to several areas heavily affected by the flood in
the capital, or never came at all.

"These two things are the governor's responsibilities," Azas said.

He said Anies could have opted to continue the systems set up by
previous governors to handle floods in Jakarta and his failure to
do show was proof of his incompetence.

One of the flood victims who were there at the district court, Budi
Iskandar, said he had experienced more losses from the flood this
year than at any other time.

"Almost every year, Kelapa Gading [the area in North Jakarta where
he lives] is flooded, but this year was the worst," Budi said.

Budi's car had to be written off because of the flood, his home was
badly damaged and his shop had also suffered.

"Fabrics for my convection business were destroyed in the flood. In
total, I lost around Rp 200 million to Rp 300 million," Budi said.

Deadly floods and landslides hit many areas of the capital on New
Year's Day after almost a day of non-stop torrential rains. Several
spots in the Jakarta metropolitan area were completely paralyzed.

Aside from the 67 people killed, tens of thousands were displaced
from their homes and forced to live in evacuation shelters.

Several of the victims complained that unlike in previous years,
they never received any early warnings about the floods.

Social Affairs Minister Juliari Peter Batubara has admitted the
lack of warning might have contributed to the high number of
victims. [GN]


KALAMATA RESEARCH: Mizrahi Sues Over Unauthorized Marketing Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Mizrahi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KALAMATA RESEARCH SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00666
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2020), arises from the Defendant's violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act relating to unauthorized
marketing text messages.

According to the complaint, the Defendant invaded the Plaintiff's
privacy by causing unsolicited phone calls and/or text messages to
be made to his cellular telephones through the use of an automatic
telephone dialing system. The Defendant made one or more
unauthorized text message to the Plaintiff's cellular phones using
an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt to profit. The
Defendant concedes that it does not have the express written
consent of the recipient of the calls and/or text messages, but
rather obtains phone numbers from publically available voter
registration lists.

In response to the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff
seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all
unsolicited phone calls and/or text messages to consumers.

The Plaintiff works in Brooklyn, New York.

The Defendant operates a research company in which it, for a
profit, solicits consumers for information and sells that
information to third parties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (732) 695-3282
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


KGN ENTERPRISES: Pereira Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Pereira, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. KGN ENTERPRISES INC d/b/a BAWARCHI, INDIAN CUISINE, and AZIZ A.
KHAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-01037 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2020), seeks to
recover, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law, from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each
day his work shift exceeded 10 hours, liquidated and statutory
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Plaintiff says that he worked over 40 hours per week but from
the beginning of his employment and continuing through October
2019, he was not paid proper minimum wages and overtime
compensation. The Plaintiff was paid in cash, at the rate of $400
per week straight time for all hours worked. He asserts that work
performed above 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutory
rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
dishwasher, porter, and food delivery worker at their restaurant.

KGN ENTERPRISES, owns and operates an Indian restaurant doing
business as Bawarchi Indian Cuisine located in the city of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KRAFT HEINZ: Misrepresented Crystal Light Products, Stewart Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bryce Stewart III, as an individual on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated and the general public v. THE KRAFT
HEINZ COMPANY; KRAFT HEINZ INGREDIENTS CORP. and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01209 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2020), alleges
that the Defendants violated consumer laws, including the
California Legal Remedies Act, Sherman Food & Drug Act, False
Advertising laws, and New York General Business, resulting from
their misrepresentation of their Crystal Light products as having
no artificial flavors.

Among its vast line of well-known products that KRAFT HEINZ
manufactures, distributes, and sells, is the highly popular brand
"Crystal Light." Near its inception in the mid-80s Crystal Light
was synonymous with working out since it was branded as a low
calorie drink. Crystal Light first reached global popularity in the
mid-80s through the then popular actress, Linda Evans, who enabled
the brand to gain immediate traction with her workout related
Crystal Light advertisements.

Over the decades, Defendant KRAFT HEINZ has launched several
variations of the product line, which included labeling changes to
meet consumer demands. In order to meet these consumer demands,
which in the recent decade require healthier choice products,
including no sugar, or no artificial flavors or colors, Defendant
KRAFT HEINZ has injected additional newer products lines into the
marketplace, which advertise products as containing no artificial
flavors.

Consistent with Defendants KRAFT's self-promotion as an industry
leader in food and beverage space, the front packaging of each of
the Products state in prominent lettering: "NO artificial flavors."
To reinforce the impression that the Products do not contain
artificial flavoring, the front packaging of each of the Products
display pictures of actual fruits with leaves pertaining to the
specific fruit juice blend that is in question.

Contrary to the labeling, however, each of the Products contains
artificial flavoring that is used to simulate and affect the
flavor, according to the complaint. On the back of the Products,
Defendants KRAFT discloses in tiny fine print that that it
incorporates malic acid (the artificial flavoring at issue here) in
the Products.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's representations are
false, misleading, unfair, unlawful, and are likely to deceive
members of the public, and continue to do so. The Plaintiff
purchased the Products at a substantial price premium and would not
have bought the Products had he known that the labeling they each
relied on was false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Crystal Light products between 2017 to
2020.

KRAFT HEINZ is worldwide multi-conglomerate company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
          2901 W. Coast Highway, Suite 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92663
          Phone: (949) 270-2798
          Fax: (949) 209-0303
          Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com


LIBERTY INSURANCE: 6th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Richelson Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry P. Schiffer, Esq. -- larry.schiffer@squirepb.com -- of Squire
Patton Boggs LLP, in an article for Mondaq, relates that among the
basic rules of insurance are these two: (a) always read your policy
and (b) courts will construe clear and unambiguous insurance policy
language by giving it its ordinary and plain meaning. This is the
lesson that a policyholder learned after filing a claim for
windstorm damage to his roof. The question was whether the policy
provided actual cash value or replacement cost damages.

In Richelson v. Liberty Insurance Corp., No. 19-3035 (6th Cir. Jan.
6, 2020), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of
an insurance company's motion to dismiss a policyholder's breach of
contract and fraud claims. A windstorm caused damage to the
policyholder's roof and the policy filed a claim for replacement
cost damage under his homeowner's policy. The insurance company
reimbursed the policyholder only for actual cash value, applying
the policy's deductible and deducting depreciation from the
replacement cost amount. A dispute arose and the policyholder sued
for breach of contract and fraud and filed the case as a class
action. On the insurance company's motion to dismiss, the district
court granted the motion on the breach of contract claims and his
fraud claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court on
appeal. [GN]


MADISON COUNTY, MS: Simpson Thacher Help Curb Police Bias
---------------------------------------------------------
Jack Queen, writing for Law360, reports that Quinetta Manning's
sons were asleep when the knock came at 7 a.m. on June 26, 2016.
When she opened the door to her Canton, Mississippi, apartment,
sheriff's deputies barged in, demanding she sign a witness
statement for a crime she hadn't seen.

Manning's husband, Khadafy, emerged from the bedroom aided by the
cane he used for a bad leg. He told the deputies Quinetta didn't
have to sign anything. She knew her rights, he said.

"They got furious," Quinetta Manning told Law360. "They got to
yelling, saying 'either you're going to write the statement or both
go down to jail and get booked for burglary.'"

The commotion awoke the Mannings' three sons. They watched as
deputies choked Khadafy Manning by the neck, hauled him down to a
patrol car in nothing but boxers and a T-shirt and coerced him into
signing a witness statement for a nearby burglary, according to
Quinetta Manning's account.

Neither of the Mannings were charged with a crime. But the episode
left an indelible mark on their sons -- especially the youngest,
who was only 5 at the time. He still fears the police.

"He sees a police officer and he panics," Quinetta Manning said.
"Every night before bed he locks the door because he doesn't want
the police to come and get him."

The Mannings' story was one of nine outlined in a class action by
the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi alleging a
pattern of racially biased policing by Sheriff Randy Tucker and the
Madison County Sheriff's Department, which the ACLU said
disproportionately targeted the county's minority black population
with routine roadblocks, "jump out" sidewalk patrols and
warrantless searches.

The lawsuit led to a pair of settlements in October and a landmark
consent decree compelling the sheriff's department to reform its
practices. But the case wouldn't have made it far without Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, which lent nine attorneys to the two-year
effort on a pro bono basis.

"Simpson Thacher's role in the case was essential, and without them
this would not have been possible," ACLU Mississippi legal director
Josh Tom told Law360. "Since I've been here, that's the biggest
case we've litigated, and we couldn't have done it without them."

Simpson Thacher didn't take up the case lightly. A formidable
element of proving discrimination is convincing a court that
stories like the Mannings' - however graphic - are not mere
outliers, and the lawyers wanted to make sure the numbers backed
them up before formally signing on.

"You can hear stories and have people tell you about their
experience, but if you want to bring the case on a countywide or
class basis, you are going to need hard, direct evidence of
systemic wrongdoing," Simpson Thacher partner Jonathan Youngwood --
jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- told Law360.

The firm dove deep into Madison County's public safety and policing
records, wringing data through statistical analyses that plotted
the sheriff's department's stifling presence in the black community
on charts and graphs. The numbers showed a clear pattern of
discrimination, according to the firm.

Among the top-line findings: Black people accounted for 73% of
arrests in Madison County over five months in 2016, despite making
up only 38% of the population. Roadblocks and "jump out" pedestrian
patrols -- disproportionately placed in black neighborhoods --
overwhelmingly led to arrests of black people, often for petty
infractions like a burned-out headlight. Of all arrests at
roadblocks, 81% targeted black suspects.

The numbers squared with what Simpson Thacher heard from plaintiffs
like Bessie Smith, a 60-year-old minister who put it neatly: "The
roadblocks end where the white people start." For black residents
like Steven Smith, another plaintiff, the roadblocks often ended in
a jail cell, where Smith spent 29 days for overdue court fees he
couldn't pay.

Armed with residents' stories and reams of policing statistics,
Simpson Thacher and the ACLU filed a proposed class action in
Mississippi federal court in May 2016, alleging the policies and
practices of the sheriff's department violated black residents'
Fourth and 14th Amendment rights.

"The MCSD's Policing Program impacts virtually every aspect of
Black residents' lives," the complaint said. "Simple daily
activities — such as commuting to work, grocery shopping,
visiting friends and family, attending church, or even sitting on
the steps outside one's own home — present the very real
possibility of unlawful and humiliating searches and seizures, as
well as the attendant prospect of arrest and jail time for unpaid
fines and fees."

Madison County came out swinging with what Youngwood described as
one of the steadiest deluges of court papers he has seen in his
career.

"They were not backing down, and sometimes when you litigate
against the government, you can find that they have very
significant resources to work with," Youngwood said. "It's been
quite rare in my career that I've seen a defense be more aggressive
than this one. Every issue was litigated."

Other Simpson Thatcher attorneys on the case included Isaac Rethy,
Janet Gochman, Bonnie Jarrett, Kavitha Sivashanker, Anthony
Piccirillo, Jacob Waschak and Nihara Choudhri. During discovery,
they deposed 39 deputies and examined some 90,000 pages of
documents.

The team found that deputies, including Tucker before he became
sheriff, used the N-word on duty. Racial slurs and "white pride"
rhetoric were passed around in department emails. Forms used by the
department's narcotics unit came with three fields pre-populated:
"black," "male" and "arrested.

Youngwood said that while there wasn't a smoking gun, there was
ample circumstantial evidence showing the department had a racial
bias problem.

"People don't get on the stand and say, 'Yeah we're racist and we
target minorities,'" Youngwood said. "But we had a fair amount of
circumstantial evidence that there was a racial issue within the
department."

The team was dealt a setback in January 2019, when a judge denied
its motion for class certification, finding a class of all black
people in Madison County was a reach too far.

By then, however, Madison County was ready to make a deal. After
three days of negotiations and many more phone conferences, the two
sides reached two settlements that were approved in October - one
for the home invasion at Quinetta Manning's apartment and one for
the rest of the plaintiffs. Madison County agreed to pay a total of
$180,000 to settle the case.

The consent decree -- which according to the ACLU is one of the
first of its kind imposed on a law enforcement agency in
Mississippi -- imposes layers of accountability at the sheriff's
department, creating a citizen advisory board empowered to
investigate complaints and imposing data collection and training
requirements.

The decree also places restrictions on where and how roadblocks can
be used, sharply limiting a decades-old practice that the ACLU said
routinely violated residents' Fourth Amendment rights.

In accepting the deal, the sheriff's department and the county
stood firm on their position that there was nothing racist about
their policing practices.

"The loss of services to our citizens and cost of defending a
second complaint was the deciding factor in this settlement,"
Tucker said in a statement provided to Law360. "In order to settle
the complaint, we have agreed to document more information that I
feel will further show that this administration does not target or
profile any race."

But the ACLU and Simpson Thacher hope that the consent decree will
insulate Madison County's black community from undue police
scrutiny and give them the means to redress grievances with the
department. The ACLU's Tom said he believes the decree's impact
could extend beyond the county's borders.

"I think other law enforcement agencies will hopefully take notice
and act accordingly, because this type of lawsuit is certainly
within our wheelhouse and it's certainly something that we wouldn't
hesitate to bring in the future," Tom said.

For Quinetta Manning, knowing that the siege is lifted in her
community is enough. She said that while she still struggles to
convince her sons that the police are not their enemies, she hopes
they will no longer have to live in fear of the jump-out patrols
and roadblocks that once pockmarked their neighborhood.

"That impacts peoples' ability to go to work, to run errands, see
their friends, sit on their steps outside, or even walk down the
street," she said. "These are things that people were afraid to do.
And I'm just glad it's starting to change now. We deserve that
justice because it's been long overdue." [GN]


MAJOR LEAGUE: Dodgers Super Fan Considering Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Los Angeles reports that Jose Lara has supported the Los
Angeles Dodgers for as long as he can remember.  "You know, it all
started when I was a little boy," he said.

That undying loyalty came to a head when Lara got older, grew a
beard and died it blue - becoming one of the city's most recognized
Dodger super fans.

"I've always wanted to go to the World Series," Lara, also known as
Blue Beard, said.

That dream became a reality in 2017 as Lara watched in agony as the
Houston Astros defeated the Dodgers 5-1 in Game 7 to take the World
Series.

"We were sitting above the bullpen," Lara said.

But, two years later, the Astros have been found guilty of cheating
the Dodgers out of that title.

"I went and lived my dream," Lara said. "Once in a lifetime
opportunity, to have it shattered by these guys cheating. It's
heartbreaking."

Lara said he is now speaking with an attorney about filing a class
action lawsuit against Major League Baseball for the money he and
other fans spent going to that game - $450 dollars for the ticket,
$50 for parking and, he said, he was still calculating the total
cost for hot dogs and beer.

"We drank a lot that day," he said. "I'm not gonna lie."

Astros manager AJ Hinch and general manager Jeff Luhno were both
fired on Jan. 13 after an MLB investigation determined the team
stole signs in 2017 by using cameras, monitors and banging on
trashcans.

And, on Jan. 14, the Boston Red Sox fired manager Alex Cora amid an
MLB investigation into cheating during the 2018 season, but
reportedly not during the series against the Dodgers.

Some feel the former Dodger was the mastermind behind the cheating
scandal since he was a bench coach for the Astros in 2017.

"I'm not surprised," Lara said. "He took what he did in Houston
over to them." [GN]


MATTEL INC: Zhang Investor Announces Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces that a class action lawsuit on behalf
of shareholders who bought shares of Mattel, Inc. between October
26, 2017 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 24, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

To join the class action,
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=mattel-inc&id=2143
call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit,  throughout the Class Period, defendants
and its senior executives presented false and misleading financial
statements or omitted to  (1) Mattel had inadequate systems of
internal disclosure and financial controls; (2) Mattel would need
to amend its 2018 annual report on Form 10-K to restate the
Company's financial results for the third and fourth quarters of
2017; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements
about its business and operations were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.  

Contact:

          Zhang Investor Law P.C.
          99 Wall Street, Suite 232
          New York, New York 10005
          Tel: (800) 991-3756
          E-mail: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN]


MCCLATCHY CO: Business as Usual While in Chapter 11
---------------------------------------------------
McClatchy Co. on Feb. 13, 2020, disclosed that it has commenced a
voluntary restructuring under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code following the solicitation of a Plan of Reorganization ("the
Plan") among its key stakeholders.  The Chapter 11 filing provides
immediate protection to the Company, which will continue to operate
in the ordinary course of business as it pursues approval of the
restructuring plan with its secured lenders, bondholders, and the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

McClatchy and each of its 53 wholly owned subsidiaries filed their
voluntary Chapter 11 petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York.  During the case, McClatchy and its
30 local newsrooms are operating as usual.

The Company has obtained new $50 million debtor-in-possession
financing from Encina Business Credit which, coupled with
McClatchy's normal operating cash flows, provides ample liquidity
for Sacramento-based McClatchy and all of its local news outlets to
operate as usual and fulfill ongoing commitments to stakeholders.
The Company aims to emerge from this process in the next few
months.

"McClatchy's Plan provides a resolution to legacy debt and pension
obligations while maximizing outcomes for customers and other
stakeholders," said Craig Forman, President and Chief Executive
Officer.  "When local media suffers in the face of industry
challenges, communities suffer: polarization grows, civic
connections fray and borrowing costs rise for local governments.
We are moving with speed and focus to benefit all our stakeholders
and our communities."

"McClatchy remains a strong operating company with an enduring
commitment to independent journalism that spans five generations of
my family," commented Kevin McClatchy, Chairman of McClatchy's
Board of Directors and great-great grandson of the Company's
founder, James McClatchy.  "This restructuring is a necessary and
positive step forward for the business, and the entire Board of
Directors has made great efforts to ensure the company is able to
operate as usual throughout this process.  We are privileged to
serve the 30 communities across the country that together make
McClatchy and are ever grateful to all of our stakeholders --
subscribers, readers, advertisers, vendors, investors, and
employees -- who have enabled our legacy to date.  We look forward
to the continued success of such an outstanding group of colleagues
long into the future."

Progress in Improving the Business and Forging a Path Forward

McClatchy has made significant progress in its digital
transformation in the past three years.  As the second-largest U.S.
local newspaper company, McClatchy has grown its digital-only
subscriptions by almost 50 percent year over year, and is now
roughly evenly balanced between total audience and advertising
revenues, with digital accounting for 40 percent of those revenues
and growing, a much healthier distribution for an increasingly
digital era.  The Company has more than 200,000 digital-only
subscribers and well over 500,000 paid digital customer
relationships.

In the three years ended in December 2019, McClatchy has reduced
its operating expenses by $186.9 million (or 23.3%) in its efforts
to stabilize operating cash flow amid secular industry headwinds
that have battered newspaper advertising revenues.  This focus on
cash flow has allowed the company to pay off roughly $153.5 million
in debt in the same period, while also focusing remaining resources
on its digital transformation and its journalism -- earning two
Pulitzer Prizes and many other awards, most recently for the Miami
Herald's coverage of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

Forman continued, "In this important moment for independent local
journalism in the public interest, a reorganized capital structure
will enable McClatchy to continue to pursue our strategy of digital
transformation and continue to produce strong local journalism
essential to the communities we serve.  While there is still more
work to be done, we are pleased with the progress to date, and are
appreciative of our ongoing dialog with our lenders and the PBGC.
Moreover, we expect there will be no adverse impact on qualified
pension benefits for substantially all of the plan's participants
and beneficiaries."

The assets of McClatchy's qualified pension plan are estimated at
$1.393 billion as of the filing, including approximately $580
million of voluntary contributions made by McClatchy, substantially
greater than the contributions required by law.

As is typical in Chapter 11 proceedings, McClatchy has filed
customary first day motions that will allow it to maintain its
employee wage and benefit programs, as well as commitments to the
other stakeholder groups throughout this process.  It is
anticipated that go-forward trade creditors and other go-forward
vendors that continue to do business with the Company will be
unaffected by the Chapter 11 process, although it is possible that
some payments due prior to the commencement of cases to certain
go-forward trade creditors and vendors may be delayed.  These
delayed payments to go-forward trade creditors and vendors are
anticipated to be cured in full when the Company exits Chapter 11.

The Plan of Reorganization

As previously disclosed in the Company's press release dated
November 13, 2019, McClatchy has been in active restructuring
negotiations with the PBGC and its largest secured creditor to
address the future of its pension obligations and capital
structure.

More recently, as announced on January 15, 2020, McClatchy has
included lenders holding approximately 87 percent of the Company's
9.000% Senior Secured Notes due 2026 (the "First Lien Notes") in
those confidential discussions.

In summary, the Company's Plan, which, along with the Company's
Disclosure Statement, has already been submitted to creditors for
approval, provides:

   * The Company's existing First Lien Notes will be exchanged for
new first lien notes in an amount not more than a principal balance
of $218M, secured by the same collateral, having the same maturity
and accruing interest at a rate of 10% per annum;

   * The Company's largest holder of secured debt, including First
Lien Notes, the loans made under the Company's Junior Lien Term
Loan Credit Agreement dated as of July 16, 2018 (the "Second Lien
Term Loans"), and the 6.875% Senior Secured Junior Lien Notes due
2031 (the "Third Lien Notes") will receive $81 million of secured
debt subordinate to the new first lien notes in exchange for a
portion of its existing First Lien Notes and a commitment to
provide the Company with $30 million of exit financing (such
subordinated debt to accrue payment-in-kind interest of 12.5% or
cash-pay interest of 10%, depending on the Company's ratio of
leverage to adjusted EBITDA);

   * The Company's existing Second Lien Term Loans and Third Lien
Notes will be extinguished in exchange for 97% of the equity
ownership of the Company, subject to dilution for management
incentives and certain warrants for up to 2.5% of the equity
ownership of the Company;

   * Certain creditors who are no longer part of the Company's
go-forward operations will share, pro rata, in a pool of $3 million
or warrants to acquire up to 2.5% of the equity ownership of the
Company;

   * The Company's existing equity will be cancelled; and

   * The Company will seek the Bankruptcy Court's authority to
terminate its qualified pension plan, and appoint PBGC as the
plan's trustee. Under a plan termination, PBGC would continue to
pay the Company's qualified pension plan participants their
benefits, subject to federal statutory limits.  Under current
regulations, McClatchy believes that such a solution would not have
an adverse impact on qualified pension benefits for substantially
all plan participants.  The Company proposes to settle its
liabilities in connection with the qualified pension plan by paying
PBGC $3.3 million from the Company each year for ten years and 3%
of the equity ownership of the Company.

The terms of the Plan represent the Company's good faith proposal
to restructure its existing obligations.  As previously announced,
the Company has been negotiating such proposals with its largest
stakeholders for some time.  Certain issues, summarized below,
represent the most recent bargaining position of certain of those
parties.

   * First, while the PBGC has not indicated that it disputes that
the qualified pension satisfies the standards for termination, the
PBGC has requested a materially larger stream of cash payments over
ten years and a materially larger percentage of equity ownership in
the Company in settlement of the PBGC's claims relating to
termination of the qualified pension plan; and

   * Second, the parties continue to negotiate the final details
surrounding governance and senior management.

This is not an exhaustive list of all matters that remain under
negotiation, but it is a summary of the material issues that remain
under consideration.  For more information, please reference the
Company's 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In order to enhance the likelihood that the parties can achieve a
consensual resolution, McClatchy has requested that the Bankruptcy
Court approve procedures for an independent mediator to be
appointed to facilitate and supervise the parties' continuing
restructuring negotiations.

McClatchy has advised the NYSE American of the filing.  Since the
Company does not anticipate emerging as a public company, but
rather as a private company, it expects the NYSE American and the
Company will begin the process to remove its listing from the
exchange.

Outlook on Results for the Fourth Quarter and Full Year 20191

The Company continues to finalize the accounting for its fourth
quarter and full year 2019 results, and accordingly does not yet
have an estimate of net income for the periods.  As management
indicated in McClatchy's third quarter earnings release, the
Company was cycling against a relatively strong fourth quarter of
2018 when it benefitted from political advertising for the mid-term
elections and instituted strong expense initiatives that helped the
fourth quarter of 2018 and the first three quarters of 2019.
Accordingly, management did not expect sequential improvement in
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization
(EBITDA) to continue in the fourth quarter of this year.  And while
that turned out to be the case, preliminary results are somewhat
better than what was expected at that time.

McClatchy expects total revenues in the fourth quarter to be $183.9
million, down 14.0% from the fourth quarter of 2018 with
advertising revenues of $89.7 million and audience revenues of
$80.0 million.  Adjusted EBITDA is expected to be $33.3 million for
the fourth quarter of 2019.  For full year 2019, revenues are
expected to be $709.5 million, down 12.1% from 2018 with
advertising revenues of $337.1 million and audience revenues of
$321.8 million.  Adjusted EBITDA is expected to be $98.2 million
for full-year 2019.

During the course of the restructuring negotiations, the Company
disclosed certain financial information and projections with the
parties.  Such information is summarized above and the Company's
Disclosure Statement accompanying the Plan.

1 Adjusted EBITDA is a non-GAAP measure and excludes charges or
credits not indicative of core operations and tax effects of these
items, which may include but not be limited to non-operating income
and expenses, severance charges associated with changes in our
operations, equity income (loss) in unconsolidated companies, net,
non-cash stock compensation expense, non-cash and non-operating
pension costs, and certain other charges.  The Company is unable to
provide reconciliations from the GAAP measure of net income to the
non-GAAP measure of Adjusted EBITDA without unreasonable effort,
although it is important to note that these charges or credits
could be material to the Company's fourth quarter and full year
results in accordance with GAAP.  Management believes that the
presentation of the non-GAAP measure, Adjusted EBITDA, enhances the
ability of investors to analyze trends in its business and provides
a means to compare periods that may be affected by various items
that might obscure trends or developments in the business.

                       About McClatchy Co.

The McClatchy Co. operates 30 media companies in 14 states,
providing each of its communities local journalism in the public
interest and advertising services in a wide array of digital and
print formats. McClatchy publishes iconic local brands including
the Miami Herald, The Kansas City Star, The Sacramento Bee, The
Charlotte Observer, The (Raleigh) News & Observer, and the Fort
Worth Star-Telegram. McClatchy is headquartered in Sacramento,
Calif., and listed on the New York Stock Exchange American under
the symbol MNI. Visit https://www.mcclatchy.com/ for more
information.

As of Sept. 29, 2019, the Company had $953.76 million in total
assets, $261.79 million in current liabilities, $1.36 billion in
non-current liabilities, and a shareholders' deficit of $671.54
million.

On Feb. 13, 2020, The McClatchy Company and 53 affiliates sought
Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 20-10418) a
Plan of Reorganization that will cut $700 million of funded debt in
half.

McClatchy was estimated to have less than $500 million to $1
billion in assets and debt of at least $1 billion as of the
bankruptcy filing.

The cases are pending before the Honorable Michael E. Wiles.

The Debtors tapped SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP as
general bankruptcy counsel; TOGUT, SEGAL & SEGAL LLP as
co-bankruptcy counsel; GROOM LAW GROUP as special counsel; FTI
CONSULTING, INC., as financial advisor; and EVERCORE INC. as
investment banker.  KURTZMAN CARSON CONSULTANTS LLC is the claims
agent.

MELBA UTICA: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Hernandez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Melba Utica Packing Co., Inc., and Shri
Persaud, Case No. 1:20-cv-00664 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2020), alleges
that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law by failing to properly pay the Plaintiff and
other employees.

Pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL, the Plaintiff alleges that he is
entitled to: compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory
minimum wage, unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work
for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by
law; back wages for overtime work for which the Defendants
willfully failed to pay overtime premium pay; compensation for the
Defendants' violations of the "spread-of-hours" pay under the NYLL;
and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL.

The Plaintiff alleges that he worked roughly 54 hours per week
through each week of his employment with the Defendants but they
failed to pay him an overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40
hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a deliveryman.

The Defendants owned and operated a wholesale meat, poultry and
fish distributor in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (212) 563-9884
          Email: dstein@samuelandstein.com


MERIT MEDICAL: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of the following company. There is
no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (MMSI)
Class Period: February 26, 2019 to October 30, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 3, 2020

According to the complaint, Merit Medical Systems, Inc. allegedly
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) the integrations of acquired companies Cianna
Medical, Inc. and Vascular Insights, LLC, including their products,
sales people, and R&D facilities, had caused operational
disruptions and reduced sales and were months behind schedule; (b)
sales of acquired company products had slowed substantially due to
pre-acquisition pipeline fill, in particular for Vascular Insights
products which, as late as July 2019, had zero orders during FY19;
and (c) in light of the foregoing, the Company's reported financial
guidance for FY19 and FY20 was made without a reasonable basis.

Learn about your recoverable losses in MMSI:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/merit-medical-systems-inc-loss-submission-form?id=5243&from=1

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

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

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

MERIT MEDICAL: Klein Law Firm Reminds of March 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of the following company. There is
no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. (MHK)
Class Period: April 28, 2017 to July 25, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 3, 2020

The filed complaint alleges that, faced with slowing demand for its
conventional flooring products, the Company engaged in a scheme to
inflate its revenues and earnings by booking fictitious sales of
those products. This practice is known as channel stuffing and was
used by Mohawk to hide severely declining demand for conventional
flooring products. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements about Mohawk's sales growth and
the demand for the Company's conventional flooring products.
Defendants also reassured investors about Mohawk's increasing
accounts receivable and inventory levels by falsely attributing
those increases to external factors like rising raw material costs
and inflation. As a result of these misrepresentations, shares of
Mohawk's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period.

Learn about your recoverable losses in MHK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/mohawk-industries-inc-loss-submission-form?id=5243&from=1

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

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

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

MG LUNA INC: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under MSPA, Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miyoshi Garcia, Diana Pena Perez, Diocelina Sanchez, Gloria
Martinez Silva, and Macaria Mendoza, on behalf of the State of
California, themselves and all others similarly situated v. M.G.
LUNA, INC., WESTLAND FARMS LLC, MARIA GUADALUPE LUNA and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-00190-NONE-JDP (E.D. Cal.,
Feb. 6, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and the California
Labor Code.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' failure to pay all minimum
wages owed; to provide meal periods or premium wages in lieu
thereof; to provide rest periods or premium wages in lieu thereof;
to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; and to
pay wages of terminated or resigned employees.

The Plaintiffs were employed as non-exempt employees by the
Defendants in the Eastern District of California.

MG LUNA INC. is a farm labor contractor and contracted with
Defendant WESTLAND FARMS LLC to provide a workforce to pick
produce.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
          Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
          Juan Gamboa, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612-3547
          Phone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          Email: StanM@TheMMLAwFirm.com
                 HectorM@TheMMLAwFirm.com
                 JuanG@TheMMLAwFirm.com


MICROSOFT CORP: 9th Cir. Barely Acknowledges Dukes Case in Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory V. Mersol, Esq. -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker &
Hostetler LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that ten years
ago, the Ninth Circuit upheld the certification of a sprawling
nationwide class action in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., only to
see that decision overturned a year later by the Supreme Court.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). In the
intervening decade, the Supreme Court similarly up-ended the Ninth
Circuit authority that tried to limit the use of arbitration
agreements design to rein in class action litigation. See, e.g.,
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 113 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). For its part,
the Ninth Circuit has side-stepped issues discussed in Dukes, such
as perpetuating its own doubtful proposition that Daubert standards
don't apply at the certification stage. We've blogged that issue
here.

A recent decision, however, gives at least grudging acknowledgment
of Dukes' central holdings. In Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., Case
No. 18-35791 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2019), the plaintiffs brought
claims that were essentially identical to those that had originally
been brought in the Dukes case many years earlier. They accused the
employer of company-wide gender discrimination and sought
certification of a class of over 8,600 women for claims of both
disparate impact and disparate treatment under Title VII and state
law. The district court refused to certify the proposed class and
the plaintiffs sought appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f), a request the
court granted.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, but only in a fairly brief decision it
designated as not-for-publication, limiting its precedential
effect. Among other things, it noted, as is often the case in these
types of matters, that the challenged decisions were made primarily
by individual managers, and thus there was no commonality across
the entire class. It also noted, as should have been fatal in
Dukes, that the class included many women who themselves had been
managers, and thus included persons who simultaneously were being
accused of making discriminatory decisions and being the victims of
such decisions themselves. It rejected the notion that these issues
could be resolved by the creation of subclasses as the plaintiffs
proposed. The court therefore affirmed the denial of class
certification for both the disparate impact and disparate treatment
claims.

Given the size of the class and the nature of its claims, this
matter likely warranted a published decision, but it still provides
a worthwhile analysis and it is at least some evidence that the
Ninth Circuit will follow Dukes' core holdings, if only
reluctantly.

The Bottom Line: The Dukes case continues to present substantial
obstacles to company-wide discrimination class actions. [GN]


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Mohawk Industries, Inc.
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. (MHK)

Class Period: April 28, 2017 to July 25, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 3, 2020

Through a series of corrective disclosures between July 26, 2018
and July 26, 2019, Mohawk reported disappointing financial results
and reduced production to control inventory levels and match its
supply with waning customer demand.  These disclosures caused the
price of Mohawk shares to decline significantly.

The complaint, filed on January 3, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and misleading statements
about Mohawk's sales growth and the demand for the Company's
conventional flooring products.  The complaint also alleges that
defendants falsely reassured investors about the Company's
increasing accounts receivable and inventory levels during the
Class Period by deceptively attributing those increases to external
factors like rising raw material costs and inflation.  According to
the complaint, in truth, defendants were engaging in fraudulent
channel stuffing, booking fictitious sales of its flooring
products.

To learn more about the Mohawk class action go to:
https://bespc.com/mhk

           About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

Contact:
          Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
          Brandon Walker, Esq.
          Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
          Tel: (212) 355-4648
          Email: walker@bespc.com
                 fortunato@bespc.com [GN]


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Prongay & Murray Reminds of March 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming March 3, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of Mohawk Industries, Inc.
investors who purchased common stock between April 28, 2017 and
July 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

On July 25, 2018, after the market closed, the Company announced
disappointing financial results for second quarter 2018, disclosing
that Mohawk "reduced [its] production volumes more than [the
Company] had thought" and that it "came into the year with higher
inventories than [it] wanted to have."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $38.06, or over 17%,
to close at $179.31 per share on July 26, 2018, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on October 25, 2018, after the market closed, Mohawk reported
third quarter 2018 financial results that fell below the Company's
guidance, stating that "[t]o improve [its] inventory turns, [Mohawk
was] presently manufacturing fewer units than [it was] selling,
which is negatively impacting [its] costs."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $36.04, or nearly 24%,
to close at $115.03 per share on October 26, 2018, thereby injuring
investors further.

Then, on July 25, 2019, after the market closed, Mohawk reported
that sales in its Flooring NA segment declined 7% year-over-year
and that there was "big buildup in inventory in ceramic."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $27.52, or nearly 18%,
to close at $128.84 per share on July 26, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company engaged in deceptive and
unsustainable sales practices to mask declining customer demand for
its Conventional Flooring products; (2) that Mohawk's increasing
inventories was not the result of increasing inflation or the
Company's backward integration, but instead the result of the
Company deliberately stuffing the channels with Conventional
Flooring Products to boost sales; and (3) that as a result,
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased Mohawk common stock during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than March 3, 2020 to request
appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

Contact:

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


NEBRASKA: Correctional Service Department Faces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Pilger, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that an
attorney seeking approval for class-action certification in a
lawsuit against the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services
told a federal judge on Jan. 13 that Nebraska's prison system "is
in crisis."

Attorney Jennifer Wedekind of the ACLU National Prison Project told
U.S. District Judge Brian C. Buescher that more than 5,000
Nebraskans are being held in dangerous and harmful conditions in
the state's prisons every day.

Wedekind said the state can't simply throw up its hands and say it
tried.

"That's where the court steps in," she said.

In 2017, the conditions prompted the American Civil Liberties Union
to sue on behalf of 11 Nebraska prisoners it said were at risk of
harm because of conditions, policies and staffing problems that
endangered the health, safety and lives of prisoners on a daily
basis.

But on Jan. 13, Wedekind said the case isn't about any individual
inmates, but rather about systematic policies and practices that
must be resolved as a class for all 5,500 men and women in the
state's prisons. For instance, she said, it's about a Corrections
Department policy of using licensed practical nurses to make
treatment decisions they aren't qualified to make, and inaccurate
keeping of medical records.

Among other things, the lawsuit targets alleged violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and unconstitutional conditions in
restrictive housing.

At the Jan. 13 hearing, Ryan Post, of the Nebraska Attorney
General's Office, argued that all three branches of government are
working together to improve the state's prison system.

He asked Buescher to consider what's going on "on the ground,"
which he said included a reduction of the number of inmates in
restricted housing as of Jan. 10; the construction of 384 more
beds; and an agreement in December to increase wages for prison
workers.

Post said that the ACLU wants to force its preferences on the state
and its sweeping reforms would require the court to supervise
nearly every dispute that comes up over a medical issue in Nebraska
prisons.

Buescher asked if the changes illustrate that a problem exists.

"I'm not here to say the Department of Corrections doesn't have
issues that need to be addressed," Post said.

But he argued that a class-action certification wasn't appropriate,
because not all inmates face the same risk of harm. Some don't have
any health issues.

Post said if the prison didn't allow inmates who medically need
them to use canes, for instance, they could qualify as a class.

"That's how specific you have to be," he said.

Post also argued there was no evidence in the record where an
expert said "do this and it will solve it." They can't just say the
state needs to do better, he said.

Buescher said ultimately this is going to come down to the question
of whether the state is deliberately indifferent about solving the
problem. If the state isn't, he asked, "why are we continuing to
have all the issues coming out of the prison?"

On the other side, Buescher made it clear that he wasn't interested
in being a referee over every individual medical issue for the next
30 years.

"Is that a role of a federal judge?" he asked Wedekind.

She said they weren't asking the court to run the state's prisons.
An injunction would involve an agreement between the state and the
ACLU regarding proposed fixes to address patterns of systemwide
deficiencies.

Wedekind said the department has had years to fix the problem and
hasn't.

"In fact, it's only getting worse," she said, arguing that it has
reached a point where the courts must step in to make sure the
state is meeting its statutory obligation to provide medical care
for inmates.

Buescher asked what the state was supposed to do. The ACLU was
asking for benefits he doesn't get as a judge.

"What's the line?" he asked.

Wedekind said the ACLU wasn't asking for "Cadillac health care,"
but for a standard of care that meets Constitutional muster to
address the health needs of inmates. Are inmate health concerns
being handled timely by competent staff? Is there an adequate
response to emergency medical problems?

"If a patient is hemorrhaging, giving them a Band-Aid or a promise
of a Band-Aid isn't enough," she said. "NDCS is hemorrhaging."

Buescher took the matter under advisement. [GN]


PATTERN ENERGY: Andrews & Springer Discloses Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm
focused on representing shareholders nationwide,  disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed by another law firm on behalf
of shareholders of Pattern Energy Group Inc. (PEGI) ("Pattern
Energy Group" or the "Company") for possible corporate misconduct
and breach of fiduciary duty.

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from Andrews
& Springer LLC. If you currently own shares of Pattern Energy Group
and want to receive additional information and protect your
investments free of charge, please visit us at
http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/pattern-energy-group-class-action-investigation/
or contact
Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call
toll free at 1-800-423-6013.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

On November 4, 2019, Pattern Energy Group and private equity firm
Thoma Bravo LLC ("Thoma Bravo") announced the signing of a
definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Thoma Bravo will
acquire Pattern Energy Group in a merger worth $6.1 billion (the
"Merger"). As a result of the Merger, Pattern Energy Group
shareholders are only anticipated to receive $26.75 per share in
cash in exchange for each share of Pattern Energy Group.

A Pattern Energy Group shareholder represented by another law firm
has filed a class action complaint against Pattern Energy Group for
federal securities violations. The complaint was filed in the
United States District Court, District of Delaware, Case No.
19-cv-02360-UNA.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed on December 27, 2019,
defendants filed a proxy statement (the "Proxy") with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection
with the Merger.

The Proxy omits material information with respect to the Merger,
which renders the Proxy false and misleading. Accordingly,
plaintiff seeks that the Merger should be enjoined until defendants
disclose more information to stockholders.

Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a
boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders
nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having formerly defended
some of the largest financial institutions in the world, our
founding members use their valuable knowledge, experience, and
superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving positive results
for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of our innovative
approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute. [GN]


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Jones Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00662 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2020), seeks to put an end to
the systemic civil rights violations under the Americans with
Disabilities Act committed by the Defendant against deaf and
hard-of-hearing individuals in the state of New York and across the
United States.

The Defendant denies deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals
throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services
that it provides to non-disabled individuals, through its Web site,
http://www.onepeloton.com/and related domains owned by the
Defendant. The Defendant provides a wide array of goods and
services to the public through its Web site. However, the Web site
contains access barriers that make it difficult for deaf and
hard-of-hearing individuals to use the Web site, the Plaintiff
contends.

In fact, the Plaintiff says, the access barriers make it impossible
for deaf and hard-of-hearing users to comprehend the audio portion
of videos that are posted on the Web site. The Defendant, thus,
excludes the deaf and hard of hearing from the full and equal
participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly
a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff, who currently lives in New York City, is a deaf
individual.

The Defendant operates the Web site, which is an online store and
informational Web site allowing visitors to learn about the Peloton
Bike and Tread home workout equipment, the different workouts, the
online classes, and make purchases, amongst other features.[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


PETSCRIPT INC: Pet Parade Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Faxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pet Parade, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. PETSCRIPT INC d/b/a PETSCRIPT PROLAB PHARMACY, a
foreign company, Case No. 1:20-cv-20557-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 6,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for its violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Despite the TCPA requirements regarding fax advertisements, the
Defendant has sent unsolicited fax advertisements to the Plaintiff
that violates the TCPA in multiple ways, the Plaintiff alleges. The
Defendant sent unsolicited fax advertisements to the Plaintiff
despite the Defendant not having an established business
relationship (EBR) with the Plaintiff, in violation of the TCPA,
the Plaintiff asserts.  The unsolicited fax advertisements lacked
the required opt-out language. The Plaintiff adds that it did not
give permission to the Defendant to send it fax advertisements in
any respect.

The Plaintiff is a Florida corporation with its principal place of
business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Defendant is a Texas company and a citizen of Texas, with its
principal address located in Paris, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Rd., Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com
                 mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com

               - and -

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-524-2820
          Facsimile: 954-524-2822
          Email: seth@epllc.com


PLAINS ALL: Seeks to Decertify Class in Oil Spill Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Solis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
company responsible for an oil spill that dumped more than 123,000
gallons of crude oil off the California coast in 2015 asked a judge
on Jan. 13 to decertify a federal class action brought by
beachfront property owners and business owners seeking damages from
the environmental disaster.

On May 19, 2015, thousands of gallons of crude oil flowed into the
Pacific Ocean along the Gaviota Coast north of Santa Barbara. The
ruptured pipeline, owned by Texas-based Plains All American
Pipeline, spewed oil through a storm drain under Highway 101 and
into the ocean for several hours.

The disaster forced the closure of multiple state marine
conservation areas and public beaches as well as fishing and
shellfish businesses.

Plaintiffs in the ensuing class action include property owners,
seafood suppliers, a petrol company that suffered lost wages and an
international trading company that were impacted by the disaster.
They claim Plains All American Pipeline should have had a shut-off
valve on its 10-mile long, 24-inch wide pipeline.

On Jan. 13, attorneys for Plains All American Pipeline argued an
analysis by class witness Igor Mezić, a University of California,
Santa Barbara, professor, on the dispersion of crude oil is
inaccurate. Mezić's analysis involves the amount of oil that
washed ashore after the disaster, what areas it covered and where
it became submerged on the ocean floor.

The pipeline's attorney Daniel Levin with Munger Tolles Olson
called Mezić's findings "a "methodological failure" because he
didn't include important data points in his analysis, like the
amount of oil that was cleaned up from specific sites.

But class attorney Leila Noel with Cappello Noel said Mezić's
formula was peer-reviewed and while some sites may have been
cleaned, oil residues remained.

The defense seeks to decertify the class because the amount of oil
found on the affected properties varies from property owner to
property owner, and the case should therefore be handled
individually rather than as a class action.

Levin said there are multiple variables related to lessees and
owners, those with property easement that goes to the beach from
further inland and other individualized claims for damages from
each class member.

"You can't do it with a class," Levin told U.S. District Judge
Philip Gutierrez.

For the plaintiffs, Robert Nelson with Lieff Cabraser Heimann
Bernstein said the class has already been narrowed down once before
by Gutierrez to deal with the common questions. Nelson said the
class attorneys have expert analysis on where the oil went and who
was affected.

Nelson also noted conventional use of the beaches was affected –
a wrongful occupation and therefore a cost to the property owners.

"We don't claim the entire value was lost," said Nelson, adding the
class seeks damages that can be attributed to the spill which could
be determined by a jury.

Nelson said "thousands of people were impacted" and there could be
a mechanism to deal with the variables in the class.

"This can't be the only environmental case that cannot be
certified," said Nelson.

Gutierrez took the arguments under submission and said he would
issue his ruling in January.

In September 2018, a Santa Barbara jury found Plains All American
Pipeline criminally liable for the disaster in a lawsuit brought by
the state of California. The jury faulted the company for not
properly maintaining its pipeline and for the deaths of marine life
and sea birds in the disaster. [GN]


PLAZA SERVICES: Wheeler Sues Over Harassing Collection Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
David Wheeler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Plaza Services, LLC and Jacobson and
Wright, Defendants, Case No. CV20927941 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, January
16, 2020), seeks statutory and actual damages for violations of
Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Plaza is in the business of purchasing charged off debts and
collecting the same through various agents, including Jacobson and
Wright. According to the complaint, Wheeler received calls on his
cell telephone from Jacobson and Wright, demanding money in
connection with an allegedly-outstanding debt owed to Cashland in
the amount of $1,052.70. He claims that Defendants made its
threats, misrepresentations, and misleading and harassing
statements for the purpose of extorting payment from him. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
      Michael L. Berler, Esq.
      Michael L. Fine, Esq.
      FREDERICK & EERIER LLC
      767 East 185th Street
      Cleveland, OH 44119
      Phone: (216) 502-1055
      Fax: (216) 609-0750
      Email: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
             mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
             michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


PORTOLA PHARMA: Bragar Easel Reminds of March 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Portola Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff.

Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:PTLA)

Class Period: November 5, 2019 to January 9, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 16, 2020

On January 9, 2020, Portola announced preliminary net revenues of
only $28 million for the fourth quarter of 2019. Portola attributed
the result to a $5 million reserve adjustment for short-dated
product, and flat quarter-over-quarter demand.

On this news, Portola's share price fell $9.98, or 40%, to close at
$14.76 per share on January 10, 2020.

The complaint, filed on January 16, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
Portola's internal control over financial reporting regarding
reserve for product returns was not effective; (2) that Portola was
shipping longer-dated product with 36-month shelf life; (3) that
Portola had not established adequate reserve for returns of prior
shipments of short-dated product; (4) that, as a result, Portola
was reasonably likely to need to "catch up" on accounting for
return reserves; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Portola class action go to:
https://bespc.com/ptla

               About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact:

         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Tel: (212) 355-4648
         E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com [GN]


PROFRAC SERVICES: Faces Singleton Suit over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
GARREKK SINGLETON on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PROFRAC SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 7:20-cv-00037 (W.D. Tex., February 10, 2020) alleges that
the Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for
their overtime hours based on the time and half formula under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Singleton brings this action on behalf of all equipment operators
who were or are employed by Defendant to recover all unpaid wages
and other damages owed under the FLSA.

Profrac Services, LLC, is an oil and gas well serving company
headquartered in Texas with additional locations in Oklahoma and
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813  


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Crawford Hits Share Drop from Bad Forecast
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald P. Crawford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Prudential Financial, Inc.,
Charles F. Lowrey and Kenneth Y. Tanji, Defendants, Case
20-cv-00545 (D. N.J., January 16, 2020), seeks damages and
interest, reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees,
equitable/injunctive or other relief for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Prudential provides a wide range of insurance, investment
management, and other financial products and services to both
individual and institutional customers throughout the U.S.

Prudential allegedly failed to consider the change in mortality
assumptions which made significant effect on its financial
condition and would require a negative earnings impact of $25
million per quarter for the foreseeable future, wiping out
approximately one third of the earnings attributable to the
Individual Life business segment. As a result of these negative
disclosures, Prudential's stock price declined 5.64%, from a close
of $91.09 per share on August 1, 2019 to $88.56 per share on August
2, 2019, and to $85.95 per share on August 5, 2019, on volume of
more than 4.2 million shares traded on each of August 2, 2019, and
August 5, 2019. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
             jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

PUTNAM INVESTMENTS: SCOTUS Won't Review ERISA Causation Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 13 turned down
Putnam Investments' invitation to review a dispute over who has the
burden of proving causation when an Employee Retirement Income
Security Act plaintiff establishes a fiduciary breach and related
plan losses, leaving in place a decision that revived a class
action against the money manager. [GN]




RFR CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc. and Keith Hobbs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. RFR Capital LLC and Does 1 through 10, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00484 (D. Ariz., January 16, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiffs claim to have received auto-dialed telemarketing calls
from RFR Capital on their phones. Their phones are registered in
the National Do-Not-Call registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIPPLE LABS: Class Action Win Won't Mean Much for XRP
-----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Young, writing for News BTC, reports that there is a class
action lawsuit filed against Ripple in 2018 by investors who are
alleging that XRP is a security. Even if the suit is dismissed, it
is unlikely to have any major effect on the cryptocurrency.

Why it won't affect XRP in a large way

Ripple the company has long distanced itself from XRP the
cryptocurrency.

The fintech firm has said that XRP is merely a cryptocurrency
utilized by various blockchain-based solutions. Ripple CEO Brad
Garlinghouse said that holders of XRP are not provided with equity
in the company and the cryptocurrency exists independent of Ripple
through an open source code.

For this specific class action, Ripple's legal team focused on the
timing of the suit. It argued that investors filed the lawsuit
after a significant time has been passed since the investment.

On the legality of XRP, Ripple was relatively cautious in bringing
about the subject and instead chose to concentrate on the timing of
the suit rather than how it is classified.

If the case is dismissed, it would most certainly be a major win
for Ripple which has been dealing with the lawsuit for over years.

But, as noted by Compound Finance general counsel Jake Chervinsky,
the dismissal will not have a large impact on XRP. He said: "Even
if Ripple wins its motion to dismiss & has the whole class action
thrown out, it won't mean much for XRP. The big & interesting
question is if XRP was (or is) a security. Ripple's motion didn't
ask that question, so dismissal won't answer it - just defer it to
another day."

Whether XRP will ever definitively be classified as a security or a
non-security remains uncertain. It is possible that the company
continues to maintains its operations and XRP expands without
significant clarification in the years to come.

Big businesses using the cryptocurrency don't seem to be bothered

Major remittance service providers such as MoneyGram are continuing
to utilize XRP to process remittance payments in key markets such
as Mexico.

Last month, Ripple said that it received $200 million in Series C
funding, and CEO Brad Garlinghouse emphasized that Ripple is in a
"strong financial position to execute against our vision."

Both Ripple and companies working with it seem to be confident that
the company itself and the ecosystem can grow even without direct
clarification from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

For that reason, it remains unclear whether XRP will ever be
formally classified as a non-security or if that clarification
means much to the company at this point.

In January, following the strong upside movement of the crypto
market, the price of XRP increased by 11 percent against the USD.
[GN]


RIPPLE LABS: Fate of XRP Crypto Market Now in Judge's Hands
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alaina Lancaster, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal
judge's interpretation of the hazy definitions of securities and
public offerings in the cryptocurrency world could determine
whether an investor class action proceeds against financial tech
company Ripple Labs.

On Jan. 15, Chief District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern
District of California heard Ripple Lab's case for dismissing a
class action claiming the San Francisco company deceived investors
of its XRP cryptocurrency. If the case proceeds, "it would not only
threaten to eliminate XRP's utility as a currency, but it would
upend and threaten to destroy" the market, which has seen $500
billion in trading in the last two years, according to the motion.

Lead plaintiff Bradley Sostack alleges he bought nearly 128,979 XRP
in January 2018 for approximately $307,700 in bitcoin and USDT, a
cryptocurrency issued by Tether. He sold his XRP for a loss of
$118,100 the following week, according to the consolidated
complaint filed in August. Sostack represents a class of XRP
investors who allege Ripple Labs misled them into purchasing an
unregistered security.

Ripple Labs' Boies Schiller Flexner and Debevoise & Plimpton
attorneys argued the complaint exceeds the three-year deadline for
filing a suit outlined in the Securities Act's statute of repose.
Since the investors claim all XRP units were created in 2013 and
brought to the general public before May 2015, Ripple contends the
complaint is untimely.

Sostack's counsel from Susman Godfrey in Los Angeles and
Taylor-Copeland Law in San Diego argued that Ripple Labs' attempt
to invoke the statute of repose "is a twisted application" of the
time limit that would undermine the law's purpose of protecting
investors from fraud, according to the opposition to the motion to
dismiss.

"There's always going to be tension between the remedial function
of the law and the statute of repose," said Boies Schiller's Damien
Marshall, of the firm's New York office, in response to the
complaint. "That's the nature of repose, it is a limitation on
continuing liability. That is the congressional intent."

Susman Godfrey's Oleg Elkhunovich said that, like many of the
defendant's other arguments, the statute of repose raises issues
that cannot be decided at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Elkhunovich,
whose is based in Los Angeles, said the statute's application leads
to a question of fact over whether Ripple Labs issued a genuine,
bona fide public offering before 2017, and if it's had multiple
offerings that would reset that start date of repose.

"An offering to the public is not enough. It has to be the type of
bona fide public offering that would put the public on notice," he
said.

Elkhunovich said the complaint did not point to any facts, nor did
Ripple Labs make any arguments, about when the first public
offering was made. Although, he did point to an error in the filing
that said a $700,000 settlement Ripple Labs made in 2015 with the
federal government for selling XRP without authorization
acknowledged that the company did offer the currency to the
"general public."

"You're suggesting that I rely on what you say instead of what you
pled because it's inaccurate?" Hamilton asked. "Given how careful
you're being about the characterization of sales to the public,
it's the essence of your argument, why did you include that in your
complaint?"

"In that respect, that's a mistake," he said.

Turning to Marshall, she asked if Ripple Labs was running with the
argument that "the few times public offering is used in the
complaint" is enough to show a public offering was made.

"It's plaintiffs' burden to show that repose doesn't apply in
pleadings," he said. They have to be held to allegations in the
complaint that there were public sales and billions in circulation
by 2015, he said. "All those facts meet the definition of a genuine
offer to the public," he said.

Besides the factual dispute over a public offering, plaintiffs
argue that XRP is an unregistered security, while Ripple Labs has
defined the virtual currency as a commodity, similar to bitcoin and
Ethereum, in the past. Yet, when it comes to plaintiffs' claims
under California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising
Law, the company said those laws cannot be applied to securities
transactions under the Bowen doctrine.

"Counsel admitted to classifying as a security for the purposes of
this motion, only for purposes of this motion, they are not arguing
XRP is not a security," Elkhunovich said. "Believe it, if this case
proceeds that will be one of the key issues that will be hotly
disputed."

Meanwhile, on Jan. 13, the chairman of the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, Heath Tarbert, told news site Cheddar the
status of XRP as a security or commodity is still unclear. "We've
been working closely with the SEC over the last year or so to
really think about which falls in what box, because I think if I
hear anything from market participants, it's that we really need
clarity," he said. [GN]


RUNWAY TOWING: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Deceiving Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS NewYork reports that a New York City towing company is accused
of deceiving drivers by allegedly overcharging and holding vehicles
hostage.

It's all detailed in a new class action lawsuit that claims there
are thousands of victims.

It happens every day - a car breaks down or is impounded due to
insurance or registration problems.

For one driver, who we'll call Mike, it was the latter.

The NYPD called Runway Towing. He says he resolved the issue within
hours, but he couldn't get his car for days.

"I seen people in the office and in the yard. I called them on the
phone, they said that, ‘We're closed,'" Mike told CBS2's Lisa
Rozner.

But legally, tow companies are required to release vehicles 24
hours a day, 7 days a week.

Attorney Gary Rosen is filing a federal class action lawsuit
against Runway.

"When you get towed on a highway, there's a specific tow bill that
you're supposed to be given," Rosen said.

A former driver at Runway Towing who left the company after a
dispute showed CBS2 the legal receipt. It has the legal rate for a
tow, which is $125 for the first 10 miles and a consumer bill of
rights.

But he says employees often hand out a different receipt. The rate
is allegedly what the supervisor determines.

"Regular pricing $150," the former driver said. "But, like, if
you're driving a Mercedes Benz, a BMW, whatever, of that sort, it
was $225 or better."

The Brooklyn Queens Expressway is one of several highways where
Runway Towing has the exclusive contract with the NYPD. The lawsuit
claims that's why Runway was able to get away with overcharging.

That's why Rosen says a lawsuit is planned against the NYPD and the
NYC Department of Consumer Affairs, who he says looked the other
way when customers complained.

Consumer Affairs said it couldn't comment, and the NYPD said it is
looking into it.

The attorney for Runway Towing, Errol Margolin, says the company
denies the allegations.

"All the allegations are deficient in a number of ways. The
allegations don't identify by name, the name of the consumer. They
don't identify the plate number," Margolin said. "I think this is
an attempt by somebody . . . to smear Runway with false
allegations."

He says Runway plans to fight the lawsuit while consumers fight to
get their money back. [GN]


SNC LAVALIN: Judge Addresses Question on Parallel Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Hayden, Esq. -- khayden@litigate.com -- of Lenczner Slaght,
in an article for Mondaq, reports in DALI 675 Pension Fund v SNC
Lavalin, the class actions version of "who wore it better", Justice
Belobaba addressed the question of whether a parallel class action
proceeding commenced in a separate province constitutes an abuse of
process. His answer? Just a healthy dose of competition.

In February 2019, a plaintiff represented by one law firm commenced
a national class action in Quebec against SNC-Lavalin, alleging
securities misrepresentations in the secondary market. In June
2019, a plaintiff represented by a different law firm commenced a
national class action in Ontario against SNC-Lavalin based on the
same set of facts.

Prior to the hearing of the certification motion in Ontario, the
plaintiff in Quebec, together with the defendant, brought a motion
to stay the Ontario action as a duplicative proceeding and
therefore an abuse of process. The defendant added that parallel
and overlapping class actions would be a waste of time and
resources, and cause it to suffer prejudice.

The motion was heard by Justice Belobaba, who reasoned that there
was no abuse of process per se in a parallel proceeding. Rather,
the core question in addressing whether a parallel proceeding
constitutes an abuse of process is: "can it be shown that the
impugned parallel action is a duplicative action that was filed for
no legitimate purpose?" If the answer is no, the question of
preferable jurisdiction is best left to certification.

Justice Belobaba did not find the fact that different counsel had
filed the second proceeding to be determinative, as a result of his
concern that one law firm could solicit another law firm to act as
a "beard" (likely the first time Justice Belobaba has had the
opportunity to use this expression in a class actions decision):

   The fact that different plaintiffs or different counsel filed
   the parallel proceedings cannot be determinative. It would not
   make good legal sense to allow multi-jurisdiction filings to
   escape scrutiny for abuse of process simply because class
   counsel was able to persuade another class member to be the
   representative plaintiff in its parallel action, or worse,
   another law firm to act as a "beard".

In addressing the case at hand, Justice Belobaba found that the
Ontario class proceeding was not filed "for no good reason". He
held that the fact that the Quebec action was filed first was not
determinative, particularly given that the initial pleading filed
in Quebec was much shorter and less detailed than the Ontario
pleading. Although the Quebec pleading was later amended (after the
Ontario pleading was filed), the Ontario action cannot become
duplicative as a result of the Quebec pleading having been amended.
The Ontario pleading must be examined at the time it was filed.

In response to the defendant's pleas about prejudice, Justice
Belobaba held that cost is not a sufficient reason to grant a stay
of a duplicative action, nor was there evidence that the proceeding
would be costly, or that costs could not be reduced through
cooperation between the law firms.

Ultimately, aside from cases involving true abuse of process,
Justice Belobaba concluded that it is better to decide
preferability at certification, when the court has a more complete
record. At that point, the benefit of information about the results
of the leave and certification motions in Quebec and Ontario would
allow the court to fashion an outcome that would truly be in the
best interests of the national class. With early disqualification
off the table, let the beauty contest begin!

Justice Belobaba's desire to wait until certification is
understandable. However, the effect will be to increase costs as a
result of different plaintiffs running duplicative actions. Just as
carriage motions within a single province are meant to be resolved
in advance of certification, so too is there a good argument that
motions to resolve the issue of competing national classes should
be heard before embarking on a process of duplicate certification
motions. [GN]


SOUTHERN CROSS: Beltrame Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premiums
------------------------------------------------------------
James Beltrame, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Southern Cross, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00073 (E.D. Wisc., January 16, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or any such other relief
pursuant to Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws and the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Southern Cross provides services in the utility industry across the
United States where Beltrame worked as technician. He claims
overtime premium for those weeks that he rendered in excess of 40
hours in a work week. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
      David M. Potteiger, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
      Brookfield, WI 53005
      Phone: (262) 780-1953
      Fax: (262) 565-6469
      Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
             sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
             dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


SUNRISE, FL: White and Bulzone Seek Overtime Pay for Cops
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JOSEPH WHITE, and MICHAEL BULZONE, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF
SUNRISE, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-60277-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 10,
2020) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all
similarly situated non-exempt police officers of the City of
Sunrise Police Department, who worked private events at the BB&T
Center and who were paid for that work by the City of Sunrise. The
Plaintiffs seek to pursue claims against the Defendant for unpaid
overtime.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has been aware of its
non-compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 but has
not done anything to remedy the situation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Pancier, Esq.
          MICHAEL A. PANCIER, PA
          9000 Sheridan Street Suite 93
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
          Telephone: (954) 862-2217
          Facsimile: (954) 862-2287

               - and –

          Tonja Haddad, Esq.
          TONJA HADDAD, PA
          Advocate Building
          315 SE 7th Street, Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-467-1223
          Facsimile: 954-337-3716   


TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Feb. 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Trulieve Cannabis Corp.
("Trulieve"  or the Company") (OTKMKT: TCNNF) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Trulieve securities between September 25, 2018 and
December 17, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/tcnnf.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Trulieve overstated its mark-up on its biological assets;
(2) therefore, Trulieve's reported gross profit was inflated; (3)
Trulieve engaged in an undisclosed related party real estate sale
with Defendant Rivers' husband; and (4) as a result, defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

On December 17, 2019, Grizzly Research published an article
reporting that most of the Company's cultivation space comes from
"hoop houses that produce low quality output," that there were
extensive ties between Trulieve and ongoing FBI investigations into
corruption, that the Company's initial license approval "stinks of
corruption," and that the Company engaged in several undisclosed
related party transactions.  On this news, Trulieve's stock price
fell $1.51 per share, or over 12.6%, to close at $10.40 per share
on December 17, 2019.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/tcnnf or you may contact Peretz
Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Trulieve you have until February 28, 2020 to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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

Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com
[GN]


TRULIEVE CANNABIS: Pawar Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Trulieve
Cannabis Corp. from September 25, 2018 through December 17, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Trulieve Cannabis Corp. investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Trulieve overstated its mark-up on its biological assets;
(2) therefore, Trulieve's reported gross profit was inflated; (3)
Trulieve engaged in an undisclosed related party real estate sale
with Defendant Rivers' husband; and (4) as a result, defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
28, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

No class has been certified.  Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one.  You may hire
counsel of your choice.  You may also do nothing at this time and
be an absent member of the class.  Your ability to share in any
future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Borusan Mannesmann Says Tariffs Illegal
------------------------------------------------------
Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. and Borusan
Mannesmann Pipe U.S. Inc., individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. United States, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-00010, (US Court of International Trade, January 16,
2020), seeks to recover unconstitutionally-imposed customs duties
paid to the United States in violation of Article I, Section 1 of
the U.S. Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers and
the system of checks and balances.

As of January 9, 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported
it had assessed section 232 duties on imported steel products in
excess of $6.6 billion pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade
Expansion Act of 1962. Plaintiffs claim that this is an improper
delegation of legislative power to the President.

Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. is a corporation
organized under the laws of Turkey and a nonresident U.S. importer
of circular welded steel pipe, large diameter line pipe, and oil
country tubular goods into the United States [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald B. Cameron, Esq.
      R. Will Planert, Esq.
      Julie C. Mendoza, Esq.
      Brady W. Mills, Esq.
      MORRIS MANNING & MARTIN LLP
      1401 Eye Street, NW, Suite 600
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel: (202) 216-4811
      Email: dcameron@mmmlaw.com

             - and -

      Alan B. Morrison, Esq.
      Steve Charnovitz, Esq.
      GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
      2000 H Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20052
      Tel: (202) 994-7120
      Email: abmorrison@law.gwu.edu

             - and -

      Gary N. Horlick, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF GARY N. HORLICK
      1330 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 499c
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 429-4790
      Email: gary.horlick@ghorlick.com

             - and -

      Timothy Meyer, Esq.
      VANDERBILT LAW SCHOOL
      131 21st Avenue South
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615) 936-8394
      Email: tim.meyer@law.vanderbilt.edu


UP PROPERTIES: Gailes Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Gailes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UP PROPERTIES II, LLC, a Kentucky limited liability
company, Case No. 2020CH01545 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 6, 2020),
is brought against the Defendant for violating the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Despite the substantial privacy risks created by the collection and
storage of biometric data, and the decade-old prohibition on
collecting and retaining biometric data in Illinois without
informed consent, the Defendants uses a biometric time-tracking
system that requires workers at one of the Defendant's locations to
use their fingerprint scans as a means of authentication each time
they start or stop working, the Plaintiff contends.

When the Defendant's Illinois workers began their time at one of
its locations, the Defendant requires them to scan their
fingerprints into a worker database. The Defendant's scanning and
retention of workers' fingerprints without informed consent is
clearly unlawful in Illinois, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Tamara Gailes is a natural person and a citizen of the
State of Illinois residing in McLean County.

UP Properties II is a restaurant franchise operator with more than
25 Illinois locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
          Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
          KELLER LENKNER LLC
          150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.741.5220
          Email: amz@kellerlenkner.com
                 ajd@kellerlenkner.com


US AUTO PARTS NETWORK: Tallie Alleges Abusive Telemarketing Acts
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROMAR TALLIE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc., Which Will Do Business
In California As USAPN, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01298
(C.D. Cal., February 10, 2020)is an action against the defendant
for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act through the use
of an automatic telephone dialing system to bombard consumers'
mobile phones with non-emergency advertising and marketing text
messages without prior express written consent.  Due to Defendant's
unauthorized messages, the Plaintiff's phone batteries had drained
and caused him additional electricity expenses as well as wear and
tear on his phone and battery.

According to the complaint, Tallie and the Class Members have all
suffered and will continue to suffer harm and damages as a result
of Defendant's unlawful conduct.

U.S. Auto Parts Network, Which Will Do Business In California As
USAPN, Inc., is an online retailer of automotive aftermarket
products, including collision, engine, and performance parts and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523


WEST VIRGINIA: Faces Class Action Over Biweekly Pay Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------
Jess Mancini, writing for The Inter-Mountain, reports that six
state employees are claiming their wages were shorted when West
Virginia changed to a biweekly pay schedule.

Heather Morris, Pamela Stumpf, Stacey Facemire, Lula V. Dickerson,
Lisa Wilkinson and Kathryn A. Bradley filed the federal lawsuit
seeking class-action certification in Wheeling in the U.S. District
Court for Northern West Virginia. The case, originally in state
court, was filed in the district court on Dec. 31.

The state switched from a twice a month, or 24 pays, pay schedule
to a bi-weekly, or 26 payments per year schedule in 2017, the
lawsuit said. Converting the pay schedules didn't mean salary could
be reduced or withheld, the lawsuit said.

Rather than change the payroll cycle from bi-monthly to bi-weekly,
the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch and the Commission on
Special Investigations used the conversion to take about 1.75
percent or greater from each employee's annual pay, "except for
those holding the position of an elected official," the lawsuit
said. Elected officials received a payment, Teresa Toriseva of
Toriseva Law in Wheeling, an attorney representing the plaintiffs,
said.

"Tens of thousands of West Virginia salaried employees were shorted
in pay, and we are taking the fight to federal court to correct a
mistake that should never have been made," Toriseva said. "While
elected officials received a one-time payment ensuring they
received their accurate annual salaries, the everyday employees of
the State of West Virginia have been ignored. The powerful paid
themselves, but they refuse to pay the rank and file workers. This
lawsuit is their voice."

The lawsuit explains how employees were paid over the years up to
the changeover in 2017. Salaried employees were shorted in 2017,
paid in full in 2018, but not compensated in 2019 for the shortage
in 2017, the lawsuit said.

The amount withheld has never been repaid, Toriseva said. From
20,000 to 30,000 state salaried employees are affected, Toriseva
said.

The state's position is it can fail to pay wages by redefining when
it will pay wages in the future, the lawsuit said. As much as $30
million in wages could have been withheld, according to the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit names numerous state officials, including the governor,
auditor, treasurer, secretary of state, attorney general, the chief
justice of the Supreme Court and the Commission on Special
Investigations.

The state's position is it can fail to pay wages by simply
redefining when the state will pay wages in the future, the lawsuit
said.

"That as a result, the state of West Virginia claims that it now
'borrows' over 40 percent of an employee's paycheck to pay back the
money that was 'borrowed' or taken during the (2017) conversion,"
the lawsuit said. "That this 'borrowing' that is on a continuous
basis places employees two pay cycles in arrears."

A lawsuit alleging the same claims as the federal complaint was
dismissed in December by Senior Status Judge Thomas C. Evans in
Kanawha County, who ruled the employees were not shorted in their
wages. The state case said the office of the state auditor did not
failure correctly calculate and pay the wages of around 40,000
state employees.

The employees are represented by Toriseva of Toriseva Law In
Wheeling, the Ranson Law Offices and the Jacobs Law Office in
Charleston and McCoid Law Office in Wheeling. [GN]


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Doesn't Have to Disclose Customers List
--------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a split Ninth Circuit panel said on Jan. 13
that Williams-Sonoma doesn't have to disclose a list of its
California customers in a proposed class action claiming the
company mislead customers about the thread count of its bedding,
with the dissenting judge calling his colleagues' ruling
"unnecessary".[GN]


WINNEBAGO COUNTY: Abresch Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Premiums
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Abresch, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Winnebago County, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00063 (E.D. Wisc., January 15, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or any such other relief
pursuant to Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws and the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Winnebago County hired Abresch as a Certified Nursing Assistant
working at the Park View Health Center. She seeks overtime premium
for those weeks that she rendered in excess of 40 hours in a work
week. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
      David M. Potteiger, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
      Brookfield, WI 53005
      Phone: (262) 780-1953
      Fax: (262) 565-6469
      Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
             sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
             dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com


[*] Guardians of Opioid-Defendant Kids Seek to Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys representing guardians
of children born dependent on opioids are asking a federal judge in
Cleveland to include them as a group in a class action lawsuit
against the pharmaceutical industry.

The motion was filed on behalf of guardians caring for children
with neonatal abstinence syndrome from Ohio and California.

An attorney says around 400,000 such children have been born in the
last two decades.

The motion asks the judge overseeing the lawsuit to create a
registry to identify children diagnosed with neonatal abstinence
syndrome, and form a medical panel to determine best practices for
treatment. [GN]


[*] Workplace Class Actions Continue to Grow, Seyfarth Shaw Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Maatman of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for CFO, reports
that the prosecution of workplace class action litigation by the
plaintiffs' bar continues to escalate, as it has for more than a
decade. Importantly, class actions increasingly pose unique
"bet-the-company" risks for employers.

As has become readily apparent in the #MeToo era, an adverse
judgment in a class action has the potential to bankrupt a
business. Further, adverse publicity can eviscerate a company's
market share. Likewise, the ongoing defense of a class action can
drain corporate resources long before the case reaches a decision
point.

Companies that do business in multiple states are also susceptible
to "copy-cat" class actions, whereby plaintiffs' lawyers create a
domino effect of litigation filings that challenge corporate
policies and practices in numerous jurisdictions at the same time.
This risk is particularly acute in wage-and-hour cases.

Skilled plaintiffs' class action lawyers and governmental
enforcement litigators are not making this challenge any easier for
companies. They are continuing to develop new theories and
approaches to the successful prosecution of complex employment
litigation and government-backed lawsuits. New rulings by federal
and state courts have added to this patchwork quilt of compliance
problems and litigation management issues.

In turn, events of the past year in the workplace class action
world demonstrate that the array of litigation issues facing
businesses is continuing to accelerate while also undergoing
significant change.

Notwithstanding the business-friendly policies of the Trump
Administration, governmental enforcement litigation pursued by the
U.S. Equal Employment Commission (EEOC) and other federal agencies
continues to manifest an aggressive agenda. Conversely, litigation
issues stemming from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) reflected a
slight pull-back from previous efforts to push a pronounced
pro-worker/anti-business agenda.

The combination of these factors is challenging businesses to
integrate their litigation and risk mitigation strategies to
navigate these exposures. The challenges are especially acute for
businesses in the context of complex workplace litigation.

Adding to this mosaic of challenges in 2020 is the continuing
evolution in federal policies emanating from the Trump White House,
the recent appointments of new Supreme Court justices and lower
federal court judges, and the uncertainty over impeachment
inquiries and the upcoming presidential election.

Furthermore, while changes to government priorities started on the
previous Inauguration Day and are ongoing, others are being carried
out by new leadership at the agency level who were appointed over
the past year. As expected, many changes represent stark reversals
in policy that are sure to have a cascading impact on private class
action litigation.

While predictions about the future of workplace class action
litigation may cover a wide array of potential outcomes, one sure
bet is that the plaintiffs' class action bar will continue to
evolve and adapt to changes in case law precedents. As a result,
class action litigation will remain fluid and dynamic, and
corporate America will continue to face new litigation challenges.

An overview of workplace class action litigation in 2019 reveals
five key trends.

Certification Success

The plaintiffs' bar was successful in prosecuting class
certification motions at the highest rates ever in the areas of
ERISA and wage-and-hour litigation, as well as employment
discrimination class actions.

Plaintiffs' lawyers continued to craft refined class certification
theories to counter the more stringent certification requirements
established in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338
(2011).

Of the 271 wage-and-hour certification decisions in federal courts
in 2019, plaintiffs won 199 of 245 conditional certification
rulings (81%) and lost 15 of 26 decertification rulings (58%).

By comparison, there were 273 wage-and-hour certification decisions
in 2018, with plaintiffs winning 196 of 248 conditional
certification rulings (79%) and losing 13 of 25 decertification
rulings (52%).

Supreme Influence

Class-action litigation has been shaped and influenced to a large
degree by recent rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Over the past several years, the high court has accepted more cases
for review than in previous years — and, as a result, has issued
more rulings - that have impacted the prosecution and defense of
class actions and government enforcement litigation.

The past year continued that trend, with several key decisions on
complex employment litigation and class action issues that were
arguably more pro-business than decisions in past terms.

Among those rulings, Lamps Plus v. Varela and Nutraceutical Corp.
v. Lambert reflected a conservative, strict constructionist reading
of statutes and class action procedures.

Furthermore, a case decided last year — Epic Systems Corp. v.
Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), which upheld the legality of class
action waivers in mandatory arbitration agreements — proved to be
a transformative decision that is one of the most important
workplace class action rulings in the last two decades.

Coupled with the possibility of more appointments to the Supreme
Court by the Republican-controlled White House, litigation may well
be reshaped by Supreme Court decisional law in ways that change the
playbook for prosecuting and defending class actions.

Pro-Business Trend

Filings and settlements of government enforcement litigation in
2019 did not reflect a head-snapping pivot from the ideological
pro-worker outlook of the Obama Administration to a pro-business,
less-regulation/litigation viewpoint of the Trump Administration.

However, the numbers began to trend downward in terms of a
diminishment in the aggressive agenda of prior government
enforcement litigation. As an example, the EEOC brought 144
lawsuits in 2019, as compared to 199 in 2018 and 184 in 2017
(although the 2019 total still outpaced 2016, the last year of the
Obama Administration, when the EEOC filed 86 lawsuits).

Furthermore, the value of the top 10 settlements in government
enforcement cases decreased dramatically to $57.52 million, from
$126.7 million in 2018 and from $485.25 million in 2017.

Explanations for this phenomenon are varied. They include:

* The time-lag between Obama-appointed enforcement personnel
vacating their offices and Trump-appointed personnel taking charge
of agency decision-making power

* The number of lawsuits "in the pipeline" that were filed during
the Obama Administration that came to conclusion in the past two
years

* A "hold-over" effect whereby Obama-appointed policy-makers
remained in their positions long enough to continue their
enforcement efforts before being replaced in the last half of 2018
or in 2019. This was especially true at the EEOC, where the Trump
nominations for the commission's chair, two commissioners, and
general counsel did not reach the Senate floor until the second
half of 2019.
These factors are critical to employers, as both the DOL and the
EEOC have had a focus on "big impact" lawsuits against companies
and "lead by example" in areas that the private plaintiffs' bar
aims to pursue.

As 2020 opens, it appears that the content and scope of enforcement
litigation undertaken by the DOL and the EEOC in the Trump
Administration will continue to tilt away from the
pro-employee/anti-big business mindset of the previous
Administration.

Trump appointees at the EEOC and the DOL are slowly but surely
"peeling back" on aggressive litigation enforcement tactics that
were watchwords under the Obama Administration. As a result, it
appears inevitable that the volume of government enforcement
litigation and the value of settlement numbers from those cases
will decrease even further in 2020.

Low-Value Workplace Settlements

The aggregate monetary value of workplace class action settlements
increased slightly in 2019. But compared against the last several
years, it was among the lowest marks for settlements, after those
values plummeted to their lowest level ever in 2018.

For most of the past decade, these settlement numbers had been
increasing on an annual basis, reaching all-time highs in 2017. The
2019 numbers showed increases in settlement values for ERISA and
wage-and-hour class action settlements, while there were large
drop-offs in the values of settlements for employment
discrimination and other workplace statutory class actions.

The plaintiffs' employment class action bar and governmental
enforcement litigators were exceedingly successful in monetizing
their case filings into large class-wide settlements this past
year, but they did so at decidedly lower values than in previous
years.

The top 10 settlements in various employment-related class action
categories totaled $1.34 billion in 2019, virtually unchanged from
$1.32 billion in 2018 — although that was a stark decrease from
the 2017 total of $2.72 billion. Whether this is the beginning of a
long-range trend or a short-term aberration remains to be seen.

Spotlight Stays on #MeToo

As it continues to gain momentum on a worldwide basis, the #MeToo
movement is fueling employment litigation issues in general and
workplace class action litigation in particular.

On account of news reports and social media, it has raised the
level of awareness of workplace rights and emboldened many to
utilize the judicial system to vindicate those rights.

Several large sex harassment class-based settlements were
effectuated in 2019 that stemmed at least in part from #MeToo
initiatives. Likewise, the EEOC's enforcement litigation activity
in 2019 focused in large part on the filing of #MeToo lawsuits
while riding the wave of social media attention to such workplace
issues.

Of the EEOC's 2019 sex discrimination lawsuit filings, 28 cases
included claims of sexual harassment, and 57 of the 84 Title VII
lawsuits were based on gender discrimination allegations. The total
number of sexual harassment filings decreased slightly in 2019 as
compared to 2018 and 2017, when sexual harassment claims accounted
for 41 and 33 filings, respectively.

Employers can expect that #MeToo issues will remain in the
limelight in 2020, and litigation over these issues is not apt to
slow down in the coming year. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had 51,000 Open Claims at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. had 51,000 open claims related to
asbestos matters as of December 31, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2019.  The
number of claims asbestos matters relating to wholly-owned
subsidiary Hercules LLC.

The Company states, "Ashland has insurance coverage for certain
litigation defense and claim settlement costs incurred in
connection with its asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place
agreements exist with the insurance companies that provide
substantially all of the coverage that will be accessed.

"For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations and
estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent.  A substantial portion of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers.

"At December 31, 2019, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to US$122 million (excluding the Hercules receivable for
asbestos claims) compared to US$123 million at September 30, 2019.
During the June 2019 quarter, the annual update of the model used
for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on
valuation of future recoveries from insurers was completed.  This
model update resulted in a US$5 million decrease in the receivable
for probable insurance recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/M0g5Xs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had 13,000 Open Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2019, that wholly-owned subsidiary
Hercules LLC still faces 13,000 open claims related to asbestos
matters.

The Company states, "For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations,
certain reimbursement obligations pursuant to coverage-in-place
agreements with insurance carriers exist.  As a result, any
increases in the asbestos reserve have been partially offset by
probable insurance recoveries.  Ashland has estimated the value of
probable insurance recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve
based on management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the
available or applicable insurance coverage, including an assumption
that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent.  The estimated
receivable consists exclusively of solvent domestic insurers.

"As of December 31, 2019, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claims costs from insurers with respect to
Hercules amounted to US$49 million.  During the June 2019 quarter,
the annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the
asbestos reserve and its impact on valuation of future recoveries
from insurers was completed.  This model update resulted in a
decrease of US$5 million in the receivable for probable insurance
recoveries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/M0g5Xs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Still Faces Stearns PI Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation still faces multiple lawsuits relating to
alleged personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos
in certain brakes and clutches by the Company's Stearns division,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended
December 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 300
claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division and/or
its predecessor owners.  Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the
Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to
the Stearns lawsuits.

"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided
the Company with indemnification against certain contingent
liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth
Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims.  The indemnity
obligations relating to the matters are subject, together with
indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to an overall
dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in
excess of US$900 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/LlVeLK


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Prager Unit Still Has PI Claims in Dec.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation remains the subject of claims by multiple
claimants alleging personal injuries due to the alleged presence of
asbestos in a product allegedly manufactured by Prager, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2019.
However, all these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district
Litigation inactive docket.

The Company states, "...[T]he Company's Prager subsidiary is the
subject of claims by multiple claimants alleging personal injuries
due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
manufactured by Prager.  However, all these claims are currently on
the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket, and the
Company does not believe that they will become active in the
future.  To date, the Company's insurance providers have paid 100%
of the costs related to the Prager asbestos matters.  The Company
believes that the combination of its insurance coverage and the
Invensys indemnity obligations will cover any future costs of these
matters.

"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc ("Invensys") provided
the Company with indemnification against certain contingent
liabilities, including certain pre-closing environmental
liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the
Company with respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth
Industrial Park Site and to various asbestos claims.  The indemnity
obligations relating to the matters are subject, together with
indemnity obligations relating to other matters, to an overall
dollar cap equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in
excess of US$900 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/LlVeLK



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***