/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200702.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, July 2, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 132

                            Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: Court Certifies Settlement Class
1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Arbitration Ongoing in Membership Fee Suit
ACCENTURE FLEX: Alrweni Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALPHABET INC: Golditch Sues Over False Germ-Killing Product Ads
APPLE INC: Golden Sues Over Patent Infringement & Unpaid Royalty

AT&T MOBILITY: Specialized Realty Agrees to Arbitration
AURORA CANNABIS: 15 Cannabis Companies Hit With $500M Lawsuit
AUTOVEST LLC: FDCPA Violations Not Enough to Give Standing
AVON PRODUCTS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Suit in New York
BAR S SERVICES: Underpays Load Operators, Shaw Suit Claims

BBQ CNG: Lestrade Alleges Tip Skimming, Seeks Proper Minimum Pay
CANADA: Class Action Against Feds, Nunavut and N.W.T. to Proceed
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Former NHL Player Carcillo Leads Class Action
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Hurricanes' Ex-Coach Among Facing Allegations
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Koskie Minksy Files Class Action Lawsuit

CASELLA WASTE: Vandemortel Class Suit Ongoing
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTIC: Portnoy Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Sued for Misrepresentations of COVID-19
CHICAGO TRANSIT: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Byrd et al Claim
CITIZENS BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Ratliff Claims

CLARK-FLOYD LANDFILL: Class Certification Upheld in Gonzales Suit
CLEVELAND-CLIFFS: 3 Suits over AK Steel Merger Voluntarily Nixed
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Faces Suit Over Covid-19 Diagnostic Tests
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Faruqi Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Glancy Prongay Probes Securities Law Violations

COLONY CAPITAL: Howard Smith Reminds of July 27 Motion Deadline
CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Merger Suit Nixed, Awaits for Legal Fee Claims
CONSOL ENERGY: August 4 Trial for Remaining Claims in Casey Suit
CORE BUSINESS: Advanced Technology Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
COTY INC: JAB Holding Removed from Stockholder Class Suit

COVETRUS INC: Continues to Defend Cops Retirement System Suit
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Fails to Pay Overtime, Henderson Claims
D.C. JAIL: Ordered to do More to Protect Inmates From Coronavirus
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Labor Lawsuits vs. Futuredontics Still Ongoing
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Plaintiffs Appeal Order Denying Bid to Vacate

ELANCO ANIMAL: Barbuto & Johansson Notes of July 20 Motion Deadline
ELDORADO RESORTS: Lead Plaintiff Voluntarily Drops New Jersey Suit
ENDURANCE US: Settlement in Carrasco Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
ENPHASE ENERGY: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline
ENPHASE ENERGY: Rosen Files Securities Class Action

ENPHASE ENERGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Water Advisory
FIX AUTO: Faces Villasenor Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Court
FONTERRA AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over Clawback Heads to Court
FORD MOTOR: Pre-Owned Cars Lack Proper Inspection, Tyman Alleges

FRONTIER AIRLINES: Refuses to Offer Refunds, Bess Claims
GAYJA CORP: Lenzi Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GRILL ENTERPRISES: Underpays Wait Staff, Chavez Claims
HAMILTON BEACH: Howard Smith Reminds of July 21 Motion Deadline
HELIUS MEDICAL: Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Appointed

HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Ramirez Class Action Ongoing
HOMETEAM PEST: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Launch Class Action Suit
HONEYWELL INT'L: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward
HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Sued Over Race & Sex Discrimination
IBERIABANK CORP: Suits Challenging First Horizon Merger Dismissed

INT'L FLAVORS: Frutarom Named as Defendant in Amended Jansen Suit
INT'L FLAVORS: Shareholder Sues over Yehudai's $20MM Bonus
INT'L FLAVORS: Still Defends Securities Class Suits in Tel Aviv
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Consumer Suit in Connecticut Still Pending
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Liu et al. Want Dismissal Order Nixed

JACK IN THE BOX: Awaits Final Approval of Marquez Settlement
JACK IN THE BOX: Still Defends Gessele Labor Class Suit
JJLSZ CORP: Umanzor Seeks Unpaid Overtime & Spread of Hours Pay
JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit Over Race Bias Ongoing
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Notifies of Class Action

KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
KERN COUNTY, CA: Settles Class Action Over Juvenile Facilities
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Sommer Says Ice Tea Beverages Ads "Misleading"
LABORATORY CORP: Consolidated Bouffard and Anderson Suit Ongoing
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Davis Class Action

LABORATORY CORP: Feckley Class Action Concluded
LABORATORY CORP: Sequenom Inc. Shareholders' Suit Still Stayed
LIBERTY HEALTHCARE: Anderson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Defendants Want 2nd Amended Securities Suit Tossed
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces MDL over Starwood Data Breach

MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Still Defends Class Suits in US & Canada
MCDERMOTT INT'L: $8.25MM Reserved for Cantrell Settlement
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Appeal from Class Certification Ruling Underway
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Consolidated Texas Class Action Stayed
MEDLEY CAPITAL: $50,000 Settlement in New York Class Suits Okayed

MEDLEY CAPITAL: Appeal from Fee Award in Merger Suit Still Pending
MEDLEY CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Seek Preliminary Approval of Settlement
MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Forman Settlement Granted Final Approval
MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Settlement in Forman Suit Gets Final Approval
MESA AIR: Faces 2 IPO-Related Putative Class Lawsuits in Arizona

MORGAN STANLEY: Booker Alleges Discrimination & Retaliation
MORGAN STANLEY: Still Defends GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces Abellard FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Suit Over Bempegaldesleukin Ongoing
NESTLE SA: First Defense in Slave Labor Class Action Fails

NEW YORK TIMES: Hit With Class Action Over Auto Renewals
NEWTEK BUSINESS: Faces American Video Suit Over PPP Loans
NN INC: Still Defends Erie County ERS Class Action
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Appeal from Dismissal Order Underway
OMNICELL INC: Heard Suit Underway in State Court

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Reached in Costas Suit
PARAGON PRIVATE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Sawyer Suit Claims
PERFORMANCE SPORT: Underpays Sales Personnel, Del Toro Claims
PHOENIX TREE: Schall Files Securities Class Action
PNC FINANCIAL: Winner Seeks Payment of PPP Agent Fees

PPL CORP: Appeal in Cane Run Environmental Class Suit Still Pending
PROASSURANCE CORP: Bronstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
PROASSURANCE CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
PROASSURANCE CORP: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
PROASSURANCE CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action

PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Defends Advance Trust Class Suit in Alabama
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Faces Nicholson Suit Over Teachers' Pension
QIAGEN NV: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
RA MEDICAL: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Derr Suit Set for July 20
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Settlement

REMINGTON OUTDOOR: Judge Won't Reopen Case Over Model 700 Rifle
REVOLVE GROUP: MOU Inked in Employee Wage-and-Hour Suit
RICHMOND, VA: Police Faces Class Action Over Tear Gas
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Boyce Sues in W.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
SALT SPRINGS: Class Action vs. Fla. Condo Complex Moves Forward

SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid for Class Certification Still Pending
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Motor Carriers Defend No-Poach Agreement
SELLAS LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Abstral(R) Promos Pending
SESLOC FEDERAL: Lopez Sues in California Over Statute Violation
SIENNA SENIOR: $100M Negligence Class Action Suit Launched

SOCIETY INSURANCE: Cites Takeout Services in Response to Suit
SONIM TECH: Continues to Defend 4 Lawsuits Over IPO
SPRINT/UNITED: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Hewitt Claims
STARS GROUP: Settlement Reached in Class Action
TD BANK: New York Southern District Narrows Claims in Perks Suit

TILRAY INC: Hit With Class Action Over Mislabeling
TRI CITY ENTERPRISES: Mayer Sues Over Unlawful Tip Sharing
TRUIST FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Bickerstaff Suit v. SunTrust
UNITED STATES: Faces Angel Suit Alleging Violation of Tucker Act
UNIVERISTY OF FLORIDA: Fights Lawsuit Over Student Refunds

US JOINER: Underpays Employees, Vangel Claims
VENUS CONCEPT: Bid to Dismiss Pak Suit Underway
VENUS CONCEPT: IPO Related Litigation Underway
VERB TECHNOLOGY: Still Defends Hartmann Suit in California
VOYA RETIREMENT: Continues to Defend Goetz Class Action

WALTERS WEDDING: Conn and Simmons Seek Refunds
WELLS FARGO: Klein Notes of Aug. 3 Deadline in Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Lowey Dannenberg Files Securities Class Action
WESTERN DIGITAL: Brown Calls Hard Drive Ads "Deceptive"
ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: 3d Cir. Dismisses Appeal in NJ Class Suit

ZURICH AMERICAN: America's Kids Sues Over Denied Insurance Claims
ZYLA LIFE: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of ARYMO ER Litigation
[*] Class Action Survival Guide for Employers
[*] Epiq: No Classes Lead to Class Action
[*] Public Nuisance Claims Emerge in COVID-19 Workplace Litigation


                            *********

1-800 CONTACTS: Court Certifies Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as J THOMPSON, et al.
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
1-800 CONTACTS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01183-TC-DBP (D.
Utah), the Hon. Judge Tena Campbell has entered an order:

   1. preliminarily certifying a Class for settlement purposes,
      defined as:

      "all persons in the United States who do not timely
      exclude himself, herself, or themselves and who made at
      least one online purchase of contact lenses from 1-800
      from January 1, 2004 to September 12, 2019 or any of the
      following entities during the specified time period: (i)
      Vision Direct, Inc., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.,
      Walgreen Co. from January 1, 2004 to September 12, 2019;
      (ii) Arlington Contact Lens Service, Inc. or National
      Vision Inc. from March 10, 2010 to September 19, 2017; or
      (iii) Luxottica of America, Inc. (f/k/a Luxottica Retail
      North America, Inc.) from December 23, 2013 to July 5,
      2019."  Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants,
      their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, any
      alleged Agreement Counterparties, governmental entities
      and instrumentalities of government, states and their
      subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities.;

   2. designating Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Escrow
      Agent; and

   3. approving the establishment of an Escrow Account under the
      1-800 Settlement Agreement as a Qualified Settlement Fund
      pursuant to Internal Revenue Code section 468B, 26 U.S.C.
      section 468B and the Treasury Regulations promulgated
      thereunder, and retains continuing jurisdiction as to any
      issue that may arise in connection with the formulation or
      administration of the QSF.

1-800 Contacts Inc. is an American contact lens retailer based in
Draper, Utah.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather M. Sneddon, Esq.
          ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
          50 West Broadway, Suite 700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: 801 534-1700
          Facsimile: 801 364-7697

               - and -

          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
          Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
          Ashley M. Kelly, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          Telephone: 619 231-1058
          Facsimile: 619 231-7423
          San Diego, CA 92101

               - and -

          Scott E. Gant, Esq.
          Melissa F. Zappala, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          1401 New York Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202 237 2727
          Facsimile: 202 237-6131

               - and -

          CARL GOLDFARB
          401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 356-0011
          Facsimile: 954 356-0022

1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Arbitration Ongoing in Membership Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
1Life Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the arbitration is ongoing in the class action
suit related to the company's collection of Annual Membership Fee.

In May 2018, a class action complaint was filed against the Company
in the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Francisco, or the Court, alleging that the Company made certain
misrepresentations resulting in them paying the Annual Membership
Fee, or AMF in violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, California's False Advertising Law and California's Unfair
Competition Law, and seeking damages and injunctive relief.

In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to compel the
plaintiffs to individually arbitrate their claims, which motion was
granted as to one plaintiff and denied as to the other.

The Company is appealing the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration and filed its appellate brief in November 2019.

Appellate proceedings are delayed due to COVID-related court
shutdowns.

The plaintiff compelled to arbitrate filed an arbitration demand in
March 2020, and the parties are engaging with the American
Arbitration Association to bring resolution to the claim.  

1Life said, "In light of, among other things, the early stage of
the litigation, the Company is unable to make an estimate of the
amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an
unfavorable outcome. Legal fees, net of amounts recoverable from
the Company's insurance provider, have been recorded as general and
administrative expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of
operations. Additional attorney's fees in excess of those covered
will be expensed as incurred.'

1Life Healthcare, Inc. provides software. The Company offers
healthcare application for billing, insurance, planning, and other
related services. 1Life Healthcare serves customers inn the United
States. The company is based in San Francisco, California.


ACCENTURE FLEX: Alrweni Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
AHMED ALRWENI, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACCENTURE FLEX LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00641-RP (W.D. Tex., June 19, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged failure  to pay
all due and owing overtime wages to its non-exempt, hourly paid
employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from on or about January 2019
through on or about March 2020 as a non-exempt, hourly paid content
reviewer.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked 95 hours in the
two-week pay period of October 16, 2019 through October 31, 2019.
But, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for the 15 hours of
overtime he worked at one and one-half times his regular rate. As
reflected in Plaintiff's earning statement, Plaintiff received only
his hourly pay for all hours worked in that pay period.

Accenture Flex LLC is a staffing company that provides employees to
work on projects of fixed duration. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 621-2277
          Fax: (713) 621-0993
          Emails: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net


ALPHABET INC: Golditch Sues Over False Germ-Killing Product Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH GOLDITCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALPHABET, INC., GOOGLE, INC., and GOOGLE,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-11142-DJC (D. Mass., June 16,
2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for
their alleged violations of untrue and misleading advertising under
Massachusetts General Laws and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff purchased on March 4, 2020 a
Pine-Sol brand "germ killing" product which was advertised on the
Google Website. The ads depicted the front portion of the Product
label as "Kills 99.9% germs at home and work."

However, the Product label Representation on the Google Website is
false, harmful, misleading and deceptive because there are no
reliable studies that support the Representations that the product
can kill a variety of germs and/or bacteria including certain
germs/bacteria that cause a variety of diseases.

Additionally, Defendants have unlawfully increased their revenues
and profits derived from sales of the Product, and a competitive
edge over many competing products because of the deceptive product
ads.

Alphabet, Inc., Google, Inc., and Google, LLC comprise a
multinational company that specializes in Internet-related services
and products, which include online advertising technologies, search
engines, cloud computing, software and hardware products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward L. Manchur, Esq.
          P.O. Box 3156
          Peabody, MA 01960
          Tel: (978) 333-1013
          Email: manchurlaw@gmail.com


APPLE INC: Golden Sues Over Patent Infringement & Unpaid Royalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LARRY GOLDEN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS,
USA, LG ELECTRONICS, USA, INC. QUALCOMM INC., FORD GLOBAL
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, and FCA US LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-02270-HMH-KFM (D.S.C., June 16, 2020)
arises from Defendants' alleged motive to form a conspiracy,
conspiracy, unreasonable restraint on trade, unfair competition,
combination, unjust enrichment and disgorgement of profits in
violations of the Sherman Act, and the South Carolina Consumer
Protection and Unfair Competition Laws.

Plaintiff is the author of three economic stimulus packages
submitted to Government beginning in year 2003 that were successful
through the development of certain intellectual property technology
(i.e. communicating, monitoring, detecting, and controlling (CMDC)
devices; Stall, Stop, and Vehicle Slow-Down Systems (SSVSS); Lock
Disabling Systems; and Network Connected Vehicles (NCV) that is
owned by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants and their co-conspirators
participated in a continuous and uninterrupted flow in interstate
commerce to consumers in South Carolina by unlawfully,
manufacturing, marketing, and shipping substantial quantities of
Plaintiff's intellectual property technology as their own private
property without Plaintiff's knowledge, thereby depriving Plaintiff
of royalty compensation.

Moreover, Plaintiff has no knowledge of the "fraudulent
concealment" until March 29, 2018 when the Court of Federal Claims
in Larry Golden v. united States; case no. 13-307C issued its
"Opinion Granting the Government's Motion to Dismiss" that made
Plaintiff realized he could not bring an action of patent
infringement.

The complaint asserts that Defendants actively mislead the public
about the government contracts to manufacture CMDC devices by
failing to disclose the facts from the public. Thus, every South
Carolina tax paying citizen indirectly suffered as a result of
Defendants' illegal conduct.

Apple Inc, Samsung Electronics, USA, LG Electronics, USA, Inc.,
Qualcomm Inc., Ford Global Technologies, LLC, General Motors
Company, and FCA US LLC manufacture electronic devices. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry Golden, Pro Se
          740 Woodruff Rd., #1102
          Greenville, SC 29607
          Tel: 864-288-5605
          Email: atpg-tech@charter.net


AT&T MOBILITY: Specialized Realty Agrees to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, SPECIALIZED REALTY, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T MOBILITY ACCOUNTS,
INC., AT&T CORP., and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-04901 (C.D. Cal., June 2, 2020), is proceeding to
arbitration.

Defendants AT&T Corp. and AT&T Mobility Accounts LLC filed on June
9, 2020, a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action.

On June 19, Plaintiff Specialized Realty filed a Notice of
Non-Opposition to the Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

The Defendants in the case of SPECIALIZED REALTY, INC., on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T
NATIONAL MOBILITY ACCOUNTS, INC., AT&T CORP., and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-04901 (C.D. Cal., June
2, 2020) filed a notice of interested parties at Cal. Sup. Ct. with
Case No. 19STCV15574 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
7.1 and Local Rule 7.1-1 for misidentification in the complaint as
AT&T National Mobility Accounts, Inc.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, AT&T knowingly
and actively charged plaintiff and the class Internet Services Tech
Support 360 fees without plaintiff and the class having purchased
or subscribed to the Tech 360 service, and without the knowledge
and consent of plaintiff and the class.  AT&T added the Tech 360
service to the plans of Specialized and the class without their
knowledge and consent.  The case alleges violation of the
California's Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment.

The case was originally filed April 22, 2020, in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No.
20STCV15574.  The case was removed to the federal district court on
June 2.

AT&T is a provider of mobile telecommunications services throughout
North America. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Archis A. Parasharami, Esq.
          Kevin S. Ranlett, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, N.W.
          Washignton, DC 20006
          Tel: (202) 263-3000
          Fax: (202) 263-3300
          Emails: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
                  kranlett@mayerbrown.com

                - and –

          Jillian C. Joseph, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Ave., 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Tel: (213) 229-9500
          Fax: (213) 625-0248
          Email: jjoseph@mayerbrown.com

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          K.L. Myles, Esq.
          Michael D. Carr, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Tel: (818) 547-5000
          Fax: (818) 547-5329
          Emails: aej@kpclegal.com
                  klm@kpclegal.com
                  mdc@kpclegal.com



AURORA CANNABIS: 15 Cannabis Companies Hit With $500M Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan White of CTV News (Canada) reports that a class-action lawsuit
filed in Calgary against cannabis companies claims the THC and CBD
levels in their medicinal and recreational cannabis products
differed from what was represented on packaging.

According to the statement of claim filed at the Judicial Centre of
Calgary on Tuesday, June 16, the companies allegedly sold cannabis
products to Canadian consumers with drastically different THC
(tetrahydrocannabinol) or CBD (cannabidiol) levels than advertised
on the label.

The defendants named in the lawsuit are:

    Aurora Cannabis Inc.
    Aurora Cannabis Enterprises Inc.
    AuroraCo.
    Aleafiaco
    Aleafia Health Inc.
    Emblem Cannabis Corp.
    Hexo Corp.
    HexoCo
    Cronos Group Inc.
    Cronosco
    Tilray Canada Ltd.
    Organigram Holdings Inc.
    OrganigramCo
    MediPharm Labs Corp.
    MediPharmCo

The document indicates that THC and CBD levels were found to be
significantly higher than indicated in some products while others
may have had significantly lower levels as a result of absorption
or degradation due to the use of plastic bottles.

The lawsuit is seeking $500 million in compensation for Canadians
who purchased medicinal cannabis products between now and June 16,
2010 as well as Canadians who legally purchased cannabis for
recreational purposes since Oct. 17, 2018.

Lisa Marie Langevin is named as the plaintiff representing the
class-action. The Calgary woman claims to have purchased a cannabis
oil from a northwest store in mid-February 2020 at the
recommendation of a staff member.

Langevin says it was her first time trying cannabis and she did not
feel any psychotropic effects after using the product four times
and increasing the dosage, over the period of a month. She then
consulted a friend of hers, a doctor, who also tried the product
and felt nothing.

According to the statement of claim, the doctor arranged to have
both the product and the plastic vial tested and it was determined
that the product only had 46 per cent of the active THC level
indicated on the vial's label.

The allegations outlined in the lawsuit against the producers have
not been tried in court. [GN]



AUTOVEST LLC: FDCPA Violations Not Enough to Give Standing
----------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Taylor of Squire Patton Boggs, an article for The National
Law Review titled "Frank v. Autovest, LLC: In The Ninth Circuit,
Technical FDCPA Violations Alone Aren't Enough To Give A Plaintiff
Standing" wrote that in In Frank v. Autovest, LLC, 2020 U.S. App.
LEXIS 18082 (9th Cir. June 9, 2020), the Ninth Circuit addressed a
thorny standing issue under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"): does a consumer who alleges harm from a technical
violation of the FDCPA have standing to continue her suit when her
deposition testimony shows that she has no actual injury?  The
court's answer was a definitive "no."

A debt collector sued the appellant consumer to collect money on
behalf of the appellee creditor.  The complaint was verified by a
person who held herself out to be an agent of the debt collector.
However, she was actually an employee of the creditor, not an agent
of the debt collector.  Later, the debt collector filed a motion
for a default judgment in the same proceeding, accompanied by an
affidavit from another person holding himself out as the debt
collector's agent.  Again, the person was actually an employee of
the creditor.  The debt collector ultimately dropped the suit.  The
consumer then filed a putative class action in federal court,
accusing the creditor and its employees of making false, deceptive,
or misleading representations under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e,
based on the employees' misleading statements regarding their
relationship to the debt collector.  At deposition, the consumer
denied that she took any action or refrained from doing anything
based on those allegedly misleading statements.  Based on that
testimony, the district court granted summary judgment to the
creditor, holding that any falsehoods were immaterial, as plaintiff
had not been injured.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding
that the consumer failed to show a concrete personal injury
traceable to the misleading statements in the affidavits, and
therefore lacked standing.  The FDCPA creates a cause of action
where a debt collector's statement would confuse or mislead an
unsophisticated consumer.  But, as the Ninth Circuit held, standing
cannot be confused with the merits of a claim.  Showing that a
statement would confuse or mislead an unsophisticated consumer is
not enough for a plaintiff to maintain an FDCPA claim--the
plaintiff must show that the misleading statement also caused a
specific, personal injury.

Despite the plaintiff lacking standing, the Ninth Circuit still
kept the door open for alternative theories of injury under the
FDCPA, such as investigatory injuries involving resources spent
uncovering or confirming the truth of a deceptive communication.
Technical violations of the FDCPA are not enough to confer
standing, but a creative plaintiff may be able to prove just enough
to keep a claim alive--and a dogged defendant may be able to pin a
plaintiff down during discovery and get a claim dismissed. [GN]

AVON PRODUCTS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit
entitled, In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On February 14, 2019, a purported shareholder's class action
complaint (Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1420)
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain former
officers of the Company. On June 3, 2019, the court appointed a
lead plaintiff and class counsel.

The complaint was subsequently amended on June 28, 2019 and
recaptioned "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation" on
July 8, 2019.

On July 24, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint.
The amended complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all purchasers or acquirers of Avon common stock
between January 21, 2016 and November 1, 2017, inclusive.

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on
allegedly false or misleading statements and alleged market
manipulation with respect to, among other things, changes made to
Avon’s credit terms for Representatives in Brazil.

On July 26, 2019, Avon and the individual defendants filed a motion
to dismiss. On November 18, 2019, the court denied that motion.

Accordingly, on December 16, 2019, Avon and the individual
defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. On February
14, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

Avon has provided notice of this matter to the Company's insurers.


Avon said, "In light of the early stage of the litigation, we are
unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to
assess the likelihood of loss or to make a reasonable estimate of
the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome."

Avon Products, Inc. manufactures and markets beauty and related
products in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, south Latin America,
North Latin America, and the Asia Pacific. The company was founded
in 1886 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BAR S SERVICES: Underpays Load Operators, Shaw Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
KENNY SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAR S SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case
1:20-cv-00104-SWS (D. Wyo., June 16, 2020) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Shaw was employed by the Defendant as load operator.

Bar S Services Inc. is a full service company for commercial or
industrial, oil and gas needs specializing in erecting and
dismantling oil rigs, supporting the oil and gas industry in
northeastern Colorado and Wyoming. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          Richard (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788

               - and -

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

               - and -

          Dustin T. Lujan, Esq.
          LUJAN LAW OFFICE
          1603 Capitol Ave. Suite 310, #A559
          Cheyenne, WY 82001
          Telephone: (970) 999-4225


BBQ CNG: Lestrade Alleges Tip Skimming, Seeks Proper Minimum Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARYL LESTRADE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BBQ CNG INC. d/b/a GRAZE BRANDS, LLC, and
ADAM KAY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02788 (E.D.N.Y., June 23,
2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants
for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants' Graze Smokehouse in Cedarhurst,
New York from approximately July 2019 to March 2020 as server with
an hourly wage of $7.50 and tips he received from Defendants'
customers as part of his compensation.

Plaintiff claims that he did not receive all the tips that
customers left him because Defendants would calculate 4% of
Plaintiff's weekly dine-in sales and deduct this amount from his
tips to help compensate his manager and support staff, and for
credit card processing fees, thereby failing to compensate
Plaintiff at the legally applicable minimum hourly wage.

Adam Kay is the owner and operator of BBQ CNG INC. d/b/a Graze
Brands LLC, who implemented the policies that deprived Plaintiff
and others similarly situated of their earned compensation.

BBQ CNG INC. d/b/a Graze Brands, LLC owns and operates several
restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          777 6th Street NW, 11th Floor
          Washington, DC 20001
          Tel: (202) 559-2411
          Email: mhandley@hfajustice.com

                - and -

          George F. Farah, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          81 Prospect St.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Tel: (703) 851-2467
          Email: gfarah@hfajustice.com


CANADA: Class Action Against Feds, Nunavut and N.W.T. to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Tranter of Nunatsiaq News reports that a Nunavut judge says a
class action involving a former teacher convicted of sexually
abusing students can go ahead.

In a decision June 15, Justice Paul Bychok said the class action
can proceed against the governments of Nunavut and the Northwest
Territories and the attorney general of Canada.

The lawsuit is on behalf of at least 50 former students of Maurice
Cloughley, the decision states.  Between 1967 and 1981, Cloughley
taught in several communities in Nunavut and the N.W.T.  He was
later charged with 22 sexual offences against some of his former
students.

Cloughley was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 1996 after
pleading guilty to nine charges of sexual abuse.  The other 13
charges were stayed.

In September 2008, 37 of Cloughley's former students filed a
lawsuit against the governments of Nunavut and the N.W.T.  Then, in
December 2016, three of the plaintiffs filed a notice with the
court to certify a class civil suit "seeking damages on behalf of
all of Mr. Cloughley's victims or their estates," the decision
states.

Unlike most other jurisdictions, Nunavut does not have class-action
lawsuit legislation.  To pursue a class action in Nunavut,
permission is required through an application to the court.

Bychok heard the application on Feb. 14, 2020, but reserved his
decision.

Three issues for consideration

In his judgment, Bychok said there were three issues he had to
decide on when considering whether the lawsuit should proceed. The
first was whether the plaintiffs had satisfied him that a class
action was appropriate for the circumstances of the case.

If the answer to that question was yes, Bychok would then consider
the second issue, namely, whether there was a breach of a fiduciary
duty owed by the defendants to members of the class. A fiduciary
duty is the legal obligation of one party to act in the best
interests of the other.

Then, if the answer to the first question was yes, he would
consider the third issue, that is, whether there were any special
conditions that needed to be included in the certification order.

Lawyers for the Nunavut and N.W.T. governments did not contest the
certification of the class action, but objected "to having the
question whether the defendants owed the plaintiffs a 'fiduciary
duty' of care included as a common issue," the decision states.

To the first question, Bychok said the pleadings "establish a
clearly defined class of potential plaintiffs—former students who
were sexually abused by Mr. Cloughley."

Bychok also said he was satisfied that the class-action
certification would help plaintiffs in remote communities where
there are no resident lawyers to pursue their claim.

"Given the ongoing vulnerability of our youth in our remote
communities, class-action litigation may have a beneficial
educational impact . . .  Class-action litigation will certainly
permit the court, as well as members of the class, to allocate
resources more efficiently than several independent actions,"
Bychok wrote.

"The answer to question one, then, is yes."

To the second question, Bychok said the case raises a "legitimate
and arguable question" whether the governments and Nunavut and
N.W.T owed the plaintiffs a fiduciary duty of care.

In his decision, Bychok acknowledged the Canadian government's
colonial relationship with Inuit.

"I take judicial notice that Mr. Cloughley arrived here very
shortly after the Inuit were forced off the land by the authorities
and made to live in artificial and newly created remote settlements
. . .  It is a fact that the authorities undertook to and did
establish and maintain localized health care, housing, schools and
law and order in these newly created settlements. Henceforth,
government exercised colonial power over the Inuit and enforced it,
in part, by armed authority. Mr. Cloughley began teaching in
Nunavut in August 1967," Bychok wrote.

"The authorities placed Mr. Cloughley in a position of real
authority and power over his young Inuit charges. These Inuit
children were extremely vulnerable by the very essence and
structure of this student-teacher relationship. Mr. Cloughley
abused his authority and power over these children."

Bychok concluded, then, that a fiduciary relationship between the
governments and the plaintiffs was present in this case.

To the third question, Bychok said that the class-action lawsuit
notice should be posted in homeless shelters in Ottawa, Montreal,
Winnipeg and Edmonton.

"At the hearing in February, I raised the issue of the many Inuit
who find themselves homeless in southern Canada. There are many
reasons why people find themselves homeless, including mental
health issues and ongoing trauma from childhood sexual abuse. I am
concerned lest any of Mr. Cloughley's victims find themselves in
that circumstance," Bychok wrote. [GN]


CANADIAN HOCKEY: Former NHL Player Carcillo Leads Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Kaplan of ESPN reports that Former NHL player Daniel Carcillo
is a lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against the Canadian
Hockey league, alleging he and other teenage players were
"routinely victims to hazing, bullying, physical and verbal
harassment, physical assault, sexual harassment, and sexual
assault."

The lawsuit was filed on June 18 with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.  Garrett Taylor, who played in the Western Hockey League
from 2008 to 2010, joins Carcillo as the other lead plaintiff.

"This case is on behalf of underage minors who suffered violent
hazing, physical and sexual assault and psychological trauma while
playing major junior hockey," Carcillo said in a statement. "I was
one of those kids when I played in the OHL. I know there are many
more just like me."

ESPN obtained a copy of the lawsuit, which includes several
disturbing allegations. Carcillo states that he and other rookies
"were repetitively hit on their bare buttocks with a sawed-off
goalie stick, developing large welts and open sores" and often had
to strip naked on the team bus where they were "sent into the bus
bathroom, eight at a time."

The lawsuit alleges that the head coach, assistant coaches and
league officials knew of the abuse. According to the lawsuit,
Carcillo and other players from the Sarnia Sting reported the abuse
while playing for Canada's national team at the junior
championships. After an "informal investigation by the OHL and/or
CHL agents," no findings were released and no steps were taken to
address the alleged abuse.

The lawsuit seeks damages for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
and breach of contract. It also calls for a declaration that the
teams and the leagues are "vicariously liable for abuse perpetrated
by their employees and players."

The CHL is the largest development hockey league in the world with
52 Canadian and eight American teams participating in the OHL, WHL,
and QMJHL.

This lawsuit is the latest in a reckoning for hockey, which has
been grappling with troubling abuse claims for most of this season.
In November, Calgary Flames coach Bill Peters resigned after a
former player, Akim Aliu, alleged the coach directed a racial slur
while they were in the minors together 10 years ago.

Earlier this week, former Ontario Hockey League forward Eric Guest
alleged in an Instagram video that he was forced to do cocaine in a
bathroom as a rookie with the Kitchener Rangers in 2016. The OHL
has launched an investigation into Guest's claims. [GN]


CANADIAN HOCKEY: Hurricanes' Ex-Coach Among Facing Allegations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danica Ferris of Global News reports that former Lethbridge
Hurricanes player Garrett Taylor is standing alongside two-time
Stanley Cup champion Daniel Carcillo in the launch of a class
action lawsuit against the Canadian Hockey League (CHL).

The CHL encompasses 52 Canadian and eight American teams spanning
three leagues: the Ontario Hockey League (OHL), Western Hockey
League (WHL) and Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL).

The lawsuit includes disturbing allegations against former
teammates and coaches of Taylor and Carcillo, including the former
head coach of the Lethbridge Hurricanes -- and current head coach
of the WHL's Vancouver Giants -- Michael Dyck.

The claim alleges hazing, bullying, physical and verbal harassment,
physical assault, sexual harassment, and sexual assault endured by
the class members, referred to in the document as the "abuse."

"The Abuse is often racist, sexist, homophoic, and highly
sexualized," the lawsuit stated. "The perpetrators of the Abuse
were and are senior players on the teams, as well as adult coaches,
staff, administrators and employees, servants and agents of the
teams and the leagues."

Taylor claims that he suffered abuse while playing for the
Hurricanes as a 17-year-old rookie in the 2008-2009 WHL season, in
which he played 45 regular season games.

According to the lawsuit, Hurricanes coaches and officials were
aware of the abuse endured by Taylor and participated in it.

The document says that during team practices, Dyck took Taylor
aside and demanded that he fight other young players on the team to
increase the intensity level. "This took place numerous times.
Taylor was seriously concussed during one fight in practice and he
and other team members suffered other injuries during such fights,"
the claim said.

The lawsuit also states that Dyck provided the team credit card so
that an older player could buy alcohol for the team "rookie
party."

It continued, "the 16 and 17-year-old rookies were required to
dress up in women's clothing and were forced to consume large
amounts of alcohol, to the point of blacking out and vomiting."

Dyck was the head coach of the Hurricanes for four seasons
(2006-2009) and his coaching resume also includes a lengthy history
with the Lethbridge Minor Hockey Association.  Most recently, he
coached the Lethbridge Hurricanes Midget AAA program to a league
championship and a trip to the 2018 Telus Cup, before he got the
call to return to the WHL to lead the Vancouver Giants in
2018-2019.

The Vancouver Giants and WHL have not returned Global News' request
for comment.

Taylor also alleged what is referred to in the document as the
"garbage bag treatment" when he was sent down from the Hurricanes
to the Junior A team in Canmore after the first two games of the
2009-2010 season: "The team and staff were on the team bus waiting
to leave for a road trip. Immediately before leaving, Taylor was
told in front of the entire team and staff that he was being cut
from the team."

"He was told in a humiliating fashion to get off the bus, to
retrieve his bag and to report to Canmore.  He was not given any
money or any further direction.  His parents were not notified,"
the claim said about Taylor, who was a minor at the time.

The lawsuit says that Taylor's experience playing for the
Hurricanes left him permanently traumatized and is the root of
severe mental health issues that led to him being hospitalized
following his time in the WHL, and he continues to deal with
psychological and physical injuries that he suffered while playing
in the league.

Carcillo also outlined the "almost constant abuse" endured while
playing junior hockey; in his case, during his rookie season with
the Sarnia Sting (OHL) in 2002.  Carcillo's claims say that he and
12 other rookies suffered abuse at the hands of the older players
on the team, with coaches and team officials aware of what was
happening.

Carcillo's allegations include more graphic and disturbing details
of harassment and assault, as do the claims listed under the class
members' experiences.

The lawsuit also outlines what it calls the "toxic culture and
environment" prevalent in junior hockey.

It continued, "in addition to Team and League agents and employees
tolerating, condoning and even encouraging or taking part in the
Abuse, Class Members are subject to negative repercussions for
reporting or even refusing to submit to the Abuse."

Consequences listed for reporting abuse include reduced ice time,
being traded, being sent down, being excluded from team activities,
being stigmatized as "weak" or a "problem" player, and more.

None of the allegations made in the lawsuit have been proven in
court.

The CHL told Global News on June 18 that it had not been served any
court documents and had no comment at this time.  [GN]


CANADIAN HOCKEY: Koskie Minksy Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows News reports that a class-action lawsuit
has been filed against the Canadian Hockey League and its member
teams--including the Langley-based Vancouver Giants--alleging
ritualized hazing, widespread physical and sexual abuse, and other
trauma caused to young players in the major junior hockey league
over a period of years, this from a statement of claim filed in
Toronto courts this week.

Toronto-based Koskie Minsky LLP has filed the class-action lawsuit
claiming systemic abuse suffered by teenagers playing in the
Canadian major junior hockey leagues dating back at least four
decades, lead lawyer James Sayce told the Langley Advance Times.

"We're talking about 1980s, the 1990s, 2000s . . . These are
historic abuse claims," he said.

The lawsuit also alleges racism, homophobia, and violence against
players as young as 15.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

After "many months" of preparation, the suit was filed in Ontario
Superior Court of Justice Thursday against the Canadian Hockey
League and its three member organizations--the Western Hockey
League (WHL), Ontario Hockey League and Quebec Major Junior Hockey
League--as well as some 60 teams that play under the CHL umbrella.
That includes the Vancouver Junior Hockey Limited Partnership and
Vancouver Junior Hockey Partnership, Ltd. (known as Vancouver
Giants).

The lawsuit seeks damages for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
and breach of contract, and a declaration that the teams and the
leagues are vicariously liable for abuse perpetrated by their
employees and players.

"A case like this is quite complicated," Sayce said.

The lawsuit was filed by former NHL player Daniel Carcillo and
former WHL player Garrett Taylor, but the lawyer alleges the
problem is much bigger and broader than that.

"There are many, many more than two people who have suffered this
abuse," Sayce said, claiming more are still coming forward as news
of the class-action suit spreads. "These [two] are our figureheads
who are spearheading the claim."

The proposed class, in this case, is made up of anyone who played
junior hockey in one of the above leagues while under the age of
18, Sayce explained.

"We know there are many others, and we've had many others be in
touch with us," Sayce added. "But we, of course, want people to
come forward and tell us their stories, so we can share them – if
that's what they're interested in. I mean there's power in
numbers."

The abuse goes back "quite a ways," Sayce alleged, accusing senior
players, coaching staff, and other team officials of either
participating in or knowing of the abuse but doing nothing to
protect the younger players (often rookies) or to end the abuse.

"Canadian major junior hockey has been plagued by rampant hazing,
bullying, and abuse of underage players, by coaches, team staff,
and senior players. Survivors of such abuse have come forward and
continue to come forward to this day. However, the defendants have
stubbornly ignored or failed to reasonably address this
institutionalized and systemic abuse," the claim summarized (See
full statement of claim at bottom of this story).

Carcillo played for the OHL's Sarnia Sting from 2002-05, before
going on to play more than nine seasons in the NHL and earned
Stanley Cup rings with Chicago in 2013 and 2015. He's been
described as an advocate for players' rights since retiring in
2015.

He claims to have suffered through a full year of "almost constant
and repetitive abuse" while playing as a rookie for the Sarnia
Sting in 2002 at the hands of older players – experiences that
have left him "permanently traumatized," says the statement of
claim.

"This case is on behalf of underage minors who suffered violent
hazing, physical and sexual assault, and psychological trauma while
playing major junior hockey," Carcillo said in a statement. "I was
one of those kids when I played in the OHL. I know there are many
more just like me."

Taylor, who played in the Western Hockey League from 2008-10 with
the Lethbridge Hurricanes and Prince Albert Raiders, had a short
pro-career. He claims abuse while in Lethbridge at the age of 17,
and said he too has never gotten over it, requiring hospitalization
after leaving the WHL. In the claim, he indicates coaches and team
officials were aware of the abuse and some actually participated in
it.

The current head coach of the Langley-based Vancouver Giants,
Michael Dyck, was a coach in Lethbridge during the time in
question.

"I don't have any comment on Mr. Dyck or Michael Dyck.  We're just
alleging a systemic claim here... We're not going after or seeking
to sue individual coaches or wrong-doers or players.  This is a
case about systemic wrongdoing," Sayce said.

The Giants declined to comment about the lawsuit, while the
communications director for the WHL said there is no official
comment from the organization at this time. [GN]

CASELLA WASTE: Vandemortel Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by  Richard Vandemortel and Deb Vandemortel.


On or about September 17, 2019, Richard Vandemortel and Deb
Vandemortel filed a class action complaint against us on behalf of
similarly situated citizens in Ontario County, New York. The
lawsuit has been filed in Ontario County.

It alleges that over one thousand (1,000) citizens constitute the
putative class in the New York Litigation, and it seeks damages for
diminution of property values and infringement of the putative
class' rights to live without interference to their daily lives due
to odors emanating from the Ontario County Landfill, which is
operated by us pursuant to a long-term Operation, Maintenance and
Lease Agreement with Ontario County. The New York Litigation was
served on the company on October 14, 2019.

Casella said, "We are reviewing the New York Litigation and intend
to present a vigorous defense."

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

Casella Waste Systems, Inc. provides integrated and non-hazardous
solid waste services throughout the Eastern United States. The
Company offers collection, transfer, disposal, and recycling
services, generates steam, and manufactures finished products
utilizing recyclable materials. The company is based in Rutland,
Vermont.


CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTIC: Portnoy Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Chembio Diagnostic System, Inc.
("Chembio" or the "Company") investors that acquired Chembio
securities (NASDAQ: CEMI) between April 1, 2020 through June 16,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint filed in this action alleges that defendants misled
investors regarding the accuracy of the Company's Dual Path
Platform ("DPP Test") COVID-19 serological point-of-care test for
the detection of IgM and IgG antibodies aided in determining
current or past exposure to the COVID-19 virus.

The Complaint further alleges that on May 11, 2020, Defendants took
advantage of Chembio's inflated stock price, and closed a public
offering of approximately 2.6 million shares of Chembio stock at
$11.75 per share for gross proceeds of approximately $30.8
million.

On June 16, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked the
emergency use authorization of the DPP Test due to performance
concerns with the accuracy of the test, and on this news the
Company's shares fell sharply in value. The FDA further stated
that:

The Chembio antibody test was one of the first antibody tests
authorized by the FDA during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
At the time of authorization, based on the information that Chembio
submitted to the FDA at that time, the agency concluded that the
test met the statute's "may be effective" standard for emergency
use authorization, and that the test's known and potential benefits
outweighed its known and potential risks.

As the FDA has learned more regarding the capability for
performance of SARS-CoV-2 serology tests during the pandemic, and
what performance is necessary for users to make well-informed
decisions - through both the continued review and authorization of
serology tests as well as through a research partnership with the
National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute (NCI) -
the FDA was able to develop general performance expectations for
these tests, which are listed in our serology templates.

Data submitted by Chembio as well as an independent evaluation of
the Chembio test at NCI showed that this test generates a higher
than expected rate of false results and higher than that reflected
in the authorized labeling for the device. Under the current
circumstances of the public health emergency, it is not reasonable
to believe that the test may be effective in detecting antibodies
against SARS-CoV-2 or that the known and potential benefits of the
test outweigh the known and potential risks of the test, including
the high rate of false results.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner
has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors.

Contact:

         Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
         lesley@portnoylaw.com
         Tel: (310) 692-8883
         http://www.portnoylaw.com/
[GN]


CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Sued for Misrepresentations of COVID-19
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbuto & Johansson PA ("BARJO") and Of Counsel, Neil Rothstein,
Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action Experience
including cases against ENRON and Halliburton) remind investors
that they have until August 17, 2020 to contact the Firm to learn
more about the class action lawsuit filed against Chembio
Diagnostics, Inc. (NasdaqGS: CEMI) and appointment and
qualifications to be considered for the role of lead plaintiff.

The Class Action, Sergey Chernysh v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., et
al., Case No.: 2:20-cv-02706, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
shareholders who purchased CHEMBIO common stock between April 1,
2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages against CHEMBIO and certain
officers for alleged violations of federal securities laws.  

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants misrepresented the efficacy of its DPP COVID-19
test for the detection of antibodies in determining exposure to the
COVID-19 virus, thereby engaging in a scheme to deceive the market;
and that on May 11, 2020, defendants took advantage of the inflated
stock price and closed a public offering of approximately 2.6
million shares of stock for gross proceeds of approximately $30.8
million.

On June 16, 2020, the FDA disclosed that it revoked CHEMBIO'S
Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") due to performance concerns
with the accuracy of the test.  Data submitted by CHEMBIO as well
as an independent evaluation of the Chembio test at NCI showed that
the test generates a higher than expected rate of false results and
higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the
device.  The FDA concluded that the risk to public health from the
false test results makes EUA revocation appropriate to protect the
public health or safety, and that the test could not be
distributed.  On this news, CHEMBIO'S stock fell over 60% in
intraday trading on June 17, 2020.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you purchased
CHEMBIO shares between April 1, 2020 and June 16, 2020, and would
like to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action and/or serve as lead plaintiff, you can call attorney
Anthony Barbuto at 888-715-2520 (office), text or call at
561-531-8221 (cellular) or email anthony@barjolaw.com.  You can
also email attorney Neil Rothstein at neil@barjolaw.com.

BARJO follows the principles set forth in the case Berger v.
Compaq, 257 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2001) which states "[c]lass action
lawsuits are intended to serve as a vehicle for capable, committed
advocates to pursue the goals of the class members through counsel,
not for capable, committed counsel to pursue their own goals
through the class members." BARJO believes strongly that the choice
of qualified Lead Plaintiff(s) can have a significant impact on the
successful outcome of a case.

Contact:

          Barbuto & Johansson, P.A.
          Anthony Barbuto, Esq.
          1-888-715-2520
          12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101
          Wellington, FL 33414
          Web site: http://www.barjolaw.com/
[GN]


CHICAGO TRANSIT: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Byrd et al Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOEL BYRD, JOHN A. PERKOVICH, JOSEPH J. WRIGHT, LOUIS J.
GORDON, MICHAEL KEELE, PEDRO LUNA, and ROBERT J. COOPER, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03613 (N.D. Ill., June 19, 2020) arises
from Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant -- Byrd, Cooper and Luna as
maintainers, Wright and Perkovich as Foremen, Gordon as lineman,
and Keele as an escalator mechanic.

Plaintiffs claim that they worked hours in excess of the applicable
overtime threshold under Section 7(k) of the Act within the last 3
years. But, Defendant failed to include Shift Differential Pay in
the calculation of the regular rate of pay in determining the
overtime amounts owed to employees, thereby failing to compensate
them at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all
excess hours under the Act.

Chicago Transit Authority is a municipal corporation operating a
mass transit system in the City of Chicago. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amanda R. Clark, Esq.
          Matthew J. Pierce, Esq.
          ASHER, GITTLER & D'ALBA, LTD.
          200 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 720
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Tel: 312-263-1500
          Fax: 312-263-1520
          Emails: arc@ulaw.com
                  mjp@ulaw.com


CITIZENS BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Ratliff Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ratliff CPA Firm, PC, a South Carolina Professional Corporation,
individually and on behalf of a class of similar situated
businesses and individuals v. The Citizens Bank and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02240-BHH (D.S.C., June 12, 2020),
alleges that Citizens refuses to comply with the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act that requires it to pay loan
agent fees out of the compensation it received for processing
Paycheck Protection Program loans.

On March 27, 2020, the United States Congress enacted the CARES
Act. A signature piece of this landmark legislation is the SBA's
PPP which initially authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable
loans to small businesses to cover payroll and other expenses (PPP
I). After the initial funds quickly dried up, Congress added $310
billion additional dollars to the program (PPP II).

The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing
business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval.
Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form of a
generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the
requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying the fee
owed to the loan applicant's agent (e.g., attorney or accountant).

The lawsuit seeks compensation from Citizens for services the
Plaintiff and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of
recipients of Small Business Administration emergency loans.

Ratliff provides corporate and individual taxation advice to its
clients and performs financial planning and consulting for both
businesses and individuals in the local community. Ratliff says it
meets the criteria to be a PPP Agent under the CARES Act.

Citizens is an American bank headquartered in Providence, Rhode
Island, which operates in the states of Connecticut, Delaware,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and
Vermont.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq.
          RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A.
          1410 Laurel Street (29201)
          Post Office Box 1090
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 252-4848
          Facsimile: (803) 252-4810
          E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Tanenbaum, Esq.
          MARK C. TANENBAUM, P.A.
          1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Suite 101
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (803) 577-5100
          Facsimile: 843-722-4688
          E-mail: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com

               - and -

          Vincent A. Sheheen, Esq.
          Michael D. Wright, Esq.
          SAVAGE, ROYALL & SHEHEEN, L.L.P.
          P.O. Drawer 10
          Camden, SC 29021
          Telephone: (803) 432-4391
          Facsimile: (803) 425-4812
          E-mail: mwright@thesavagefirm.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com


CLARK-FLOYD LANDFILL: Class Certification Upheld in Gonzales Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Stancombe of the The Indiana Lawyer reports that a group of
Clark County neighbors have prevailed in an interlocutory appeal in
their proposed class-action lawsuit that claims a Jeffersonville
landfill emits noxious odors and negatively impacts the surrounding
residential area.

In August 2016, homeowners Ricky Gonzalez, Yvonne Gonzales, Robert
Scoles, and Tamara Scoles filed a putative class-action complaint
against Clark-Floyd Landfill, LLC based on noxious odors emanating
from a nearby landfill operated by CFL.

The homeowners filed a putative class-action complaint against CFL
alleging, among other things, that their "neighborhoods, residences
and yards have been and continue to be physically invaded by
noxious odors, pollutants and air contaminants" and that the
"horrific odors" have interfered with their "use and enjoyment of
their properties, resulting in damages . . ."

When the homeowners moved to certify their complaint as a class
action in December 2018 and designated supporting evidence, the
Clark Circuit Court granted the homeowners' motion and ultimately
certified the class using the homeowners' proposed class
definition.

Among other things, the trial court concluded that class litigation
of the homeowners' claims, "will be more streamlined and efficient
. . . than litigating these odor based claims on individual bases."
Additionally, after finding that the homeowners had successfully
satisfied the four requirements of Trial Rule 23(A), the court
further found that they had satisfied Trial Rule 23(B)(3).

Thus, when the trial court certified the order for interlocutory
appeal, CFL argued against the class action certification by
questioning whether the trial court applied an incorrect legal
standard.  It specifically asserted in one sentence of paragraph 10
of the trial court's class-certification order, a legal preamble,
the trial court erroneously stated that it "may not engage in [an]
analysis of the merits of the allegations in order to determine
whether a class action may be maintained."

"CFL does not suggest that paragraph 10 as a whole is an incorrect
assessment of the law. Indeed, the trial court's commentary in
paragraph 10 of its certification order is wholly consistent with
Indiana law," Judge Edward Najam wrote for the appellate court in
rejecting CFL's first argument.   

"In any event, CFL's ultimate argument on this issue is that one
sentence in the court's class-certification order shows that the
court failed to properly consider any of the designated evidence in
certifying the class. But the court's order plainly shows
otherwise: the court consistently and specifically cited or
referred to the designated evidence throughout the order. Thus,
even if the one sentence CFL complains about were an erroneous
legal statement, the order as a whole makes clear that the court
considered the designated evidence when it entered its judgment,"
the appellate court wrote.

It similarly rejected CFL's assertion that the trial court erred in
certifying the class "because no evidence supports the Homeowners'
definition of the class as all residents living within a three-mile
radius of the landfill." The appellate court declined to invent new
rules to heighten the evidentiary burden under Trial Rule 23's
implicit definiteness requirement.

Additionally, it found the trial court did not err in concluding
that the homeowners met the predominance requirement of Trial Rule
23(B)(3) or in rejecting CFL's assertion that the homeowners failed
to show commonality.  It also found that the trial court was
correct in refusing to strike numerous exhibits designated by the
homeowners in support of their motion for class certification.

The appellate court therefore affirmed the trial court's
certification of the class in Clark-Floyd Landfill, LLC v. Ricky
Gonzalez, Yvonne Gonzalez, Robert Scoles, and Tamara Scoles, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
19A-CT-2680.  [GN]


CLEVELAND-CLIFFS: 3 Suits over AK Steel Merger Voluntarily Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that three putative class actions related to
its merger agreement with AK Steel Holding Corporation have been
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

These lawsuits are:

  * Franchi, et al. v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00078 (D. Del.) (the "Franchi Action").  

On January 17, 2020, a purported stockholder of AK Steel filed this
putative class action lawsuit in federal court in Delaware against
AK Steel, the directors of AK Steel, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. and
Merger Sub.  The complaint alleged that the registration statement
on Form S-4 filed in connection with the Merger was false and
misleading and/or omitted material information concerning the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement in violation of
the federal securities laws.

  * Nessim, et al. v. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00850 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Nessim Action").  

On January 31, 2020, a purported shareholder of Cleveland-Cliffs
Inc. filed this putative class action lawsuit in federal court in
New York against the Company and each of the Company's directors.
The complaint, like the complaint in the Franchi Action, alleged
that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed in connection
with the Merger was false and misleading and/or omitted material
information concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement in violation of the federal securities laws.

  * Pate, et al. v. AK Steel Holding Corp., et al., Case No. CV
2020 01 0196 (Ohio Common Pleas, Butler County) (the "Pate
Action").  

On January 28, 2020, a purported stockholder of AK Steel filed this
putative class action lawsuit in state court in Ohio against AK
Steel, the directors of AK Steel, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. and Merger
Sub.  Among other things, the complaint alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty claims against the AK Steel directors and aiding and
abetting claims against AK Steel, the Company and Merger Sub in
connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, including that the registration statement on Form S-4
filed in connection with the Merger was false and misleading and/or
omitted material information concerning the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

These three lawsuits relating to the Merger, among other requested
relief, sought to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.  The
Franchi, Nessim and Pate Actions were voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiffs on March 6, 2020, March 11, 2020, and March 9, 2020,
respectively.

Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. operates as an iron ore mining company in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
four iron ore mines, including the Tilden mine in Michigan; and the
Northshore, United Taconite, and Hibbing mines in Minnesota. It
serves integrated steel companies and steel producers. The company
was formerly known as Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. and changed its
name to Cleveland Cliffs Inc. in August 2017. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
was founded in 1847 and is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Faces Suit Over Covid-19 Diagnostic Tests
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Neiman Rashbaum & Pineiro, LLP, Smith Washburn, LLP, and
Fasano Law Firm, PLLC announce they have filed a class action
lawsuit (Case 2:20-cv-00368-CMR) in the United States District
Court, District of Utah, Central Division on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CODX) between
February 25, 2020 and May 15, 2020, inclusive  (the "Class
Period").

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Co-Diagnostics, Inc.
investors under the federal securities laws.  The complaint alleges
that Defendants made continual, knowing and willful misstatements
about their main product, a COVID-19 diagnostic test, to pump up
the price of Co-Diagnostics, Inc.'s stock while the officers and
directors exercised low priced options and dumped their stock into
the market, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The claim
goes on to say that the fraudulent misstatements made by Defendants
caused investors to lose millions of dollars.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. Those interested in
serving as a lead plaintiff must move the Court no later than
August 17, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. More
information can be found at www.codxclassaction.com.  Those wishing
to discuss their rights or interests regarding this class action
can contact Michael Pineiro, Esq. of Marcus Neiman Rashbaum &
Pineiro, LLP, at (305) 400-4260 or via e-mail at
info@mnrlawfirm.com or mpineiro@mnrlawfirm.com.

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 retain counsel of your choice.  You may also remain
an absent class member and do nothing at this point.  An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff.  

For more information about the Fasano Law Firm, PLLC please visit:
/www.fasanolawfirm.com/

For more information about Marcus Neiman Rashbaum & Pinero, LLP
please visit http://www.mnrlawfirm.com/

For more information about Smith, Washburn, LLP please visit
http://www.smithwashburn.com/[GN]


CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Faruqi Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ:CODX) of the
August 17, 2020 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a
federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.

If you invested in Co-Diagnostics stock or options between February
25, 2020 and May 15, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal
rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/CODX.  There is no cost or
obligation to you.

You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.

CONTACT:

         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Attn:  Richard Gonnello, Esq.
         E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292
                    (212) 983-9330

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah on behalf of all those who purchased
Co-Diagnostics securities between February 25, 2020 and May 15,
2020 (the "Class Period").  The case, Gelt Trading v.
Co-Diagnostics et al., No. 2:20-cv-00368 was filed on June 15,
2020, and has been assigned to Judge Cecilia M. Romero.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading
statements about the accuracy of the Company's Covid-19 tests.  

On May 14, 2020, public reports casting doubt of the Company's
claims of Covid-19 100% test accuracy began to emerge.

In response to this news, the Company's stock price fell from
$22.13 per share on May 14, 2020 to $17.07 per share on May 15,
2020: a $5.06 or 22.84% drop.

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

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



CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Glancy Prongay Probes Securities Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, a national investor rights law firm,
announced that it has commenced an investigation on behalf of
Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CODX) investors concerning the
Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal
securities laws.

If you suffered a loss on your Co-Diagnostics investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/co-diagnostics-inc/.You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company's statements
regarding its COVID-19 testing results were falsified and/or
misleading.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Co-Diagnostics should consider their options to aid the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program.
Under the 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 Charles H.
Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email
shareholders@glancylaw.com.

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

Contact:

          Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
          Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
[GN]


COLONY CAPITAL: Howard Smith Reminds of July 27 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
July 27, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class
action filed on behalf of investors who acquired Colony Capital,
Inc. (NYSE: CLNY) securities between August 9, 2019 and May 7,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On November 8, 2019, the Company revealed its financial results for
the third quarter of 2019. Among other results, Colony reported a
GAAP net loss of $555 million, or $1.15 per share, which "notably
included reductions of goodwill, real estate and provision for loan
losses totaling $540.3 million . . . of which $387.0 million was
attributable to the reduction of goodwill primarily as a result of
the pending sale of the Company's industrial investment management
business and related real estate portfolio, and the decrease in
management fees from Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc. resulting from
impairments related to its portfolio bifurcation."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.48 per share, or
over 8%, to close at $5.00 per share on November 8, 2019.

Then, on May 8, 2020, the Company issued a press release revealing
its financial and operating results for the first quarter of 2020.
In the press release, the Company reported that its portfolio
companies had defaulted on $3.2 billion of debt secured by hotels
and healthcare-related properties and that Colony had received a
notice of acceleration covering $780 million of the defaulted
debt.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.08 per share, or
over 3%, to close at $2.02 per share on May 8, 2020, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Colony's sale of its industrial real estate portfolio and
the bifurcation of Colony Credit Real Estates portfolio were
foreseeably likely to negatively impact Colony's financial and
operating results; (2) that certain of Colony's remaining portfolio
companies carried unsustainable levels of debt secured by hotels
and healthcare-related properties and were thus at significant risk
of default; and (3) that as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Colony securities, you may
move the Court no later than July 27, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
         Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
         Telephone: (215) 638-4847
         Toll-free: (888) 638-4847
         E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
         Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/
[GN]


CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Merger Suit Nixed, Awaits for Legal Fee Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that the company is awaiting for the
parties in the class action suits that have been voluntarily
dismissed to resolve any claim for fees and expenses related to the
dismissed actions.

On July 19, 2019, Condor's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into the Merger Agreement with NHT Operating Partnership,
LLC, NHT REIT Merger Sub, LLC, NHT Operating Partnership II, LLC,
and Condor Hospitality Limited Partnership. Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, Condor's stockholders will receive $11.10
in cash for each share of Condor they own.

On August 20, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and each of the Company directors, operating
partnership, NHT Parent, NHT Merger Sub and NHT Merger Op, in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the
caption Graham v. Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 1:19-cv-01552. The case was voluntarily dismissed by
plaintiffs on January 28, 2020.

A second putative class action complaint was filed on August 23,
2019 against the Company and each of the Company directors, the
Operating Partnership, Parent, Merger Sub and Merger OP in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the
caption Sabatini v. Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 1:19-cv-01564.

These complaints asserted claims, purportedly brought on behalf of
a class of shareholders, under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9, and alleged
that the preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on Schedule 14A on
August 9, 2019 (the "Preliminary Proxy Statement") contained
materially incomplete and misleading disclosures. Each of the
complaints sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining
defendants from taking steps to consummate the proposed
transactions and damages, along with fees and costs.  The case was
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on January 28, 2020.

On August 26, 2019, a putative class action was filed against
the Company and each of the Company’s directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York under
the caption Raul v. Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 1:19-cv-07968.

The complaint asserted claims, purportedly brought on behalf of a
class of shareholders, under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9 and alleged that
the Preliminary Proxy Statement contained materially incomplete and
misleading disclosures.

The complaint sought, among other things, injunctive relief
enjoining defendants from taking steps to consummate the proposed
transaction and damages, along with fees and costs. The case was
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on November 19, 2019.

Pursuant to a Confidential Memorandum of Understanding dated
September 16, 2019 between the plaintiffs in the above three
actions and the Company, if the parties do not resolve any claim
for fees and expenses related to the dismissed actions, the
plaintiff may assert claims for fees, if at all, in the United
States District Court of the District of Delaware.

Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc. operates as a real estate investment
trust. The Company deals in the investment and ownership of hotels.
Condor Hospitality Trust serves customers in the United States. The
company is based in Norfolk, Nebraska.


CONSOL ENERGY: August 4 Trial for Remaining Claims in Casey Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the remaining individual claims in the consolidated
Casey-Fitzwater class action suit in West Virginia federal court is
scheduled for August 4, 2020, according to CONSOL Energy Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

A class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of
two nonunion retired coal miners against CCC, COK, CONSOL Buchanan
Mining Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori in West Virginia Federal Court
alleging ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care
benefits.

Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and
raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied
to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits"
allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs'
employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary
Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify
or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan.

Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for
them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all
nonunion retirees of any subsidiary of the Company's former parent
that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer
Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia
whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated.

On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey.  The Casey complaint was
amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs, add defendant
CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and eliminate defendant
CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand the class
of retirees.

On October 15, 2019, Plantiffs' supplemental motion for class
certification was denied on all counts.

On April 1, 2020, the Court issued a revised scheduling order for
the remaining individual claims, setting August 4, 2020 as the
trial date.

The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to
vigorously defend this suit.

CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous coal. It owns
and operates its mining operations in the Northern Appalachian
Basin. The company owns and operates the Pennsylvania Mining
Complex (PAMC), which comprises three underground mines, including
Bailey, Enlow Fork, and Harvey; and CONSOL Marine Terminal located
in the port of Baltimore. CONSOL Energy Inc. was founded in 1864
and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


CORE BUSINESS: Advanced Technology Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CORE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a Chapter
Holdings N.A., LLC and CARTER CONLEY, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01377 (N.D. Ohio, June 23, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received an unsolicited two
pages long fax on or about June 11, 2020 from Defendant which is
allegedly part of Defendant's national marketing campaign and
strategy to promote its services.

Plaintiff contends that it did not provide its number to Defendant
or its consent to receive such fax, and had no prior existing
business relationship with Defendant.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff has suffered damage by
Defendants' transmission of the fax.

Core Business Solutions, LLC d/b/a Chapter Holdings N.A., LLC is a
national claims filing company that specializes in expedited claims
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          Michael L. Berler, Esq.
          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
          767 East 185th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Tel: (216) 502-1055
          Fax: (216) 566-9400
          Emails: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


COTY INC: JAB Holding Removed from Stockholder Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated stockholder class action in Delaware
have stipulated to the dismissal without prejudice of JAB Holding
Company, S.a.r.l. from the action, according to Coty Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

A purported stockholder class action complaint concerning the
tender offer by Cottage Holdco B.V. (the "Cottage Tender Offer")
and the Schedule 14D-9, captioned Rumsey v. Coty, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00650-LPS, was filed by a putative stockholder
against the Company and certain current and former directors of the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware,
but has not yet been served.  The plaintiff alleges that the
Company's Schedule 14D-9 omits certain information, including,
among other things, certain financial data and certain analyses
underlying the opinion of Centerview Partners LLC.  The plaintiff
asserts claims under the federal securities laws and seeks, among
other things, injunctive and/or monetary relief.

A second consolidated purported stockholder class action and
derivative complaint concerning the Cottage Tender Offer and the
Schedule 14D-9 is pending against certain current and former
directors of the Company, JAB Holding Company, S.a.r.l., JAB
Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V.  in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The Company was named
as a nominal defendant.  The case, which was filed on May 6, 2019,
was captioned Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund v. Harf et.al.,
Case No. 2019-0336-AGB.

On June 14, 2019, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
Verified Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint ("Amended
Complaint").  After defendants responded to the Amended Complaint,
on October 21, 2019, plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Amended
Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint"), alleging that the directors and JAB Holding Company,
S.a.r.l., JAB Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco
B.V.  breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders
and breached the Stockholders Agreement.  The Second Amended
Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary relief.

On November 21, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss certain
claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint, and certain of the
director defendants also answered the complaint.  Oral argument on
the motions to dismiss was held on April 21, 2020.

On May 7, 2020, plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal without
prejudice of JAB Holding Company, S.a.r.l. from the action.

Coty Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells beauty products worldwide. It operates in
three segments: Luxury, Consumer Beauty, and Professional Beauty.
The company was founded in 1904 and is based in New York, New York.
As of April 26, 2019, Coty Inc. operates as a subsidiary of JAB
Cosmetics B.V.


COVETRUS INC: Continues to Defend Cops Retirement System Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Covertus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action
suit initiated by the City of Hollywood (Florida) Police Officers'
Retirement System.

On September 30, 2019, the City of Hollywood (Florida) Police
Officers' Retirement System filed a putative securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of
Covetrus common stock from February 8, 2019 through August 12,
2019, against the Company, its Former Parent, its former Chief
Executive Officer and President, and its former Chief Financial
Officer.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by
making allegedly false and misleading statements, and omissions,
primarily regarding the Company's financial prospects and the
integration costs relating to the business combination involving
the Animal Health Business and Vets First Choice.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.

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

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

Covertus, Inc. is a global animal-health technology and services
company dedicated to supporting the companion, equine, and
large-animal veterinary markets. Its mission is to provide the best
products, services, and technology to veterinarians and
animal-health practitioners ("Customers") across the globe, so they
can deliver exceptional care to their patients ("Animal Owners")
when and where it is needed. The company is based in Portland,
Maine.


CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Fails to Pay Overtime, Henderson Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
AYKEE HENDERSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01351-DCN (N.D. Ohio, June 22, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as non-exempt hourly capacity
to perform duties as detention officer.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
detention officers frequently worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, that include undergoing a security screening at the beginning
of each shift prior to clocking in which is integral and
indispensable to the officers' principal activities.

Allegedly, Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and the
similarly situated detention officers for time spent undergoing
pre-shift security screenings, thereby failing to pay them
overtime.

Cuyahoga County is a county located in the northeastern part of the
U.S. state of Ohio on the southern shore of Lake Erie, across the
U.S.-Canada maritime border. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
          NILGRES DRAHER LLC
          614 West Superior Ave., Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113-2300
          Tel: (216) 230-2955
          Email: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com

                - and –

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGRES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St., NW Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Tel: (330) 470-4428
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


D.C. JAIL: Ordered to do More to Protect Inmates From Coronavirus
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WAMU.org reports that a U.S. District judge ordered changes at the
D.C. Jail to protect inmates from the coronavirus. The ACLU of D.C.
and the Public Defender Service had filed a class-action lawsuit
against the Department of Corrections (DOC) on behalf of the
inmates.

In a preliminary injunction, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said the
plaintiffs have provided evidence that the DOC was "aware of the
risks" of COVID-19 and has "disregarded those risks by failing to
take comprehensive, timely, and proper steps to stem the spread of
the virus."

This ruling builds upon and extends a "temporary restraining order"
that Kollar-Kotelly issued in April after independent inspectors
toured the jail facility and found a number of safety failings.
While the judge commended the DOC for taking some steps to improve
hygiene and social distancing in the jail, she found many of the
issues identified in the restraining order were still present.

The DOC has come under sharp criticism in recent months, as more
than 200 of the jail's 1,300 inmates have tested positive since
March, and as of June 1, nearly 470 were under quarantine. One
prisoner and one corrections officer have died from the virus,
according to D.C. Health data.

D.C. officials say they have reduced the jail's population by
around 500 inmates since the pandemic started. But since the
majority of inmates are under some type of federal custody, it's
unclear if they could do much more.

Steven Marcus, a staff attorney with the Public Defender Service,
tells WAMU/DCist he's glad to see the court recognize the jail had
failed to take adequate steps to stem the spread of the virus.

Kollar-Kotelly has ordered a number of changes to improve safety,
which include making sure inmates have sufficient cleaning
products, timely access to medical care and the ability to make
confidential legal calls while in-person visits to the jail are
restricted.

The lawsuit also sought the release of more inmates from the D.C.
Jail to help mitigate the spread of the virus, which the court
declined. But it did order the U.S. Parole Commission to come up
with a detailed plan by July 1 for possible future reduction of the
inmate population.

Marcus says the next step for his organization will be to work with
the Parole Commission on this plan.

The judge has ordered the jail to ensure all inmates in the general
population can get medical care within 24 hours of reporting health
issues.

The jail relies on inmates to self-report if they are experiencing
COVID-like symptoms, using a "sick call slip" system. There have
been issues with the distribution and collection of these slips.

The DOC says that, as of mid-May, staff are going around to housing
units daily to collect forms. But the court says it's unclear
whether this will address challenges the inspectors identified when
it comes to getting a slip in the first place.

"Numerous prisoners described that they don't have access to the
forms that they're supposed to use to report their symptoms,"
Marcus said, "When the court appointed inspector toured the jail
and they asked correctional officers for copies of those slips …
they were given the wrong form, so there's a really challenging
environment for residents to report symptoms."

Additionally, the jail was ordered to ensure inmates have access to
confidential legal counseling — in-person visits to the facility
have been suspended due to the pandemic.

The jail says it recently acquired 50 cellphones, 10 wired headsets
and 500 tablets to facilitate communication, with more of these
devices on the way, according to the court order. Kollar-Kotelly
"credits [the DOC] for efforts to obtain new technology," but says
the new system has not been fully implemented.

"As such, nearly four months into the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants
have not yet developed a consistent procedure for all inmates to be
able to make and receive confidential legal calls," Kollar-Kotelly
writes in the ruling.

And for inmates in isolation, Kollar-Kottely says the jail must
ensure they have access to personal and legal phone calls, regular
showers, as well as clean clothes and linens.

Marcus explains that, if inmates fear they will be unable to shower
or contact loved ones while in isolation, they may be less inclined
to report their symptoms.

Testing has also been a central issue in legal arguments over the
jail. The court notes that testing at the jail has improved, with
personnel testing any resident before they are transferred to St.
Elizabeth's Hospital or a federal correctional facility, testing
the cell mate of anyone who tests positive and all new arrivals. In
early June, the DOC reported that more than half the 1,300 inmates
at the jail had been tested for COVID-19.

The court says the jail must continue this increased testing.

The DOC is required to report back to the court by June 29 on its
progress implementing these changes. [GN]

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Labor Lawsuits vs. Futuredontics Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that it continues to "vigorously defend" against
the Olivares/Clarke class action and related lawsuits that
Futuredontics, Inc. is facing.

The Company said, "On January 25, 2018, Futuredontics, Inc., a
former wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, received service of
a purported class action lawsuit brought by Henry Olivares and
other similarly situated individuals in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles.  In January
2019, an amended complaint was filed adding another named
plaintiff, Rachael Clarke, and various claims.  The plaintiff class
alleges several violations of the California wage and hours laws,
including, but not limited to, failure to provide rest and meal
breaks and the failure to pay overtime.  The parties have engaged
in written and other discovery.  On February 5, 2019, Plaintiff
Calethia Holt (represented by the same counsel as Mr. Olivares and
Ms. Clarke) filed a separate representative action in Los Angeles
Superior Court alleging a single violation of the Private
Attorneys' General Act that is based on the same underlying claims
as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.  On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff Kendra
Cato filed a similar action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging
a single violation of the Private Attorneys' General Act that is
based on the same underlying claims as the Olivares/Clarke lawsuit.
The parties intend to participate in a mediation in July 2020 and
the case will be stayed until that time.  The Company continues to
vigorously defend against these matters."

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Plaintiffs Appeal Order Denying Bid to Vacate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal
from a Court's February 2020 denial of their motion to vacate or
modify the judgment and for leave to amend their complaint.

On June 7, 2018, and August 9, 2018, two putative class action
suits were filed, and later consolidated, in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York claiming that the Company
and certain individual defendants, violated U.S. securities laws
(the "State Court Class Action") by making material
misrepresentations and omitting required information in the
December 4, 2015 registration statement filed with the SEC in
connection with the Merger.  The amended complaint alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that a
distributor had purchased excessive inventory of legacy Sirona
products and that three distributors of the Company's products had
been engaging in anticompetitive conduct.  The plaintiffs seek to
recover damages on behalf of a class of former Sirona shareholders
who exchanged their shares for shares of the Company's stock in the
Merger.  The Company has filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to
dismiss, and to stay all proceedings pending resolution of the
Federal Class Action.

On August 2, 2019, the Court denied the Company's motions to stay
discovery and to stay all proceedings.

On August 21, 2019, the Company filed a notice of appeal of that
decision.  Briefing has not yet commenced on that appeal.

On September 26, 2019, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss all claims.  The associated judgment was entered on
September 30, 2019.

On October 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
motion to dismiss decision and the judgment.

On November 4, 2019, the Company filed a notice of cross-appeal of
select rulings in the Court's motion to dismiss decision.

On October 9, 2019, the plaintiffs moved by order to show cause to
vacate or modify the judgment and grant plaintiffs leave to amend
their complaint.

On February 4, 2020, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion.

On March 5, 2020, the plaintiffs also filed a notice of appeal from
the denial of their motion to vacate or modify the judgment and for
leave to amend their complaint.

Dentsply Sirona Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
various dental and oral health products, and other consumable
healthcare products primarily for the professional dental market
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Technologies &
Equipment; and Consumables. The company was formerly known as
DENTSPLY International Inc. and changed its name to DENTSPLY SIRONA
Inc. in February 2016. DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. was founded in 1899 and
is headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.


ELANCO ANIMAL: Barbuto & Johansson Notes of July 20 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO") and Of Counsel, Neil Rothstein,
Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action experience,
including cases against ENRON and HALLIBURTON) advise investors
that a Securities Fraud Class Action lawsuit has been filed against
Elanco Animal Health, Inc. (NYSE: ELAN), and encourages
shareholders with losses exceeding $100,000 to contact the Firm to
discuss the case and their options as class members and potential
appointment as a lead plaintiff.  The deadline to petition the
court to act as a lead plaintiff is July 20, 2020.

The case, Sandra Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al., Case
No.: 1:20-cv-01460-SEB-DML, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's shares between January 10, 2020 and May 6,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that
Elanco and certain of its executives failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws. Specifically, the lawsuit
alleges, in part, that the Elanco defendants made positive
statements about the Company's business operations, while failing
to disclose to investors that Elanco's distributors were not
experiencing sufficient demand to sell through inventory, and that
as a result, the Company's revenue was likely to decline.

On May 7, 2020, Elanco disclosed that its revenue declined "9
percent due to a reduction of approximately $60 million in channel
inventory driven by factors resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic."
On this news, the Company's stock price plummeted over 13% to
$19.88 per share.

If you purchased shares of Elanco and would like to discuss the
case and your options as a class member and potential lead
plaintiff, you may, without obligation or cost, contact the firm.
The Firm believes strongly that the choice of a qualified lead
plaintiff can have a significant impact on the successful outcome
of a case.  The deadline to petition the court for lead plaintiff
is July 20, 2020, so BARJO encourages shareholders with substantial
losses to timely call or write the Firm.

Contact:
          Barbuto & Johansson, P.A.
          Anthony Barbuto
          Neil Rothstein
          1-888-715-2520
          12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101
          Wellington, FL 33414
          Web site: http://www.barjolaw.com/
          E-mail: anthony@barjolaw.com
          E-mail: neil@barjolaw.com
[GN]


ELDORADO RESORTS: Lead Plaintiff Voluntarily Drops New Jersey Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the class action suit initially filed as
Elberts v. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., in New Jersey has voluntarily
dismissed the case, according to Eldorado Resorts, Inc.'s Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

On September 23, 2019, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a putative class action complaint filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and
captioned as Elberts v. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., Case No.
2:19-cv-18230-SRC-CLW.

The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleged
that the Company made material misstatements and/or omissions
during the period from March 1, 2019 through September 2, 2019.

The allegations related to disclosure concerning the subpoenas that
certain of the Company's directors and officers received from the
SEC, which have been previously disclosed in the proxy
statement/prospectus filed by the Company relating to the pending
transaction with Caesars.  The SEC Investigation is ongoing.

In March of 2020, the lead plaintiff decided not to pursue the
claims any longer.  As a result, this action was voluntarily
dismissed by the lead plaintiff on March 17, 2020.  This matter is
now concluded.

Eldorado Resorts, Inc., a Nevada corporation, is a gaming and
hospitality company that owns and operates gaming facilities
located in Ohio, Louisiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
The Company's primary source of revenue is generated by its gaming
operations, but the Company uses its hotels, restaurants, bars,
entertainment, racing, retail shops and other services to attract
customers to its properties.


ENDURANCE US: Settlement in Carrasco Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIO CARRASCO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. ENDURANCE U.S. HOLDINGS
CORP., ENDURANCE AMERICAN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ENDURANCE
SERVICES LIMITED, ELITE PLACEMENT GROUP LLC and JOHN DOE CORPS
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-7319 (CS) (LMS) (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Cathy Seibel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Plaintiff's Motion For Order (1)
Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class, (2) Granting Preliminary
Approval To Proposed Class Action Settlement And Plan Of
Allocation, (3) Directing Dissemination of Notice And Related
Material To The Class, and (4) Setting Date For Fairness Hearing
And Related Dates.

The Plaintiff brings claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").  The Plaintiff
claims, inter alia, that the Defendants failed to pay Class Members
their proper wages due to time shaving resulting in unpaid overtime
compensation, and also failed to meet the NYLL's requirements on
wage statements and notices.  He, for himself and others he claims
are similarly situated, sought to recover, inter alia, unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, penalties, injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees and costs.

After participating in a private mediation session, and despite
their adversarial positions in the matter, the Parties negotiated a
settlement of the litigation.  The terms of the proposed settlement
are set forth in the proposed Settlement Agreement and Release.

As part of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant has agreed not
to oppose, for settlement purposes only, conditional certification
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and 29
U.S.C. § 216(b) of the following settlement class: All current and
former (a) employees of Elite Placement Group LLC assigned to
Endurance Services Limited to provide temporary consulting services
at Endurance's U.S. offices from Sept. 26, 2011 until the date of
the Preliminary Approval Order and (b) temporary reinsurance
accountant consultants assigned to provide temporary consulting
services to Endurance Services Limited at Endurance's U.S. offices
by third party staffing agencies from Sept. 26, 2011 until the date
of the Preliminary Approval Order, provided in each case that such
individuals do not opt out of the settlement pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement.

Having reviewed the Settlement Agreement and Motion, along with the
Parties' prior submissions in the matter, Judge Seibel finds that
the members of the Class are similarly situated within the meaning
of Section 16(b) of the FLSA, for purposes of determining whether
the terms of settlement are fair.  Accordingly, the Judge
conditionally certified the Class as an FLSA collective action.
The Judge authorized the Notice to be mailed to the potential
members of the FLSA collective action, notifying them of the
pendency of the FLSA claim, and of their ability to join the
lawsuit.

The Judge also appointed (i) Named Plaintiff Mario Carrasco as the
representative of the Class, both under Rule 23 and under 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b); (ii) C.K. Lee, Esq. of Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
as class counsel; and (iii) Arden Claims Service as claims
administrator.

Judge Seibel granted preliminary approval to the Settlement
Agreement and the Plan of Allocation.  The form and manner of
distributing the proposed Class Notice are approved.  Promptly
following the entry of the Order, the Claims Administrator will
prepare final versions of the Class Notice, incorporating into the
Class Notice the relevant dates and deadlines set forth in the
Order.  The Defendants will make all reasonable efforts to ensure
that the Claims Administrator receives, within 14 calendar days of
the date of entry of the Order, the Class Member Information
specified in the Settlement Agreement.

The Class Members who wish to be excluded from the Settlement must
submit a written and signed request to opt out to the Claims
Administrator 30 calendar days after the Claims Administrator makes
the initial mailing of the notice, or 30 days after the re-mailing,
provided that no Opt-Out Statement may be postmarked more than 60
days after the date of the Preliminary Approval Order.

The Class Members who wish to present objections to the proposed
settlement at the Fairness Hearing must first do so in writing no
later than 60 days from the date of the Preliminary Approval Order.
The Claims Administrator will stamp the date received on the
original and send copies of each objection to the Class Counsel and
the Defense Counsel no later than three days after receipt.  The
Claims Administrator will also, within three days of the end of the
Opt-out Period, provide to the Class Counsel, who will promptly
file with the Court, stamped copies of any written objections.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/pCVrGo from Leagle.com.

The Court originally set a fairness hearing for June 9, 2020.
Supplemental submissions were required at that hearing.  The Court
has scheduled a further fairness hearing for July 16, 2020.

Mario Carrasco, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig, Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC, Taimur Alamgir, Miranda Slone Sklarin
Verveniotis LLP & C.K. Lee -- info@leelitigation.com -- Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC.

Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Allan S. Bloom, Proskauer Rose LLP, Andrew Smith,
Proskauer Rose LLP, Rachel S. Philion, Proskauer Rose LLP & Steven
Michael Kayman -- skayman@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP.

Endurance U.S. Holdings Corp. & Endurance Services Limited,
Defendants, represented by Allan S. Bloom, Proskauer Rose LLP,
Andrew Smith, Proskauer Rose LLP & Rachel S. Philion --
rphilion@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP.

Elite Placement Group LLC, Defendant, represented by John S. Ho,
Cozen O'Connor & Jennifer Ann Queliz -- jqueliz@cozen.com -- Cozen
O'Connor.


ENPHASE ENERGY: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Enphase Energy, Inc. ("Enphase" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ENPH) securities between February 26, 2019 and
June 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Enphase investors
have until August 17, 2020 to seek appointment as class
representative.

On June 17, 2020, Prescience Point Capital Management issued a
report alleging, among other things, that "at least 39%, or $205.3
million, of [Enphase's] reported U.S. revenue is fabricated." The
report also claimed, citing former employees, that "a large portion
of [the Company's] astronomical growth over the past two years is
attributable to accounting gimmicks that artificially inflate
revenue and profits."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $13.72, or nearly 26%,
to close at $39.04 per share on June 17, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that its revenues, both U.S. and international, were inflated;
(2) that the Company engaged in improper deferred revenue
accounting practices; (3) that the Company's reported base points
expansion in gross margins were overstated; and that (4) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm -- http://www.portnoylaw.com-- represents
investors in pursuing claims against caused by corporate
wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5
billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883 [GN]


ENPHASE ENERGY: Rosen Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH) between February
26, 2019 and June 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Enphase investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Enphase class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1878.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

The complaint alleges that Enphase misrepresented and/or failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and
international, were inflated; (2) the Company engaged in improper
deferred revenue accounting practices; (3) the Company's reported
base points expansion in gross margins were overstated; and (4) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading 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 August 17,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1878.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact Information:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/[GN]


ENPHASE ENERGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH) between
February 26, 2019 and June 17, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").

All investors who purchased shares of Enphase Energy, Inc. and
incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Enphase Energy, Inc ,
you may, no later than August 17, 2020, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the shares of Enphase Energy, Inc.  

To join the case, click:
https://www.whafh.com/case/enphase-energy-inc-nasdaq-enph/

On June 17, 2020, Prescience Capital Management released a report
that alleged, that "at least 39%, or $205.3 million, of the
Company's reported U.S. revenue is fabricated." The report cited
former employees who claimed that "a large portion of Enphase's
astronomical growth over the past two years is attributable to
accounting gimmicks that artificially inflate revenue and
profits."

On this news, Enphase's share price fell $13.72 per share to close
at $39.04 per share on June 17, 2020.

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
          E-mail: gstone@whafh.com
                  kcooper@whafh.com
                  classmember@whafh.com
          Tel: (800) 575-0735
               (212) 545-4774 [GN]


ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Water Advisory
------------------------------------------------------------------
Essential Utilities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative
class action suit related to the "do not consume" advisory.

During a portion of 2019, the Company initiated a "do not consume"
advisory for some of its water customers in one division served by
the Company's Illinois subsidiary.  Although the Company had
determined that it is reasonably possible that a fine or penalty
may be incurred, it cannot estimate the possible range of loss at
this time and no liability has been accrued for these future
costs.

On September 3, 2019, two individuals, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, commenced an action against the Company's
Illinois subsidiary in the State court in Will County, Illinois
related to this do not consume advisory.  

The complaint seeks class action certification, attorney's fees,
and "damages, including, but not limited to, out of pocket damages,
and discomfort, aggravation, and annoyance" based upon the water
provided by the Company's subsidiary to a discrete service area in
University Park Illinois.  

The complaint contains allegations of damages as a result of
supplied water that exceeded the standards established by the
federal Lead and Copper Rule.  

The complaint is in the discovery phase and class certification has
not been granted.  

The Company plans to vigorously defend against this claim, and
believes the final resolution of this matter is not expected to
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.

Essential Utilities, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is the
holding company for regulated utilities providing water,
wastewater, or natural gas services to what we estimate to be
almost five million people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Illinois,
North Carolina, New Jersey, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia, and
Kentucky under the Aqua and Peoples brands.


FIX AUTO: Faces Villasenor Employment Suit in Calif. Super. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fix Auto Sacramento,
et al. The case is captioned as Carlos Villasenor, on behalf of all
other similarly situated employees v. Fix Auto Sacramento; Sweet
Spark Inc.; and Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2020-00280640-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,  June 12, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of the employment-related laws.

Fix Auto offers collision repair services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          Shimoda Law Corp.
          9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 200
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Telephone: (916) 525-0716
          Facsimile: (916) 760-3733
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com


FONTERRA AUSTRALIA: Class Action Over Clawback Heads to Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Macdonald of Farm Weekly (Australia) reports that a class
action seeking compensation for dairy farmers affected by Fonterra
Australia's milk price "clawback" in 2016 has been filed in the
Supreme Court of Victoria.

The case will represent dairy farmers who supplied milk to Fonterra
in 2015-2016 and be run by law firms Adley Burstyner and Harwood
Andrews.

Geoffrey and Lynden Iddles, Strathmerton, are the lead plaintiffs
in the case, who lawyer David Burstyner said were third generation
farmers who had supplied Fonterra and its predecessors for 45
years.

The defendants are three Australian companies that are part of the
global dairy conglomerate headed by Fonterra Co-Operative Group
Limited, whose performance can be invested in via the Fonterra
Shareholders Fund (ASX:FSF).

The former Bonlac Supply Company will not be included in the class
action.

Mr Burstyner, who is responsible for the case, said this was the
first time a court would be asked to evaluate Fonterra's conduct
and deliver compensation.

"I've looked at the contracts and I've listened to farmers and seen
10 months of Fonterra statements saying, with very limited
exception, that the $5.60 price will be paid," Mr Burstyner said.

"The only answer I can come up with as to why the company clawed
back is that they didn't ask themselves, 'Is it legal?', they asked
themselves, 'Can I get away with it?'.

"And it wasn't even as if it was a question of survival, with the
Fonterra Group posting $834 million net profit after tax for the
year ending 31 July 2016, up 65 per cent."

The Supreme Court Statement of Claim asks the Court to declare
that:

  * Fonterra engaged in Misleading and Deceptive Conduct and  
    Unconscionable Conduct, as defined in the Australian Consumer
    Law; and

  * Fonterra breached its supply contract, and its obligation to
    match the farmgate milk price of Murray Goulburn.

Court proceedings were the ultimate test of conduct and precedent
setting, and the case could be an important test of Unconscionable
Conduct laws and protections for small business such as
agricultural enterprises from conduct of global corporations, Mr
Burstyner said.

"I have seen first-hand a great number of farmers distressed,
wanting redress from Fonterra," he said.

Farmers will not have to pay any costs of this case out of their
own pockets because the case is funded by Litigation Lending
Services.

Although all the approximately 1400 farmers who supplied Fonterra
in 2015-16 were automatically included in the class action, around
200 had registered with the law firms running the case.

Mr Burstyner said it was important that "a lot more" registered
before the case went to court in a few weeks' time to show the
funder that "farmers really want" the class action.

Mr Burstyner said registration did not commit farmers to anything,
and did not mean they had to pay anything.

He also said the names of farmers who registered would not be made
public or shared with Fonterra, unless that was required at some
point in the court proceedings and, even then, it would only be
after farmers had granted permission.

"Registration simply ensures that farmers are kept in the loop
about the case and about the opportunity to receive any money
recovered," he said.

Hearings will now be scheduled in the class action, likely starting
late July or August 2020.

A Fonterra Australia spokesperson said, "The ACCC investigated the
2016 milk price reduction thoroughly and in 2017 it decided not to
take action against Fonterra."

"We've done a lot of work with our farmers since 2016 to rebuild
trust and transparency.

"Fonterra takes its legal and regulatory obligations seriously and
is committed to fully complying with them.

"We will address these claims comprehensively at the appropriate
time."

Have you signed up to Stock & Land's daily newsletter and breaking
news emails? Register below to make sure you are up to date with
everything that's important to Victorian agriculture.

The story Fonterra class action heads to court first appeared on
Stock & Land. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Pre-Owned Cars Lack Proper Inspection, Tyman Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN J. TYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; and LORENZO ENTERPRISES
CORP. d/b/a Lorenzo Ford, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-22485-MGC (S.D.
Fla., June 16, 2020) alleges that Ford failed to inform the public
of its dealerships' fraudulent conduct in violation of Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, Ford promises buyers and lessees of
Ford certified pre-owned Ford and Lincoln brand vehicles that all
safety, compliance and emissions recalls, and customer satisfaction
programs, which Ford internally refers to collectively as Field
Service Actions, will be completed prior to sale. Contrary to
federal law and Ford's representations, Ford's authorized dealers
frequently sell both new and Ford certified pre-owned vehicles
without performing the FSAs, including those necessary to correct
safety issues and to ensure the vehicles comply with federal and
state laws and regulations.

In addition, Ford's dealers falsely represent to owners and lessees
that the necessary repairs have been performed prior to sale, in
breach of federal law and Ford's promise to its customers.

As a result of a sophisticated auditing system, Ford knows its
authorized dealers are representing that FSAs on new and certified
pre-owned vehicles were performed when they were not, and yet has
failed to inform purchasers and lessees of this fact so they may
seek and obtain necessary FSA repairs.

Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, and services cars and
trucks. The Company also provides vehicle-related financing,
leasing, and insurance through its subsidiary. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Krutchik, Esq.
          LMK LEGAL
          7450 SW 172nd Street
          Palmetto Bay, FL 33157
          Telephone: (305) 537-6866
          Facsimile: (305) 433-2334
          E-mail: lmk@lmklegal.com

               - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Paula R. Brown, Esq.
          Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  pbrown@bholaw.com
                  jmacpherson@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Fraser, Esq.
          THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4120 Douglas Blvd., Suite 306-262
          Granite Bay, CA 95746
          Telephone: (888) 557-5115
          Facsimile: (866) 212-8434
          E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net


FRONTIER AIRLINES: Refuses to Offer Refunds, Bess Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
LAKINYA BESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01837 (D. Colo., June 22, 2020) is a class action complaint
brought against Defendant's alleged breach of contract.

Plaintiff is a member of Frontier's Discount Den, a paid
subscription service that provides members access to Frontier's
most deeply discounted fares.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff purchased tickets directly
from Defendant for a flight for her and her young daughter to
travel from San Francisco, California to Baltimore, Maryland on
March 17, 2020. But, because of the COVID-19 outbreak, Defendant
cancelled the flight. Plaintiff requested for a refund, but
Defendant offered a mileage credit, instead of a refund.

The complaint asserts that Defendant breached the contract by
cancelling or substantially delaying its flights and failing to
promptly refund Plaintiff's money.

Frontier Airlines is an American ultra low-cost carrier
headquartered in Denver, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          
          Karen Barth Menzies, Esq.
          Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
          Joshua J. Bloomfield, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Tel: (510) 350-9700
          Fax: (510) 350-9701
          Emails: kbm@classlawgroup.com
                  mls@classlawgroup.com
                  jjb@classlawgroup.com


GAYJA CORP: Lenzi Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
The case, CLAUDIO NESTOR LENZI and all others similarly situated
under U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff v. GAYJA CORP d/b/a AMORE RESTAURANT
& BAR, a Florida Corporation, and PEDRO JAIME, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-22591-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2020)
challenges Defendants' willful violations of overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt dishwasher and
food preparation employee from on or about September 2018 through
on or about January 5, 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked approximately 65 hours
per week. However, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime at
one and one-half times the regular rate for the work he performed
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Moreover, Defendants did not change its pay practices and continued
to fail to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated the overtime
wages that were due, despite knowing their failure to pay overtime
wages.

Pedro Jaime had an operational control over Gayja Corp and is
directly involved in decisions affecting employee compensation and
hours worked by employees.

Gayja Corp d/b/a Amore Restaurant & Bar operates a restaurant.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
          2847 Hollywood Blvd.
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Tel: (954) 361-8383
          Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

                - and –

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 650
          Miami, FL 33161
          Tel: (305) 773-6661
          Email: mamane@gmail.com


GRILL ENTERPRISES: Underpays Wait Staff, Chavez Claims
------------------------------------------------------
The case, ERIK CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRILL ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Florida
limited liability, d/b/a "Los Parrilleros" and "Parrilleros
Tavern", and RUBEN SIERRA, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-22603-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 23, 2020) arises from
Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from 2013 through June 2, 2020
as a waiter at Defendant's Doral restaurant in Miami-Dade County.

The complaint asserts these claims:

     -- Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other hourly wage
wait staff employees an applicable minimum hourly wage for all work
performed for Defendants;

     -- Defendants took a tip credit greater than permitted by law
and regulations, such as from revenues which are not tips, and
through an invalid tip pool which requires the sharing of tips with
non-tipped employees;

     -- Defendants failed to timely disburse minimum wage during
the applicable pay day for the corresponding pay period; and

     -- Defendants took unlawful kickbacks by requiring Plaintiff
to use tips to pay operating costs of the employer.

Ruben Sierra owns and operates Grill Enterprises, LLC.

Grill Enterprises, LLC d/b/a "Los Parrilleros" and "Parrilleros
Tavern" operates at least one restaurant and tavern. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
          Anthony F. Sanchez, P.A.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33143
          Tel: 305-665-9211
          Fax: 305-328-4842
          Email: AFS@LABORLAWFLA.COM


HAMILTON BEACH: Howard Smith Reminds of July 21 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the
upcoming July 21, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who acquired Hamilton
Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB) securities between
February 27, 2020 and May 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On May 11, 2020, Hamilton Beach Brands disclosed that it could not
timely file its first quarter 2020 quarterly report due to "certain
accounting irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition
of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain
expenditures within the statement of operations at its Mexican
subsidiary." The Company also revealed that its "Audit Review
Committee has commenced an internal investigation" regarding "the
realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.03, or nearly 9%,
to close at $10.43 per share on May 11, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Hamilton had
inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting, particularly with respect to one of its
Mexican subsidiaries; (2) consequently, the Company's accounting
included certain irregularities with respect to the timing of
recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the
classification of certain expenditures within the statement of
operations at this Mexican subsidiary, as well as potential
misconduct with respect to the realizability of certain assets of
the Mexican subsidiary; (3) as a result of all the foregoing,
Hamilton could not accurately attest to its financial results,
particularly with respect to these metrics, and was consequently at
an increased risk of delaying the filing of its period reports with
the SEC; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Hamilton Beach Brands
securities, you may move the Court no later than July 21, 2020, to
ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain
legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
         Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
         Telephone: (215) 638-4847
         Toll-free: (888) 638-4847
         E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
         Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/
[GN]


HELIUS MEDICAL: Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Appointed
--------------------------------------------------
A lead plaintiff and a lead counsel has been named in the
consolidated Caramahai/Evans shareholder class action lawsuit in
New York, according to Helius Medical Technologies, Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

On or about July 9, 2019, a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, Caramahai v. Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06365 (S.D.N.Y.), was filed against the Company
and three of its individual officers in the Southern District of
New York ("the Caramahai Action").  The lawsuit alleges that the
Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding
the prospects for FDA approval of Helius' application for de novo
classification and marketing authorization of its PoNS device in
the United States.  As a result of these alleged misstatements, the
Caramahai Action asserts claims on behalf of shareholders who
bought or sold Helius common stock between from November 9, 2017 to
April 10, 2019 for alleged violations of the federal securities
laws, specifically Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

On or about July 31, 2019, a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, Evans v. Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-07171 (S.D.N.Y.), was filed against the Company and
three of its individual officers in the Southern District of New
York (the "Evans Action").  The Evans Action alleges similar claims
as the Caramahai Action.

On September 9, 2019, three Helius shareholders -- William Dodson,
Robert D. Moyer, Jr., and Tracy Richards -- each filed motions in
the Caramahai and Evans cases seeking to consolidate the two
proceedings into a single putative class action.  The individual
motions also sought to have the movant appointed as Lead Plaintiff
(the plaintiff responsible for prosecuting the class's claims and
has the power to settle and release claims of all class members)
and have the movant's attorneys appointed as Lead Counsel.  

On September 13, 2019, Ms. Richards withdrew her motion, and on
September 17, 2019, Mr. Moyer filed a notice of non-opposition to
Mr. Dodson's motion.

They filed notices withdrawing their motions on the ground that
they did not appear to have "the largest financial interest in the
relief sought by the class."

Having reviewed Mr. Dodson's motion and concluded that he is the
most adequate plaintiff and that his counsel, The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A., is qualified to serve as Lead Counsel, Mr. Rosen's unopposed
motion was granted by the court on April 28.  The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A., as Lead Counsel shall manage the prosecution of this
litigation.

Helius Medical said, "While the Company believes that each of the
Caramahai Action and the Evans Action is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend its position in each case, it recognizes that
additional putative class actions or related proceedings may be
filed.  Given that each of these legal proceedings is in its early
stages, the Company is unable to predict the probable outcomes at
this time."


HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Ramirez Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from a trial court order denying their
motion for relief from judgment and motion to allow the filling of
a proposed fifth amended complaint in the class action suit
entitled, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et
al., is ongoing, according to Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Old Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in certain of
its public disclosures in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaint sought an unspecified amount
of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award
of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.  The
complaint, as amended, was dismissed with prejudice on April 27,
2017 and on September 20, 2018, the Third Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.

On February 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the
federal district court to exercise its discretion and allow the
plaintiffs to reinstate their claims to include additional
allegations from the administrative order agreed to by the SEC and
the Company in December 2018, which was supplemented by reference
to the Company's subsequently filed litigation against former
executives.

On September 30, 2019, the federal district court of New Jersey
denied the plaintiffs' motion for relief from the April 27, 2017
judgment and a related motion to allow the filing of a proposed
fifth amended complaint.

On October 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal as to
the September 30, 2019 order.  The parties have now fully briefed
the appeal.  Oral argument on the appeal has not yet been
scheduled.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides airport and off airport vehicle rental and leasing
services. It operates through three segments: U.S. RAC,
International RAC, and All Other Operations. Hertz Global Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Estero, Florida.


HOMETEAM PEST: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Launch Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against Hometeam
Pest Defense, Inc., alleging that the company violated The Private
Attorney General Act and allegedly failed to lawfully calculate and
pay their employees the correct overtime. The class action lawsuit
against Hometeam Pest Defense, Inc., is currently pending in the
San Diego County Superior Court, Case No.
37-2020-00016012-CU-OE-CTL.

The lawsuit filed against Hometeam Pest Defense, Inc., alleges the
company, failed to maintain adequate staffing levels while
increasing the production levels for each employee at the busy work
sites they provided services for, which resulted in PLAINTIFFS and
other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES being "unable to take thirty (30) minute
off duty meal breaks, nor be fully relieved of duty for their meal
periods." As a result of DEFENDANT's alleged intentional disregard
of the obligation to follow California Labor Codes, DEFENDANT
failed to properly calculate and/or pay all required compensation.

PAGA is a mechanism by which the State of California itself can
enforce state labor laws through the employee suing under the PAGA
who do so as the proxy or agent of the state's labor law
enforcement agencies. An action to recover civil penalties under
PAGA is fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect
the public and not to benefit private parties. The purpose of PAGA
is not to recover damages or restitution, but to create a means of
"deputizing" citizens as private attorneys general to enforce the
Labor Code. As a result of their rigorous work schedules,
"PLAINTIFFS and other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were from time to time
denied their proper rest periods by DEFENDANT and DEFENDANT's
managers."

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Hometeam Pest Defense, Inc., call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an
experienced California employment attorney today.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm with
law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco County. The
firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a
contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime
pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other
types of illegal workplace conduct.  [GN]



HONEYWELL INT'L: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, announces that
the securities class action lawsuit against Honeywell International
Inc. (NYSE: HON) on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Honeywell securities from February 9, 2018
through October 19, 2018, continues forward in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Honeywell shareholders that purchased or otherwise acquired
Honeywell securities in the time period of February 9, 2018 through
October 19, 2018 should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/contact or call toll-free (844)
367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to
discuss your legal options.

On May 18, 2020, the New Jersey federal judge presiding over the
case ruled that the plaintiff-investor leading the suit,
represented by Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, sufficiently alleged that
the Company made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose material information regarding its liabilities
relating to former subsidiary Bendix Friction Materials' use of
asbestos in certain automotive products. On June 10, 2020, a
conference was held before the Magistrate Judge to implement a
schedule for discovery in the case.

The case is Kanefsky v. Honeywell International Inc. et al.,
2:18-cv-15536.

                          About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements.  At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]

HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Sued Over Race & Sex Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Mathews, writing for the Houston Business Journal, reports
that a lawsuit filed by a former Houston Community College employee
alleges that college officials engaged in "deliberate race and sex
discrimination" against Black employees.

The lawsuit was brought by Zelia Brown, a 55-year-old Black woman
who served as manager of the grants performance and compliance
department at HCC, according to court documents. Brown alleges that
she was forced to take a paid leave of absence after raising
concerns to HCC officials that certain restricted grant funds were
missing or being misused. While on the leave of absence, Brown
notified the Federal Office of the Inspector General of the
suspected misuse of federal grant funds by HCC. The lawsuit claims
that Brown was asked not to return to work after reaching out to
the OIG and alleges that HCC officials "were clearly retaliating
against her for reporting their wrongdoing."

In addition to the HCC System, the lawsuit names Dr. Cesar
Maldonado, chancellor of HCC; Janet May, chief human resources
officer at HCC; and Adriana Tamez, a member of the HCC Board of
Trustees, as defendants.

"[Brown] is without employment not because she did anything wrong,
but because she was a top level Black female at HCC who dared to do
her job, ask questions about missing grant funds, blow her whistle
to the OIG and became another victim of [what the lawsuit refers to
as the Maldonado-May-Black-Displacement-Program]," the lawsuit
claims.

The lawsuit alleges a broader practice of discrimination against
Black employees and "preferential treatment" of Hispanic employees
by Maldonado since his appointment as HCC chancellor in 2014. The
suit claims that since Maldonado's appointment, "90% of the
long-time Black professionals at HCC have either been terminated or
demoted, while there has been a 50% increase in Hispanic hires and
promotions," a June 19 news release states.

Numerous other allegations of discrimination against Black HCC
employees are included in the lawsuit. The suit alleges that HCC is
engaging "in a type of modern-day Jim Crow policy, practice and
custom to get rid of Black employees"--such as allegedly
manufacturing "false or exaggerated" claims against Black employees
to "pad" their personnel files, or allegedly punishing Black
employees more severely than non-Black employees for similar
conduct.

The lawsuit asks the court to approve a class action lawsuit
against HCC to represent all current and former Black HCC employees
from May 2014 to the present as well as all Black persons who had
applied for employment but were not hired in a management-level
position at HCC from May 2014 to the present. The compensatory
damages sought by Brown and the class "are believed to exceed" $100
million, plus costs, fees and punitive damages.

Houston Community College did not respond to the Houston Business
Journal's request for comment on the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was intentionally filed with the Harris County District
Court on Friday, June 19--or Juneteenth, which commemorates the
ending of slavery in the United States, according to the news
release.

Attorneys from Houston-based Hall Law Group PLLC and Houston-based
Villacorta Law Firm PC filed the lawsuit, court documents show.
[GN]


IBERIABANK CORP: Suits Challenging First Horizon Merger Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IBERIABANK Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the four putative class action suit against
the company related to its merger with First Horizon have been
dismissed.

On November 3, 2019, IBERIABANK's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with First
Horizon. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
IBERIABANK's stockholders will receive 4.584 shares of First
Horizon common stock for each share of IBERIABANK common stock they
own.

Four purported holders of IBERIABANK Corporation (IBKC) common
stock have filed four putative stockholder class action complaints
against IBKC and the members of IBKC's board of directors.

The complaints are captioned as follows: Wang v. IBKC, et al., No.
20-0105-LAP (S.D.N.Y filed January 6, 2020); Parshall v. IBKC, et
al., No.20-00027-LPS (D. Del. filed January 8, 2020, includes First
Horizon as a Defendant); Hertz v. IBKC, et al., No. 20-00267-MKB-LB
(E.D.N.Y filed January 16, 2020); and Cooksey v. IBKC, et al., No.
20-00431-FB-RER (E.D.N.Y. filed January 26, 2020).

The complaints assert claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder against IBKC and the members of
IBKC's Board of Directors and under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against the members of IBKC's Board of Directors for allegedly
disseminating a false and misleading registration statement on Form
S-4, filed by First Horizon with the SEC on December 31, 2019.  

Among other remedies, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the merger
and any shareholder vote on the merger and rescind the merger or
recover damages in the event the merger is completed.

All four of these complaints against IBKC and the members of IBKC's
board of directors have recently been dismissed.

IBERIABANK Corporation offers commercial and retail banking
products and services to customers in locations in six states
through IBERIABANK. The company is based in Lafayette, Louisiana.


INT'L FLAVORS: Frutarom Named as Defendant in Amended Jansen Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a securities class action initiated by Marc
Jansen has filed an amended complaint, which added Frutarom and
certain of its former officers as defendants, according to
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020.

On August 12, 2019, Jansen filed a putative securities class action
against IFF, its Chairman and CEO, and its CFO, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit was filed after IFF disclosed that preliminary results
of investigations indicated that Frutarom businesses operating
principally in Russia and Ukraine had made improper payments to
representatives of customers.

On December 26, 2019, the Court appointed a group of six investment
funds as lead plaintiff and Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel.

On March 16, 2020, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
added Frutarom and certain former officers of Frutarom as
defendants.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements or omissions
concerning IFF's acquisition of Frutarom, the integration of the
two companies, and the companies' financial reporting and results.
The amended complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and under the
Israeli Securities Act-1968, against all defendants, and under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
individual defendants, on behalf of a putative class of persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF securities on the
New York Stock Exchange between May 7, 2018 and August 12, 2019 and
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF
securities on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between October 9, 2018
and August 12, 2019.  The amended complaint seeks an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses.

New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances Inc., together
with its subsidiaries, engages in the creation and manufacture of
flavor and fragrance products in the United States and
internationally.


INT'L FLAVORS: Shareholder Sues over Yehudai's $20MM Bonus
----------------------------------------------------------
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that on March 11, 2020, an
IFF shareholder filed a motion to approve a class action in Israel
against, among others, Frutarom, Ori Yehudai, and Frutarom's former
board of directors, alleging that former minority shareholders of
Frutarom were harmed as a result of a US$20 million bonus paid to
Yehudai.

New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances Inc., together
with its subsidiaries, engages in the creation and manufacture of
flavor and fragrance products in the United States and
internationally.


INT'L FLAVORS: Still Defends Securities Class Suits in Tel Aviv
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. still faces putative
securities class action suits in Tel Aviv District Court, Israel,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020.

The Company said, "Two motions to approve securities class actions
were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court, Israel, in August 2019,
similarly alleging, among other things, false and misleading
statements largely in connection with IFF's acquisition of Frutarom
and the above-mentioned improper payments.  Both assert claims
under the U.S. federal securities laws against IFF, its Chairman
and CEO, and its former CFO.  One also asserts claims under the
Israeli Securities Act-1968 against IFF, as well as against
Frutarom and certain former Frutarom officers and directors, and
asserts claims under the Israeli Companies Act-1999 against certain
former Frutarom officers and directors."

New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances Inc., together
with its subsidiaries, engages in the creation and manufacture of
flavor and fragrance products in the United States and
internationally.


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Consumer Suit in Connecticut Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. continues to face a class action
suit initiated by a former customer in Connecticut, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against Interactive Brokers LLC
(IB LLC), Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. (IBG, Inc.), and Thomas
Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  The complaint alleges that the purported class of IB
LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized
system used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer
brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and
without providing plaintiff leave to amend.

On September 28, 2017, plaintiff appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially
unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the
District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence.

On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint
on January 15, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019.

On December 9, 2019, the Company filed a motion requesting that the
District Court certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two
questions of Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to
dismiss.  The District Court has not yet ruled on the motion.

Interactive Brokers said, "Regardless of the outcome of this
motion, the Company does not believe that a purported class action
is appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets
and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any
particular customer's margin-deficient account.  IB LLC and the
related defendants intend to continue to defend themselves
vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in
connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential
claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case
may be fully pursued against the plaintiff."

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic
broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades
in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and
mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977
and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Liu et al. Want Dismissal Order Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled, Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York has granted Intercept
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
its entirety. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Court has also
entered judgment in favor of the Company.

On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action,
initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.

The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on June 1, 2018,
and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31,
2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants.  The lead plaintiffs claim to be
suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between June 9, 2016 and September 20,
2017.

This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public
disclosures during the period from June 9, 2016 to September 20,
2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The alleged improper disclosures
relate to statements regarding Ocaliva dosing, use and
pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well as the Company's
operations, financial performance and prospects.  The plaintiffs
seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class,
an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, and
rescissory damages.

On September 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On March 26, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and on March 27,
2020 the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company.

On May 8, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the
judgment and grant leave to file a second amended complaint.

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases,
including primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis ("NASH"), primary sclerosing cholangitis ("PSC")
and biliary atresia. The Company currently has one marketed
product, Ocaliva (obeticholic acid or "OCA"). Founded in 2002 in
New York, Intercept has operations in the United States, Europe and
Canada.


JACK IN THE BOX: Awaits Final Approval of Marquez Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Jack in the Box Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 12, 2020, that parties in Marquez v. Jack in the Box Inc.,
have executed a settlement agreement and submitted the settlement
to the court for final approval.

In August 2017, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit in
California state court and as a Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") representative suit alleging that the Company failed to
provide all non-exempt California employees with compliant rest and
meal breaks, overtime pay, accurate wage statements, and final pay
upon termination of employment.

On January 29, 2020, the parties participated in voluntary
mediation and reached a tentative agreement to settle the case.

The parties have executed a settlement agreement and submitted the
settlement to the court for final approval.

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

Jack in the Box Inc. operates and franchises Jack in the Box(R)
quick-service restaurants and Qdoba Mexican Eats(R) (Qdoba)
fast-casual restaurants.  JACK currently operates and franchises
2,260 Jack in the Box restaurants primarily in the western and
southern United States, including one in Guam, and 717 Qdoba
fast-casual restaurants operating primarily throughout the United
States and Canada.


JACK IN THE BOX: Still Defends Gessele Labor Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Jack in the Box Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 12, 2020, that plaintiff in Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc.,
recently filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's prior
denial of class certification regarding meal and rest break claims.


In August 2010, five former employees instituted litigation in
federal court in Oregon alleging claims under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and Oregon wage and hour laws.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Company failed to pay non-exempt
employees for certain meal breaks and improperly made payroll
deductions for shoe purchases and for workers' compensation
expenses, and later added additional claims relating to timing of
final pay and related wage and hour claims involving employees of a
franchisee.

In 2016, the court dismissed the federal claims and those relating
to franchise employees.

In June 2017, the court granted class certification with respect to
state law claims of improper deductions and late payment of final
wages.

In February 2019, plaintiff's counsel reduced their earlier demand
from $62.0 million to $42.0 million.

In November 2019, the court issued a ruling on various dispositive
motions, disallowing approximately $25.0 million in claimed
damages.

The parties participated in a voluntary mediation on March 16,
2020, but the matter did not settle. The plaintiff recently filed a
motion for reconsideration of the court's prior denial of class
certification regarding meal and rest break claims.

Jack in the Box said, "The Company has opposed the motion and will
continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit."

Jack in the Box Inc. operates and franchises Jack in the Box(R)
quick-service restaurants and Qdoba Mexican Eats(R) (Qdoba)
fast-casual restaurants.  JACK currently operates and franchises
2,260 Jack in the Box restaurants primarily in the western and
southern United States, including one in Guam, and 717 Qdoba
fast-casual restaurants operating primarily throughout the United
States and Canada.


JJLSZ CORP: Umanzor Seeks Unpaid Overtime & Spread of Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
FREDY UMANZOR, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JJLSZ CORP. d/b/a MEMA'S LITTLE ITALIAN
KITCHEN and JONATHAN ARONSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02729
(E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought
against Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from in or about 2016 until in
or about December 28, 2019.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week
performing non-exempt work for the Defendants. But, Defendants only
paid them "straight time" for hours worked after 40 hours per week,
thereby failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees a premium for time worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to:

     -- pay spread-of-hours pay;

     -- provide written notice of rate of pay;

     -- furnish an accurate wage statement;

     -- maintain accurate records of the hours worked by and wages
paid to employees; and

     -- post notices explaining wage and hour requirements in
conspicuous places.

Jonathan Aronson is the owner and/or officer of Mema's and has
authority to make payroll and personnel decisions for Mema's.

JJLSZ Corp. d/b/a Mema's Little Italian Kitchen operates a
restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway, Suite B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Tel: (631) 257-5588
          Email: promero@romerolawny.com


JONES FINANCIAL: Bland Class Suit Over Race Bias Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 27, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a discrimination class action suit entitled, Bland v.
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.

On May 24, 2018,Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Edward Jones) and the
company (JFC) were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit (Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by a
former financial advisor.  

An amended complaint was filed on September 24, 2018, under 42
U.S.C. Section 1981, alleging that the defendants discriminated
against the former financial advisor and financial advisor trainees
on the basis of race.  

On November 26, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint adding an allegation of discrimination of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The lawsuit seeks equitable and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.  

Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously
defend this lawsuit.

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

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary,
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered
broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded
in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri.


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Notifies of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Kandi Technologies Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ: KNDI) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Kandi securities
between June 10, 2015 and March 13, 2017, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/kndi.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) certain areas in the Company's previously issued
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and
2014, and the first three quarters for the year ended December 31,
2016 required adjustment; (2) in turn, the Company lacked effective
controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/kndi 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 Kandi
you have until August 10, 2020 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

Contact:

         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
         Tel: (212) 697-6484
         E-mail: info@bgandg.com
[GN]

KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming August 10, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Kandi Technologies Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ: KNDI) investors who purchased securities between June
10, 2015 and March 13, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Kandi investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/kandi-technologies-group-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On November 14, 2016, the Company announced the abrupt resignation
of its Chief Financial Officer.

On this news, Kandi's share price fell $0.40 per share, or more
than 10%, to close at $3.50 per share on November 14, 2016,
damaging investors.

On March 13, 2017, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
revealing that its previously issued financial statements for the
years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the first three
quarters for the year ended December 31, 2016 will need to be
restated.

On this news, Kandi's share price fell $0.30 per share, or
approximately 6%, to close at $4.05 per share on March 14, 2017,
further damaging investors.

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 certain areas in the Company's previously
issued financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015
and 2014, and the first three quarters for the year ended December
31, 2016 required adjustment; (2) that in turn, the Company lacked
effective controls over financial reporting; and (3) that as a
result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Kandi securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 10, 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, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
          shareholders@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/
[GN]


KERN COUNTY, CA: Settles Class Action Over Juvenile Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam morgen of Bakersfield.com reports that Kern County, California
has settled a class-action lawsuit filed by two disability rights
groups that challenged alleged discrimination against disabled
youth took place at the county's juvenile detention facilities.

Under the terms of the settlement, the county will transition its
three juvenile facilities from a corrections model to a treatment
model, which will aim to ensure youths with disabilities are
identified and housed in a safe and homelike environment, and given
equal access to educational and rehabilitative programs.

"They've agreed to train their staff to reduce the use of pepper
spray, to reduce the use of restrictive housing, mechanical
restraints — any sort of use of force — and they are going to
learn and understand the needs of youth with disabilities," said
Michelle Iorio, a staff attorney with Disability Rights Advocates,
which represented the plaintiffs, along with Disability Rights
California. "We're hopeful that this will result in a more
therapeutic model, which I think is a big change from the punitive
model that they had in place."

In an investigative report completed in 2018, the two organizations
said young people with mental and behavioral disabilities were
subjected to restraints, solitary confinement for up to 23 hours
per day and pepper spray for nonviolent acts more than other
youths.

The settlement, which includes a three-year monitoring stipulation,
requires the county train staffers to reduce use of force, and
develop a new team to oversee the Americans with Disabilities Act
and related programming.

The lawsuit specifically targeted the Kern County Probation
Department and the Kern County Superintendent of Schools, which
oversees and provides education at the juvenile facilities. Both
government agencies disagreed with the allegations raised in the
complaint, but said they would work to meet the requirements of the
settlement.

"The Kern County Probation Department has a long history of meeting
or exceeding state standards and we strive to provide supportive
services that incorporate both accountability and opportunity for
those we are charged with rehabilitating," Chief Probation Officer
T.R. Merickel wrote in a statement to The Californian. "We are
excited for the opportunity to expand on the great work being done
by our staff who work with youth in our care on a daily basis.
Through the support received from the County of Kern and the
longstanding partnership with Kern County Superintendent of
Schools, we are confident the efforts made will result in improved
services to youth and a better working environment for staff."

The statement from the Superintendent of Schools largely followed
along the same lines.

"Working in a positive, proactive fashion with the plaintiffs,
KCSOS believed it was in the best interest of our students and
families to resolve this matter quickly and amicably," spokesman
Robert Meszaros wrote in an email. "Additional program enhancements
will supplement the current regular and special education services.
For instance, staff will receive additional training in regards to
mental health diagnoses and behavior, de-escalation strategies and
restorative practices. KCSOS is proud to partner with the Kern
County Probation Department in resolving this matter and will
continue to provide a positive environment that delivers equal
access to educational and rehabilitative programs and services."
[GN]


KEURIG DR PEPPER: Sommer Says Ice Tea Beverages Ads "Misleading"
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBBIN SOMMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, - against – KEURIG DR PEPPER INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04181 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2020)
alleges that Defendant falsely and misleadingly markets the iced
tea beverages under their "Straight Up Tea" brand to consumers
including the Plaintiff as being "Sorta Sweet" and low in sugar as
those terms are generally understood.

According to the complaint, Defendant charges a premium for the
Products on account of its false and misleading representations
regarding low sugar content, including "Sorta Sweet" where in fact,
the Products are high in sugar to an extent that belies the sugar
content representations made on the Products' front labels.

As a result of the false and misleading labeling at issue, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$1.49 per 18.5-ounce unit, excluding tax, compared to other similar
products represented in a non-misleading way.

Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. is a beverage company with its principal
place of business in Plano, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025-7524
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

               - and -

          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 393-0070
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021-5101
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

LABORATORY CORP: Consolidated Bouffard and Anderson Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend the consolidated Bouffard and Anderson actions in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.

The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices
unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with
private and public health insurers in violation of various state
consumer protection laws.

The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or
quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks
statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and
recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was
granted in March 2018 without prejudice.

On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl
Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.

The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar
relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts
regarding state consumer protection laws.

On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions.

On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations. On
August 16, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and
denying the Motion to Strike the Class Allegations.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Davis Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Patty Davis v.
Laboratory Corporation of America, et al.

On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were
collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory
damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses.
In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff appealed the Circuit
Court's ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.

On October 16, 2019, the Court of Appeal reversed the Circuit
Court's dismissal, but certified a controlling issue of Florida law
to the Florida Supreme Court.

On February 17, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted
jurisdiction of the lawsuit.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Feckley Class Action Concluded
-----------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the court in Feckley v.
Covance Inc., et al., entered an order dismissing the class action
claims, and the parties settled the remaining individual claim.

On December 20, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Feckley v. Covance Inc., et al., filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Orange.

The complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California
Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to
properly pay commissions to employees under a sales incentive
compensation plan upon their termination of employment.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, punitive
damages, and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs.

On January 22, 2018, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

On February 27, 2020, the court entered an order dismissing the
class action claims, and the parties settled the remaining
individual claim.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Sequenom Inc. Shareholders' Suit Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit
entitled, In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No.
16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, remains stayed.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, Inc. (Sequenom)
between August 15, 2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative
class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom
stockholders (captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02054- JAH-BLM, Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02101- WQH-KSC, Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al.,
No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al.,
No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California challenging the acquisition
transaction.

The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its
board of directors (the Individual Defendants).

The Nunes action also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp.
(Savoy), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants.

The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e),
14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing
to disclose certain allegedly material information.

In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, the Asiatrade
action, and the Cusumano action alleged that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom
shareholders. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive
relief enjoining the merger.

On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions. On
September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for all
pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above under
the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No.
16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from the Malkoff
action as the operative complaint for the consolidated action.

On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two
separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On June 7, 2017, the
Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as the lead plaintiff
and approving Mr. Reilly's selection of lead counsel.

The parties agree that the MOU has been terminated. The Plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 24,
2017, and the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which remains
pending.

On March 13, 2019, the Court stayed the action in its entirety
pending the U.S. Supreme Court's anticipated decision in Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian. On April 23, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme
Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in Emulex as improvidently
granted.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LIBERTY HEALTHCARE: Anderson Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAJANAE ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY HEALTHCARE CORPORATION and SARGENT'S
PERSONNEL AGENCY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03014 (E.D.
Pa., June 22, 2020) is a class/collective action complaint brought
against Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff worked for Liberty from around June 2019 until around
February 2020 as an Investigator/Case Worker and was paid through
Defendant Sargent's.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked over 40
hours per week. However, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime
premium compensation not less than one and one-half times the
employee's regular pay rate for all hours worked over 40 per week.

Liberty Healthcare Corporation operates treatment programs,
supports population health, and provides health workforce
outsourcing.

Sargent's Personnel Agency, Inc. provides recruitment services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Tel: (215) 884-2491
          Fax: (215) 884-2492
          Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Defendants Want 2nd Amended Securities Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in the class action suit styled, In re Mammoth
Energy Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, are seeking dismissal
of the second amended complaint in the case, according to Mammoth
Energy Services, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2020.

In June 2019 and August 2019, the Company was served with three
class action lawsuits filed in the Western District of Oklahoma.

On September 13, 2019, the court consolidated the three lawsuits
under the case caption In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On November 12, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint against Mammoth Energy Services, Inc., Arty Straehla, and
Mark Layton.  Pursuant to their first amended complaint, the
plaintiffs brought a consolidated putative federal securities class
action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. common stock between October
19, 2017, and June 5, 2019, inclusive.

On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint.

On March 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
for violation of federal securities laws which contains allegations
substantially similar to those contained in the plaintiff's first
amended complaint.

On March 30, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

Mammoth Energy said, "The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims
are without merit and will vigorously defend the action.  However,
at this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of
this lawsuit or whether it will have a material impact on the
Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows."

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces MDL over Starwood Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. continues to face a multidistrict
litigation related to a data security incident with the Starwood
reservations database, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020.

On November 30, 2018, the Company announced a data security
incident involving unauthorized access to the Starwood reservations
database.

The Company said, "Following our announcement of the Data Security
Incident, approximately 100 lawsuits were filed by consumers and
others against us in U.S. federal, U.S. state and Canadian courts
related to the incident.  All but one of the U.S. cases have been
consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, pursuant to orders of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL").  The plaintiffs in the
U.S. and Canadian cases, who generally purport to represent various
classes of consumers, generally claim to have been harmed by
alleged actions and/or omissions by the Company in connection with
the Data Security Incident and assert a variety of common law and
statutory claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs
and attorneys' fees, and other related relief.  Among the U.S.
cases consolidated in the MDL proceeding is a putative class action
lawsuit that was filed against us and certain of our current
officers and directors on December 1, 2018, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws in connection with statements regarding
our cybersecurity systems and controls, and seeking certification
of a class of affected persons, unspecified monetary damages, costs
and attorneys' fees, and other related relief.

"The MDL proceeding also includes two shareholder derivative
complaints that were filed on February 26, 2019 and March 15, 2019,
respectively, against the Company, certain of its officers and
certain of the members of our Board of Directors, alleging, among
other claims, breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust
enrichment, mismanagement and violations of the federal securities
laws, and seeking unspecified monetary damages and restitution,
changes to the Company's corporate governance and internal
procedures, costs and attorneys' fees, and other related relief.

"A third shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery on December 3, 2019 against the Company and
certain of its officers and certain current and former members of
our Board of Directors, alleging claims and seeking relief
generally similar to the claims made and relief sought in the other
two derivative cases.  This case will not be consolidated with the
MDL proceeding.  We dispute the allegations in the lawsuits and are
vigorously defending against such claims.  We have filed motions to
dismiss several of these cases, some of which have been denied, but
the cases generally remain at an early stage.  There has been some
consolidation of the Canadian cases, with five cases now pending
across five provinces, and we expect there could be further
consolidation in the future.

"In addition, in April 2019, we received a letter purportedly on
behalf of a shareholder of the Company (also one of the named
plaintiffs in the putative securities class action) demanding that
our Board of Directors take action against the Company's current
and certain former officers and directors to recover damages for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and related claims arising
from the Data Security Incident.  The Board of Directors has
constituted a demand review committee to investigate the claims
made in the demand letter, and the committee has retained
independent counsel to assist with the investigation.  The
committee's investigation is ongoing."


MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Still Defends Class Suits in US & Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Maxar Technologies Inc. still defends class action suits in
Colorado and in Canada alleging violation of the federal securities
laws, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020.

On January 14, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust
Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC
in the District Court of Colorado (the "Colorado Action"), naming
Maxar and members of management as defendants alleging, among other
things, that the Company's public disclosures were deficient in
violation of the federal securities laws and seeking monetary
damages.

On August 7, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

On October 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and members
of management in connection with the Company's public disclosures
between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019.  The consolidated
complaint alleges that the Company's statements regarding the
AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets, and
WorldView-4 were allegedly false and/or misleading during the class
period.

On December 6, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the Colorado
Action, which motion is currently pending.

Also, in January 2019, a Maxar stockholder resident in Canada
issued a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O'Brien v.
Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00613564-00CP in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against Maxar and members of management
claiming misrepresentations in Maxar's public disclosures and
seeking monetary damages.

On November 15, 2019, Mr. O'Brien and another Maxar stockholder
resident in Canada issued a new putative class action lawsuit
captioned Charles O'Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No.
CV-19-00631107-00CP, naming Maxar and certain members of management
and the board of directors as defendants as well as Maxar's
auditor, KPMG LLP.

On February 7, 2020, the January 2019 claim was discontinued.  The
Statement of Claim alleges that the Company's statements regarding
the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets,
and WorldView-4 were false and/or misleading during the class
period, and claims damages of US$700 million.

On April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs served their motion record for
leave under the Securities Act (Ontario) and to certify the action
as a class proceeding, which motion is currently pending.

The Company believes that these cases are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.

Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for
commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates
through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado.



MCDERMOTT INT'L: $8.25MM Reserved for Cantrell Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that a reserve of $8.25 million has
been established as of March 31 as a result of the settlement in
the class action suit entitled, Cantrell v. Lutech Resources, Inc.,
(S.D. Texas 2017) Case No. 4:17-CV-2679.

A former employee of one of the company's subsidiaries commenced a
class action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards ACT ("FLSA")
entitled Cantrell v. Lutech Resources, Inc., (S.D. Texas 2017) Case
No. 4:17-CV-2679 on or about September 5, 2017, alleging that he
and his fellow class members were not paid one-and-one-half times
their normal hourly wage rates for hours worked that exceeded 40
hours in a work week.

The company's subsidiary has yet to answer the allegations in the
complaint, as agreed by the parties, in order to allow mediation to
take place.

The first mediation session commenced in October 2018, and a
settlement was reached, with an agreed payment to the plaintiff of
$10.75 million, to be paid in installments.

The first installment of $2.5 million has been made with the
following installments being stayed as a result of section 362(a)
of the Bankruptcy Code.

As a result of the settlement, a reserve of $8.25 million has been
established as of March 31, 2020.

McDermott International, Inc., a corporation incorporated under the
laws of the Republic of Panama in 1959, is a fully integrated
provider of engineering, procurement, construction and installation
("EPCI") and technology solutions to the energy industry. The
company designs and build end-to-end infrastructure and technology
solutions to transport and transform oil and gas into a variety of
products. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Appeal from Class Certification Ruling Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that the defendants' motion for
permission to appeal the class certification ruling in the class
action suit entitled, In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
Securities Litigation, No. 1:17-cv-01580-LGS, to the U.S. Court of
Appeals, has been granted.

On May 10, 2018, the company completed its business combination
with Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. ("CB&I") through a series
of transactions (the "Combination").

On March 2, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking class
action status on behalf of purchasers of CB&I common stock and
alleging damages on their behalf arising from alleged false and
misleading statements made during the class period from October 30,
2013 to June 23, 2015.

The case is captioned: In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
Securities Litigation, No. 1:17-cv-01580-LGS (the "Securities
Litigation").

The defendants in the case are: CB&I; a former chief executive
officer of CB&I; a former chief financial officer of CB&I; and a
former controller and chief accounting officer of CB&I. On June 14,
2017, the court named ALSAR Partnership Ltd. as lead plaintiff.

On August 14, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was filed
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, arising out of alleged misrepresentations about CB&I's
accounting for the acquisition of The Shaw Group, CB&I's accounting
with respect to the two nuclear projects being constructed by The
Shaw Group, and CB&I's financial reporting and public statements
with respect to those two projects.

On May 24, 2018, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
The parties have completed fact discovery and are currently engaged
in expert discovery.

On February 4, 2019, lead plaintiff ALSAR Partnership Ltd. and
additional plaintiffs Iron Workers Local 40, 361, & 417 – Union
Security Funds and Iron Workers Local 580 - Joint Funds moved for
class certification and appointment as class representatives.

On October 16, 2019, the court-appointed special master issued a
report and recommendation regarding class certification and
appointment of class representatives and class counsel,
recommending that the court grant the plaintiffs' motion.

On April 6, 2020, the defendants filed a motion for permission to
appeal the class certification ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The U.S. District Court subsequently granted the motion.

McDermott said, "We are not able at this time to determine the
likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter and,
accordingly, no amounts have been accrued as of March 31, 2020. We
believe the claims are without merit and intend to defend against
them vigorously."

McDermott International, Inc., a corporation incorporated under the
laws of the Republic of Panama in 1959, is a fully integrated
provider of engineering, procurement, construction and installation
("EPCI") and technology solutions to the energy industry. The
company designs and build end-to-end infrastructure and technology
solutions to transport and transform oil and gas into a variety of
products. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


MCDERMOTT INT'L: Consolidated Texas Class Action Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that the consolidated class action
suit pending before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas has been stayed.

On May 10, 2018, the company completed its business combination
with Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. ("CB&I") through a series
of transactions (the "Combination").

On November 15, 2018, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking class
action status on behalf of purchasers of McDermott common stock and
alleging damages on their behalf arising from allegedly false and
misleading statements made during the class period from January 24,
2018 to October 30, 2018. The case is captioned: Edwards v.
McDermott International, Inc., et al., No. 4:18-cv-04330.

The defendants in the case are: McDermott; David Dickson, the
company's president and chief executive officer; and Stuart Spence,
the company's former chief financial officer.

The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions about the integration of the CB&I
business, certain CB&I projects and their fair values, and our
business, prospects and operations. The plaintiff asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

On January 14, 2019, a related action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking
class action status on behalf of all shareholders of McDermott
common stock as of April 4, 2018 who had the right to vote on the
Combination, captioned: The Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi v. McDermott International, Inc., et al., No.
4:19-cv-00135.

The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants (which include our
chief executive officer and former chief financial officer) made
material misrepresentations and omissions in the proxy statement we
used in connection with the Combination. The plaintiff asserted
claims under Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The company filed a motion to consolidate the two actions, and the
court granted that motion on February 22, 2019. The court appointed
lead plaintiffs for both sets of claims on June 5, 2019.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed amended pleadings to, among other
things, add Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. and CB&I's former
chief executive officer as additional defendants, and, on January
30, 2020, the company filed motions to dismiss all of the claims.
All proceedings in the actions are stayed pending the determination
of the motions by the court.

McDermott said, "We are not able at this time to determine the
likelihood of loss, if any, arising from these matters and,
accordingly, no amounts have been accrued as of March 31, 2020. We
believe the claims are without merit and we intend to defend
against them vigorously."

McDermott International, Inc., a corporation incorporated under the
laws of the Republic of Panama in 1959, is a fully integrated
provider of engineering, procurement, construction and installation
("EPCI") and technology solutions to the energy industry. The
company designs and build end-to-end infrastructure and technology
solutions to transport and transform oil and gas into a variety of
products. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


MEDLEY CAPITAL: $50,000 Settlement in New York Class Suits Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that a trial court has formally approved the
parties' US$50,000 settlement agreement and dismissed the New York
class actions.

On January 25, 2019, two purported class actions were commenced in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, by
alleged stockholders of Medley Capital Corporation, captioned,
respectively, Helene Lax v. Brook Taube, et al., Index No.
650503/2019, and Richard Dicristino, et al. v. Brook Taube, et al.,
Index No. 650510/2019 (together with the Lax Action, the "New York
Actions").

Named as defendants in each complaint are Brook Taube, Seth Taube,
Jeffrey Tonkel, Arthur S. Ainsberg, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, John E.
Mack, Mark Lerdal, Richard T. Allorto, Jr., Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management Inc., Sierra Income Corporation, and
Sierra Management, Inc. The complaints in each of the New York
Actions alleged that the individuals named as defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger of
MCC with and into Sierra, and that the other defendants aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  Compensatory
damages in unspecified amounts were sought.

On December 20, 2019, the Delaware court entered an Order and Final
Judgment approving the settlement of the Delaware Action.  The
plaintiffs in the New York Actions acknowledged that the settlement
of the Delaware Action rendered the New York Actions moot; however,
the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the New York Actions sought an
order awarding them fees and recovery of expenses on account of
their purported contributions to the settlement of the Delaware
Action.

Following a period of negotiations, the Company reached an
agreement with the respective plaintiffs to resolve the New York
Actions.  While the Company believed that the allegations in the
New York Actions were without merit, to avoid the nuisance,
potential expense, burden and delay due to continued litigation,
the Company agreed to pay US$50,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses
to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the mooted claims
asserted.  This amount will be covered by the Company's insurance
carrier.

On May 11, 2020, the court formally approved the parties'
settlement agreement and dismissed the New York Actions.

Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The
fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity
securities of small and middle market companies. The company is
based in New York, New York.


MEDLEY CAPITAL: Appeal from Fee Award in Merger Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Medley Capital Corporation and Sierra Income Corporation's appeal
before the Delaware Supreme Court from a trial court's Order and
Final Judgment with respect to a Contingent Fee Award in a class
action litigation is still pending, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

On August 9, 2018, the Company entered into a definitive agreement
to merge with Sierra.  Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of August 9, 2018, by and between the Company and
Sierra (the "MCC Merger Agreement"), the Company would, on the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the MCC Merger
Agreement, merge with and into Sierra, with Sierra as the surviving
entity (the "Combined Company") in the merger (the "MCC Merger").

On February 11, 2019, a purported stockholder class action was
commenced in the Delaware Court of Chancery by FrontFour Capital
Group LLC and FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd. (together, "FrontFour"),
captioned as FrontFour Capital Group LLC, et al. v. Brook Taube et
al., Case No. 2019-0100 (the "Delaware Action") against defendants
Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff Tonkel, Mark Lerdal, Karin
Hirtler-Garvey, John E. Mack, Arthur S. Ainsberg, MDLY, Sierra, the
Company, MCC Advisors, Medley Group LLC, and Medley LLC. The
complaint, as amended on February 12, 2019, alleged that the
individuals named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's stockholders in connection with the MCC Merger, and
that MDLY, Sierra, MCC Advisors, Medley Group LLC, and Medley LLC
aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
complaint sought to enjoin the vote of MCC stockholders on the
proposed merger and enjoin enforcement of certain provisions of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 9, 2018, by and
between MCC and Sierra (the "MCC Merger Agreement").

The Delaware Court of Chancery held a trial on the plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction and issued a Memorandum Opinion
(the "Decision") on March 11, 2019.  The Delaware Court of Chancery
denied the plaintiffs' requests to (i) permanently enjoin the
proposed merger and (ii) require the Company to conduct a "shopping
process" for the Company on terms proposed by the plaintiffs in
their complaint.  The Delaware Court of Chancery held that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in entering
into the proposed merger, but rejected the plaintiffs' claim that
Sierra aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
Delaware Court of Chancery ordered the defendants to issue
corrective disclosures consistent with the Decision, and enjoined a
vote of the Company's stockholders on the proposed merger until
such disclosures had been made and stockholders had the opportunity
to assimilate that information.

On March 20, 2019, another purported stockholder class action was
commenced by Stephen Altman against Brook Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff
Tonkel, Arthur S.  Ainsberg, Karin Hirtler-Garvey, Mark Lerdal, and
John E.  Mack in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Altman
v. Taube, Case No. 2019-0219 (the "Altman Action").  The complaint
alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
stockholders of the Company in connection with the vote of the
Company's stockholders on the proposed mergers.

On April 8, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a
stipulation consolidating the Delaware Action and the Altman
Action, designating the amended complaint in the Delaware Action as
the operative complaint, and designating the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Action and their counsel the lead plaintiffs and lead
plaintiffs' counsel, respectively.

On December 20, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered into
the Delaware Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement of
the Delaware Action (the "Settlement").  Pursuant to the
Settlement, the Company agreed to certain amendments to (i) the MCC
Merger Agreement and (ii) the MDLY Merger Agreement, which
amendments are reflected in the Amended MCC Merger Agreement and
the Amended MDLY Merger Agreement.  The Settlement also provides
for, if the MCC Merger is consummated, the creation of a settlement
fund, consisting of US$17 million in cash and US$30 million of
Sierra's common stock, with the number of shares of Sierra's common
stock to be calculated using the pro forma net asset value of
US$6.37 per share as of June 30, 2019, which will be distributed to
eligible members of the Settlement Class (as defined in the
Settlement).  In addition, in connection with the Settlement, on
July 29, 2019, the Company entered into a Governance Agreement with
FrontFour Capital Group LLC, FrontFour Master Fund, Ltd., FrontFour
Capital Corp., FrontFour Opportunity Fund, David A.  Lorber,
Stephen E.  Loukas and Zachary R.  George, pursuant to which, among
other matters, FrontFour is subject to customary standstill
restrictions and required to vote in favor of the revised MCC
Merger at a meeting of stockholders to approve the revised MCC
Merger Agreement.  The Settlement also provides for mutual releases
between and among FrontFour and the Settlement Class, on the one
hand, and the Medley Parties, on the other hand, of all claims that
were or could have been asserted in the Delaware Action through
September 26, 2019.

The Delaware Court of Chancery also awarded attorney's fees as
follows: (i) an award of US$3,000,000 to lead plaintiffs' counsel
and US$75,000 to counsel to plaintiff Stephen Altman (the
"Therapeutics Fee Award") and US$420,334.97 of plaintiff counsel
expenses payable to the lead plaintiff's counsel, which were paid
on December 23, 2019, and (ii) an award that is contingent upon the
closing of the proposed merger transactions (the "Contingent Fee
Award"), consisting of:

     a. $100,000 for the agreement to appoint an independent
        director on the board of directors of the post-merger
        company; and

     b. the amount calculated by solving for A in the following
        formula:

Award[A]=(Monetary Fund[M]+Award[A]-Look Through[L])
         *Percentage[P]

Where:

A    shall be the amount of the Additional Fee (excluding the
$100,000 award for the agreement to appoint an independent
director
on the board of directors of the post-merger company);

M    shall be the sum of (i) the $17 million cash component of the
Settlement Fund and (ii) the value of the post-merger company
stock
component of the Settlement Fund, which shall be calculated as the
product of the VPS (as defined below) and 4,709,576.14 (the number
of shares of post-merger company's stock comprising the stock
component of the net settlement amount);

L    shall be the amount representing the estimated value of the
decrease in shares to be received by eligible class members
arising
by operation of the change in the "Exchange Ratio" under the
Amended MCC Merger Agreement, calculated as follows:

L = ((ES * 68%) - (ES * 66%)) * VPS

Where:

ES   shall be the number of eligible shares;

VPS  shall be the pro forma net asset value per share of the
post-merger company's common stock as of the closing as reported
in
the public disclosure filed nearest in time and after the closing
(the "Closing NAV Disclosure"); and

P    shall equal 0.26

The Contingent Fee Award is contingent upon the closing of the MCC
Merger.  Payment of the Contingent Fee Award will be made in two
stages.  First, within five (5) business days of the establishment
of the Settlement Fund, the Company or its successor shall (i) pay
the plaintiffs' counsel an estimate of the Contingent Fee Award
(the "Additional Fee Estimate"), less twenty (20) percent (the
"Additional Fee Estimate Payment"), and (ii) deposit the remaining
twenty (20) percent of the Additional Fee Estimate into escrow (the
"Escrowed Fee").  For purposes of calculating such estimate, the
Company or its successor shall use the formula set above, except
that VPS shall equal the pro forma net asset value of the
post-merger company's common stock as reported in the public
disclosure filed nearest in time and prior to the closing (the
"Closing NAV Estimate").

Second, within five (5) business days of the Closing NAV Disclosure
(as defined in the Order and Final Judgment), (i) if the Additional
Fee is greater than the Additional Fee Estimate Payment, an amount
of the Escrowed Fee shall be released to plaintiffs' counsel such
that the total payments made to plaintiffs' counsel equal the
Additional Fee and the remainder of the Escrowed Fee, if any, shall
be released to the Company or its successor, (ii) if the Additional
Fee is less than the Additional Fee Estimate Payment, plaintiffs'
counsel shall return to the Company or its successor the difference
between the Additional Fee Estimate and the Additional Fee and the
Escrowed Fee shall be released to the Company or its successor, or
(iii) if the Additional Fee is equal to the Additional Fee Estimate
Payment, the Escrowed Fee shall be released to the Company or its
successor.

On January 17, 2020, the Company and Sierra filed a notice of
appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court from those provisions of the
Order and Final Judgment with respect to the Contingent Fee Award.

Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The
fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity
securities of small and middle market companies. The company is
based in New York, New York.


MEDLEY CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Seek Preliminary Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Medley Capital Corporation said in its Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the class
action, Case No. 4:17-cv-145, pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division
("Class Action 1") has moved for a Preliminary Approval Order and
to set a Final Approval hearing date of their April 16, 2020
Settlement Agreement.

Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and
Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various
parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce
Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio
v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane
Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley
LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley
Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc.,
Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15,
2017, amended on March 9, 2018, and amended a second time on
February 15, 2019, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No.
4:17-cv-145 (hereinafter, "Class Action 1").

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula
Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red
Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital
Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No.
3:18-cv-100 ("Class Action 2").

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were
also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy,
Heather Ball, Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry,
American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed
August 9, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No.
4:18-cv-101 ("Class Action 3").

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along
with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc.
(as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and
John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended
July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747.

The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative
class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of
the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan.  The
claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley
Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC,
Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended); Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in Class
Action 2 and Class Action 3); and Medley Opportunity Fund II LP (in
the Pennsylvania Class Action), allege that those defendants in
each respective action exercised control over, or improperly
derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in,
American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan
to American Web Loan.

The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in 2011.
American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months
prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to
the alleged class plaintiff representatives in Class Action 1.

In Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives had
not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan.
In Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives
claim to have received loans from American Web Loan at various
times from February 2015 through April 2018.  In the Pennsylvania
Class Action, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to
have received loans from American Web Loan in 2017.

By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court
presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases
for all purposes.

On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3 filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of all claims, and on October 29, 2018,
Plaintiffs in Class Action 2 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
of all claims.

On April 16, 2020, the parties to Class Action 1 reached a
settlement reflected in a Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement
Agreement") that has been publicly filed in Class Action 1 (ECF No.
414-1).  Among other things, upon satisfaction of the conditions
specified in the Settlement Agreement and upon the Effective Date,
the Settlement Agreement (capitalized terms not otherwise defined
have the meaning set forth in the Settlement Agreement):

     (1) requires Plaintiffs to seek certification of a nationwide
settlement class of all persons in the United States to whom
American Web Loan lent money from February 10, 2010 through a
future date on which the Court may enter a Preliminary Approval
Order as to the Settlement Agreement (which certification
Defendants have agreed not to oppose);

     (2) requires American Web Loan, and only American Web Loan, to
pay Monetary Consideration of US$65,000,000 (none of Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation,
Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, or Seth
Taube are paying any Monetary Consideration pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement);

     (3) requires American Web Loan, and only American Web Loan, to
cancel (as a disputed debt) and release all claims that relate to
or arise out of the loans in its Collection Portfolio, which is
valued at Seventy-Six Million Dollars (US$76,000,000) and comprised
of loans to more than 39,000 borrowers (none of Medley Opportunity
Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley
Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, or Seth Taube
have any interest in any of the loans that are being cancelled);

     (4) requires American Web Loan and Curry to provide certain
Non-Monetary Benefits (none of Medley Opportunity Fund II LP,
Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc.,
Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, or Seth Taube are conferring any
Non-Monetary Benefits pursuant to the Settlement Agreement);

     (5) fully, finally, and forever releases Medley Opportunity
Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley
Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube
from any and all claims, causes of action, suits, obligations,
debts, demands, agreements, promises, liabilities, damages, losses,
controversies, costs, expenses and attorneys' fees of any nature
whatsoever, whether arising under federal law, state law, common
law or equity, tribal law, foreign law, territorial law, contract,
rule, regulation, any regulatory promulgation (including, but not
limited to, any opinion or declaratory ruling), or any other law,
including Unknown Claims, whether suspected or unsuspected,
asserted or unasserted, foreseen or unforeseen, actual or
contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, punitive or compensatory,
as of the date of the Final Fairness Approval Order and Judgment,
that relate to or arise out of loans made by and/or in the name of
AWL (including loans issued in the name of American Web Loan, Inc.
or Clear Creek Lending) as of the date of entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order (with the exception of claims to enforce the
Settlement or the Judgment);

     (6) provides for a mutual general release between Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation,
Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth
Taube on the one hand, and American Web Loan and Curry on the other
hand; and

     (7) provides that, as of the future Effective Date, none of
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook
Taube, and Seth Taube shall (i) be entitled to indemnification from
AWL Defendants (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) or (ii)
bring any claim against any Released Parties, including American
Web Loan and Curry, that relate to or arise out of loans made by
and/or in the name of AWL (including loans issued in the name of
American Web Loan, Inc. or Clear Creek Lending) as of the date of
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order (with the exception of
claims to enforce the Settlement or the Judgment).

The Settlement Agreement is subject to various conditions before it
will become effective on the Effective Date, including payment of
the Monetary Consideration, Final Approval by the Court of the
Settlement following Notice to the Settlement Class and a Final
Approval Hearing; entry of Judgment dismissing Class Action 1 with
prejudice; and expiration of the time during which Plaintiffs and
American Web Loan may exercise specified termination rights.

On April 16, 2020, Plaintiffs in Class Action 1 moved for a
Preliminary Approval Order and to set a Final Approval hearing
date; the motion remains pending.

Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The
fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity
securities of small and middle market companies. The company is
based in New York, New York.


MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Forman Settlement Granted Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meridian Bioscience Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that a trial court has issued an order and judgment
approving the settlement in the class action suit initiated by
Barbara Forman.

On November 15, 2017, Barbara Forman filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio naming Meridian, its former Chief Executive Officer and former
Chief Financial Officer (in their capacities as such) as
defendants. An amended complaint was filed on April 16, 2018 and
the Company believes the essential elements of the amended
complaint are the same.

On July 9, 2019, a settlement was reached with the plaintiff that
provides for a $2,100 payment by the Company.

On October 9, 2019, the Court granted a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, and on November 7, 2019, the settlement
amount was paid from the Company's directors and officers insurance
policy into a plaintiff escrow account.

After a final approval hearing on March 16, 2020, on March 17,
2020, the Court issued an order and judgment approving the
settlement.

Because the settlement was a covered claim under our directors and
officers insurance policy, no provision for litigation losses has
been included within  the accompanying Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations for the three and six months ended March
31, 2020 or March 31, 2019.

Meridian Bioscience Inc., an integrated life science company,
manufactures, develops, sells, and distributes diagnostic test
kits. Meridian, founded in 1976, is based in Cincinnati Ohio.


MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Settlement in Forman Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARBARA FORMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-774 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Susan
J. Dlott of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Western Division, granted the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Class Certification and
Plan of Allocation, and the Counsel's Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and a
Contribution Award.

On review, Judge Dlott, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, certified, solely for the purposes of effectuating
the Settlement, a Settlement Class consisting of all Persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Meridian Bioscience, Inc.
securities on the open market between March 24, 2016 and Oct. 23,
2017, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby, including the Class
Representative.

Lead Plaintiff Barbara Forman is appointed as the class
representative, and Lead Counsel Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is appointed
as class counsel.

The Action and all Released Claims are dismissed with prejudice in
their entirety.  The Parties will bear their own costs, except as
and to the extent provided in the Stipulation, the Final Approval
of Settlement, or any other Order by the Court.

David Lutzewitz, Exclusion ID 69148567, is excluded from the
Settlement Class, is not bound by the Final Approval of Settlement,
and may not make any claim with respect to or receive any benefit
from the Settlement.  He may not pursue any Released Claims on
behalf of those who are bound by the Judgment.

In accordance with the Stipulation, after the Lead Counsel have
reallocated any balance among the Authorized Claimants in an
equitable fashion, the balance of the Net Settlement Fund will be
donated to the Legal Aid Society of Cincinnati.

The Plaintiff's Counsel is awarded attorney fees in the amount of
$630,000 and expenses in the amount of $67,601.45 from the Net
Settlement Fund.  Lead Plaintiff Barbara Forman is awarded $5,000
as an incentive award from the Settlement Fund.

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/MbnuO7 from Leagle.com.

Barbara Forman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chris T. Nolan --
cnolan@perantinides.com -- Perantinides & Nolan Co., L.P.A., James
Rubin Cummins -- jcummins@cumminslaw.us -- CUMMINS LAW LLC &
Shannon L. Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP,
pro hac vice.

Meridian Bioscience, Inc., John A. Kraeutler & Melissa A. Leuke,
Defendants, represented by James Eugene Burke -- jburke@kmklaw.com
-- Keating Muething & Klekamp, Daniel J. Kramer --
dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison, pro
hac vice, Gregory F. Laufer -- glaufer@paulweiss.com -- Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice & Katherine
Kelly Fell -- kfell@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
& Garrison LLP, pro hac vice.


MESA AIR: Faces 2 IPO-Related Putative Class Lawsuits in Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mesa Air Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that it is subject to two putative class action
lawsuits alleging federal securities law violations in connection
with its initial public offering -- one in the Superior Court of
the State of Arizona and one in U.S. District Court of Arizona.

The Company said, "These purported class actions were filed in
March and April against the Company, certain current and former
officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the Company's
IPO.  The state and federal lawsuits each make the same or similar
allegations of violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements in, or omitting material information from, our IPO
registration statement.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.  We do not currently believe that this
matter is likely to have a material adverse impact on our
consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or our financial
position.  However, any litigation is inherently uncertain, and any
judgment or injunctive relief entered against us or any adverse
settlement could materially and adversely impact our business,
results of operations, financial condition, and prospects."


MORGAN STANLEY: Booker Alleges Discrimination & Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARILYN BOOKER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
Black female employees, Plaintiff v. MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC,
JAMES GORMAN, in his individual and professional capacities, and
BARRY KROUK, in his individual and professional capacities,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02662 (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their
alleged unlawful employment practices, gender discrimination, and
unlawful retaliation in violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,
the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights
Law, the Equal Pay Act, and the New York State Pay Equity Law.

Plaintiff, who is a highly-qualified, decorated and accomplished
Black executive, was hired by Defendant in 1994 as first diversity
officer, held the title of Global Head of Diversity, and the sole
Black female Managing Director in the Wealth Management division at
Morgan Stanley's New York City headquarters.

According to the complaint, Black lives did not matter at Morgan
Stanley because of the racial discrimination and toxic harassing
environment to which Plaintiff and other Black employees were
subjected. Plaintiff has witnessed on too many occasions that White
male leadership repeatedly advanced and supported White Fas and
Trainees, while ignoring minority FAs and Trainees.

Moreover, when Plaintiff raised her concern about the rampant
racial discrimination, she was terminated by Defendant Krouk and
offered no explanation about her expulsion despite Plaintiff's
longevity, loyalty and stellar performance record.

Additionally, Defendant Morgan Stanley continued to retaliate
against Plaintiff between December 9, 2019 and her official last
day, March 9, 2020, by causing her unnecessary harm.

James Morgan is the Chief Executive Officer of the Company.

Barry Krouk is the Managing Director, Chief Administrative Officer,
Field Management at Morgan Stanley, within its Wealth Management
division.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC operates as an investment management
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeanne M. Christensen, Esq.
          Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
          WIGDOR LLP
          85 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Tel: (212) 257-6800
          Fax: (212) 257-6845
          Emails: jchristening@wigdorlaw.com
                  trahman@wigdorlaw.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Still Defends GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("MS&Co.") continues to face the
consolidated class action styled, In re GSE Bonds Antitrust
Litigation, according to Ceres Abingdon L.P.'s Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020.  The Court has previously denied
MS&Co.'s motion to dismiss the litigation.

Beginning on March 25, 2019, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a
series of putative class action complaints filed in the Southern
District of New York, the first of which was styled Alaska
Electrical Pension Fund v. BofA Secs., Inc., et al.

Each complaint alleges a conspiracy to fix prices and restrain
competition in the market for unsecured bonds issued by the
following Government-Sponsored Enterprises: the Federal National
Mortgage Association; the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation;
the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation; and the Federal
Home Loan Banks.  Each complaint raises a claim under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act and seeks, among other things, injunctive relief
and treble compensatory damages.

On May 23, 2019, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint, now styled In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation.
The purported class period in the consolidated amended complaint is
now from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2016.

On June 13, 2019, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint.

On August 29, 2019, the court in In re GSE Bonds Antitrust
Litigation denied MS&Co.'s motion to dismiss.  The case was set for
trial in May 2020.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC operates as an investment management
company. The Company offers wealth management, asset allocation,
capital markets, investment banking, research, trading,
recapitalizations, equities valuations, trust and estate planning,
strategies, and financial advisory services.  Morgan Stanley & Co.
serves customers worldwide.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces Abellard FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationstar Mortgage,
LLC. The case is captioned as David Abellard, Jr. and Derrick
Abellard, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, doing business as: Mr. Cooper, Case No.
1:20-cv-22445-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act regarding consumer credit.

Nationstar offers mortgage services. The Company provides mortgages
loan, re-financing, and home equity loans. Mr. Cooper serves client
in the state of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Erika Denise Rodriguez, Esq.
          RODRIGUEZ LAW & ADVOCACY, P.A.
          7301 W Palmetto Park Road, Suite 207A
          Boca Raton, FL 33433
          Telephone: (561) 800-4177
          E-mail: Erika@rodriguezlawpa.com

               - and -

          Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
          JESSICA L.KERR, P.A. DBA THE ADVOCACY GROUP
          200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 282-1858
          Facsimile: (844) 786-3694
          E-mail: service@advocacypa.com

               - and -

          Scott David Hirsch, Esq.
          SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP
          7301 W Palmetto Park Road, Suite 207A
          Boca Raton, FL 33433
          Telephone: (561) 569-7062
          E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Suit Over Bempegaldesleukin Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Nektar Therapeutics said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend securities
class action suit related to bempegaldesleukin.

On October 30, 2018, the company and certain of its executives were
named in a putative securities class action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which
complaint was subsequently amended on May 15, 2019.

Also, on February 13, 2019, and February 18, 2019, shareholder
derivative complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware naming the CEO, CFO and certain members of
Nektar's board.

These class action and shareholder derivative actions assert, among
other things, that for a period beginning at least from November
11, 2017 through October 2, 2018, the company's stock was inflated
due to alleged misrepresentations about the efficacy and safety of
bempegaldesleukin.

In addition, on August 19, 2019, the company and certain of its
executives were named in a putative securities class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, which complaint was subsequently amended on
January 24, 2020.

Also, on February 11, 2020, and on February 20, 2020, shareholder
derivative complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California naming the CEO, CFO and certain
members of Nektar's board.

These class action and shareholder derivative actions assert, among
other things, that for a period between February 15, 2019 and
August 8, 2019, inclusive, our stock was inflated due to an alleged
failure to disclose a reduction in the planned number of
bempegaldesleukin clinical trials and a bempegaldesleukin
manufacturing issue.

All of these cases are in the early stages.

Nektar said, "Accordingly, we cannot reasonably estimate a
potential future loss or a range of potential future losses.
However, an unfavorable resolution could potentially have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and
results of operations or prospects, and potentially result in
paying monetary damages. We have recorded no liability for these
matters in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at either
March 31, 2020 or December 31, 2019."

Nektar Therapeutics is a research-based biopharmaceutical company
that discovers and develops innovative new medicines in areas of
high unmet medical need. Our research and development pipeline of
new investigational drugs includes treatments for cancer and
autoimmune disease. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


NESTLE SA: First Defense in Slave Labor Class Action Fails
----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien of Legal Newsline reports that Nestle can't use the
Anti-SLAPP Law to shield it from a class action lawsuit alleging
the company misleads customers about the use of child and slave
labor to harvest cocoa in West Africa.

A federal judge in San Diego ruled June 17 that inclusion of a web
address on Nestle product labels does not make the company's
advertising protected under the Anti-SLAPP Law, a tool used by
defendants who claim lawsuits are attempting to chill their right
to free speech.

The ruling will allow the case to move forward. It was filed more
than a year ago by Coast Law Group, Schonbrun Seplow and Reese
LLP.

The case says Nestle has been aware of child and slave labor in its
supply chain for more than a decade.

"Notwithstanding knowing full well that its chocolate is primarily
procured from farms using the worst forms of child labor, Nestle
slaps bogus 'seals' on its products claiming its cocoa is
'sustainably sourced,' 'certified' and 'supports' or 'helps'
farmers when it knows the opposite is true," the lawsuit says.

Nestle pointed to the Nestle Cocoa Plan website, claiming its
statements about combating child and slave labor brought the case
into the scope of the Anti-SLAPP Law because they concern an issue
of public interest.

Nestle included the web address on its packaging. The argument
failed, Judge James Lorenz wrote.

"Defendant's product labels are not about environmental
sustainability and labor conditions in general," Lorenz wrote.
"They refer to Defendant's environmental and labor-related business
operations specifically.

"Accordingly, in context, the reference to the website does not
negate the purely commercial statements on the product labels."
[GN]


NEW YORK TIMES: Hit With Class Action Over Auto Renewals
--------------------------------------------------------
Nick Givas of Fox News reports a woman from California has filed a
class-action lawsuit against the New York Times, alleging that the
paper has been violating state law by automatically renewing
customer subscriptions without their knowledge, in an effort to
make it harder for users to walk away.

The lawsuit claims the Times never informed customers of the
renewal terms in a "clear and conspicuous manner" and that it
charged money to consumers' debit and credit cards "without first
obtaining their affirmative consent."

It also accused the Gray Lady of failing to provide an accessible
cancellation option that is "easy and efficient."

California's Automatic Renewal Law states that online retailers
using automatic re-enrollment must first obtain affirmative consent
from users.

The complaint was filed by Maribel Moses and others, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to
Law & Crime.

"Defendant's recent growth in revenues and subscriber count with
respect to its digital NYT Subscriptions coincides with a sharp
decline in subscriber satisfaction as the NYT Website and App have
become riddled with ‘dark patterns.' A dark pattern is ‘a
process design that requires several complex procedures to do
simple things,'" the lawsuit stated.

The complaint also claimed the NYT website directs customers who
want to cancel their subscription to a chat facility that is only
open during select hours and is difficult to reach.

Moses said she's attempted to cancel her subscription many times
already, but has been unable to do so, despite reaching out to the
Times' PayPal subscription address directly. She claimed they never
responded to her inquires.

The lawsuit is seeking actual, compensatory and punitive damages,
along with an injunction to prevent the Times from continuing the
alleged practices that are listed, Law & Crime reported.

Fox News reached out to the Times about the lawsuit and was
provided a brief statement from Danielle Rhoades Ha, who serves as
the paper's vice president of communications.

"We are confident that our marketing and subscription practices
fully comply with California law and the laws of other states," the
statement read. "We take seriously our commitment to deal openly
and fairly with our subscribers and to provide effective customer
service." [GN]


NEWTEK BUSINESS: Faces American Video Suit Over PPP Loans
---------------------------------------------------------
Newtek Business Services Corp. said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that it has became aware of the
putative class action styled American Video Duplicating, Inc. et al
v. Citigroup Inc. et al., wherein "Newtek Business Services, Inc."
is named as one of the 4,990 PPP lender defendants.

The Company said, "In May 2020, the Company became aware of the
putative class action styled American Video Duplicating, Inc. et al
v. Citigroup Inc. et al. (C.D.  Cal.  20-cv-03815) (the "Action"),
which asserts claims under the California Unfair Business Practices
Law in connection with the alleged failure of lenders to pay agent
fees under the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP").  While the
action fails to assert any specific allegations of wrongdoing by
the Company or NSBF, the Action names "Newtek Business Services,
Inc." [sic] as one of the 4,990 PPP lender defendants in the
Action.  The Company believes the claims asserted in the Action
against the Company or NSBF are meritless, and intends to
vigorously defend itself in the Action."


NN INC: Still Defends Erie County ERS Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
NN, Inc. still defends itself against a class action lawsuit filed
by Erie County Employees' Retirement System, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020.

On November 1, 2019, Erie County Employees' Retirement System, on
behalf of a purported class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against
the Company, certain of the Company's current and former officers
and directors, and each of the underwriters involved in the
Company's public offering and sale of 14.4 million shares of its
common stock pursuant to a preliminary prospectus supplement, dated
September 10, 2018, a final prospectus supplement, dated September
13, 2018, and a base prospectus, dated April 19, 2017, relating to
the Company's effective shelf registration statement on Form S-3
(File No. 333-216737) (the "Offering"), which complaint was amended
on January 24, 2020.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Offering.  The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock in the Offering.  The
complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  The
Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself against these actions.  The
Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of
the litigation would have a material impact on the Company's
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Appeal from Dismissal Order Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that that Company is awaiting a
decision on a class action appeal.

On November 16, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Dror Gronich v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C.
Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:17-cv-08983-NRB.  

On November 17, 2017, a second purported securities class action
complaint captioned Steve Klein v. Omega Healthcare Investors,
Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth
was filed against the Company and the same officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
No. 1:17-cv-09024-NRB.  

Thereafter, the Court considered a series of applications by
various shareholders to be named lead plaintiff, consolidated the
two actions and designated Royce Setzer as the lead plaintiff.

Pursuant to a Scheduling Order entered by the Court, lead plaintiff
Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint on May 25, 2018 (the "Securities
Class Action").

The Securities Class Action purports to be a class action brought
on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities
between May 3, 2017 and October 31, 2017.

The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), by making materially false and/or misleading statements, and
by failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, including the financial and
operating results of one of the Company's operators, the ability of
such operator to make timely rent payments, and the impairment of
certain of the Company's leases and the uncollectibility of certain
receivables.

The Securities Class Action, which purports to assert claims for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest,
fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.  

The Company and the officers named in the Securities Class Action
filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2018. On March 25, 2019, the
Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against
all defendants.  

Plaintiffs have appealed the order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal is fully briefed, and
the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on November 13, 2019.   

The Company is awaiting a decision on the appeal.

In the District Court, on March 26, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion
for an indicative ruling regarding relief from final judgement
based on allegedly newly-discovered evidence and for leave to file
an amended complaint.

The Company believes that the motion is without merit and filed an
opposition on May 1, 2020.

Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
(REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the
long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in
the United States which are operated by independent healthcare
operating companies. The company is based in Hunt Valley,
Maryland.


OMNICELL INC: Heard Suit Underway in State Court
------------------------------------------------
Omnicell, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the parties in the suit entitled, Corey Heard,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Omnicell, Inc., Case No. 2019-CH-06817, are awaiting a court
decision on defendants' motion to dismiss.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, on June 5,
2019, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, captioned Corey Heard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No.
2019-CH-06817.

The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages in the
form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the
alternative, negligent violation of BIPA, and certain declaratory,
injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to
allegations of violation of Biometric Information Privacy Act
(BIPA) by the Company.

The complaint was served on the Company on June 13, 2019.

On July 31, 2019, the Company filed a motion to stay or consolidate
the case with the Mazya Action.

The Court subsequently, on October 10, 2019, denied the motion,
without prejudice, as being moot in view of the Company's dismissal
from the Mazya Action. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on October 31, 2019.

The motion to dismiss is fully-briefed.

The hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was previously set
for March 16, 2020, but was continued to May 27, 2020.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software
solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare
worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Automation
and Analytics, and Medication Adherence. The Company was formerly
known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to
Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Reached in Costas Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that a term sheet for a proposed settlement
of the action without admission of liability or wrongdoing has been
signed between the parties in the class action suit initiated by
Mac Costas.

On June 11, 2018, a putative class action was filed by Mac Costas
on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or acquired the
Company's ordinary shares between August 8, 2017 and May 15, 2018
was commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer, which was subsequently amended by a
consolidated complaint filed by lead plaintiff Phoenix Insurance in
May 13, 2019.  The complaint asserts claim against all defendants
pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder and against its officers pursuant to Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.  The complaint alleges that the Company's Form
10-K for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and Form 10-Qs
for each of the quarters in the nine months ended September 30,
2017 contained material misstatements or omissions, among other
things, with respect to the Company's tax provisions and the
effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting, and
that, as a result of such alleged misstatements and omissions, the
plaintiffs suffered damages.

On December 6, 2019 the Company's motion to dismiss was denied by
the court.

On March 23, 2020, pursuant to out of court mediation, a term sheet
for a proposed settlement of the action without admission of
liability or wrongdoing, was signed between the parties.  The sum
the Company will bear in this context is not material.  The parties
are working on comprehensive settlement documentation for
submission to the court, whose approval is required.

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia,
Kenya,Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally.
The company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product,
and Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is
based in Reno, Nevada.


PARAGON PRIVATE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Sawyer Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM P. SAWYER, M.D., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARAGON PRIVATE HEALTH, LLC,
Defendant, Case 1:20-cv-04627 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2020) seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Paragon Private Health LLC provides concierge-type medical practice
solutions helping physicians successfully launch customized,
concierge programs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

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


PERFORMANCE SPORT: Underpays Sales Personnel, Del Toro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JORGE LUIS DEL TORO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEFORMANCE SPORT CARS, INC., a for
profit Florida corporation, d/b/a Auction Direct Auto Sales, USMAN
RIAZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-22534-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., June 19, 2020) challenges Defendants' unlawful pay plan and
practice in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately 2016
through early June 2020 as salesperson.

According to the complaint, Defendants compensate Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees under a "commission-only" pay
plan, which does not pay anything at all regardless of the number
of hours actually worked by sales personnel, by merely calculating
the number of cars sold and revenues collected during the
corresponding weekly pay period.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to timely pay Plaintiff
and other similarly situated on the scheduled pay date or otherwise
paying them less than the minimum wage rates as required by the
FLSA.

Usman Riaz owns and operates Performance Sport Cars, Inc.

Performance Sport Cars, Inc. operates a privately held automobile
dealership. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
          ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33143
          Tel: 305-665-9211
          Fax: 305-328-4842
          Email: AFS@LABORLAWFLA.COM


PHOENIX TREE: Schall Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Phoenix Tree
Holdings Limited (NYSE:DNK) for violations of the federal
securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to prospectuses and registration
statements issued in connection with the Company's January 22, 2020
initial public offering ("IPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm
before June 26, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact the firm 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. Phoenix Tree misrepresented the number
and nature of renter complaints before its IPO. The Company also
misrepresented its exposure to adverse effects on the rental market
in China due to the Wuhan coronavirus. Following its IPO, reports
exposed that Phoenix Tree experienced significant financial
problems based on the coronavirus outbreak. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements and Registration Statements were
false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth
about Phoenix Tree, 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]


PNC FINANCIAL: Winner Seeks Payment of PPP Agent Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
DAVID WINNER D/B/A DLW BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, LTD., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PNC
FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case: 1:20-cv-03515
(N.D. Ill., June 16, 2020) is an action seeking compensation for
the Defendant's refusal to pay the Plaintiff and a large number of
other similarly situated agents for the services they rendered to
recipients of Small Business Administration ("SBA") loans, as
required under the CARES Act.

According to the complaint, Congress passed the CARES Act on March
27, 2020 to provide economic relief to workers and small businesses
suffering economic hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Part of
the CARES Act, known as the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"),
was designed to keep small businesses afloat and avoid massive
layoffs by distributing sufficient funds to cover up to eight weeks
of payroll and other expenses through the Small Business
Administration ("SBA").

When the PPP loans have been disbursed to borrowers, the Defendant
refused to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated agents
their statutorily mandated fees. The Plaintiff and the Class seeks
recover fees for the work they have performed assisting borrowers
with PPP loan applications submitted to the Defendant which should
have been compensated accordingly.

PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. is a diversified financial
services organization. The Company provides regional banking,
wholesale banking, and asset management services nationally and in
the Company's primary regional markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          Facsimile: (212) 355-9592

               - and -

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          Roger N. Heller, Esq.
          Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

               - and -

          Gary Klinger, Esq.
          Illinois State Bar No. 6303726
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290


PPL CORP: Appeal in Cane Run Environmental Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation (PPL) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs' appeal from a ruling in the
Cane Run Environmental Claims class action suit remains pending.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and
PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), and common law claims of nuisance,
trespass and negligence.

In July 2014, the U.S. District Court dismissed the RCRA claims and
all but one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common
law tort claims. In February 2017, the U.S. District Court
dismissed PPL as a defendant and dismissed the final federal claim
against LG&E, and in April 2017, issued an Order declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims
dismissing the case in its entirety.

In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in
Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging
state law nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged
property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a
class of residents within one to three miles of the plant.

On January 8, 2020, the Jefferson Circuit Court issued an order
denying the plaintiffs' request for class certification. On January
14, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Kentucky
Court of Appeals. PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of
this matter and an estimate or range of possible losses cannot be
determined.

PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated.  It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.


PROASSURANCE CORP: Bronstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against ProAssurance Corporation
("ProAssurance" or "the Company") (NYSE: PRA) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired ProAssurance securities between April 26, 2019 and May 7,
2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/pra

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:
(1) that ProAssurance lacked adequate underwriting process and risk
management controls necessary to set appropriate loss reserves in
its Specialty P&C segment; (2) that ProAssurance failed to properly
assess a large national healthcare account that experienced losses
far exceeding the assumptions made when the account was
underwritten; and (3) that as a result, ProAssurance was subject to
a materially heightened risk of financial loss and reserve
charges.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/pra 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
ProAssurance you have until August 17, 2020 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

Contact:

          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
          Tel: 212-697-6484
          E-mail: info@bgandg.com
          Web site: https://www.bgandg.com/
[GN]


PROASSURANCE CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until August 17, 2020 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against ProAssurance
Corporation (NYSE: PRA), if they purchased the Company's shares
between April 26, 2019 and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of ProAssurance and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right
to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-pra/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by August 17, 2020.

About the Lawsuit

ProAssurance and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On May 8, 2020, following prior negative disclosures regarding the
Company's relationship with one of its very large clients, the
Company disclosed that the client would likely not be renewing its
policy but instead exercise an option for tail coverage that would
result in an additional $50 million in losses for 2Q 2020.

On this news, the price of ProAssurance's shares plummeted.

The case is Sheet Metal Workers Local 19 Pension Fund v.
Proassurance Corporation, et al., 20-cv-856.

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

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

Contact:

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

PROASSURANCE CORP: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama on behalf of those who acquired ProAssurance
Corporation (NYSE: PRA) securities during the period from April 26,
2019 through May 7, 2020. Investors have until August 17, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to disclose that: (i)
ProAssurance lacked adequate underwriting process and risk
management controls necessary to set appropriate loss reserves in
its Specialty P&C segment; and (ii) ProAssurance failed to properly
assess a large national healthcare account that experienced losses
far exceeding the assumptions made when the account was
underwritten.

On January 22, 2020, ProAssurance disclosed a $37 million charge to
its loss reserves for the fourth quarter of 2019 due to
"deteriorating loss experience, driven by a large national
healthcare account." On this news, the price of ProAssurance shares
fell $4.18, or 11.1%, to close at $33.40 on January 23, 2020. On
February 20, 2020, ProAssurance revealed that the charge was
actually $51.5 million, not $37 million.

On May 8, 2020, ProAssurance announced that the large healthcare
client would likely not renew its policy and instead would likely
exercise an option for tail coverage that would result in an
additional $50 million in losses in the second quarter of 2020. On
this news, the price of ProAssurance shares fell $4.38, or 21.5%,
to close at $15.95 on May 8, 2020.

If you acquired ProAssurance securities, have information, or would
like to learn more about these claims, please contact the firm to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars.

Contact:

         Kirby McInerney LLP
         Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
         Tel: (212) 371-6600
         E-mail: investigations@kmllp.com
         Web site: http://www.kmllp.com/
[GN]


PROASSURANCE CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class-action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of ProAssurance Corporation (PRA) between April 26, 2019
and May 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for ProAssurance investors under the federal
securities laws. A class-action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 17, 2020.

To join the ProAssurance class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1879.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented the Company's underwriting and reserve standards and
failed to adequately reserve for losses. Specifically, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) ProAssurance lacked adequate underwriting process, and
risk management controls necessary to set appropriate loss reserves
in its Specialty Property and Casualty segment; (2) ProAssurance
failed to properly assess a large national healthcare account that
experienced losses far exceeding the assumptions made when the
account was underwritten; and (3) as a result, ProAssurance was
subject to materially heightened risk of financial loss and reserve
charges.

A class-action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 17,
2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1879.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll-free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/[GN]


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Defends Advance Trust Class Suit in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend
itself against a putative class action suit entitled, Advance Trust
& Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life
Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective Life Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290.

Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities
Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290, is a putative class
action that was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Plaintiff alleges that the Company required policyholders to pay
unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges.

Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life and
variable universal life policies issued or administered by the
Company or its predecessors that provide that cost of insurance
rates are to be determined based on expectations of future
mortality experience.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
pre-judgment and post judgment interest, costs, and other
unspecified relief.

The Company is vigorously defending this matter and cannot predict
the outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that might result from this litigation.

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

Protective Life Insurance Company, a stock life insurance company,
provides financial services through the production, distribution,
and administration of insurance and investment products primarily
in the United States. The company operates through Life Marketing,
Acquisitions, Annuities, Stable Value Products, and Asset
Protection segments. The company was founded in 1907 and is based
in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life Insurance Company is a
subsidiary of Protective Life Corporation.


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Faces Nicholson Suit Over Teachers' Pension
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA SMALLS NICHOLSON, HERBERT SMALLS JR., LATARSHA SMALLS,
ADULT CHILDREN HEIRS AND BENEFICIARIES OF FRANCES SMALLS THEIR
MOTHER DECEASED DECEMBER 24, 1992, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED AND TREATED HEIRS AND BENEFICIARIES OF
DECEDENTS INSURED AND/OR PROVIDED BY PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY
v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, EMPLOYEE AGENTS, FRED JOHNSON,
ROBERT L. SPENCER, RODERICK A. HARMON, JANE EDWARDS, RACHEL COHEN,
JOYCE, KAREN McFADDEN JOHN DOE (S) 1-100, JANE DOE (S) 1-100 HEAD
DOE (S) 1-25, Case No. ESX-L-004016-20 (N.J. Super., Essex Cty.,
June 12, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for alleged
failure to advise insured Frances Smalls of her option to have a
conversion of her policy for her entitlement to 3.5 times multiple
of her salary upon death.

Prudential owed the teachers each and all, including Frances
Smalls, the Plaintiffs' mother, the high trustee-beneficiary duty
of care to properly administrate the Teachers' Pension Funds, the
Plaintiffs assert.

According to the complaint, it is not known how many other
decedents and beneficiaries that Prudential has kept hidden from
the beneficiaries of deceased teachers the full benefit of the
policies for the State Teachers Fund and benefits who had hired
them to administrate the teachers' contribution.

Plaintiffs Cassandra Nicholson, Herbert Smalls Jr., Latarsha Smalls
are the only children and living heirs of their mother, Frances
Small, a retired Teacher entitled to the NJ Teachers Pension and
Retirement Benefits.

The Defendants are Prudential Insurance Company and their
employees-agents. Prudential is the contract administrator of the
NJ Teachers Pension Fund since before year 1990 to present and
responsible in a "trust" position to the State of New Jersey and
its Teachers whose retirement benefits they are handling.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          ELDRIDGE HAWKINS LLC
          60 Evergreen Place, Suite 510
          East Orange, NJ 07018
          Telephone: (973) 676-5070
          Facsimile: (973) 676-7356


QIAGEN NV: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of QIAGEN N.V. (NYSE: QGEN) common
stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of QIAGEN by
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. ("Thermo Fisher") and Quebec B.V.
("Merger Sub") announced on March 3, 2020 (the "Complaint").  The
Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 against QIAGEN, its Supervisory Board (the "Board"), Thermo
Fisher, and Merger Sub, is captioned Thompson v. QIAGEN N.V., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00728 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
https://www.rigrodskylong.com/cases-qiagen-nv,join.

On March 3, 2020, QIAGEN entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Thermo Fisher and Merger Sub.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced
a tender offer to purchase all of QIAGEN's outstanding common stock
for €39.00 in cash per share (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Solicitation
Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The Complaint alleges that the Solicitation Statement
omits material information with respect to, among other things, the
analyses performed by QIAGEN's financial advisors. The Complaint
seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of
holders of QIAGEN common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 17, 2020.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware and New York, has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors
and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in securities
fraud and corporate class actions nationwide.

Contact:

         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         Seth D. Rigrodsky
         Gina M. Serra
         Toll Free: (888) 969-4242
         Tel: (302) 295-5310
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         E-mail: info@rl-legal.com
         Web site: https://rl-legal.com
[GN]


RA MEDICAL: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Derr Suit Set for July 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
RA Medical Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that hearing on the motion to dismiss filed
in the putative securities class action suit entitled, Derr v. Ra
Medical Systems, Inc., et. al., is scheduled for July 20, 2020.

On June 7, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Derr v. Ra Medical Systems, Inc., et. al., (Civil Action
no. 19CV1079 LAB NLS) was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California against the company,
certain current and former officers and directors, and certain
underwriters of its Initial Public Offering (IPO).

The complaint alleged that the defendants made material
misstatements or omissions in our registration statement in
violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On
September 5, 2019, the court appointed Lead Plaintiffs.

On January 13, 2020, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. In addition to the Securities Act violations alleged in
the original complaint, the amended complaint alleges that the
defendants made material misstatements or omissions between
September 27, 2018 and November 27, 2019, inclusive, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


On March 13, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for July
20, 2020.

Management intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

RA Medical said, "At this time, we cannot predict how a court or
jury will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of the
potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome. Should we
ultimately be found liable, the liability could have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition and our results of
operations for the period or periods in which it is incurred."

RA Medical Systems, Inc. designs, develops, and produces medical
devices. The Company offers excimer lasers for the treatment of
dermatologic and cardiovascular diseases. RA Medical Systems serves
patients in the United States. The company is based in Carlsbad,
California.


REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regulus Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement in a consolidated class action suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California is
still pending.

On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Baran Polat in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, or District Court, against the company,
Paul C. Grint (the company's former Chief Executive Officer), and
Joseph P. Hagan (then the company's Chief Operating Officer and
currently the company's President and Chief Executive Officer).

The complaint includes claims asserted, on behalf of certain
purchasers of the company's securities, under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In
general, the complaint alleges that, between January 21, 2016, and
June 27, 2016, the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business and the prospects for RG-101, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its securities.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint was
filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company, Mr.
Hagan, Dr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company's former Chief
Research and Development Officer. The Complaint alleges claims
similar to those asserted by Mr. Polat. The actions have been
related.

On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order stating
that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the
District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the District
Court for the filing of an amended or consolidated complaint and
the timing of defendants' answer or response.

On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two actions,
appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of counsel were filed in
the actions. On October 26, 2017, the District Court entered an
order consolidating the cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and
appointing lead counsel for lead plaintiffs.

On December 22, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint against the Company, Dr. Grint, Mr. Hagan, and Michael
Huang (the company's former Vice President of Clinical
Development).

The consolidated complaint alleges that between February 17, 2016
and June 12, 2017, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding RG-101.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 6, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. On March 23, 2018, plaintiff filed their
opposition to the motion and on April 24, 2018, defendants filed
their response. On September 5, 2019, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed
their amended complaint on October 1, 2019.

Subsequent to the filing of the amended complaint, counsel for the
parties engaged in negotiations to resolve the case.

On November 4, 2019, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
case for $0.9 million, with approximately $0.2 million to be paid
by the company and the balance to be paid by its D&O insurance
carrier.

On December 11, 2019, the parties entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement, which was amended on February 6, 2020. On
February 7, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement.

The court has taken the matter under submission.

Regulus said, "The settlement is contingent upon court approval. In
connection with the proposed settlement and in accordance with
authoritative guidance, we recorded the $0.9 million loss
contingency as a current liability on our balance sheet at March
31, 2020, and recorded the $0.7 million of expected insurance
proceeds from our D&O insurance carrier as a current receivable on
our balance sheet at March 31, 2020. The $0.2 million settlement
amount payable by the Company was recorded to the statement of
operations and comprehensive loss for the year ended December 31,
2019. The settlement is contingent upon both the parties’ entry
into a definitive settlement agreement and court approval."

Regulus Therapeutics Inc. operates within the biopharmaceutical
industry. The Company's products aim to treat and prevent hepatitis
C infections, cardiovascular, fibrosis, oncology,
immuno-inflammatory, and metabolic diseases. Regulas Therapeutics
offers its services worldwide. Regulus Therapeutics Inc. was
founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


REMINGTON OUTDOOR: Judge Won't Reopen Case Over Model 700 Rifle
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn at CNBC reports that the judge who approved a landmark
class action settlement in 2017 involving Remington's most popular
bolt-action rifle is refusing to reopen the case despite complaints
that some guns are continuing to malfunction even after they have
been repaired.

The case involves Remington's iconic Model 700 rifle, which CNBC
has been investigating since 2010. Lawsuits have alleged the
company covered up a design flaw that allows the guns to fire
without the trigger being pulled, leading to dozens of deaths and
hundreds of serious injuries.

Remington has always maintained that the guns are safe and free of
defects. But the company agreed in the class action settlement,
reached in 2014, to replace the triggers on millions of guns, free
of charge, to put an end to the litigation.

As the deadline to file a claim under the settlement approached in
April, CNBC reported that several customers had complained to the
company that retrofitted guns were continuing to malfunction. That
prompted two Remington customers who had objected to the original
settlement to go back to court and ask the judge to hold a hearing
based on CNBC's reporting.

But in a three-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Ortrie D. Smith in
Kansas City, Missouri, declined.

"If an individual has a claim related to the replacement trigger
mechanism, this lawsuit is not the proper avenue for such a claim,"
Smith wrote.

Remington had argued against reopening the case, saying that the
replacement trigger mechanism known as the XMark Pro (XMP) is
safe.

"The Court already has addressed the efficacy of the XMP trigger
mechanism, and (CNBC)'s article provides no reason to revisit those
findings," wrote Remington attorney Amy Crouch.

Multiple complaints

CNBC reviewed nearly a dozen Remington product service reports
documenting similar complaints.

"I am now afraid to use this gun because of the safety issue
involved," one customer wrote, saying his rifle fired when he
closed the bolt after putting a round in the chamber.

Another customer noted that his gun malfunctioned only after the
repairs were done.

"I never had any problem before the trigger was replaced," he
wrote.

Among the customers who complained was William Cook of Columbus,
Montana, who said he had his Model 700 retrofitted at a Remington
authorized repair center in the summer of 2015. When he took it on
a hunting trip later that year, he said the gun fired when he
switched off the safety to target an elk. He said the round
narrowly missed a hunting companion.

"I'm lucky I didn't blow his liver out," he said.

Crouch noted that Cook had his rifle repaired under a recall of the
XMP that was announced in conjunction with the class action
settlement, but he had not filed a claim under the settlement
itself. She also said that the company replaced the trigger again,
returned the rifle to Cook, and never heard from him again.

"If the trigger retrofit done by Remington had failed, certainly
Mr. Cook would have contacted Remington, but Mr. Cook did not do
so," she wrote.

But Cook had told CNBC in April that he did not want to take any
more chances with the gun, so he traded it to a local gun dealer.

By the numbers

Attorneys for the class action plaintiffs, who shared $12.5 million
in legal fees under the settlement, also argued against reopening
the case. They said they had received hundreds of calls since the
settlement was announced in 2014, but none involving the alleged
malfunctions.

In fact, attorney Eric Holland said, the only complaints they were
aware of were those cited in the CNBC report.

"To date, not one class member has contacted any of Class Counsel's
firms regarding any allegations of retrofitted firearms
discharging," Holland wrote.

Remington has refused to say how many complaints it has received.
Its court filing only acknowledges the complaint by Cook, and it
notes the company "could not duplicate Mr. Cook's concern."

And neither Remington nor plaintiffs' attorneys will say how many
customers ultimately filed claims under the settlement. The last
time the figure was reported to the court—in 2017—only about
22,000 claims had been filed out of some 7.5 million guns
affected.

Attorneys also dismissed concerns about repairs being delayed
because of the Covid-19 pandemic. In April, CNBC contacted all 21
Remington authorized repair centers and found several either
closed, operating under reduced hours, or not offering walk-in
service because of local stay-at-home orders. But attorneys argued
that customers were only required to file a claim by the April 23
deadline. That process, which occurred online, was unaffected by
the pandemic. The judge agreed.

"The closures only prevented class members from personally
delivering their firearms to the repair centers," Smith wrote.

In addition to the Model 700, the settlement covered Remington
bolt-action rifle models Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770,
600, 660, 721, 722, 725, and the XP-100 bolt action pistol. [GN]

REVOLVE GROUP: MOU Inked in Employee Wage-and-Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Revolve Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the company has entered into a binding
memorandum of understanding to settle the purported class action
suit related to employee wage-and-hour claims.

The company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
which was filed in May 2019, arising from employee wage-and-hour
claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest period,
payment of wages at separation, wage statement violations, and
unfair business practices.  

On January 6, 2020, the Company and the individual defendant in the
case entered into a binding memorandum of understanding to settle
the case which will need to be submitted for court approval prior
to becoming final.  

Revolve said, "As a result, in December 2019, we accrued
approximately $1.0 million to general and administrative expenses
which as of March 31, 2020, still remained accrued within accrued
expenses on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet."

Revolve Group, Inc. is an e-commerce platform that caters to
millennial and generation Z consumers. The company curates luxury
apparel, footwear, and accessory items, which it sells through a
digital platform. It also owns several private brands. The company
is based in Cerritos, California.


RICHMOND, VA: Police Faces Class Action Over Tear Gas
-----------------------------------------------------
Maura Mazurowski, writing for Virginia Mercury, reports that a
federal class action lawsuit has been filed against the Richmond
Police Department on behalf of protesters who were tear-gassed at
the Robert E. Lee Monument more than 20 minutes ahead of an 8 p.m.
curfew on June 1.

Filed on June 16 by Richmond attorney Tom Roberts, the action
follows a June 4 lawsuit against RPD on behalf of Jonathan Arthur,
an associate of Roberts' firm, who was pepper sprayed twice during
the demonstration, according to the suit.

Both suits seek compensatory damages for the violation of
protesters' First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights.

"It was intentional actions by the police department to kill the
speech of those who voiced their opinions," Roberts said. "Those
opinions, whether they agreed with them or not, are protected by
the First Amendment and were violated."

The action names Jarrod Blackwood, Megan Blackwood, Ryan Tagg,
Christopher Gayler and Keenan Angel, all Richmond residents, as the
plaintiffs who will represent two subclasses of protesters.

Subclass 1 is for those whose freedom of speech was violated and is
represented by Jarrod and Megan Blackwood, who attended the
demonstration with their 12-year-old son and retreated before
suffering "adverse physical contact."

Subclass 2, represented by Tagg, Gayler and Angel, is for
individuals that experienced "unwanted harmful or offensive
physical contact" with Richmond police officers, according to the
suit.

The five "lead plaintiffs" have filed suit for their own claims
against Richmond police officers, as well.

"That's the beauty and simplicity of a class action — it ropes in
all of the plaintiffs," Roberts said. "Once you set up the
recovery, then people simply file claims and claims are
administered under the class action."

According to the suit, Richmond police officers appeared at
approximately 7:31 p.m. "without provocation or warning" in a
"convoy of vehicle" towards Lee Circle, establishing a "skirmish
line" of police officers along the northwestern side of the
monument.

"This skirmish line was heavily armed and armored, wearing body
armor and masks, and most had AR-style assault weapons and their
side-arms," the suit reads.

Minutes later, a second armored vehicle with additional police
officers arrived on the scene, and with it, a Richmond police
officer "threw tear-gas canister into the assembly, quickly
followed by other officers" as many protesters were kneeling with
their hands in the air chanting "hands up, don't shoot," according
to the suit.

"It is unacceptable that men and women, gathering peacefully to
protest police misconduct, were assaulted in this way by police,"
said Andrew Bodoh, co-counsel on the suit.

The defendants, only referred to as Does 1-X, are all members of
the RPD's "skirmish line." The suit will therefore first identify
the officers involved and bring them into the action as named
defendants.

The police department is represented by Richmond attorney William
K. Shipman. Shipman did not respond to a request for comment.

"We are 99.99 percent guaranteed that we will be able to identify
the officers that were involved," Roberts said, noting a subpoena
has already been issued to identify the officers when the first
suit was filed on June 4.

"It will take more work to identify what each particular officer
did that evening," he said.

Once the defendants are identified and the court certifies the
plaintiffs' class, Roberts and Bodoh will begin an in-depth
discovery "behind the blue-wall" to provide transparency on the
details of what transpired on June 1.

The police department initially said that it was necessary to tear
gas the demonstrators in order to get police officers to safety.
They corrected that about two hours later with a tweet saying the
action was "unwarranted" with the promise to discipline the
officers involved.

Mayor Levar Stoney condemned the action, saying that "it should not
have happened" and that the officers would be punished.

"People will be held accountable," Stoney said at a June 2 press
conference outside of Richmond City Hall.

That accountability came two weeks later. On June 16, Stoney said
he had requested and accepted the resignation of Richmond Police
Chief William Smith following two nights of protests that saw
police use gas and rubber bullets outside the city's police
headquarters.

Roberts said that the uncertainty regarding Smith's direct
involvement with the incident on June 1 and the continued use of
tear gas and rubber bullets against peaceful protesters are the
"biggest reasons" for filing these lawsuits.

"People are saying the police apologized so why are you suing? The
short answer is an apology is cheap," Roberts said. "This is a
chance for the judiciary to keep the executive branch in check."

Gene Lepley, public affair director of RPD, said that the police
department "does not comment on lawsuits" in an email.

Once the court certifies the class action, a public notice will be
published informing those who were protesting at the Lee statue on
June 1 that they are plaintiffs in this case, Roberts said.

The June 4 lawsuit has been assigned to Judge David J. Novak of the
Eastern District Court. [GN]


RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Boyce Sues in W.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubin & Rothman, LLC.
The case is captioned as Christopher Boyce, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, Case No.
6:20-cv-06400-EAW (W.D.N.Y., June 12, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act regarding consumer credit.

Rubin & Rothman is a New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and
Massachusetts creditor's rights law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Kaplan, Esq.
          DAVID M. KAPLAN, ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
          46 Helmsford Way
          Penfield, NY 14526
          Telephone: (585) 330-2222
          E-mail: dmkaplan@rochester.rr.com

               - and -

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: thardy@edcombs.com


SALT SPRINGS: Class Action vs. Fla. Condo Complex Moves Forward
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien of Legal Newsline reports that a condominium complex
in Florida will have to face a class action lawsuit after
publicizing the names of every tenant who was behind on payments.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal on June 12 ruled against Salt
Springs Resort Association, which posted a list of more than 100
names and the amounts they owed on what is alleged to be a
"deadbeat list" prohibited by Florida law.

Plaintiff Latheresa Williams is trying to prove the complex's
actions violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

The court said for the FCCPA, which prohibits the posting of
deadbeat lists to collect debts, to apply, the payment obligation
must arise from a consumer out of a money, property, insurance or
services transaction which is primarily for persona, family or
household purposes.

"The purchase of a condominium is unquestionably a property
transaction, and Williams alleged her condominium purchase was of
residential property for personal, family, or household reasons,"
Judge Dan Traver wrote.

The condo association's bylaws require Williams to pay annual
assessments, so the obligation to pay those arose from the purchase
of her unit, the court ruled. The decision overturns a successful
dismissal argument from the defendant.

"Williams has sufficiently alleged that her condominium assessment
arises out of a consumer transaction to purchase property, and that
her ongoing obligation to pay assessments is a 'consumer debt'
under the FCCPA," Traver wrote. [GN]


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid for Class Certification Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust Isaid in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion for class
certification in the lawsuit initiated by Duane & Virginia Lanier
Trust remains pending.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge
and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge,
among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation").

The complaint, which was amended on November 11, 2016 (adding Ivan
Nibur, Lawrence Ross, Jase Luna, and Mathew Willenbuncher as lead
plaintiffs) and supplemented on May 1, 2017, asserts a variety of
federal securities claims on behalf of a putative class of (a)
purchasers of common units of the Trust in or traceable to its
initial public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and (b)
purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II
("SDR") in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about
April 17, 2012.  

The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, among other
defendants, including the Trust, are responsible for making false
and misleading statements, and omitting material information,
concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the
Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of
damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs. As a result of
its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge is a nominal
defendant only.

On August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. As a result of the Court's order, the only
claims remaining in the litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the "Exchange Act Claims"). In
addition, because of the Court's order, the only remaining
defendants in the litigation are the Trust, James D. Bennett,
Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal defendant
only.

On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order
granting in part and denying in part the remaining defendants'
motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Claims and finding that the
plaintiffs may pursue certain of the Exchange Act Claims against
the respective remaining defendants.

In November 2017, the plaintiffs' counsel informed counsel to the
Trust that, notwithstanding the dismissal of all claims against
SDR, the remaining claims in the litigation against the Trust are
being asserted not only by purchasers of common units of the Trust,
but also by purchasers of common units of SDR.

On January 19, 2018, the Trust filed a Motion for Partial Judgment
on the Pleadings as to any claims against it brought by purchasers
of common units of SDR, arguing that non-purchasers of common units
in the Trust lack statutory standing to pursue claims against the
Trust. On January 18, 2019, the Court granted the Trust's motion
dismissing claims brought by purchasers of SDR.

On July 2, 2018, defendants filed a motion for partial judgment on
the pleadings, arguing that all claims asserted on behalf of the
members of the putative class are barred by the statute of
limitations. On March 26, 2019, the Court denied the motion without
prejudice should discovery reveal a basis for again challenging the
timeliness of plaintiffs' claims.

Discovery closed on June 19, 2019. Following a hearing on class
certification on September 6, 2019, the motion for class
certification remains pending.

On April 2, 2020, the Trust filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as
to Plaintiffs' remaining claims against the Trust, arguing that
there is no evidence of requisite intent by the Trust, and further,
that the alleged acts and omissions of other defendants are not
properly attributable to the Trust. That motion remains pending.

SandRidge Mississippian Trust I is a statutory trust formed under
the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a trust agreement, as
amended and restated, by and among SandRidge Energy, Inc., as
Trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as
Trustee, and The Corporation Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee.


SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Motor Carriers Defend No-Poach Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Fisher of Land Line reports that some of the nation's largest
motor carriers are defending themselves in a lawsuit accusing them
of conspiring to a mutual agreement to not poach each other's
drivers, effectively eliminating competition and advancement
opportunities for drivers.

On June 4, attorneys for Schneider National Carriers filed a
memorandum in support of all defendants' motion to dismiss
antitrust claims in a California federal class action lawsuit.
Other carriers named as defendants include CRST, C.R. England,
Western Express, Southern Refrigerated Transport, Covenant
Transport and Stevens Transport.

Plaintiffs are alleging a no-poach conspiracy among the mega
carriers. The carriers are being accused of agreeing to not hire
drivers from one of the other carriers. As a result, opportunities
for advancement and higher pay through another company are greatly
diminished. Consequently, the carriers' alleged antitrust practice
drives wages down, plaintiffs state.

No-poach conspiracy

Drivers for various large carriers originally filed the class
action lawsuit in June 2017. According to the fourth amended
complaint filed on April 15, the named trucking companies conspired
to restrain competition among themselves in order to suppress
compensation of their own workers. Those actions "deprived
thousands of their workers of better compensation and deny them
opportunities to advance their careers at other companies," the
complaint states.

Plaintiffs claim the carriers entered into a no-poaching conspiracy
by agreeing not to hire employees who remain under contract with
another trucking company. In this case, "under contract" refers to
those who attended one of the company's driver training schools or
offered reimbursement for driver training courses. Essentially, a
driver is considered under contract if he or she still owes
tuition, even if the driver quits or is fired before paying it
off.

CRST maintains a list called the "Term Student Report," according
to the complaint. Updated daily, the list identifies all drivers
who remain under contract. CRST and the other named trucking
companies allegedly use this list to deprive those drivers of the
ability to work elsewhere.

In addition to the list, the carriers' contracts contain a
provision prohibiting drivers from working with other companies
until tuition is paid in full. According to court documents, CRST's
contract states "unless and until student has repaid all amounts
owed under this agreement, student will neither seek nor accept any
work, as an employee, independent contractor or otherwise, from any
motor carrier other than (this trucking company)."

When considering hiring new drivers, defendants communicate with
each other to determine whether an applicant is under contract with
any trucking company. If they are, companies refuse to hire the
driver, despite whether the person is unemployed and otherwise
meets the company's hiring criteria. Plaintiffs state that this
practice violates state and federal antitrust laws.

Adding to the conspiracy, plaintiffs claim that the carriers will
not release trucking school diplomas and certification of
completion to prospective employers until the tuition is fully
paid.

The Department of Justice's Antitrust Division issued its
"Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals" in October
2016. In it, the DOJ warns it ""will criminally investigate
allegations that employers have agreed among themselves on employee
compensation or not to solicit or hire each others' employees." It
also states that "an agreement among competing employers to limit
or fix the terms of employment for potential hires may violate the
antitrust laws if the agreement constrains individual firm
decision-making with regard to wages, salaries, or benefits; terms
of employment; or even job opportunities."

Motor carriers' defense

On June 4, the named trucking companies countered the above claims.
Essentially, they argue two points: 1) The reasoning to not hire
other companies' drivers is less sinister than alleged and 2) the
conspiracy theory is simply implausible.

In their defense, the motor carries state the reason why they do
not hire truckers under contract from another is because they are
under contract. According to the motion to dismiss, case law
prohibits interference with a valid contract for one's own economic
benefit.

"A motor carrier cannot interfere with another carrier's driver
contracts, those courts have made clear, without potentially
exposing itself to significant liability," the trucking companies
state. "Simply put, that is why each of the defendants
independently decided not to hire each other's 'under contract'
drivers. Plaintiffs' allegations to the contrary are implausible."

In fact, Schneider's memorandum in support to dismiss points to a
lawsuit between Swift Transportation and CRST.

Last year, Swift was ordered to pay more than $15 million for
poaching newly trained drivers from CRST.

The trucking companies note that motor carriers "routinely sue one
another (or threaten to) for hiring away 'under contract'
drivers."

Addressing the plausibility of the conspiracy theory, the trucking
companies say there's nothing in the latest complaint that proves a
conspiracy.

"(Plaintiffs)insist instead that defendants' actions are not the
result of independent efforts to minimize legal risk, but rather
the coordinated outcome of a vast nationwide conspiracy among eight
motor carriers to restrict driver mobility and depress first-year
wages in the trucking industry," the carriers argue. "To withstand
dismissal, plaintiffs must offer something that suggests their
sweeping conspiracy theory is the more plausible explanation. The
fourth amended complaint offers nothing remotely close. Instead,
its bid for nationwide relief is propped up only by plaintiffs' own
say-so."

As of publication, the court had not ruled on the motion to
dismiss. [GN]

SELLAS LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Abstral(R) Promos Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the second
amended consolidated class action complaint in the suit related to
Abstral(R) is pending.

On February 13, 2017, certain putative shareholder securities class
action complaints were filed in federal court alleging, among other
things, that Galena Biopharma, Inc. (Galena) and certain of
Galena's former officers and directors failed to disclose that
Galena's promotional practices for Abstral(R) (fentanyl sublingual
tablets) were allegedly improper and that Galena may be subject to
civil and criminal liability, and that these alleged failures
rendered Galena's statements about its business misleading.

The actions were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were named by the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and a
consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On August 21, 2018, the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was granted without prejudice to file an
amended complaint. On September 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint. On October 22, 2018, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.

On November 13, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss. On December 20,
2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint. On January 29, 2020, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.

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

SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel
cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications. SELLAS is
headquartered in New York.


SESLOC FEDERAL: Lopez Sues in California Over Statute Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SESLOC Federal Credit
Union. The case is captioned as Destiny Lopez and Sotero Lopez,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
SESLOC Federal Credit Union, Case No. 2:20-cv-05250-PSG-MAA (C.D.
Cal., June 12, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez.

The lawsuit alleges violation of state statute.

SESLOC has been open since 1942. The Credit Union has assets
totaling $853.91 million and provides banking services to more than
54,000 members. The Credit Union is a community-based financial
institution.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          2633 East Indian School Road, Suite 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com


SIENNA SENIOR: $100M Negligence Class Action Suit Launched
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Owen of OrilliaMatters.com reports that a $100-million
class-action lawsuit is seeking justice for family members of
residents who have died during COVID-19 while in long-term care
homes owned or operated by Sienna Senior Living Inc. or Revera
Inc.

Sienna Senior Living owns Owen Hill Care Community in Barrie and
Bradford Valley Care Community in Bradford West Gwillimbury, the
two long-term care homes in Simcoe County hardest hit by the
COVID-19 pandemic so far.

The company also manages Spencer House, which had a brief outbreak
in which a single staff member tested positive for the coronavirus
on April 1. The outbreak was declared over 10 days later after all
test results for residents and staff members came back negative.

Out of the "hundreds" of clients across Canada participating in the
suit, law firm Diamond and Diamond confirmed this week that about a
dozen of those clients are family members of residents who died at
Bradford Valley or Owen Hill during the pandemic.

"This is a horrible situation that's happening. I'm not surprised,"
said Darryl Singer, lawyer for the plaintiffs. "I've done
nursing-home cases for years. The issues we're seeing are systemic
issues that predate COVID-19, and the reason they weren't ready for
COVID is they just weren't ready for anything."

Diamond and Diamond filed the suit against Sienna Senior Living
Inc. and Revera Inc., and is representing clients across Canada.

The lawsuit alleges negligence and breach of contract.

Owen Hill, a 57-bed facility, experienced 48 positive cases of
COVID-19 during their outbreak. Twenty-one cases were staff members
and 27 were residents. Eleven residents died before the outbreak
was declared over.

Bradford Valley, a 246-bed facility, saw 42 positive cases,
including 35 residents and 11 staff. Twelve residents died before
the outbreak was declared over.

Singer also said there are other, smaller lawsuits that have been
filed in regards to individual homes, but his class-action suit
also takes those homes into account as the largest class-action
suit filed against the providers.

According to the statement of claim, which was filed on May 12, the
plaintiffs allege that injuries and eventual deaths of their loved
ones were caused by the negligence of the defendants.

Alleged negligence cited in the claim include failing to follow
acceptable practices regarding the prevention and containment of
contagious illnesses such as COVID-19, failure to plan for and
respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or any similar outbreak of
infectious disease, failure to have adequate staff, and failure to
communicate adequately with families of residents.

The suit also alleges a failure to comply with public health
guidelines and directives regarding outbreak planning, supply, use,
and access to personal protective equipment, resident isolation and
testing and employee testing and screening.

"Had the defendants met the minimum standard of care expected of
Ontario retirement and long-term care communities, they would have
been able to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and ultimately lessen
the impact of COVID-19 to their residents," reads the claim.

The claim also alleges the defendants were aware of the serious
deficiencies in the care delivered to residents.

"This has been brought to their attention by media reports, patient
complaints, family complaints, government investigations, ombudsman
investigations, and numerous other sources," reads the claim.
"Despite (this)... the defendants have chosen to continue to
provide inferior care so as to maximize corporate profits at all
costs."

The allegations in the statement of claim have not yet been proven
in court.

In an emailed statement to BarrieToday, Natalie Gokchenian,
director of communications and stakeholder relations with Sienna
Senior Living Inc., acknowledged the lawsuit.

"We are aware of the proposed class-action proceedings and will
address this matter as required through the appropriate court
processes," she wrote.

Singer said a case conference is expected to occur sometime this
summer.

"I'm anticipating that's going to happen in July, or by August at
the latest," he said. "We're moving fairly quickly on it."

Since the lawsuit was originally filed, Singer says his law firm
has dealt with a "flood of unexpected help."

"We've had employees and former employees of the homes calling
asking what they can do, or saying, ‘Let me tell you what's
really going on'," said Singer. "They've given us statements at
this point as well."

Meanwhile, there has been a recent shake-up in management at Sienna
Senior Living.

According to a press release sent out this week by law firm Thomson
Rogers, two senior executives of Sienna have recently been
dismissed or resigned.

The law firm is representing resident families specifically of
Woodbridge Vista Care Community in Woodbridge, Ont., in their own
$15-million suit against Sienna.

Sienna's executive vice-president of operations, Joanne Dykeman,
allegedly made disparaging and mocking comments about Woodbridge
Vista residents and their family members during a virtual meeting
on June 3.

On June 4, Dykeman was dismissed from her employment.

On June 12, the president and CEO of Sienna, Lois Cormack, resigned
from her position, for "personal reasons," according to a news
release from Sienna Living.

Her replacement, Nitin Jain, was announced the same day. Jain had
served as chief financial officer and chief investment officer at
Sienna since joining the company in 2014.

While the class-action lawsuit has been filed with representative
plaintiffs, class and sub-class plaintiffs can be added. If you
have a family member who has died in a Sienna or Revera-owned or
operated home during the COVID-19 pandemic and would like
information on joining the lawsuit, contact Diamond and Diamond.
[GN]


SOCIETY INSURANCE: Cites Takeout Services in Response to Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Claims Journal reports that an insurer fighting business income
claims from restaurants is arguing in part that there is no
coverage because businesses were allowed to provide takeout and
delivery service during lockdowns.

Society Insurance, based in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, has filed a
motion in federal district court to dismiss a class action lawsuit
against it over the denial of business loss of income claims tied
to the coronavirus epidemic.

In the brief filed with the U.S. District Court, Eastern District
of Wisconsin, Society said the class action brought against it by
restaurants and bars in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Tennessee is
without merit because Society's businessowners policies do not
cover the claims for damages for which the plaintiffs have filed.

The lawsuit, led by plaintiffs Madison Sourdough and Willy McCoys,
seeks "coverage for loss of business income and extra expense
resulting from the suspension or reduction of their operations
after the Governors of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Tennessee issued
orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic."

However, Society maintained, beyond the fact that the businesses'
properties have not been physically damaged or destroyed, the
plaintiffs were not barred access to their properties and were not
prohibited from providing food and beverages. In fact, they "were
allowed and encouraged to continue takeout and delivery service,"
Society said in its brief. "Under these circumstances, the Society
policy does not provide coverage."

Society specializes in insuring bars, taverns, hospitality,
restaurants, entertainment venues and other specialty niches.

The class action is similar to other lawsuits brought against
insurers by businesses across the nation that were forced to close
their regular operations by governments in various states with the
aim of controlling the spread of COVID-19.

While restaurants and bars in the three states in which the
plaintiffs operate were required to "stop providing food and
beverages for on-premises consumption," they have been permitted to
operate take out and delivery service.

The plaintiffs allege they nevertheless have lost income as a
result of the required closures.

The plaintiffs each had purchased businessowners policies, "which
included Business Income, Civil Authority, Contamination, Extra
Expense and Sue and Labor Coverages," Society stated.

Society's main argument against the claims for coverage brought by
the plaintiffs is that they have not been able to show they
suffered direct physical loss of or damage to properties covered
under their policies.

A major obstacle for restaurants and taverns that have filed
similar lawsuits against insurers seeking compensation under their
businessowners policies after being required to close their doors
to the public as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, is that the
majority of businessowners policies, like Society's, do not cover
business income losses unless the insured premises are physically
damaged by an event precipitating the claim.

In its brief, Society compares the temporary operational limits
placed on businesses by the governors' executive orders "to a
change in zoning resulting in different hours a business can be
open or a temporary suspension of a liquor license."

This "partial limitation of business operations is an intangible
financial situation, not an alteration in the physical
characteristics of the property," Society noted. [GN]

SONIM TECH: Continues to Defend 4 Lawsuits Over IPO
---------------------------------------------------
Sonim Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend four
putative class action complaints in California related to its
initial public offering ("IPO").

On September 20, 2019, a purported Sonim stockholder who allegedly
purchased stock registered in Sonim's initial public offering
("IPO") filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, captioned
Pearson v. Sonim Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CIV05564,
on behalf of himself and others who purchased shares of Sonim
registered in the IPO (the "Pearson Action").  

On October 4 and 16, 2019, two additional purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Pearson Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs yet the same putative class of
Sonim stockholders, in the same court as the Pearson Action.  

On October 7, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  

All four complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
by Sonim and certain of its current and former officers and
directors for, among other things, alleged false or misleading
statements and omissions in the registration statement issued in
connection with the IPO, relating primarily to an alleged failure
to disclose software defects in Sonim's phones and alleged
misstatements about performance characteristics of Sonim’s
phones.  

Sonim intends to defend these matters vigorously.  

Sonim said, "An adverse outcome in any of these matters, however,
could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows for a particular
period. Due to the uncertainty of the outcome of this matter, the
Company has not recorded any accruals as of March 31, 2020."

Sonim Technologies, Inc. provides ruggedized mobile phones and
accessories for task workers. It offers ruggedized mobile phones,
such as Sonim XP8, Sonim XP5s, and Sonim XP3 based on the Android
platform that are capable of attaching to public and private
wireless networks; industrial-grade accessories, including remote
speaker microphones, multi-bay charging accessories, and in-vehicle
hands-free voice communications solutions; and cloud-based software
and application services. Sonim Technologies, Inc. sells its mobile
phones and accessories primarily to wireless carriers in the United
States and Canada. The company was formerly known as NaviSpin.com,
Inc. and changed its name to Sonim Technologies, Inc. in December
2001. Sonim Technologies, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
headquartered in San Mateo, California.


SPRINT/UNITED: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Hewitt Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA HEWITT, on behalf of herself, individually, and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT
COMPANY and WARRANTY LOGISTICS, LLC d/b/a ASURION, Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02740 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant Sprint as an hourly-paid repair
technician from six years prior until on or about March 3, 2017.

According to the complaint, Defendant sold its repair technician
department within New York to Defendant Asurion on or about March
3, 2017. Allegedly, both Defendants failed to timely pay Plaintiff
and other repair technicians their wages earned on a weekly basis
and not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in
which the wages are earned.

Warranty Logistics, LLC d/b/a Asurion provides insurance and repair
services for consumers' mobile phones.

Sprint/United Management Company provides cellular telephone
services and sells cellular telephones and related products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway, Suite B
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Tel: (631) 257-5588
          Emails: dbarnhorn@romerolawny.com
                  promero@romerolawny.com


STARS GROUP: Settlement Reached in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
The Law Firms of Faguy & Co. and Morganti & Co., P.C. announced
that a hearing is scheduled for approval of a settlement in the
Stars Group Inc. (Formerly Amaya) Securities Class Action.

The notice is directed to all persons and entities, excluding
certain persons associated with the Defendants, who acquired
securities of THE STARS GROUP INC. between March 31, 2014 to March
22, 2016 (collectively, the "Class" or "Class Members").

On March 24, 2016, a proposed class action was commenced against
The Stars Group Inc. ("TSGI") and others in the Superior Court of
Québec ("Class Action"). The parties have reached an agreement to
settle the Class Action for the all-inclusive sum of CDN $30
Million, subject to court approval ("Agreement"). The parties have
reached the Agreement without any admission of liability on the
part of the Defendants. In fact, the Defendants have denied and
continue to deny each and all of the claims and allegations of
wrongdoing made by the Plaintiff in the Class Action.

The settlement approval hearing for the Class Action was initially
scheduled for April 7, 2020 and subsequently postponed owing to the
COVID-19 situation. Now that the Montreal Courthouse has re-opened
for non-urgent matters, the Court has set a new hearing date of
June 29, 2020 at 9:00AM ("Settlement Approval Hearing").

Class Members who wish to participate or view the Settlement
Approval Hearing may do so via WEBRTC or by telephone. Further
information is available on the following websites:
https://www.amayasecuritiessettlementcanada.com;
http://faguyco.com/en/portfolio/amaya-class-action.

If the Agreement is approved, the Class Members will then be able
to submit claims and a further notice regarding that claims process
will follow in due course.

Further information can be obtained at
http://faguyco.com/en/portfolio/amaya-class-action/or on the
dedicated settlement website
https://www.amayasecuritiessettlementcanada.com/ or by contacting
the Administrator at 1-866-329-7153 Email :
inquiry@trilogyclassactions.ca

Questions about matters in this notice should NOT be directed to
the Superior Court.

For any inquiries, please contact the Claims Administrator at:

        Trilogy Class Action Services,
        c/o The Stars Group Inc. (Formerly Amaya)
            Securities Class Action Settlement,
        Paul Battaglia
        117 Queen St, P.O. Box 1000,
        Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, L0S 1J0,
        Tel: 1-866-329-7153,
        E-mail: inquiry@trilogyclassactions.ca
[GN]


TD BANK: New York Southern District Narrows Claims in Perks Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY JENNIFER PERKS, MARIA NAVARRO-REYES, individuals,
on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
18-CV-11176 (VEC) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in
part and denied in part TD Bank's Motion to Dismiss.

The case is a putative class action against TD Bank related to
overdraft fees on Automated Clearing House ("ACH") transactions.
The Plaintiffs are checking-account customers who allege that TD
Bank improperly charged them non-sufficient fund ("NSF") fees.
According to them, TD Bank may not charge a second or third NSF fee
when previously-rejected transfer requests are resubmitted to TD
Bank.

The Deposit Account Agreement and incorporated Personal Fee
Schedule govern the Plaintiffs' relationship with TD Bank.  When an
accountholder attempts a transaction but lacks sufficient funds to
cover it, TD Bank may accept or reject the transaction and charge
an overdraft or return fee.  The Personal Fee Schedule provides
that TD Bank may charge $35 "per item" when a customer's account
contains insufficient funds to pay a transaction.

Plaintiff Perks alleges that he attempted to make three one-time
PayPal transfers via ACH transactions.  TD Bank rejected all three
transfers and charged him a $35 NSF fee for each one because
Perks's account lacked sufficient funds.  A week later, PayPal
resubmitted those transactions for payment, and TD Bank rejected
them again, incurring another round of NSF fees.

Plaintiff Navarro-Reyes alleges a similar experience: he submitted
three ACH transactions, TD Bank rejected them, and the intermediary
resubmitted them a week later.  There were still insufficient funds
in the account to cover the transactions; TD Bank again rejected
the transactions and charged additional fees for each.

The Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, consumer fraud under New
York General Business Law ("GBL") Section 349, and unjust
enrichment.

TD Bank has moved to dismiss all four claims, arguing, primarily,
that the applicable contract expressly authorizes the conduct
alleged.

First, at issue is TD Bank's right to impose an NSF fee when a
rejected ACH transaction is resubmitted to TD Bank for processing.
The issue turns on the definition of "item" in the Agreement.  The
Plaintiffs assert that the original submission and all
resubmissions of an ACH transaction constitute a single "item,"
and, as such, may incur only a single NSF fee.  TD Bank argues that
the Agreement expressly authorizes it to assess NSF fees on each
submission and resubmission of a transaction.

Because the Court finds both interpretations reasonable, TD Bank's
motion must be denied.  The definition of "item" is ambiguous with
regard to whether a resubmission of an ACH transaction is a
separate item or is part of the same initial ACH transaction, and
that ambiguity must be read in favor of the Plaintiffs at this
stage.  Because the Plaintiffs' proposed construction is a
reasonable construction of the Agreement, they have sufficiently
alleged a breach resulting from multiple overdraft charges imposed
as a result of resubmissions of a single ACH transaction.

The Court will dismiss the remaining claims of the Plaintiffs.  The
Court finds that (i) when one party to a contract advances an
interpretation that the other party disagrees with, breach of the
express provision of the contract is the appropriate cause of
action; (ii) although the Amended Complaint tersely alludes to
deceptive "advertising," that allegation is conclusory and appears
to be no more than publicizing the terms of the allegedly breached
contract without any sort of gloss, let alone with misleading
representations of the terms of that contract; and (iii) it is well
settled that a claim for unjust enrichment will not lie if the
parties have a contract and although an exception to that rule
exists when there is a question whether the contract is valid, that
exception does not apply in the case.

For the reasons stated, Judge Caproni granted in part and denied in
part TD Bank's motion to dismiss.  The parties are ordered to meet
and confer and submit a joint letter and proposed Case Management
Plan and Scheduling Order in accordance with the Judge's Individual
Rules.  Alternatively, if the parties would like to explore an
early resolution of the case, they may submit a joint request for a
referral to Magistrate Judge Stewart Aaron for a settlement
conference.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's March 17, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/uRlItW from
Leagle.com.

Mary Jennifer Perks, an individual, on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey M.
Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson
Weiselberg Keechl, Jonathan M. Streisfeld --
streisfeld@kolawyers.com -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg
Gilbert, Jeffrey D. Kaliel -- jkaliel@kalielpllc.com -- KalielPLLC,
Lynn A. Toops , Cohen & Malad, LLP, Richard Edward Shevitz --
rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- Cohen & Malad, LLP, Sophia Goren Gold
-- sgold@kalielpllc.com -- Kaliel PLLC, Vess Allen Miller --
vmiller@cohenandmalad.com -- Cohen & Malad, LLP & James Jackson
Bilsborrow -- jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com -- Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.

Maria Navarro-Reyes, Plaintiff, represented by James Jackson
Bilsborrow, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.

T.D. Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Allen W. Burton --
aburton@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Benjamin Dean Brooks,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Danielle Oakley -- doakley@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.


TILRAY INC: Hit With Class Action Over Mislabeling
--------------------------------------------------
Kerri Breen of Global News (Canada) reports that some major
cannabis companies in Canada are facing a multi-million dollar
proposed class-action lawsuit over allegations the potency of their
products is "drastically different" than advertised.

The statement of claim filed in Calgary accuses the companies of
failing to properly label their products and alleges negligence on
their part.

The plaintiffs are seeking a $500-million judgment - "or such other
amount as may be proven at trial" - along with punitive damages of
$5 million from each of the defendants.

The companies named in the statement, which include Tilray, Cronos
and Aurora Cannabis, as well as some other cannabis industry
players and subsidiaries, have yet to provide comment to Global
News regarding the allegations.

According to the claim, plaintiff Lisa Marie Langevin bought a
Tilray cannabis oil product in Calgary in February but didn't feel
the intended effects after trying it on several occasions.

Shaun Mesher, a colleague of the plaintiff's friend who has a PhD
in biochemistry, sent the product to a lab for potency analysis.

The testing showed the cannabis oil had just 46 per cent of the
advertised Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content, the claim states,
though a second product sample from the same lot came in at 79 per
cent.

Mesher then sent more cannabis product samples produced by several
different companies to the lab.

The claim referenced six samples found to contain THC levels that
varied greatly from what the package indicated. Two were stronger
than advertised though the rest were weaker. The THC content ranged
from 54 per cent to 119 per cent of the label value.
Story continues below advertisement

One product tested had a cannabidiol (CBD) content that was roughly
half (52 per cent) of what was advertised, the claim states.

None of the products in question had been subject to Health Canada
recalls, according to the statement of claim.

"Two-thirds of our samples were outside of what Health Canada
recommends as the variability limit in the content of THC or CBD in
those bottles," Mesher said.

"And then of that two-thirds, over half was greater than 25 per
cent difference in the labelling."

The claim states that there is some U.S. research showing that THC
can leech out into plastic containers, and that may be a factor in
the potency discrepancy in Canada.

Cannabis oil can be consumed directly or added to edible goods. In
edible form, cannabis takes longer to take effect - according to
Health Canada it can take up to four hours for the full impact to
be felt.

Consuming too much can result in cannabis poisoning, which is
"unpleasant and potentially dangerous," Health Canada's website
states, but generally not known to cause deaths.

Lawyer John Kingman Phillips, who represents the plaintiff, said
there's a danger if a product contains more - or less - of the
psychoactive ingredient than the label suggests.

In either scenario, a customer could end up over-using, since they
may consume additional quantities if they feel no effects
initially.

"So the problem is you can overdose if it's (the labelling) done
improperly," he said.

"You're not getting what you paid for if it's not giving you the
psychological effects that you're looking for, and you get trained
on mislabelling for what you expect to purchase the next time you
go out."

In order to proceed as a class action, the lawsuit would have to be
certified by a judge at Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench. The
members of the proposed class would be anyone living Canada who
purchased products from the companies named and used them before
the expiry date.

Phillips said the legal action intends to shine a light on possible
quality control issues in the cannabis sector.

"Now that marijuana and cannabis (are) legalized, the question is
then, are their products being marketed appropriately and safely?
And the statement of claim that we filed raises questions about
that, and raises questions, I think, also about the degree to which
Health Canada has been actively involved in regulating the
industry," he said.  [GN]


TRI CITY ENTERPRISES: Mayer Sues Over Unlawful Tip Sharing
----------------------------------------------------------
KELLY MAYER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRI CITY ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a WOOLEY'S
KITCHEN & BAR, and ROBERT B. KINSELLA, Defendants, Case No.
27-cv-20-8679 (Minn. 4th Judicial District, Hennepin Cty., June 23,
2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for
their alleged violation of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately September
2009 through on or around May 8, 2019 as a server/bartender at
Defendants' Wooley's Kitchen & Bar in Bloomington, Minnesota.

According to the complaint, Defendants allegedly required Plaintiff
and her other similarly situated coworkers to unlawfully share tips
with indirect service employees such as bussers and food runners,
despite Plaintiff and other similarly situated coworkers'
disapproval to participate in Defendant's tip sharing policy.

The complaints that the Minnesota FLSA makes it illegal for
employers to require or coerce employees to share tips with
indirect service employees.

Robert B. Kinsella is the owner, corporate officer, and manager of
Tri City Enterprises, Inc.

Tri City Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Wooley's Kitchen & Bar owns and
operates a restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua R. Williams, Esq.
          2836 Lyndale Ave. S., Suite 160
          Minneapolis, MN 55408
          Tel: (612) 486-5540
          Fax: (612) 605-1944
          Email: jwilliams@jrwilliamslaw.com


TRUIST FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Bickerstaff Suit v. SunTrust
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Truist Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class
action suit entitled, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank.

This class action case was filed in the Fulton County State Court
on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9,
2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his
account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are
actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws
of Georgia.

Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal
usury laws, conversion, and money had and received. On October 6,
2017, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification and defined the class as "Every Georgia citizen who
had or has one or more accounts with SunTrust Bank and who, from
July 12, 2006, to October 6, 2017 (i) had at least one overdraft of
$500.00 or less resulting from an ATM or debit card transaction
(the “Transaction”); (ii) paid any Overdraft Fees as a result
of the Transaction; and (iii) did not receive a refund of those
Fees" and the granting of a certified class was affirmed on appeal.


On April 8, 2020, the Company filed a motion seeking to narrow the
scope of this class. Discovery has commenced.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit.

Truist Financial Corporation is a banking organization
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Truist conducts its
business operations primarily through its bank subsidiary, Truist
Bank, and other nonbank subsidiaries.


UNITED STATES: Faces Angel Suit Alleging Violation of Tucker Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of
America. The case is captioned as JOSHUA J. ANGEL, On behalf of
himself and all those similarly situated v. United States of
America, Case No. 1:20-cv-00737-MMS (Fed. Cl., June 12, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Margaret M. Sweeney.

The lawsuit demands $1 million in damages alleging violation of the
Tucker Act.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]


UNIVERISTY OF FLORIDA: Fights Lawsuit Over Student Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Saunders of The Ledger reports that the University of Florida
Board of Trustees is asking a federal judge to toss out a potential
class-action lawsuit that contends the school should be required to
refund tuition and fees to students after closing its campus in
March because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Attorneys for the trustees last week filed a 17-page motion to
dismiss the case, which alleges breach of contract and "unjust
enrichment" by the university after students were forced to take
online classes to finish the spring semester.

The motion focuses heavily on the issue of sovereign immunity,
which helps shield government agencies from liability in lawsuits.
The trustees' attorneys wrote that the named plaintiff in the case,
Dylan Egleston, did not have an "express written contract" that
could back his contention that he was paying tuition and fees for
in-person instruction and on-campus activities. Such a contract
would be needed to overcome the university's sovereign-immunity
protections, the motion indicated.

"Here, plaintiff has not, and cannot, plausibly point to an express
written contract upon which his complaint is based," the motion
said. "Because plaintiff can never plausibly plead the existence of
an express, written contract, his claim is completely barred by the
application of sovereign immunity and the claim should be dismissed
with prejudice."

The lawsuit was filed last month in federal court in Gainesville on
behalf of Egleston and other spring semester University of Florida
students. It said Egleston enrolled at the school "to earn a degree
that included the service of taking courses at the campus with live
teacher interaction."

"Plaintiff and the putative class members contracted with defendant
for certain services and paid for those services in the form of
tuition and other fees," the lawsuit said. "As a result of
limitations defendant has imposed, defendant has not delivered the
services that plaintiff and the putative class contracted and paid
for. As a result, plaintiff and the putative class are entitled to
a refund on tuition and fees paid for services, facilities, access
and/or opportunities not delivered."

The lawsuit is one of at least three that have been filed against
the state university system seeking refunds of money that students
paid for the spring semester. The other two lawsuits were filed in
Leon County circuit court by Florida International University
graduate student Sarah Fagundez and University of Florida graduate
student Anthony Rojas against the state university system's Board
of Governors.

The details of the cases differ, but all three make arguments about
breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Attorneys for the Board
of Governors had not filed arguments in the Fagundez and Rojas
cases, according to online dockets.

Similar lawsuits also have been filed against universities in other
states that closed their campuses and moved to online instruction
to try to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the respiratory disease
caused by the coronavirus. [GN]

US JOINER: Underpays Employees, Vangel Claims
---------------------------------------------
JAMES VANGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. US JOINER, LLC and TRIDENT MARITIME COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00957 (W.D. Wash., June 22, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its
alleged failure to pay lawful overtime compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid Outfitting
Specialist from August 2012 until June 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week during
their employment with Defendant. However, Defendant did not pay
them overtime because Defendant failed to include the value of the
nondiscretionary bonuses in their regular rate when computing their
overtime pay.

US Joiner, LLC is a construction company.

Trident Maritime Company provides turnkey marine systems for
government and commercial maritime customers, targeting the new
ship construction, retrofit and repair markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon R. Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Post Office Box 6111
          Edmonds, WA 98026
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Email: jon@sanfordlawfirm.com


VENUS CONCEPT: Bid to Dismiss Pak Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
A Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim has been filed by
Jeffrey Bird, Gil Kliman, Frederic Moll, Restoration Robotics,
Inc., Ryan Rhodes, Keith Sullivan, Craig Taylor, Shelley Thunen,
and Venus Concept Inc. in the case, Pak v. Restoration Robotics,
Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-02237 (D. Del.).

Venus Concept said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that on November 7, 2019, the Company (formerly
Restoration Robotics, Inc.), completed its business combination
with Venus Concept Ltd., in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of March
15, 2019, as amended from time to time (the "Merger Agreement"), by
and among the Company, Venus Concept Ltd. and Radiant Merger Sub
Ltd., a company organized under the laws of Israel and a direct,
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub"). Under the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with and into Venus Concept
Ltd., with Venus Concept Ltd. surviving as a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger"). Following the completion
of the Merger, the Company changed its corporate name to Venus
Concept Inc., and the business conducted by Venus Concept Ltd.
became the primary business conducted by the Company.

A putative shareholder class action complaint captioned Pak v.
Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-02237, was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on
December 6, 2019.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 14a-9.

The complaint alleges that the proxy statement, filed with the SEC
by Restoration Robotics, Inc. on September 10, 2019 in connection
with the Merger, contained false or misleading information. The
complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or rescissory
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 26, 2020, the District Court appointed Joon Pak as Lead
Plaintiff in the Pak action, and approved his selection of Lead
Counsel.

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
management intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

The motion to dismiss the Pak complaint was filed May 26, 2020, and
remains pending.

Venus Concept Inc., a medical technology company previously known
as Restoration Robotics, Inc., develops and commercializes
image-guided robotic systems in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Toronto, Ontario.


VENUS CONCEPT: IPO Related Litigation Underway
----------------------------------------------
Venus Concept Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend class actions
related to its Initial Public Offering (IPO).

Between May 23, 2018 and June 11, 2019, four putative shareholder
class actions complaints were filed against Restoration Robotics,
Inc., certain of its former officers and directors, certain of its
venture capital investors, and the underwriters of the Initial
Public Offering (IPO).

Two of these complaints, Wong v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et
al., No. 18CIV02609, and Li v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al.,
No. 19CIV08173 (together, the "State Actions"), were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, and
assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, or the Securities Act.

The other two complaints, Guerrini v. Restoration Robotics, Inc.,
et al., No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD and Yzeiraj v. Restoration Robotics,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03883-BLF (together, the "Federal
Actions"), were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, and assert claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaints all allege, among other things, that the Restoration
Robotics' Registration Statement filed with the Securities and
exchange Commission (SEC) on September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus
filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in connection with
Restoration Robotics' IPO were inaccurate and misleading, contained
untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and omitted to
state material facts required to be stated therein.

The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages, other equitable
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

In the State Actions Restoration Robotics, Inc., along with the
other defendants, successfully demurred to the initial Wong
complaint for failure to state a claim, and secured a stay of both
cases based on the forum selection clause contained in its Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, which designates the
federal district courts as the exclusive forums for claims arising
under the Securities Act. However, on December 19, 2018, the
Delaware Court of Chancery in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg held that
exclusive federal forum provisions are invalid under Delaware
law.Based on this ruling, the San Mateo Superior Court lifted its
stay of State Actions on December 10, 2019.

On January 17, 2020, Plaintiffs in the State Actions filed a
consolidated amended complaint for violations of federal securities
laws, alleging again that, among other things, the Registration
Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and the
Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in connection
with Restoration Robotics' IPO were inaccurate and misleading,
contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.


The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, other equitable
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 24, 2020, the Company demurred to the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

On March 18, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Chancery
Court's decision in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg and held that
exclusive federal forum provisions are valid under Delaware law.

On March 30, 2020, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss
based on its federal forum selection clause. Hearings on the
Company's demurrer and renewed motion to dismiss, originally
scheduled for May 8, 2020, have been postponed to a later date, yet
to be determined, due to COVID-19.

In the Federal Actions, which have been consolidated under the
caption in re Restoration Robotics, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD, Lead Plaintiff Eduardo Guerrini filed
his consolidated amended complaint for violations of federal
securities laws on November 30, 2018.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges again that, among other
things, Restoration Robotics' Registration Statement filed with the
SEC on September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on
October 13, 2017 in connection with the IPO were inaccurate and
misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be
stated therein.

On January 29, 2019, Restoration Robotics, Inc., along with certain
of its former officers and directors, filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On
October 18, 2019, the District Court granted Restoration Robotics,
Inc. motion to dismiss as to all but two allegedly false or
misleading statements contained in the Company's Prospectus.

On December 9, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the
consolidated amended complaint denying the falsity of these
statements, and discovery is underway.

Venus Concept Inc. (formerly Restoration Robotics, Inc.) is a
global medical technology company that develops, commercializes,
and sells minimally invasive and non-invasive medical aesthetic and
hair restoration technologies and related services. The Company's
systems have been designed on a cost-effective, proprietary and
flexible platform that enables it to expand beyond the aesthetic
industry's traditional markets of dermatology and plastic surgery,
and into non-traditional markets, including family and general
practitioners and aesthetic medical spas. The company was founded
in 2002 and is headquartered in Toronto, Ontario.


VERB TECHNOLOGY: Still Defends Hartmann Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Verb Technology Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend
a purported class action suit entitled, SCOTT C. HARTMANN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. VERB TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC., and RORY J. CUTAIA,
Defendant, Case Number 2:19-CV-05896.

On July 9, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Central District of California,
styled SCOTT C. HARTMANN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VERB TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
and RORY J. CUTAIA, Defendant, Case Number 2:19-CV-05896.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's Common Stock between January 3, 2018 and May 2, 2018, and
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the January 3, 2018,
announcement by the Company of its agreement with Oracle America,
Inc.

The complaint seeks unspecified costs and damages.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and the Company
intends to vigorously defend the action.

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

Verb Technology Company, Inc. provides cloud-based business
software products under the Tagg brand name. The company was
formerly known as nFusz, Inc. and changed its name to Verb
Technology Company, Inc. in February 2019. Verb Technology
Company,
Inc. was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Los Angeles,
California.


VOYA RETIREMENT: Continues to Defend Goetz Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Goetz v. Voya Financial and
Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company.

Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity
Company (USDC District of Delaware, No. 1:17-cv-1289) (filed
September 8, 2017), a putative class action in which plaintiff, a
participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to represent other participants
in the plan as well as a class of similarly situated plans that
"contract with (Voya) for recordkeeping and other services."

Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its fiduciary duty to the
plan and other plan participants by charging unreasonable and
excessive recordkeeping fees, and that "Voya" distributed
materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative and fund fee
disclosures to conceal its excessive fees.

The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.

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

Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a stock life insurance company in the
United States. The company was formerly known as ING Life Insurance
and Annuity Company and changed its name to Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company in September 2014. The company is
based in Windsor, Connecticut. Voya Retirement Insurance and
Annuity Company operates as a subsidiary of Voya Institutional Plan
Services, LLC.


WALTERS WEDDING: Conn and Simmons Seek Refunds
----------------------------------------------
Ticer Law Firm said that a North Texas couple has filed a proposed
class action lawsuit against the owners of a wedding chapel in The
Colony, Texas, claiming that the venue is unable to conduct their
wedding next month as contracted, but that the company is refusing
to return a deposit of more than $12,000.

Brianna Conn and Rex Simmons of Plano were scheduled to be married
on July 18 at the Chapel at Ana Villa, one of several wedding
venues in the state owned by Keith and Sarah Walters. But because
of COVID-19 health guidelines, and the fact that many of their more
than 100 guests could not attend the indoor ceremony due to the
virus and related age and travel concerns, Ms. Conn and Mr. Simmons
notified the venue they wished to cancel their booking.

The lawsuit, filed in Dallas County, states that despite the
couple's efforts, Ana Villa's management, Walters Wedding Estates,
has refused to return the deposit or even consider arranging an
alternate, future date for the wedding.

"We know that this company's unreasonable and unlawful stance has
affected many other couples who are faced with the same dilemma,"
says Dallas attorney Mark Ticer. "We're seeking class action status
under Texas law on behalf of all those couples who have not or will
not be able to have the wedding they contracted for and the wedding
they have paid for with the company."

The lawsuit claims that the venue operators have acknowledged for
many weeks that the ceremony could not be conducted as promised,
yet still refused to provide any refund and instead asked for
additional payments due under the contract.

"This company is taking advantage of couples and families, they are
actively committing fraud and are still taking money and making
money while other businesses have been forced to close due to the
pandemic," says Ticer. "They are profiting from this public health
emergency at the expense of these young people, and that's simply
not lawful and not right."

The case is Brianna Conn and Rex Simmons v. Walters Wedding Estates
et.al. filed in State District Court in Dallas.

The Law Office of Mark A. Ticer handles disputes covering select
consumer law matters as well as insurance coverage and liability,
legal malpractice, and expert witness testimony. For more
information go to http://www.ticerlawfirm.com. [GN]



WELLS FARGO: Klein Notes of Aug. 3 Deadline in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:
WFC) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: April 5, 2020 and May 5, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 3, 2020

Learn more about your recoverable losses in DNK:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form?id=7437&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Wells Fargo & Company made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Wells Fargo planned to, and did, improperly
allocate government-backed loans under the Paycheck Protection
Program ("PPP"), and/or had inadequate controls in place to prevent
such misallocation; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the
Company's litigation risk with respect to PPP allocation, as well
as increased regulatory scrutiny and/or potential enforcement
actions; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders have until August 3, 2020 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the WFC lawsuit, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above.

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.

CONTACT:

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

WELLS FARGO: Lowey Dannenberg Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg P.C., a preeminent law firm in obtaining redress
for consumers and investors, has filed a federal securities class
action in the Southern District of New York on behalf of its client
and all similarly situated investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock of Wells Fargo & Co. (NYSE: WFC) from
February 2, 2018 through March 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The class action alleges violations of the federal
securities laws against Wells Fargo and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, Wells Fargo provides a
range of financial products and services, including banking,
consumer finance, credit cards, investments, leasing and mortgages.
The Complaint alleges that Wells Fargo made false and misleading
statements to the public throughout the Class Period, repeatedly
touting its efforts towards compliance with consent orders issued
by the Federal Reserve, Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau, Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency and other government agencies.

On March 4, 2020, a 113-page-report told the true story of Wells
Fargo's compliance. The report stated that the Company had
submitted insufficiently developed and inadequate remediation
plans, struggled to meet deadlines, and failed to implement
meaningful reforms. The government agencies overseeing the reform
threatened supervisory and/or enforcement actions and additional
penalties. Wells Fargo's stock declined from $41.40 to close at
$37.09 on Friday, March 6, 2020, a decline of $4.31 or just over
10%.

On March 10, 2020, the U.S. House Financial Services Committee
requested that the U.S. Department of Justice investigate Wells
Fargo's former CEO for providing false statements directly related
to the Company's compliance while giving public testimony in 2019.
On this news, Wells Fargo's shares fell from $34.63 per share to
$27.20, a decline of $7.43 or more than 20%.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than August 14, 2020.  Any member
of the proposed Class may move to serve as the Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice.

If you have suffered a net loss from investment in Wells Fargo's
common stock from February 2, 2018 through March 10, 2020, you may
obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your ability
to become a Lead Plaintiff, by contacting Christian Levis at
clevis@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7220 or Andrea Farah at
afarah@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7256.  The class action is
titled Perry v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al, No. 1:20 cv 04494
(S.D.N.Y.). [GN]


WESTERN DIGITAL: Brown Calls Hard Drive Ads "Deceptive"
-------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-04624 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for their alleged violations of
New York General Business Law, fraudulent concealment, and unjust
enrichment.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff purchased three WD Black
Drives in or about October 2019 from B&H Photo in Manhattan for
approximately $100 each, believing that WD Black Drives have
sophisticated performance-enhancing features as shown on the
advertisement by Defendant. However, Plaintiff saw no
representations that the WD Black Drives use SMR technology when he
carefully reviewed the labeling on WD Black Drive's packaging prior
to his purchase.

Moreover, all the three WD Black Drives purchased by Plaintiff
failed due to logic board errors in or about December 2019.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's Hard Drives advertisement was
deceptive and misleading because it failed to disclose that the
Hard Drives use SMR technology.

Western Digital Corporation manufactures computer HDD. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave., Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Tel: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Emails: ykopel@bursor.com
                  aleslie@bursor.com
                  mroberts@bursor.com


ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: 3d Cir. Dismisses Appeal in NJ Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Zoompass Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the United States Court of Appeal for the
Third Circuit has dismissed a third class action appeal.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company learned that a
class action complaint had been filed against the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  

The Class Action Complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendants
violated the federal securities laws by, among other things,
failing to disclose that the Company was engaged in an unlawful
scheme to promote its stock. The Company has been served with the
Class Action Complaint. The Company has analyzed the Class Action
Complaint and, based on that analysis, has concluded that it is
legally deficient and otherwise without merit. The Company intends
to vigorously defend against these claims.

Also during the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company learned
that two derivative complaints on behalf of the Company have been
filed against the Company's Directors and Chief Executive Officer,
President, Corporate Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer, and
nominally against the Company, in Nevada state and federal court.
The state court action subsequently was removed to federal court.


The Derivative Complaints allege, inter alia, that the Company's
officers and directors directed the Company to undertake an
unlawful scheme to promote its stock.  

The Company has been served with the Derivative Complaints. The
Company has analyzed them and, based on its analysis, has concluded
that the Derivative Complaints are legally deficient and otherwise
without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against
these claims.   

On August 7, 2018, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed the Class Action Complaint.
Additionally, subsequent to the year end on August 21, 2018, the
Company was served with the Second Amended Complaint in the
District of New Jersey.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on September 18, 2018. On January 23, 2019, the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the Second
Amended Complaint with prejudice.  

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order
on February 7, 2019. On May 14, 2019, the Plaintiff's motion to
reconsider was denied.

On June 27, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On March 12, 2020, the
United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit dismissed the
Third appeal.

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

Zoompass Holdings, Inc. develops a mobile money platform that
enables brands to transform their financial interactions with
customers. The company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada with an additional location in Englewood, New
Jersey. Zoompass Holdings, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Paymobile Inc.

ZURICH AMERICAN: America's Kids Sues Over Denied Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICA'S KIDS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03520 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
breach of contract.

Plaintiff, which is a family-owned business enterprise that offers
a range of children's clothes, shoes, accessories, school uniforms,
toys, and furniture, has secured business interruption insurance
from Defendant to protect its business during crisis.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was unfortunately forced to
close its business to the public pursuant to civil authority orders
due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, which consequently caused
Plaintiff's physical property loss and damage. But, when Plaintiff
claimed its insurance policy coverage from Defendant, Defendant
issued a blanket denial to Plaintiff's claim for Business Income
losses or other covered expenses related to COVID-19 or the Closure
Orders.

Zurich American Insurance Company operates an insurance firm. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Theo Benjamin, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle St., 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Tel: 312-589-6370
          Fax: 312-589-6378
          Emails: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com
                  tbenjamin@edelson.com


ZYLA LIFE: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of ARYMO ER Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zyla Life Sciences said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2020, that the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's decision to dismiss the securities class action litigation
related to ARYMO ER.

On January 27, 2017 and February 10, 2017, respectively, two
putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that named as
defendants Egalet Corporation (former name of the company) and
former officers Robert S. Radie, Stanley J. Musial and Jeffrey M.
Dayno (the "Officer Defendants" and together with Egalet
Corporation, the "Defendants").

These two complaints, captioned Mineff v. Egalet Corp. et al., No.
2:17-cv-00390-MMB and Klein v. Egalet Corp. et al., No.
2:17-cv-00617-MMB, assert securities fraud claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Egalet Corporation securities
between December 15, 2015 and January 9, 2017 and seek damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other expenses.  

On May 1, 2017, the Court entered an order consolidating the two
cases (the "Securities Class Action Litigation") before it,
appointing the Egalet Investor Group (consisting of Joseph
Spizzirri, Abdul Rahiman and Kyle Kobold) as lead plaintiff and
approving their selection of lead and liaison counsel.  

On July 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint, which named the same Defendants and also asserted claims
for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  

Plaintiffs brought their claims individually and on behalf of a
putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Egalet between November 4, 2015 and January 9, 2017
inclusive.  

The consolidated amended complaint based its claims on allegedly
false and/or misleading statements and/or failures to disclose
information about the likelihood that ARYMO ER would be approved
for intranasal abuse-deterrent labeling.  

The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on September 1, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their opposition on
October 31, 2017, and the Defendants filed their reply on December
8, 2017.  

The Court heard oral arguments on the Motion to Dismiss on February
20, 2018 and entered an order pursuant to which the plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on
March 6, 2018. The Defendants responded on March 20, 2018 and the
plaintiffs filed their reply on March 27, 2018. The Court heard
oral arguments on the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint on July 12, 2018.  On August 2, 2018, the Court
granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the
Securities Class Action Litigation with prejudice.  

On August 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal with
the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit. On
November 7, 2018, the Defendants filed a notice of suggestion of
bankruptcy and unopposed motion to stay the appeal as to the
Officer Defendants (the appeal was automatically stayed as to the
Company upon the Chapter 11 filing).  

On February 6, 2019, the Officer Defendants filed a Notice of
Lifting of Automatic Stay of Proceedings and Discharge of
Subordinated Claims, as plaintiffs' claim against the Company was
extinguished as part of the bankruptcy, which restarted the
appellate process.  

On April 22, 2019, plaintiffs filed their brief with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Defendants filed
their brief on May 22, 2019 and Plaintiffs filed their reply on
June 12, 2019.

On April 30, 2020, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's decision to dismiss the Securities Class Action Litigation.


Zyla said, "The Company disputes the allegations in the lawsuit and
intend to defend these actions vigorously. The Company cannot
determine the likelihood of, nor can it reasonably estimate the
range of, any potential loss, if any, from these lawsuits."

Zyla Life Sciences, a commercial-stage life sciences company,
focuses on the development and marketing of various treatments for
patients and healthcare providers. It has a portfolio of various
treatments for various types of pain and inflammation. The company,
formerly known as Egalet Corporation, was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


[*] Class Action Survival Guide for Employers
---------------------------------------------
Gerald Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer Riley of Seyfarth Shaw LLP wrote
an article on JD Supra an article titled "Class Action Survival
Guide - The Top Five Things That Employers Need To Do In Defending
Post-COVID-19 Litigation":

Seyfarth Synopsis:  As employers embark on reopening their
businesses and implementing return to work plans, they face a
potential wave of workplace class action litigation.  Such lawsuits
have begun to roll in and courts have started to weave a patch-work
quilt of responses.  Early results show trends beginning to emerge
and lessons for employers embroiled in these actions.  In this blog
post, we outline items that businesses need to have in their
defense arsenals as they start responding to and defending
post-COVID-19 class actions. A sound class action survival guide is
a business imperative

    A Good Sense Of Common Sense:

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided some welcome direction from
courts and clarity to litigants to focus on things that matter.
Over the past few months, numerous courts have suggested that
litigants should act with a greater sense of awareness and many
judges have exhibited a lower tolerance for frivolity and
thoughtlessness.  This sense of the bigger picture has come through
in not-so-subtle terms in the tenor and substance of many recent
rulings.

In one illustrative example, a district judge in Chicago famously
rejected a motion for reconsideration of a ruling continuing a TRO
hearing noting that, even if the plaintiff were successful in
securing an order that directed a slew of third-parties to spring
into action to prevent the proliferation of "infringing unicorn"
and "knock off elf" images, the order either would be ignored or
would distract people who may have "bigger problems" on their
hands.  Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited
Liability Cos., No. 1:20-CV-01666 (N.D. Ill. March 18, 2020).
Similar examples abound from courts throughout the country.

Even as schedules and deadlines ease back into rigidity, employers
in class actions are well-served by picking their battles and, when
it comes to presenting issues to the court, refining their approach
to account for the bigger picture, so as to avoid an inflated sense
of urgency, and to jettison needless bickering.

    A Solid Understanding Of Class Certification Standards

As the tide of lawsuits alleging personal injury and wrongful death
have started to roll in, some employers remain paralyzed by fear
that an exposure on their premises could prove crippling to their
survival.  Further frustrating any sense of security, courts have
begun issuing inconsistent rulings on whether exposure claims are
appropriate for class treatment.

In one of the first rulings, on April 10, 2020, a court in the
Northern District of Illinois declined to certify a class of state
inmates concerned about their risk of COVID-19 infection because it
found that each putative class member came with a unique situation
and the imperative of individualized determinations rendered the
case inappropriate for class treatment.  Money v. Pritzker, No.
1:20-CV-02093 (N.D. Ill. April 10, 2020).

On June 6, 2020, a court in the Southern District of Florida
reached a different result.  Focusing on the threat of a heightened
risk of severe illness, despite the need for individualized
assessment of each detainee's vulnerabilities to COVID-19, it found
the commonality required by Rule 23 because plaintiffs alleged
common conduct, including failure to implement adequate
precautionary measures and protocols, lack of access to hygiene
products, and lack of social distancing.  Gayle v. Meade, No.
20-Civ-21553 (S.D. Fla. June 6, 2020).

Employers defending class cases should come prepared with a solid
understanding of certification standards to navigate this growing
patchwork of rulings.

    An Understanding Of The Various Laws That Shield Employers From
Liability

Although Congress has not yet passed any COVID-19 liability shield
on the federal level, a growing number of states have taken steps
to immunize businesses from lawsuits by employees or customers who
contract COVID-19.

A slew of bills await review that would shield businesses in
certain states from coronavirus-related lawsuits, including one
that would shield Louisiana restaurants from civil liability
related to COVID-19, and others that would broadly block employees
from bringing complaints in court and limit remedies for on-the-job
infections to those available through the workers' compensation
system.

Whereas states such as North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming
have enacted broad liability protections for businesses related to
COVID-19, additional states such as Arizona and Michigan have
adopted more limited protections specific to health-care providers.
These laws create a patchwork of protection, with varying scope
and conditions, that companies facing broad scale class actions
should understand and come prepared to invoke.

    A Sense Of Creativity Relative To Applicable Legal Standards

One example of creative thinking on the part of the plaintiffs' bar
lies in the workplace safety arena.  The Occupational Safety &
Health Act ("OSHA") requires that employers provide a workplace
"free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to
cause death or serious physical harm."  In the context of COVID-19,
OSHA has advised employers to follow guidelines from the CDC, such
as sanitizing surfaces and ensuring social distancing.

Whereas federal administrative guidance does not generally give
rise to a private cause of action, members of the plaintiffs' bar
have attempted to shoehorn failures to comply into claims for
public nuisance as well as claims for breach of duty to protect the
health and safety of employees.  Lawsuits have started to roll in
from employees who allege that they were "encouraged" to continue
attending work and prevented from adequately washing hands or
sanitizing workstations.  Employees allege that masks created a
"facade of compliance" that fell short of the measures that
actually would have provided protection.

Courts have started to weave a patchwork quilt of rulings as to
whether those alleging "failure to protect" can state a viable
claim, particularly if they did not contract the disease.  In
connection with Hurricane Harvey, for example, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that a plaintiff could not
state a claim by citing a laundry list of every possible injury
imaginable without any factual allegations that he suffered any
harm.  Motions to dismiss COVID-19 claims on similar grounds remain
pending.  See, e.g., Chao v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., No.
2:20-CV-03314 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2020).

Court have disagreed over whether they should weigh in on such
claims.  A federal court in Missouri, for instance, granted a
motion to dismiss claims that an employer failed to protect
employees at a meat processing plant, declining to hear the case
pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine to allow the OSHA to
consider the issues.  Rural Community Workers Alliance v.
Smithfield Foods, Inc., No. 5:20-CV-06063 (W.D. Mo. May 5, 2020).
An Illinois state court, however, recently refused to toss
accusations by a proposed class of Chicago employees that their
employer failed to do enough to protect them during the ongoing
pandemic.  Massey v. McDonald's Corp., 2020-CH-04247 (Cir. Ct. Cook
County June 3, 2020).

To effectively defend these new theories, businesses should be
prepared to think outside the box and mount a multi-faceted attack,
including challenges on the pleadings, challenges to class
certification, as well as a series of defenses on the merits.

    Thoughtful Policies And Documented Efforts To Comply

As legislators grapple with whether and on what terms to extend
COVID-19 liability protections to employers, and plaintiffs grapple
with turning non-compliance into legal theories, employers should
be prepared to address the guidelines, their safety efforts, and
their workplace policies.  Employers can create a positive defense
posture by being prepared to demonstrate that they adopted and
enforced reasonable and appropriate workplace policies and
reporting mechanisms.  In addition to considering the risks and
developing a plan, employers should be prepared with documentation
that will enable them to rebut allegations of any widespread
shortfall.

In sum, as members of the plaintiffs' bar continue to pivot their
theories to meet the next phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, and
courts continue to issue rulings on their various claims, employers
should be prepared to meet these new challenges with advance
preparation and multi-faceted defense strategies. [GN]


[*] Epiq: No Classes Lead to Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Epiq wrote an article on JD Supra titled "No Classes Lead to Class
Action".

Epiq notes that thinking back to college days may conjure up
memories of large lecture halls, hands-on labs, late nights in the
library, dorm parties, and tailgating. Attending college is not
just about what is learned in class.  It is about meeting new
people, being in a community, engaging with faculty, and expanding
horizons.  For traditional students, going off to college helps
them gain a sense of independence, figure out how to be away from
home and develop new life skills.  College also provides a space to
find mentors, learn new trades, advance in the workforce, and
create new networks home and meeting classmates that may become
friends, business partners, and future customers.  No matter what
type of student finds themselves walking across campus, college can
be a transformative experience.

COVID, College, and Class Action

While COVID-19 has not cancelled college, it has certainly changed
the experience.  In order to prevent the spread of COVID-19,
students were hurriedly asked to leave the dorms, return to their
homes, and resume all their classes virtually.  Even in commuter
schools without dorms, institutions of higher education became
vacant of students, faculty, and staff. Although students are still
taking courses and faculty are still teaching, there have been
numerous lawsuits filed against many colleges and universities on
behalf of students seeking reimbursement for tuition, fees, and
room and board. These cases are being brought as putative class
actions on behalf of all similarly situated students.

College Student Class Action Claims

Most of the lawsuits assert claims for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment on the theory that the named plaintiffs and their
classmates were promised an "on-campus" education, while a few
others assert claims for conversion.  In other instances, some
universities decided to implement a pass/fail system in lieu of a
grade point system.  The lawsuits contend that this decision to use
a pass/fail grading program diminishes the value of the degrees
that students are working towards.  The lawsuits allege tens of
millions of dollars in damages.  To date, more than 100 putative
class actions have been filed nationwide.

The students point to the significant price differences between
some online and in-person classes as examples of the lower costs of
providing online instruction. For example, tuition for
Pennsylvania's Drexel University's online bachelor's degree program
in business administration is 40 percent less than the rate for
some on-campus programs.  The colleges argue that their heaviest
expenses are paying faculty and staff, which goes unchanged whether
the class is live or virtual. Some schools are already offering
partial refunds, tuition credits, or other forms of compensation
for the loss of some services (like on campus meals and subsidized
transportation). Depending on the state the college operates in,
some institutions are eligible to offer disaster waivers for
credits which may exempt these colleges from class action suits.

A Different Collegiate Experience

With some universities already telling students classes will remain
virtual into the fall, there is definitely frustration with the
lack of a price adjustment.  Regardless if students do return to
campus, the frustrations remain true since whatever will happen, it
will definitely not be what has been advertised as a "normal"
college experience.  Classes will be smaller, with moving to hybrid
learning (a mix of in-person and virtual learning), and dorm/Greek
life will not be the same with social distancing orders in place.
It is also unclear whether college sports can return, and if they
do, if fans can attend and what it means for students on
scholarships.  In short, the college experience is bound to be
different.

Novelty of Student Led Class-Action Cases

While a class of students suing their university seems novel, these
kinds of cases are actually not new to many universities.
Recently, several educational institutions, including UCLA,
University of Washington, and University of Hawaii, have recently
been part of class action lawsuits stemming from data breaches.
Many of these cases have already settled, with the settlements
driven by their insurance carries.  

Class Action Settlements Effect on College Tuitions

Even if class action suits have precedent, these lawsuits
definitely look different . For one thing, the cost of these suits
could far surpass anything these higher educational institutions
have seen before.  The consequences of a payout could force
universities to raise the cost of education which, in turn, puts a
higher strain on America's fragile student loan bubble.

Conclusion

While the world still struggles with COVID-19, we will continue to
live and create many "new normals".  Certainly, the college
experience will change as a result, but the question remains if
those changes impact a student's experience to the point that it
diminishes their and return on investment is legal action and
tuition reimbursement is warranted.  [GN]


[*] Public Nuisance Claims Emerge in COVID-19 Workplace Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Wozniak and Mark Wallin of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, in an
article for National Law Review titled "Public Nuisance Claims
Emerge In COVID-19 Workplace Litigation Filings", wrote that in
addition to other trends Barnes & Thornburg's Wage and Hour
Practice Group is monitoring, this week, we noted the filing of
several somewhat novel COVID-19 related workplace complaints as we
compiled cases in our tracker. There seems to be an emerging trend
in which the employer's failure to implement COVID-19 safety
guidelines gives rise to public nuisance claims. Perhaps not
surprisingly, each of these cases arose in the state of California,
and have a California Labor Code class action component as well.
This is consistent with the observation we blogged about last week,
that the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have acted as an accelerant
for wage and hour cases. This is another trend for employers to be
mindful of, and one we continue to monitor.

As an example of this trend, in Esco v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.,
the plaintiff filed a class action alleging that she and the
members of a putative class are victims of employment policies,
practices, and procedures that violate California's Business and
Professions, Civil and Labor Codes as well as the Department of
Industrial Relations, Industrial Welfare Commission, and Division
of Occupational Safety and Health orders and standards. The
plaintiff contends that throughout the COVID-19 pandemic the
defendant failed to implement and maintain an effective illness and
injury prevention program and to provide proper PPE, materials,
policies, trainings and communication to the plaintiff and members
of the class.

Specifically, she claims that the defendant failed to provide
sufficient sanitary face coverings, failed to require customers,
vendors and others entering the stores to wear face coverings,
failed to endorse social distancing, failed to provide sufficient
breaks to allow for hand washing stations, failed to provide
sufficient hand sanitizer, failed to train employees on the use of
protective gear such as the removal of gloves and masks, failed to
implement an illness prevention program, failed to provide
sufficient barriers and failed to provide sufficient disinfectants
and cleaning agents. Based upon this conduct, the plaintiff alleges
she and all non-exempt employees are entitled to relief because the
defendant's conduct constitutes a public nuisance. The complaint
follows a theory used in other COVID-related suits and cites a
variety of state, local and federal regulations and guidelines. The
plaintiff also claims that she and the class are entitled to
injunctive relief to stop the defendant's alleged violations of
state law.   

This case appears to be another example of enterprising (and,
frankly, creative) plaintiffs' counsel using the COVID-19 pandemic
as the catalyst for new theories of liability, which are then
supplemented with technical wage and hour violations. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 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 ***