/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200807.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, August 7, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 158

                            Headlines

10TH AVE WINES: Salvador Seeks Overtime Pay, Hits Tip Credit
215 SOHO CAFE: Ixehuatl Seeks Overtime Pay, Slams Tip Credit
ABBVIE INC: Baltimore Alleges Conspiracy to Delay Generic Drug
ACCENT FOOD: Mabee Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Route Drivers
ACURA: Faces Class Action Over MDX, RDX SUV Issues

AMERIS BANK: Fails to Pay PPP Loan Agents' Fees, Cleghorn Claims
ANATOMICAL WORLDWIDE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ANIL JAGMOHAN BHAGA: Laufer Sues in W.D. Texas Over ADA Violation
ASSEMBLERS INC: Knighten Sues Over Racial Discrimination
AUSTRALIA: 300 Litigants Expected to Be Part of Live Cattle Case

BANK OF AMERICA: Guerriero Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
BIG EMPIRE INC: Jallow Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
BOILING CRAB FRANCHISE: Brooks Claims Website not Blind-Friendly
CALIFORNIA BAPTIST: Faces Kaldes Suit Over Closure Due to Covid
CALIFORNIA WESTERN: Freshmen Slam In-Person Class Cancelation

CANIDAE CORPORATION: Dog Owners Slam Dogfood Mislabeling
CDI CORPORATION: Crawford Files ERISA Suit Over Mismanaged Fund
CHINA XD PLASTICS: Post Files Suit Over Faith Dawn Merger Deal
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Refuses to Pay Loan Agents' Fees, Prinzo Says
CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Hernandez Slams Share Price Drop

CORE CONSTRUCTION: Laborers Sue to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
DEUTSCHE BANK: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
DXP ENTERPRISES: Safety Staff Slams Misclassification
EMBASSY SUITES: McArdle-Bracelin Sues to Recover Earned Wages
FAITH CONNEXION: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA

FCA US: Tigershark MultiAir II Engine Is Defective, Weiner Claims
FIRST AMERICAN: Court Directs RCF to Respond to Show Cause Order
FLAGSTAR BANK: Gardner Files Suit in Eastern District of Michigan
FOREMOST INSURANCE: Faces Sanders Class Suit in S.D. Mississippi
FOX ROTHSCHILD: Faces Gleinn Securities Suit in M.D. Florida

GRACO CHILDREN'S: Booster Seats Are Defective, Murphy Suit Claims
GREENSKY INC: Court Fixes Sept. 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline
GRENDENE USA: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
GUIRY'S INC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Court Denies Prelim. OK on $18.9MM Class Deal

HERZING UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
HONEYWELL INT'L: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 4 Motion Deadline
HYCROFT GOLD: Borden Ladner Discuss Certification in LBP Class Suit
INSPERITY INC: Portnoy Law Announces Class Action Filing
JOCOTT BRANDS: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation

JPMORGAN CHASE: Endeavor Sues Over Treasury Futures Price-fixing
KAVU INC: Cruz Sues in New York Over Disabilities Act Violation
LUCCHESE INC: Faces Cruz Suit in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
MAGELLAN HEALTH: Parents Sue Over Kids' Denied Therapy Claims
MAJOR CLEANING: Tuy Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Slams Retaliation

MARGARITAVILLE ENTERPRISES: Faces Paguada ADA Suit in New York
MARIAN UNIVERSITY: Hedges Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
MERCEDES-BENZ: Averts M272 Engine Class Action
MILANBLOCKS LLC: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
MISTERART.COM LP: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York

MONARCH RECOVERY: Rai Sues in California Over Violation of FDCPA
MOUNTAIN HARDWARE: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
MPW INDUSTRIAL: Hixon Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay on Pre-shift Work
OMNICOM GROUP: Breaches Plan Duties Under ERISA, Maisonette Says
ORREFORS KOSTA: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation

OZ STAFFING: McNamee Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to C.D. Illinois
PREFERRED ENGINEERING: Litton Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SUBARU CORP: Faces Suit in NJ Over Defective Fuel Pumps
SURF AVE WINE: Casarrubias Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
SWISSPORT USA: Faces Johnson Class Suit in California Super. Ct.

TENNESSEE: Faces Chibbaro Suit Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights
TK QUEENS INC: Sosa Claims Website Inaccessible to Blind Consumers
TORY BURCH: Cota Sues in S.D. California Alleging ADA Violation
UMILTA WOLFE: Mr. BW Sues in Calif. Alleging Wrongful Eviction
UNIVERSITY OF DENVER: Hedges Sues in New York Over ADA Violation

USAA INSURANCE: Motorists Sue Over Insurance Payout Underpayments
UTICA COLLEGE: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
VISTA ALEGRE: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
VITOL INC: Soils to Grow Sues Over Rigged Gas Prices
WILLIAMS INT'L: Court Refuses to Reconsider Arbitration Transfer

WIRECARD AG: Brown Slams Share Drop Over Missing Funds
[*] Foreign Influence Alleged in Australia Class Action Crackdown

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $581MM for Respirator Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 1,688 Claimants at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Defends 74 Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defends 3,693 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,400 Pending Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had $341MM Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BASF, Law Firm to Pay $72.5MM in Talc Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix Has 6,298 Claims Still Pending at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,710 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chanel and Foot Locker Face Talc Lawsuit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants May Pursue Case vs D/C Distribution
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon in Initial Pact with Insurers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $100MM PCC Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has $686MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $264MM Accrual at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadline to Amend Suit vs J&J is Extended
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Underway in Securities Class Suit v. J&J
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had $235MM Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.26BB Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had 6,298 Bendix Claims Pending in June

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l Paper Has $114MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 2,790 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Had US$86MM Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Faces Falk PI Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Subsidiary Had 6,000 Lawsuits at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had $47.70MM Accrued Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor's Appeal in Calif. Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech. Has $508.1MM Liabilities at June 17
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has $30.3MM Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 10,823 Claims at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whittaker Clark Faces Talc Lawsuit


                            *********

10TH AVE WINES: Salvador Seeks Overtime Pay, Hits Tip Credit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Augusto Garcia Salvador, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. West 54 Liquors LLC, Amany Awad,
Lata Doe and Bushara Doe, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05220 (S.D.
N.Y., July 7, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor
Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control liquor store in New York, NY
under the name "10th Ave Wines & Liquors" where Salvador was
employed as a delivery worker and a stocker. He claims to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum
wage, overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that
they worked. 10th Ave. Wines failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay them
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. Salvador was ostensibly
employed as a delivery worker but spent a significant amount of
time spent performing non-tipped duties. He was paid lower than the
required tip-credit rate but was deducted a tip credit because
their non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday, thus allowing
10th Ave. Wines to pay the tip-credit instead of the minimum wage
rate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


215 SOHO CAFE: Ixehuatl Seeks Overtime Pay, Slams Tip Credit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Ixehuatl, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 215 Soho Cafe Corp., 8312 Soho Cafe Corp.,
Jose Zosayas and Victor Doe, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05071 (E.D.
N.Y., July 2, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor
Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a cafe in Brooklyn, New York
under the name "Soho Cafe & Grill" where Ixehuatl was employed as a
delivery worker. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. According to the
complaint, Soho failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay them appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Ixehuatl was ostensibly employed as a delivery
worker but spent a significant amount of time performing non-tipped
duties. He was paid lower than the required tip-credit rate but was
deducted a tip credit because their non-tipped duties exceeded 20%
of each workday, thus allowing Soho to pay the tip-credit instead
of the minimum wage rate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


ABBVIE INC: Baltimore Alleges Conspiracy to Delay Generic Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN,
INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES,
INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC; FOREST LABORATORIES HOLDINGS, LTD.;
and FOREST LABORATORIES IRELAND LTD., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-05826 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for monopolization and monopolistic scheme under
state law, conspiracy to monopolize, unfair or deceptive trade
practices, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in an
illegal scheme to delay the market entry of generic versions of
Bystolic or also known as nebivolol hydrochloride (HCl), a
prescription drug manufactured by Defendants Forest and its
successors to treat high blood pressure or hypertension. From
October 2012 through November 2013, Forest entered into a series of
unlawful reverse-payment deals with each of its would-be generic
competitors for them not to compete with Forest or enter the market
prior to September 17, 2021 in exchange for side-deals and cash
payments. The Defendants' anticompetitive acts and conspiracy
allowed them to maintain a monopoly and exclude competition in the
market for Bystolic and its AB-rated generic equivalents, to the
detriment of the Plaintiff and all other members of the proposed
End-Payor Class as they were compelled to pay, and did pay,
artificially inflated prices for nebivolol HCl.

AbbVie, Inc. is an American biopharmaceutical company with its
corporate headquarters at 1 North Waukegan Road, North Chicago,
Illinois.

Allergan, Inc. is a global pharmaceutical company that focused on
eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical aesthetics,
breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics. Its
principal place of business is located at Morris Corporate Center
III, 400 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, New Jersey.

Allergan Sales, LLC is a pharmaceutical company that provides eye
care, medical aesthetics and dermatology, gastroenterology, women's
health, urology, and anti-infective therapeutic diseases related
products. Its principal place of business is located at 5 Giralda
Farms, Madison, New Jersey.

Allergan USA, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company that develops and
markets medicines for overactive bladders, urinary tract
infections, and menopause symptoms, well as urinary
analgesic-antiseptic products, with its principal place of business
located at 5 Giralda Farms, Madison, New Jersey.

Forest Laboratories, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business located at 909 Third Avenue, New York,
New York.

Forest Laboratories, LLC is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business located at Morris Corporate Center III,
400 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, New Jersey.

Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company with
principal place of business located at 18 Parliament Street,
Hamilton HM 11, Bermuda.

Forest Laboratories Ireland Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company with a
place of business at Clonshaugh Industrial Estate, Dublin 17,
Ireland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
         Donna M. Evans, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 838-7797
         Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
         E-mail: srobertson@cohenmilstein.com
                 devans@cohenmilstein.com

                - and –

         Robert A. Braun, Esq.
         Jessica Weiner, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         1100 New York Avenue, NW
         Fifth Floor
         Washington, D.C. 20005
         Telephone: (202) 408-4600
         E-mail: rbraun@cohenmilstein.com
                 jweiner@cohenmilstein.com

                - and –

         Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
         TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
         80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
         New York, NY 10038
         Telephone: (212) 931-0704
         E-mail: atamoshunas@tcllaw.com

                - and –

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

ACCENT FOOD: Mabee Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Route Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHARLES MABEE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ACCENT FOOD SERVICES, LLC and KEN SULLIVAN,
Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00181 (W.D. Tex., July 27, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) including failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated route drivers overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to
maintain accurate time and pay records, and misclassification of
the Plaintiff and Class members as exempt from the maximum hour
requirements of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a route driver from
August 2018 to the present.

Accent Food Services, LLC is a refreshment services provider,
specializing in full-service vending machines, micromarkets and
coffee pantry services, headquartered in Pflugerville, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Melissa Moore, Esq.
         Curt Hesse, Esq.
         Renu Tandale, Esq.
         MOORE & ASSOCIATES
         Lyric Centre
         440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
         Houston, TX 77002-1063
         Telephone: (713) 222-6775
         Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
         E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                 curt@mooreandassociates.net
                 renu@mooreandassociates.net

ACURA: Faces Class Action Over MDX, RDX SUV Issues
--------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that an Acura
class action lawsuit alleges MDX and RDX SUVs hesitate when
accelerating, shift into NEUTRAL while driving and suffer from
dangerous deceleration problems.

According to the Acura class action lawsuit, the 2016-2020 MDX and
2019-2020 RDX SUVs allegedly experience miscommunications between
the computers and the software that controls the engines, throttles
and transmissions.

The owners who sued claim the vehicles "pose a significant and
immediate safety threat to all users" due to the defects that cause
the engines to stall while driving highway speeds.

Accelerating when passing vehicles or changing lanes can allegedly
suddenly become deadly when the MDX and RDX SUVs decelerate when
acceleration is needed.

The Acura class action alleges the throttle malfunctions when it
receives conflicting instructions from the accelerator pedal,
engine control module and transmission control module. The throttle
allegedly gets stuck or somehow fails to follow the commands of the
driver.

The Acura class action lawsuit alleges the automaker has "failed to
acknowledge, let alone adequately address, the Defect." In
addition, the plaintiffs claim Acura refuses to recall the SUVs to
properly repair the hesitation and acceleration problems.

Acura issued a technical service bulletin (TSB PU-15-34) about 2016
Acura MDX SUVs in July 2015 concerning, "Product Update: Vehicle
Shifts into Neutral and MIL Comes On with DTC P0657."

According to the TSB, "[w]hile driving, the vehicle shifts into
Neutral and the transmission indicator comes on and [diagnostic
trouble code] DTC P0657 (actuator supply voltage circuit/open) is
stored."

"The driver will not be able to select any other gear until the
vehicle is turned off and restarted," and dealers will "update the
PGM-FI software and TCM software, clear any DTCs, and do the PCM
idle learn procedure." - TSB PU-15-34

Owners and lessees of 2016 MDX SUVs were contacted in September
2015 and advised to have their vehicles repaired for free, but the
class action says the software updates failed to fix the SUVs.

According to the class action, Acura continues to manufacture and
sell the MDX and RDX SUVs with the alleged defects while also
ignoring the problems at the "expense of the safety of its
customers and the public."

The Acura class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California: Abel, et al., v. American
Honda Motor Company, Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robins Kaplan LLP, and Turke &
Strauss LLP.

CarComplaints.com has owner-reported complaints about Acura MDX and
Acura RDX SUVs. [GN]


AMERIS BANK: Fails to Pay PPP Loan Agents' Fees, Cleghorn Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLEGHORN FINANCIAL OPERATIONS, INC., individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated businesses and individuals v. AMERIS
BANK, COLONY BANK, COLONY BANKCORP, INC., AND SOUTH GEORGIA BANKING
COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00142-LAG (M.D. Ga., July 21, 2020),
seeks to obtain fees owed to the Plaintiff as a result of its work
as an agent to assist small business borrowers in getting federally
guaranteed loans through the Paycheck Protection Program.

The PPP is a federal program implemented to provide small
businesses with loans to combat the economic impact of COVID-19.

The Plaintiff contends that federal regulations require the
Defendants to pay the Plaintiff and the proposed Class for their
work as agents, who facilitated loans between the Defendants and
small businesses. Despite precise regulatory requirements stating
that agent fees are owed to the Plaintiff, the Defendants have
failed to pay them. Instead, the Defendants have kept the agent
fees for themselves.

The Plaintiff is a corporation organized and authorized to do
business, and doing business, in the State of Georgia for the past
five years. Michael Lee Cleghorn is the president of Cleghorn and
is a licensed CPA in good standing since 2014.

Ameris is a Georgia state-chartered bank and is headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. Colony Bank is a Georgia chartered bank and is
headquartered in Fitzgerald, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: 404-996-0869
          Facsimile: 205-326-3332
          E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com
                  lewis@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
          Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
          Matthew M. Hoesly, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3255

               - and -

          Michael E. Adler, Esq.
          GRAYLAW GROUP, INC.
          26500 Agoura Road, No. 102-127
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 532-2833
          Facsimile: (818) 532-2834

               - and -

          Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
          Nitoj P. Singh, Esq.
          DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
          177 Post St., Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 433-1700
          Facsimile: (415) 520-6593


ANATOMICAL WORLDWIDE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anatomical Worldwide,
LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Anatomical Worldwide, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05979 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Anatomical Worldwide LLC specializes in healthcare facilities. The
Company offers anatomical products to medical, educational, and
pharmaceutical businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


ANIL JAGMOHAN BHAGA: Laufer Sues in W.D. Texas Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anil Jagmohan Bhaga,
et al. The case is captioned as Deborah Laufer, Individually, On
Her Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Individuals Similarly
Situated v. Anil Jagmohan Bhaga and Anilkumar Damyanti, Case No.
5:20-cv-00846-JKP (W.D. Tex., July 21, 2020).

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jason K. Pulliam.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Michael Cullen, III, Esq.
          PHILIP MICHAEL CULLEN III, CHARTERED
          621 S. Federal Hwy., Ste. Four
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 462-0600
          Facsimile: (954) 462-1717
          E-mail: CULLENIII@AOL.COM


ASSEMBLERS INC: Knighten Sues Over Racial Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
Kieona Knighten, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Assemblers, Inc. and Total Staffing
Solutions, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03942 (N.D. Ill., July
6, 2019), seeks monetary, equitable, and declaratory relief for
violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Total Staffing operates as an employment agency. It provides labor
for Assemblers, Inc., a food packaging and manufacturing company.
Knighten, an African-American, claims that she did not receive any
work assignments, or only received short and sporadic work
assignments because of being black. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
     NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
     53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1224
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Tel: (312) 795-9121

            - and -

     Mark H. Birhanu, Esq.
     Miranda Huber, Esq.
     LEGAL DEPARTMENT, RAISE THE FLOOR ALLIANCE
     1 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1275
     Chicago, IL 60201
     Tel: (312) 795-9115


AUSTRALIA: 300 Litigants Expected to Be Part of Live Cattle Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shan Goodwin, writing for North Queensland Register, reports that
up to 300 litigants are expected to be part of the class action
seeking compensation from the ban on live cattle exports to
Indonesia in 2011 that was ruled invalid by the Federal Court in
June.

A closing date for the class action has not yet been set and
facilitators of the legal action are urging those who feel they
have a claim to get their paperwork in order to allow for losses to
be identified.

Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association boss Ashley Manicaros
said alongside producers, feed-in industries to the live export
trade were expected to be part of the class action.

It would be a minimum of 12 months, probably longer, before any
compensation dollars flowed through, he said.

The compensation bill for the Federal Government has been
estimated, by the live export industry, to be as much as $600m.

The Morrison Government announced it would not appeal the decision
handed down in June, following six years of legal proceedings, that
Joe Ludwig, in his role as the Gillard Labor Government's
agriculture minister in 2011, had committed misfeasance, or misuse
of public office, by implementing the live export ban.

Justice Steven Rares ruled the ban illegal and in following court
appearances awarded the lead litigants in the case, the Northern
Territory's Brett Cattle Company, almost $3m in damages.

In subsequent case management hearings, he set a figure on the
value of the cattle involved: $2.15 per kilogram for steers and
$1.95 for heifers.

From the evidence before him in the Brett case, Justice Rares also
determined that at least 88,000 head of cattle could have been
exported to Indonesia had the ban not been put in place.

That has set the parameters for the class action but the court is
still to determine the global amount of compensation.

Chief executive officer of the Kimberley Pilbara Cattlemen's
Association Emma White said there was still significant work to be
done assessing claims and the devil would be in the detail.

However, the Morrison Government's decision not to appeal the
ruling was a landmark point in that it sealed the acknowledgment of
the unjust nature of what occurred, she said.

"The administrative law aspects of this are massive in terms of
fair and just governance and a very big precedence has been set,"
she said.

"We would hope ministers and bureaucrats apply the lessons learnt
from all of this."

Mr Manicaros agreed.

The decision not to appeal was very much a common sense one, he
said.

"We had been receiving mixed signals out of Canberra but there was
a concerted effort on behalf of industry and through The Nationals
to get this result," he said.

"We understand it was the Prime Minister himself who made the
decision in the end.

"We believe the Government has looked at the broader picture - that
the people didn't want an appeal. From that point of view, our
industry takes strength from the fact it will not be likely
something like this will ever be repeated.

"The industry was correcting the issues when it was shut
down.That's where the real failure was. But what has happened now
says a government simply can not take knee jerk reactions where a
billion dollar industry is at stake." [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Guerriero Seeks to Recover Agent Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Antonietta Guerriero, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, N.A.,
North Shore Bank and TD Bank, N.A., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-11267 (D. Mass., July 6, 2020) seeks monetary and/or
equitable relief, statutory, treble, punitive or exemplary damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs
of suit, including costs of notice, administration and expert fees
and such other legal or equitable relief, including injunctive or
declaratory relief resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of
contract—third party beneficiary and the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act.

On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This legislation
included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses
and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by
the United States Department of Treasury to provide support to
entrepreneurs and small businesses. Part of the CARES Act is the
"Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP) that provides small businesses
with loans to provide small businesses with eight weeks of
cash-flow assistance to fund payrolls. Said loans are administered
by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government, but funded by
private lenders, including the Defendants.

Antonietta Guerriero operates as APG Accounting Services, an
accounting practice who assisted its small business client with
preparing and submitting an application for a PPP loan through Bank
of America, N.A., North Shore Bank and TD Bank, N.A. Said banks
failed to pay fees or other compensation to APG who represent or
assist borrowers through the Paycheck Protection Program, asserts
the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
      Andrea R. Gold
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel.: (202) 973-0900
      Fax: (202) 973-0950
      Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
             kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
             agold@tzlegal.com


BIG EMPIRE INC: Jallow Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alasana Jallow, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Big Empire Inc., Qaisar Razzaq, Mery Doe,
Raja Doe and Riki Doe, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05071 (S.D. N.Y.,
July 2, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor
Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a discount store, located at
921 Columbus Ave, New York, New York where Jallow was employed as a
general assistant and a security guard. He claims to have worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he
worked. Big Empire failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay workers appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


BOILING CRAB FRANCHISE: Brooks Claims Website not Blind-Friendly
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Brooks, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Boiling Crab Franchise
Co., LLC and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-02889 (E.D. Cal., July 9, 2020), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Boiling Crab operates a seafood restaurant in Garden Grove,
California. Its website https://theboilingcrab.com/ caters to
online orders. Brooks is legally blind and claims that said site
cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Thiago Coelho, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Tel: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com


CALIFORNIA BAPTIST: Faces Kaldes Suit Over Closure Due to Covid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirollos Kaldes, on behalf of himself and other individuals
similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY; and other
affiliated entities and individuals, Case No. 5:20-cv-01535 (C.D.
Cal., July 31, 2020), is brought on behalf of those similarly
situated, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester at
California Baptist University, who as a result of the Defendants'
response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 did not receive the
benefit and services for which they bargained for when they
provided payment for tuition and various fees.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a contract where the
Plaintiff would provide payment in the form of tuition and fees and
the Defendants would provide in-person educational services,
experiences, opportunities, and other related services. On March
13, 2020, California Baptist canceled all in-person education. On
March 30, 2020, California Baptist transitioned to complete online
education, following Spring Break recess.

Based on these closures, the Defendants have failed to uphold their
end of the contract to provide in-person educational services and
other related collegiate experiences and services, the Plaintiff
contends. Despite the Defendants' failure to provide the services
and experiences as bargained for, the Defendants have not offered
any refund of the tuition and fees that the Plaintiff and the Class
had paid, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was enrolled as a full-time undergraduate student at
California Baptist during the Spring 2020 semester.

California Baptist University is a private university and entity
whose principal place of business is located in Riverside,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Shoop, Esq.
          Thomas S. Alch, Esq.
          SHOOP A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: (310) 620-9533
          Email: David.shoop@shooplaw.com
                 Thomas.alch@shooplaw.com


CALIFORNIA WESTERN: Freshmen Slam In-Person Class Cancelation
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Mears and Maria Cholico, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. California Western School
of Law and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
37-2020-00023126 (Cal. Super., July 6, 2020) seeks disgorgement of
all amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus
housing, and meals, injunctive relief including enjoining
California Western School of Law from retaining the pro-rated,
unused monies paid for tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and such other and
further relief as may be just and proper, refunds of all tuition
fees paid on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages
resulting from breach of contract and unjust enrichment and
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

John Mears and Maria Cholico are freshmen students at California
Western School of Law. The latter decided to close campus,
constructively evict students, and transition all classes to an
online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease.
Mears and Cholico claim to be deprived the benefits of in-person
instruction, access to campus facilities, student activities and
other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already
paid fees and tuition. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
      Anthony Nguyen, Esq.
      Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq.
      SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
      145 S. Spring Street, Suite 400
      Los Angeles, CA 90012
      Telephone Number: (310) 860 0770
      Facsimile Number: (310) 860 0771
      Email: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
             ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
             CKenner@Shegerianlaw.com


CANIDAE CORPORATION: Dog Owners Slam Dogfood Mislabeling
--------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Hill and Monica O'Rourke, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Canidae Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01374 (C.D. N.Y., July 9, 2020), seeks
restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained profits,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, monetary and punitive
damages and interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable fees
for attorneys and experts and such other and further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and
in violation of New York general business laws and breach of
quasi-contract/unjust enrichment/restitution.

Canidae Corporation manufactures, markets and sells the Canidae
Limited Ingredient Diets online and through third-party retailers
throughout the United States.

Hill purchased the Canidae Limited Ingredient Diets on a regular
basis to feed to her Pitbull, specifically, Canidae Grain-Free PURE
Real Bison, Lentil and Carrot Recipe Dry Dog Food and Canidae
Grain-Free PURE Real Salmon and Sweet Potato Recipe Dry Dog Food.
O'Rourke purchased the Canidae Limited Ingredient Diets for her
dog, specifically the Canidae Grain-Free PURE Real Salmon and Sweet
Potato Recipe Dry Dog Food.

Hill and O'Rourke claim that said dogfoods contains extenders in
contrast to its labelling that indicates "pure."[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex R. Straus, SBN 321366
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      16748 McCormack Street
      Los Angeles, CA 91436
      Telephone: (917) 471-1894
      Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
      Email: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com

             - and -

      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      Arthur Stock, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      First Tennessee Plaza
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Tel: (865) 247-0080
      Fax: (865) 522-0049
      Email: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
             arthur@gregcolemanlaw.com

             - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR, SUCIU & TOMINA PLLC
      6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
      Tel: (313) 303-3472
      Email: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

             - and -

      J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP
      641 S St. NW
      Washington, DC 20001
      Tel: (919) 539-2708
      Email: hunter@whitfieldbryson.com


CDI CORPORATION: Crawford Files ERISA Suit Over Mismanaged Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Crawford and Lucia Depretto, individually and on behalf of the
CDI Corporation 401(K) Savings Plan, Plaintiffs, v. CDI
Corporation, Board of Directors of CDI Corporation, CDI Corporation
401(K) Savings Plan Committee, and John Does 1-30, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-03317 (E.D. Pa., July 7, 2020) asserts claims for breach
of fiduciary duties and failure to monitor fiduciaries pursuant to
Sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

CDI Corporation is a privately-held Pennsylvania corporation and is
the benefit plan sponsor and a fiduciary for its eligible employees
and the eligible employees of certain of its affiliates. Crawford
was employed at CDI in Atlanta from 2013 to 2019 while DePretto was
a CDI employee from November 2007 to December 2018. They have
participated in defined contribution retirement plans, conferring
tax benefits on participating employees to incentivize saving for
retirement.

Crawford and Depretto allege that Defendants made imprudent
investment options in the Plan due to their selection and retention
of options that deprive participants of the opportunity to grow
their retirement savings by investing in prudent options with
reasonable fees. These investment options underperformed numerous
prudent alternatives that were available to the Plan, resulting in
a loss of retirement savings, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
      EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
      3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
      Newtown, PA 18940
      Telephone: (215) 867-2399
      Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
      Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
             medelson@edelson-law.com


CHINA XD PLASTICS: Post Files Suit Over Faith Dawn Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Post, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. China XD Plastics Company Limited, Jie Han,
Taylor Zhang, Linyuan Zhai, Huiyi Chen, Guanbao Huang, Faith Dawn
Limited, Faith Horizon Inc., Faith Abundant Limited, and XD
Engineering Plastics Company Limited, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-00926 (D. Del., July 8, 2020) seeks judgment on the pleadings
and an order requiring the Defendants to disclose a full and fair
summary of the analysis underlying the steps that led to the
transaction with regards to a merger of China XD with Faith Dawn
Limited and Faith Horizon Inc. under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On June 15, 2020, China XD's Board caused the Company to enter into
an agreement and plan of merger with Faith Dawn Limited and Faith
Horizon Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, China
XD's minority stockholders will receive $1.20 in cash for each
share of China XD common stock they own.

Post claims that the proxy statement filed for the merger failed to
disclose what steps China XD's officers and directors took
regarding the proposal, failed to disclose any details with respect
to the "market check exercise" performed by Duff & Phelps
Securities, LLC in 2017 and an accurate description of the process
leading up to the merger proposal.

China XD, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, and sells polymer composites materials primarily for
automotive applications. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 295-5310
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
             gms@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
      Email: rm@maniskas.com


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Refuses to Pay Loan Agents' Fees, Prinzo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PRINZO & ASSOCIATES LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01097-WSS (W.D. Pa., July
21, 2020), seeks compensation from the Defendants, who refuse to
comply with the CARES Act that requires it to pay out of the
compensation it received for processing Paycheck Protection Program
loans for services Prinzo and a large number of other agents
rendered on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration
emergency loans.

On March 27, 2020, Congress passed 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).

Citizens is the largest bank headquartered in Rhode Island.
Citizens operates over 1,200 branches and 3,200 automatic teller
machines across 11 states under the brand name "Citizens Bank."
Among other things, Citizens specializes in small business banking.
The Small Business Administration recently reported that Citizens
Bank has issued approximately 48,065 loans totaling $4,948,009,994
in borrowed funds.

However, the Plaintiff asserts, the Defendants apparently decided
that they do not need to complete the final step of the process and
based on information and belief have refused to pay the agents, who
assisted PPP loan recipients with their applications. This practice
seemed to be a deliberate scheme from the beginning as even though
they were required to pay agents that assisted in the application
process, the Defendants did not set up a structure or ask any
questions to determine whether borrowers utilized an agent in
completing applications, the Plaintiff contends.

Prinzo is a Certified Public Accounting firm organized in
Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business located in
McMurray, Pennsylvania.

Citizens is a financial services corporation incorporated in
Delaware and headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
          E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Elaine S. Kusel, Esq.
          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
          Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 737-9981
          E-mail: esk@mccunewright.com
                  rdm@mccunewright.com
                  mmv@mccunewright.com
                  tqn@mccunewright.com


CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Hernandez Slams Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Fernando Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Co-Diagnostics, Inc., Dwight Egan, James
Nelson, Eugene Durenard, Edward Murphy, Richard Serbin, Reed Bensen
and Brent Satterfield, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00481 (D. Utah,
July 2, 2020), seeks compensatory damages, including interest
thereon, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further
relief for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

Co-Diagnostics's main product is a COVID-19 diagnostic test.
Co-Diagnostics announced that it had received regulatory clearance
to sell its tests in the European Community on February 24, 2020.
Then on April 6, 2020 the company announced that it had received
emergency use authorization for its tests from the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration. Co-Diagnostics' market-first test, together
with its claims that its tests were perfectly accurate, allowed
Co-Diagnostics to sign lucrative contracts with state governments
in the U.S. and governments around the world.

However, Co-Diagnostics' tests are materially less than 100%
accurate, notes the complaint. If these tests are used on a
widespread basis, as intended, the effect are more pronounced.

Prior to the release of the news undermining Co-Diagnostics' false
claims of 100% accuracy, Co-Diagnostics' stock enjoyed an all-time
high stock price of $29.72 per share and a market capitalization of
over $800 million.

As public reports casting doubt on Co-Diagnostics claims of 100%
accuracy began to circulate, the stock went from its daily high of
$29.52, down to $20 and hit an intra-day low of $18.35 before
closing at $22.13 on May 14, 2020. On May 15, 2020, the stock slid
to $15.80 per share and never rebounded and today trades at
severely reduced volume for between $15-16 per share.

Hernandez purchased Co-Diagnostics publicly traded securities at
artificially inflated prices. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Scofield, Esq.
      PETERS SCOFIELD - A Professional Corporation
      7430 Creek Road, Suite 303
      Sandy, UT 84093-6160
      Telephone: (801) 322-2002 Ext. 102
      Facsimile: (801) 912-0320
      Email: dws@psplawyers.com

              - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


CORE CONSTRUCTION: Laborers Sue to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Jayne, Travis Beal and Giovanni John Vaccarella, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Core
Construction Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01915 (E.D.
La., July 6, 2020), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

CORE Construction Services provides, in part, pre-construction,
construction, program management and disaster recovery services
with a focus on projects for the public sector. Jayne, Beal and
Vaccarella relocated to Puerto Rico to provide labor as part of
CORE's participation in the Puerto Rico Sheltering and Temporary
Essential Power Program. They claim to have worked an average of 14
hours or more per day, seven days a week without being paid
overtime premiums. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      K. Todd Wallace, Esq.
      Stacey LaGraize Meyaski, Esq.
      WALLACE MEYASKI, LLC
      5190 Canal Blvd., Suite 102
      New Orleans, LA 70124
      Telephone: (504) 644-2011
      Facsimile: (504) 644-2010
      Email: todd.wallace@walmey.com
             stacey.meyaski@walmey.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft
(NYSE: DB) between November 7, 2017 and July 6, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important September 14, 2020 lead
plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Deutsche Bank investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Deutsche Bank class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1898.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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Deutsche Bank had failed to remediate deficiencies
related to its anti-money laundering compliance, its disclosure
controls, procedures, and internal control over financial
reporting, as well as its U.S. operations' troubled condition; (2)
as a result, Deutsche Bank failed to properly monitor customers
that Deutsche Bank itself deemed to be high risk, including, among
others, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and two
correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, which were both
the subjects of prior scandals involving financial misconduct; (3)
the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a
material negative impact on Deutsche Bank's financial results and
reputation; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
14, 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-1898.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 -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- 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
achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked
and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen
Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

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
      lrosen@rosenlegal.com
      pkim@rosenlegal.com
      cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


DXP ENTERPRISES: Safety Staff Slams Misclassification
-----------------------------------------------------
Rene Saenz and Travis Collins, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DXP Enterprises, Inc. and
Chevron USA, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00165 (W.D. Tex.,
July 8, 2020), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Saenz and Collins worked as Safety Consultants for DXP's client,
Chevron from October 2012 until December 2017 and April 2017 until
October 2019 respectively. They claim to be misclassified as
independent contractors thus denied overtime compensation for work
rendered in excess of 40 hours per week.

Chevron is a major oil and gas production company while DXP offers
compliance and consulting services to clients in the oil and gas
industry. DXP has contracted with Chevron to provide staff for the
latter's drilling operations.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Josh Borsellino, Esq.
     BORSELLINO, P.C.
     1020 Macon St., Ste. 15
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Tel: (817) 908-9861
     Fax: (817) 394-2412
     Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com


EMBASSY SUITES: McArdle-Bracelin Sues to Recover Earned Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noel McArdle-Bracelin, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. EMBASSY SUITES EMPLOYER LLC; EMBASSY SUITES
MANAGEMENT LLC; CONGRESS HOTEL, LLC; and VEEDER HOSPITALITY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00861-TJM-TWD (N.D.N.Y., July 31,
2020), is brought to recover all unpaid wages, compensation,
penalties, liquidated damages, treble damages, and other damages
under the New York Labor Law.

The lawsuit also seeks to remedy the alleged sweeping practices the
Defendants integrated into their gratuity systems and payroll
policies that have deprived the Plaintiff and Class members of
their lawfully earned wages.

The case implicates the Defendants' longstanding policies and
practices, which fail to properly compensate non-exempt service
workers mandatory surcharges remitted to them as wages, according
to the Plaintiff. As a result, throughout the relevant time period,
the Plaintiff is denied all gratuity payments owed to the Plaintiff
and the class. The Defendants impose a mandatory service fee on the
total cost of banquet services, including the sale of food and
beverages during those banquets, to their customers, but fail to
distribute the total proceeds of those surcharges to non-managerial
service employees as required by New York law.

The Plaintiff bring the following causes of action to challenge the
Defendants' policies and practices of: failing to remit all service
fee surcharges to the Plaintiff; unjust enrichment for failure to
remit the entirety of the service fee surcharges to non-managerial
service workers; failing to provide the Plaintiff accurate,
itemized wage statements as required by the NYLL; and failing to
provide accurate and proper written notice as required by the
NYLL.

The Plaintiff was employed as a breakfast server and banquet server
by the Defendants at the Embassy Suites in Saratoga Springs, New
York, from August 2016 to July 2018.

The Defendants each individually and/or jointly own, operate,
and/or manage hotels, restaurants, and resorts throughout New York
and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Nestico, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200
          Charlotte, NC 28210
          Phone: (510) 740-2946
          Fax: (415) 421-7105
          Email: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Phone: (415) 421-7100
          Fax: (415) 421-7105
          Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
          Houston, TX 77098
          Phone: (713) 338-2560
          Fax: (415) 421-7105
          Email: whogg@schneiderwallace.com


FAITH CONNEXION: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faith Connexion Inc.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Faith Connexion Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05960 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020).

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

Faith Connexion provides men's and women's clothing and
accessories. The Company offers coats, jackets, dresses, skirts,
jeans, trousers, t-shirts, sweatshirts, tops, blouses, belts, and
jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


FCA US: Tigershark MultiAir II Engine Is Defective, Weiner Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS WEINER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Case No. 2:20-cv-11968-SFC-EAS (E.D. Mich., July 21, 2020), is
brought on behalf of consumers, who purchased or leased any vehicle
equipped with a 2.4L Tigershark MultiAir II Engine manufactured and
sold by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff contends that the Class Vehicles suffer from a
serious defect in their engines' manufacturing, design and/or
assembly, causing the engines (and thus, the vehicles themselves)
to stall without warning, thereby impeding the normal operation of
the vehicles and posing a severe safety risk not only to their
drivers, but other drivers on America's roads. This defect results
in critically low engine oil levels, and causes vehicles installed
with Defendant's 2.4L Tigershark engines to stall and lose power
without warning.

The Plaintiff seeks damages and all other available relief for
Defendant's wrongful conduct.

Like the other members of the putative Class, the Plaintiff
purchased one of the Class Vehicles, a 2018 Jeep Compass,
containing the Oil Consumption Defect. After driving his vehicle
for less than two years, and for fewer than 25,000 miles, the
Plaintiff's 2018 Jeep Compass has stalled multiple times while
Plaintiff was operating the vehicle normally, causing him to lose
the ability to control his vehicle and exposing him to the risk of
collision and catastrophic injury.

FCA US LLC is a North American automaker based in Auburn Hills,
Michigan. FCA designs, manufactures, and sells or distributes
vehicles under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep (TM), Ram, FIAT and Alfa
Romeo brands, as well as the SRT performance designation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
          950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  tkingsbury@mcgpc.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Court Directs RCF to Respond to Show Cause Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an Order directing Roche Cyrulnik Freedman LLP to Respond to
Show Cause Order re: Adequacy of Counsel in the case captioned In
re: FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION CASES, Case Nos.
8:19-cv-01105-DSF (Ex), 8:19-cv-01180-DSF (Ex), 8:19-cv-01305-DSF
(Ex), 8:19-cv-01533-DSF (Ex) (C.D. Cal.).

The Court previously appointed Ivy Ngo as interim co-lead counsel,
relying significantly on her association with Franklin D. Azar and
Associates, P.C., her leadership in the firm's Class Action
Practice Group, the financial resources of the firm, and the class
action, business, and trial experience of its members Sean Nation
and Paul Wood. Therefore, whether Ngo may now continue as interim
co-lead counsel depend on whether the firm she has recently joined
(the third since the Court appointed her) is adequate to provide
the support and skills she lacks.

Roche Cyrulnik Freedman LLP (RCF) is, therefore, ordered to respond
to the Order to Show Cause re: Adequacy of Counsel. The response
must be prepared and signed by a partner of RCF and must provide
information as to RCF and all RCF attorneys who will seek to be
named as class counsel in this litigation.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb3rpo33 Leagle.com.


FLAGSTAR BANK: Gardner Files Suit in Eastern District of Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flagstar Bank. The
case is styled as Ms. Veronica Gardner, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Flagstar Bank, Case No.
2:20-cv-12061-GAD-DRG (E.D. Mich., July 31, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Flagstar Bank is a bank headquartered in Michigan. Bank is the
primary subsidiary of Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., a bank holding
company. Bank is one of the largest residential mortgage servicers
and is on the list of largest banks in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven E. Goren, Esq.
          GOREN, GOREN
          30400 Telegraph Road, Suite 470
          Bingham Farms, MI 48025-4541
          Phone: (248) 540-3100
          Email: sgoren@gorenlaw.com


FOREMOST INSURANCE: Faces Sanders Class Suit in S.D. Mississippi
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foremost Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Betty Sanders, individually and on
behalf all others similarly situated v. Foremost Insurance Company,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, Case No. 2:20-cv-00142-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss.,
July 31, 2020).

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

Foremost Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company
offers mobile home, motorcycle, boat, and auto insurance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
          GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT, PLC
          341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Phone: (615) 354-1144
          Fax: (731) 664-1540
          Email: brandon@msb.law


FOX ROTHSCHILD: Faces Gleinn Securities Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fox Rothschild LLP,
et al. The case is captioned as Richard Gleinn; Phyllis Gleinn;
Cary Toone; John Celli; Eva Meier; Georgia Murphy; Bruce R. Hannen;
Geraldine Mary Hannen; Tracey F. Rubinstein, as Trustees for the
Rubinstein Family Living Trust; Steven J. Rubinstein, as Trustees
for the Rubinstein Family Living Trust; Bertram D. Greenberg, as
trustee for the Greenberg Family Trust; Sean O' Neal; Robert
Cobleigh; THE O' NEAL FAMILY TRUST; and Rory O' Neal v. Fox
Rothschild LLP, a limited liability partnership; Paul Wassgren, an
individual; and DLA Piper LLP (US), a limited liability
partnership, Case No. 8:20-cv-01677-MSS-CPT (M.D. Fla., July 21,
2020).

The docket states the nature of suit as Securities Fraud. The suit
demands $9.9 Million in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Mary S. Scriven.

Fox Rothschild is an American law firm founded in Philadelphia. DLA
Piper is a multinational law firm with offices in more than 40
countries throughout the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe, Africa,
and the Middle East.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          Facsimile: (786) 298-5737
          E-mail: Adams@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 279-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 279-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  fbalint@bffb.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Roger Sonn, Esq.
          SONN LAW GROUP PA
          19495 Biscyane Blvd., Ste. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180-2320
          Telephone: (305) 912-3000
          Facsimile: (786) 485-1501
          E-mail: jsonn@sonnlaw.com

               - and -

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          Facsimile: (786) 298-5737
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Booster Seats Are Defective, Murphy Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MURPHY, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC. and NEWELL
BRANDS DTC, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03030-LMM (N.D. Ga., July 21,
2020), asserts claims against the Defendants for their misleading
marketing of, and sale of, poorly-designed, mislabeled, and
defective booster seats to the Plaintiff and other unsuspecting
consumers.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' Booster Seats are
inherently unsafe as a child booster car seat and unfit for their
intended use. They pose serious safety risks that have led to many
documented injuries of children who were seated in them. She adds
that even after the American Academy of Pediatrics' made clear that
children who weigh 40 pounds or less were best protected by
harnessed seats, Graco labeled and marketed the Booster Seats in
the United States as able to "safely transport" children as light
as 30 pounds. Graco simply ignored the overwhelming evidence that
the Booster Seats were not safe for children under 40 pounds, the
Plaintiff insists.

The Plaintiff purchased Graco's TurboBooster Seat for her child in
June 2019.

Graco is an American baby products company based in Atlanta,
Georgia. Graco is owned and operated by Newell Brands. Graco is one
of the leading manufacturers and marketers of infant and juvenile
products, including the Booster Seats. Graco sells its products
through national retail stores such as Walmart and Target, as well
as online via Amazon and direct-to-consumer through its Web site,
Gracobaby.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Worley, Esq.
          James M. Evangelista, Esq.
          EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
          500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A
          Atlanta, GA
          Telephone: (404) 205-8400
          E-mail: david@ewlawllc.com
                  jim@ewlawllc.com

               - and -

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
                  ggraifman@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
          James M. Davis, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK
          FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
                  camille@cglaw.com
                  jdavis@cglaw.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (312) 283-3814
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com


GREENSKY INC: Court Fixes Sept. 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE GREENSKY SECURITIES LITIGATION

Case No.: 18 Civ. 11071 (AKH)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO:      ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED GREENSKY CLASS A
COMMON STOCK PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION
STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH GREENSKY, INC.'S
("GREENSKY") MAY 25, 2018 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ("IPO"), AND WERE
DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A CLASS HAS BEEN CERTIFIED IN PENDING
LITIGATION THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Court") has determined that the lawsuit referred to as In re
GreenSky Securities Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-11071 (the "Action"),
may proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Excluded from the Class are: (a)
Defendants; (b) the officers and directors of GreenSky; (c) members
of their immediate families; and (d) their legal representatives,
heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants
have or had a controlling interest, provided, however, that any
"Investment Vehicle" (as defined in the Notice) shall not be
excluded from the Class.

If you fall within the Class definition above, you are a member of
the Class and have the right to decide whether to remain a member
of the Class.

IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO
ANYTHING NOW. Your rights may be affected. A full printed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action (the "Notice") can be downloaded from
www.GreenSkySecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the
Administrator: In re GreenSky Securities Litigation, PO Box 3560,
Portland, OR 97208-3560, (855) 917-3539.

If you wish to be excluded from the Class, you must send a request
for exclusion to In re GreenSky Securities Litigation, PO Box 3560,
Portland, OR 97208-3560, so that it is received no later than
September 29, 2020. The request for exclusion must conform with the
instructions in the full printed Notice.

If you remain a Class Member, you will be bound by the proceedings
in the Action, including all orders and judgments of the Court,
favorable or unfavorable. If you ask to be excluded, you will not
be bound by any order or judgment in the Action, and will not be
eligible to receive a share of any money which might be recovered
for the benefit of the Class.

If you did not receive a notice by email or mail, and you are and
remain a member of the Class, please send your name and address to
the Administrator so that you will receive any further notices
disseminated in connection with the Action. Inquiries, other than
requests for the Notice, may be made to Class Counsel: Steven J.
Toll, Esq., COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, 1100 New York
Avenue N.W., Fifth Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005; or Max Schwartz,
SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP, 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor,
New York, NY 10169.

Please do not call the Court with questions.

Dated: July 1, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Southern District of New York [GN]


GRENDENE USA: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grendene USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Grendene USA, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05961 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020).

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

Grendene USA, Inc., was founded in 1987. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


GUIRY'S INC: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guiry's Inc. The case
is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Guiry's Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05981
(S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020).

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

Guiry's Inc. operates as a paint and wallpaper store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


HARVEY WEINSTEIN: Court Denies Prelim. OK on $18.9MM Class Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pilar Melendez, writing for Daily Beast, reports that a New York
federal judge on July 14 rejected an $18.9 million preliminary
settlement in Harvey Weinstein's sexual-misconduct lawsuits,
slamming the "obnoxious" and "phony" action.  During the 20-minute
video hearing, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said the
settlement brought by lead plaintiff Louisette Geiss and negotiated
by New York Attorney General Letitia James improperly nullifies
claims of nonparticipating parties.  "The idea that Harvey
Weinstein can get a defense fund ahead of the claimants is
obnoxious," Hellerstein said.  "The idea you can regulate the
claims of people not in the settlement -- I can't subscribe to
that."

The judge also objected to Weinstein and other officers of the
Weinstein Company receiving millions in attorneys' fees, and urged
lawyers for the women to move their clients' cases forward and try
to seize Weinstein's assets.  "Instead of wasting your time with
phony settlements and attempts to create a class that doesn't
exist," said Hellerstein, adding that the plaintiffs' experiences
are so various that the case should not be handled as a class
action.

Douglas Wigdor and Kevin Mintzer, who represent three plaintiffs
who previously called the settlement a "cruel hoax," said in a
statement to The Daily Beast that the deal was unfair to the
victims. "We have been saying for over a year and a half that the
settlement terms and conditions were unfair and should never be
imposed on sexual assault survivors," the lawyers said, along with
attorney Bryan Arbeit. [GN]


HERZING UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Herzing University,
Ltd. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Herzing University, Ltd.,
ADR Provider, Case No. 1:20-cv-06018 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020).

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

Herzing University is a private university with its headquarters in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and several locations throughout the United
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com


HONEYWELL INT'L: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 4 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 25
announced to purchasers of the securities of Honeywell
International Inc. (NYSE: HON) between February 9, 2018 and October
19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the important September
4, 2020 co-lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action.
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Honeywell investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the Honeywell class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1441.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 CO-LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Honeywell's Bendix asbestos-related liability was greater
than initially reported; (2) Honeywell maintained improper
accounting practices in connection with its Bendix asbestos-related
liability; and (3) as a result, Honeywell's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as co-lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
September 4, 2020. A co-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-1441.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 -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- 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
achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked
and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen
Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

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
      lrosen@rosenlegal.com
      pkim@rosenlegal.com
      cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


HYCROFT GOLD: Borden Ladner Discuss Certification in LBP Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Splawski, Esq. and Benjamin Fuhrmann, Esq., of Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP, in article for Mondaq, report that in LBP Holdings Ltd
v Hycroft Gold Corporation, the Ontario Divisional Court certified
a class action alleging negligent misrepresentation against a
syndicate of underwriters in relation to alleged misrepresentations
made in a prospectus. The Court overturned Justice Perell's holding
on the certification motion that a class proceeding was not the
preferable procedure for adjudication of these claims, given that a
number of issues, including whether any particular investor relied
on the impugned representations, individual trials would be
required. The Divisional Court held that a class action would
nonetheless be a preferable procedure since other elements of the
cause of action could be determined on a class-wide basis.

The claim arises from a May 2013 equity financing by Hycroft Gold
Corporation made pursuant to a prospectus. Hycroft engaged Dundee
Securities Inc. and Cormark Securities Inc. to underwrite the
offering. Pursuant to the engagement, the underwriters certified to
the best of their knowledge that the prospectus constituted full,
true and plain disclosure of all material facts relating to the
offered securities. In 2014, LBP Holdings commenced a proposed
class action against Hycroft and the underwriters under s. 130 of
the Ontario Securities Act for misrepresentation in a prospectus.
LBP also claimed against the underwriters for negligent
misrepresentation.

The Hycroft defendants consented to certification of the
plaintiff's statutory claim. However, they resisted certification
of the negligent misrepresentation claim and Justice Perell refused
to certify that claim. The underwriters argued that a class
proceeding was not the preferable procedure for resolving the
common issues in accordance with s. 5(1)(d) of the Class
Proceedings Act (CPA). Justice Perell agreed with the underwriters,
holding that determining the issues of reliance, causation and
damages for each plaintiff would require individual trials. The
need for these trials created serious concerns about the
manageability and productivity of a class proceeding. The plaintiff
appealed this decision to the Divisional Court of Ontario.

Justice Backhouse, writing for the Divisional Court, allowed the
appeal and certified the plaintiff's claim. She found that the
certification judge had erred on matters central to the proper
application of the CPA. Namely, s. 5 of the CPA is to be
interpreted in a broad and purposive manner. Whether a class
proceeding is preferable must be viewed through the lens of
achieving judicial economy, access to justice and behavior
modification. The Divisional Court held that Justice Perell failed
to engage in a comparative analysis of these factors and therefore
erred in principle. Rather, the Divisional Court found that class
certification would increase access to justice, judicial economy
and behavior modification. As a claim had already been certified
with the same class members, arising from the same factual matrix,
with multiple common issues, it would not be unfair, inefficient or
unmanageable to allow this class to simply add a claim against the
underwriters.

Takeaway

In the past, Ontario courts have often refused to certify negligent
misrepresentation claims precisely because of the need to provide
reliance and causation on an individual basis, making this a
notable decision (for example, the Court of Appeal's decision in
Bayens v. Kinross Gold Corporation). It also re-introduces
negligent misrepresentation as an additional claim that plaintiffs
can bring in securities class actions. This is significant because
tort claims are not subject to the caps on liability that apply to
statutory claims under the Securities Act. [GN]


INSPERITY INC: Portnoy Law Announces Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Insperity, Inc. ("Insperity" or the
"Company") (NYSE: NSP) investors that acquired securities between
February 11, 2019 through February 11, 2020 (the, "Class Period").

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, February 11,
2019 through February 11, 2020, Defendants failed to disclose, and
would continue to omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations, and financial condition, which
were known to or recklessly disregarded by Defendants: (i) the
Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its
customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately
disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (ii)
Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical
claims; (iii) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced
to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted
customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (iv) the
foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially
impact Insperity's financial results.

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]


JOCOTT BRANDS: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jocott Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Jocott Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05964 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020).

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

Jocott Brands is an independent developer and marketer of branded
consumer products that offer simple, effective solutions to niche
beauty and personal care needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


JPMORGAN CHASE: Endeavor Sues Over Treasury Futures Price-fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endeavor Trading, LLC, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan
Clearing Corp., JPMorgan Securities LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05285 (S.D. N.Y., July 9, 2020), seeks
damages and declaratory relief under Section 22 of the Commodity
Exchange Act for unlawful and intentional manipulation of U.S.
Treasury futures contracts.

Defendants allegedly manipulated the prices of Treasury Futures by
"spoofing," or bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the
bid or offer before execution including submitting or canceling
bids or offers with intent to create artificial price movements
upwards or downwards. This artificially creates demand, and
correspondingly, futures prices were artificially suppressed or
inflated accordingly.

Endeavor Trading, LLC transacted in Treasury Futures including
purchases and sales of futures contracts on the Chicago Board of
Trade. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
     Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
     Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq.
     Jordan Jacobson, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Telephone: (610) 667-7706
     Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
            mtroutner@ktmc.com
            ebarlieb@ktmc.com
            jjacobson@ktmc.com

            - and -

     Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
     Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
     Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq.
     Marc E. Foto, Esq.
     NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
     1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Fl.
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel: (917) 438-9189
     Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
            bcohen@nussbaumpc.com
            csanchez@nussbaumpc.com
            mfoto@nussbaumpc.com

            - and -

     Michael E. Criden, Esq.
     Kevin B. Love, Esq.
     Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
     CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
     7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
     South Miami, FL 33143
     Telephone: (305) 357-9000
     Fax: (305) 357-9050
     Email: mcriden@cridenlove.com
            klove@cridenlove.com
            lgrossman@cridenlove.com


KAVU INC: Cruz Sues in New York Over Disabilities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kavu, Inc. The case
is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Kavu, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05965 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 31, 2020).

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

KAVU, Inc., offers a wide range of men's and women's clothing,
hats, bags, sunglasses, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


LUCCHESE INC: Faces Cruz Suit in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucchese, Inc. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Lucchese, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05967
(S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020).

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

Lucchese, Inc., manufactures and sells footwear. The Company offers
boots for men and women, bags, belts, caps, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


MAGELLAN HEALTH: Parents Sue Over Kids' Denied Therapy Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
M.F., on behalf of P.L. and R.L., a minor, and S.D. and D.D.,
individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Magellan Health, Inc., Simone McNeil and
Michael Hoffman, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03928 (N.D. Ill., July
6, 2020), seeks to recover denied benefits and a full and fair
review of denied claims under the Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act of 2008 and the State of Illinois Parity Law.

M.F. and P.L., a married couple, and are R.L.'s mothers. P.L. is
disabled and is currently a State of Illinois retiree due to her
disability. She enjoys health benefits covering employees of the
State of Illinois, retired employees and their dependents, which
are administered by Magellan.

S.D. is the parent of D.D. and received coverage under the same
benefit plan. S.D. was the policy holder and paid premiums in
return for coverage.

R.L. has been diagnosed with Disruptive Mood Dysregulation
Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder, Reading Disorder and Learning Disorder. On June 1, 2019,
she was admitted to the Logan River Academy in Utah, a licensed and
accredited residential behavioral health treatment center with an
academic component. Magellan initially approved coverage for the
Logan River admission and deemed it medically necessary under the
Illinois Plan, but coverage was discontinued as of July 5, 2019.

D.D. has a history of drug and alcohol abuse and eventually became
unreceptive to therapy. He was sent to a licensed outdoor treatment
program with accompanying group and individual psychotherapy until
June 20, 2019. Magellan refused to provide coverage for the
licensed outdoor treatment, claiming they had not received
"treatment records/documentation for the services billed on this
claim in order to review the medical necessity of the services
provided." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark D. DeBofsky, Esq.
      DEBOFSKY SHERMAN CASCIARI REYNOLDS, P.C.
      150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1925
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 561-4040
      Fax: (312) 929-0309
      Email: mdebofsky@debofsky.com


MAJOR CLEANING: Tuy Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Slams Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Tuy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Major Cleaning, Inc., and Adelson De Souza,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05230 (S.D. N.Y., July 8, 2020), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Major Cleaning provides full service commercial office cleaning,
restaurant cleaning, kitchen cleaning, post construction cleaning
and various other cleaning and building services. Tuy worked for
Major Cleaning as a cleaner from September 2014 through March 6,
2019. He was paid a day-rate with no overtime compensation and paid
below the mandated minimum wage rate. Tuy was allegedly terminated
from employment for raising these issues. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Fax: (212) 481-1333


MARGARITAVILLE ENTERPRISES: Faces Paguada ADA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Margaritaville
Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Maragritaville
Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05983 (S.D.N.Y., July 31,
2020).

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

Margaritaville Enterprises, LLC, provides recreational services.
The Company offers hotels and resorts, vacation club, casinos,
cruises, and other related services, as well as renders dining
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


MARIAN UNIVERSITY: Hedges Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marian University,
Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Marian University, Inc.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-06019 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020).

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

Marian University is a Midwestern college offering undergraduate
and graduate degrees in a wide range of fields.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com


MERCEDES-BENZ: Averts M272 Engine Class Action
----------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Ohio's
Supreme Court has stopped a class action lawsuit against
Mercedes-Benz because the plaintiff was included in the class for a
previous settlement and failed to opt out.

Justice Patrick Fischer wrote the July 16 opinion for the court,
which agreed with Mercedes-Benz's argument that Pattiann McAdams'
lawsuit was barred by a 2015 settlement in California federal
court. The decision reverses a Tenth District Court of Appeals
ruling that McAdams had opted out of the so-called Seifi class
settlement, which was reached after McAdams filed her Ohio case.

"The federal court determined which class members were bound by the
settlement agreement -- it excluded only those class members who
had opted out of the class action by following the mandated opt-out
procedure and McAdams was not one of those people," Fischer wrote.

"What is clear in this case is that a court cannot deem a class
member, who was not found by the court maintaining the class action
to have opted out, and who has not demonstrated a due process
violation by being included in the class action, as having
adequately opted out of the class action."

The lawsuits concerned problems with certain M272 engines in
automobiles made by Mercedes-Benz. The notice of the proposed
settlement in federal court was issued in April 2015, and the
settlement was approved in August of that year.

The federal court said all class members had been given a fair
opportunity to participate and/or opt out of the settlement when it
approved it.

In August 2016, Mercedes-Benz deposed McAdams, who said she was
aware of the Seifi class action and that it had been settled. When
Mercedes-Benz moved for summary judgment because McAdams never
opted out, she argued she had effectively opted out by filing and
maintaining her suit.

The trial court ruled against her, but the appeals court gave the
case new life until the Supreme Court's recent ruling.

"For this court to wade into discussing a strict or liberal view of
opt-out determinations is unnecessary in this case, as the issue
was clearly barred by res judicata," Fischer wrote. [GN]


MILANBLOCKS LLC: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milanblocks, LLC. The
case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Milanblocks, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05968
(S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020).

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

Milanblocks sells its own designed products--evening clutches and
leather pumps.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


MISTERART.COM LP: Paguada Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Misterart.com LP. The
case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Misterart.com LP, Case No.
1:20-cv-05986 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020).

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

MisterArt.com offers art and craft supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


MONARCH RECOVERY: Rai Sues in California Over Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shobhana Rai,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., First Financial Investment Fund
III, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 5:20-cv-01545 (C.D. Cal.,
July 31, 2020).

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

Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., operates as a collection agency.
The Company provides debt recovery services such as new placement
review, advanced skip tracing, and arranging promises to pay, as
well as offers speech analytics, online payment portal, full call
recording, and flexible collection systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
          11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


MOUNTAIN HARDWARE: Cruz Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mountain Hardware,
Inc. The case is styled as Shael Cruz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Mountain Hardware, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05969 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020).

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

Mountain Hardwear Inc. designs, develops, and markets high-end
outdoor equipment, apparel, and accessories for the outdoor
enthusiasts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Phone: (929) 575-4175
          Fax: (929) 575-4195
          Email: joseph@cml.legal


MPW INDUSTRIAL: Hixon Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay on Pre-shift Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Hixon and Philip Oxley, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MPW Industrial Services,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03361, (S.D. Ohio, July 2, 2020),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

MPW Industrial Services performs industrial cleaning, water
treatment, facility management, environmental management and
container management services. Hixon and Oxley are hourly employees
at their Hebron location. They claim to be uncompensated for
pre-shift work including donning personal protective equipment,
retrieve hoses, clamps and other equipment for the day's work,
loading and strap down equipment on the vehicle. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
     COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
     1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Phone: (614) 949-1181
     Fax: (614) 386-9964
     Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com


OMNICOM GROUP: Breaches Plan Duties Under ERISA, Maisonette Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Maisonette, individually, and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Omnicom Group
Retirement Savings Plan v. OMNICOM GROUP INC.; THE ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE OF THE OMNICOM GROUP RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN; and DOES
No. 1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Case No. 1:20-cv-06007
(S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
breach of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

As of December 31, 2018, the Plan had 36,807 participants with
account balances and assets totaling nearly $2.8 billion, placing
it in the top 0.1% of all 401(k) plans by plan size. Defined
contribution plans with substantial assets, like the Plan, have
significant bargaining power and the ability to demand low-cost
administrative and investment management services within the
marketplace for administration of 401(k) plans and the investment
of 401(k) assets. The marketplace for 401(k) retirement plan
services is well-established and can be competitive when
fiduciaries of defined contribution retirement plans act in an
informed and prudent fashion.

Omnicom maintains the Plan, and is responsible for selecting,
monitoring, and retaining the service provider(s) that provide
investment, recordkeeping, and other administrative services.
Omnicom is a fiduciary under ERISA, and, as such, is obligated to
(a) act for the exclusive benefit of participants, (b) ensure that
the investment options offered through the Plan are prudent and
diverse, and (c) ensure that Plan expenses are fair and
reasonable.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Plan and have: (1) failed to fully disclose
the expenses and risk of the Plan's investment options to
participants; (2) allowed unreasonable expenses to be charged to
participants for administration of the Plan; and (3) selected,
retained, and/or otherwise ratified high-cost and poorly performing
investments, instead of offering more prudent alternative
investments when such prudent investments were readily available at
the time that they were chosen for inclusion within the Plan and
throughout the Class Period.

To remedy these fiduciary breaches and other violations of ERISA,
the Plaintiff brings this class action under ERISA, to recover and
obtain all losses resulting from each breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Omincom and participant in
the Plan.

Omnicom is a global media, marketing and corporate communications
holding company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Phone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
                 lrubinow@sfmslaw.com

               – and –

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Michael P. Ols, Esq.
          Alec J. Berin, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                 mols@sfmslaw.com
                 aberin@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1401 Dove Street, Suite 540
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (323) 510-4060
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: ktang@sfmslaw.com


ORREFORS KOSTA: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orrefors Kosta Boda,
LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Orrefors Kosta Boda, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-05987 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020).

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

Orrefors Kosta Boda, Inc. provides home furnishings and housewares.
The Company offers ornaments, pearl, street, carat, and gifts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


OZ STAFFING: McNamee Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to C.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Lauren McNamee, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Oz Staffing, LLC, Case No. 20 L
00140, was removed from the Circuit Court of Illinois, Peoria
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
Illinois on July 31, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01282-JES-JEH to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Oz Staffing, LLC, provides staffing services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Patricia J Martin, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          600 Washington Ave., Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: (314) 659-2000
          Email: pmartin@littler.com


PREFERRED ENGINEERING: Litton Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Litton, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
PREFERRED ENGINEERING, L.P., and ANTHONY BRUCE CARROLL, Case No.
4:20-cv-02697 (S.D. Tex., July 31, 2020), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff also seeks to recover his lost wages, emotional
distress damages, punitive damages and other damages under the
FLSA's anti-retaliation provision.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and other workers like
him, overtime as required by the FLSA, according to the complaint.
Instead, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff and other workers like
him the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in
excess of 40 in a workweek (or "straight time for overtime").
Worse, when the Plaintiff complained that he was owed overtime
under the FLSA, the Defendants retaliated against him by
terminating his employment.

Plaintiff Litton worked for Preferred Engineering as a Construction
Manager.

Preferred Engineering is a full service engineering and design firm
providing service to the petrochemical industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles A. Sturm, Esq.
          STURM LAW, PLLC
          712 Main Street, Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (713) 955-1800
          Facsimile: (713) 955-1078
          Email: csturm@sturmlegal.com


SUBARU CORP: Faces Suit in NJ Over Defective Fuel Pumps
-------------------------------------------------------
Gilles Cohen and John Micklo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Subaru Corporation and
Subaru of America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-08442, (D. N.J.,
July 7, 2020), seeks recovery of the purchase price of defective
vehicles, compensation for overpayment and diminution in the value
of their vehicles, out-of-pocket and incidental expenses and an
injunction compelling Subaru to replace or recall and fix said
vehicles.

Cohen leased a 2019 Subaru Impreza while Micklo purchased a 2019
Subaru Ascent. They claim that their vehicles contain defective
low-pressure fuel pumps that cause unpredictable acceleration and
engine stalls and render them unsafe to operate.

Subaru Corporation is a Japanese corporation involved in designing,
manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling Subaru vehicles.
Subaru of America, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation and is Subaru
Corporation's sales and marketing agent in the United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     Michael A. Innes, Esq.
     Chirali V. Patel, Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Telephone: (973) 994-1700
     Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
     Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
            minnes@carellabyrne.com
            cpatel@carellabyrne.com

            - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
     Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 623-7292
     Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
     Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
            toml@hbsslaw.com
            jerrodp@hbsslaw.com


SURF AVE WINE: Casarrubias Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Mateo De la Cruz Casarrubias, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Surf Ave Wine & Liquor Inc. and
Wei Qin Xu, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03003 (E.D. N.Y., July 7,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and
redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a liquor store in Brooklyn
under the name "Surf Wine & Liquor" where Casarrubias was employed
as a stock worker. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Moreover, Surf
Wine failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked
and failed to pay them appropriately for any hours worked, either
at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium,
he says. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      Email: michael@faillacelaw.com


SWISSPORT USA: Faces Johnson Class Suit in California Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Swissport USA, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Tisha Johnson, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Swissport USA, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC20585730 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 31, 2020).

The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."

Swissport USA, Inc., provides airport services. The Company offers
ground handling, passenger, baggage and cargo handling, and
aircraft loading and unloading services for airlines.

The Plaintiff is represented by James R. Hawkins, Esq.[BN]


TENNESSEE: Faces Chibbaro Suit Asserting Prisoner Civil Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everett, et al. The
case is styled as Lisa Chibbaro, on her behalf and on the behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Taiwo T. Everett, FNP
MHM/Centurion Medical; Dr. Kenneth Williams, M.D.; Tony Parker,
Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Corrections; Case No.
3:20-cv-00663 (M.D. Tenn., July 31, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Taiwo T. Everett NP is a female nurse practitioner in Nashville,
Tennessee.

Plaintiff Lisa Chibbaro, in Henning, Tennessee, appears pro
se.[BN]


TK QUEENS INC: Sosa Claims Website Inaccessible to Blind Consumers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yony Sosa, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. TK Queens,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05254 (S.D. N.Y., July 8, 2020),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory
and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses of this action together with
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further
relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State
Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

TK Queens operates the Kush Queen online retail store. Its website
https://kushqueen.shop/ allows the purchase of CBD-only and
THC-infused products online. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims
that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com


TORY BURCH: Cota Sues in S.D. California Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tory Burch LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Tory Burch LLC, a
Delaware corporation; Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-01491-CAB-AGS (S.D. Cal., July 31, 2020).

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

Tory Burch LLC is an American fashion label based in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


UMILTA WOLFE: Mr. BW Sues in Calif. Alleging Wrongful Eviction
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WOLFE UMILTA MARIA.
The case is styled as Mr. BW, individually, on behalf of himself
the general public and on behalf of all other persons and class
similarly situated v. WOLFE, UMILTA MARIA AKA UMILTA M. WOLFE, Case
No. 20STCV28977 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 31, 2020).

The case type is stated as "Wrongful Eviction Case (General
Jurisdiction)."

Umilta Wolfe is a resident of California.[BN]


UNIVERSITY OF DENVER: Hedges Sues in New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of Denver.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. University of Denver, Case No.
1:20-cv-06017 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020).

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

The University of Denver is a private institution built on
exploration through research and collaboration among educators,
students, and local and global communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com


USAA INSURANCE: Motorists Sue Over Insurance Payout Underpayments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Fancher and Joann Walker, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. USAA Casualty Insurance
Company and USAA General Indemnity Company, Case No. 20-cv-00123
(N.D. Miss., July 9, 2020), seeks payment for the "actual cash
value" of their insured vehicle and redress for underpayment of
amounts owed to insureds in breach of contract.

Fancher was insured under a policy issued by USAA Casualty for her
Hyundai Elantra which was involved in an accident where the cost to
repair the damage to the vehicle exceeded the pre-loss actual cash
value of the vehicle. USAA Casualty allegedly underpaid Fancher by
paying less than what was owed under her policy.

Walker insured her 2011 Chevrolet Malibu under the policy issued by
USAA Indemnity. Said vehicle was involved in an accident and the
cost to repair the damage to the vehicle exceeded the pre-loss
actual cash value of the vehicle. USAA Indemnity failed to include
license or registration fees, nor did it include dealer fees in its
payout, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
      NORMAND PLLC
      3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
      Orlando, Fl 32803
      Tel: (407) 603-6031
      Fax: (888) 974-2175
      Email: ed@ednormand.com

             - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (305) 479-2299
      Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

            - and -

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 975-3320
      Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


UTICA COLLEGE: Hedges Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Utica College. The
case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Utica College, Case No. 1:20-cv-06016
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 1, 2020).

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

Utica College is an independent, private institution founded in
1946 by Syracuse University.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com


VISTA ALEGRE: Paguada Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vista Alegre USA
Corporation. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Vista Alegre USA
Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-05990 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2020).

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

Vista Alegre is a Portuguese porcelain manufacturer located in
Ílhavo in the district of Aveiro.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


VITOL INC: Soils to Grow Sues Over Rigged Gas Prices
-----------------------------------------------------
Soils to Grow LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Vitol Inc., SK Energy Americas,
Inc. and SK Trading International Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-04532, (N.D. Cal., July 8, 2020), seeks relief under state
antitrust and consumer protection laws including for violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act and California's
Unfair Competition Law.

In February 2015, an explosion damaged an oil refinery complex in
Torrance, California thus causing an unexpected undersupply of
refined gasoline. Vitol, SK Energy Americas and SK Trading
International negotiated large contracts to supply gasoline and
gasoline blending components for delivery in California in excess
of more than 10 million gallons.

Soils to Grow LLC purchased fuel at retail in California during the
said period. It claims that Vitol and SK manipulated the spot
market price for gasoline for profit. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
      Caroline C. Corbitt, Esq.
      Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
      PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
      180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (415) 692-0772
      Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
      Email: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
             ccc@pritzkerlevine.com
             bc@pritzkerlevine.com

             - and -

      Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
      Mountain View, CA 94040
      Telephone: (650) 784-4040
      Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
      Email: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com


WILLIAMS INT'L: Court Refuses to Reconsider Arbitration Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas issued a
Memorandum and Order denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider
the January 31, 2017 Order Transferring the Case to Arbitration in
the case captioned DODSON INTERNATIONAL PARTS, INC. v. WILLIAMS
INTERNATIONAL CO., LLC, d/b/a WILLIAMS INTERNATIONAL, Case No.
2:16-CV-02212-JAR-ADM (D. Kan.).

Dodson International Parts, Inc. (Dodson) filed case this in 2016,
bringing state-law and federal claims against Williams
International Co., LLC, d/b/a Williams International (Williams),
arising from Dodson's purchase of two aircraft engines manufactured
by Williams and a subsequent contract between the parties for
Williams to inspect and repair the engines. The Court granted
Williams's motion to compel arbitration and stay the case and the
arbitrator issued her final award in September 2019.

Dodson seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order compelling
arbitration pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 7.3(b), which governs motions
to reconsider non-dispositive orders. Dodson filed its motion for
reconsideration more than three years after this Court's Order
compelling arbitration--and five months after the conclusion of the
arbitration proceeding and more than two months after the Eastern
District of Michigan dismissed the action in which its motion to
vacate the Award was pending. The Court did not extend Dodson's
time to file its motion, nor has Dodson offered any explanation for
this extreme delay. Thus, the Court finds that Dodson's motion is
untimely under Rule 7.3(b).

Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson notes that under Rule
7.3(b), Dodson does not point to newly available evidence, but does
contend that the Court must reconsider its prior Order to prevent
manifest injustice. Specifically, Dodson argues that the Court must
reverse its Order compelling arbitration because the arbitration
proceeding was fundamentally unfair, and because Williams is now
moving to dismiss this action on the basis of res judicata based on
the arbitration outcome.

This argument goes to Dodson's request that the Court vacate or
modify the Award, not to the question of whether the Court should
have compelled arbitration in the first place. Hence, Judge
Robinson ruled that Dodson's motion for reconsideration is denied
as untimely and without merit under Rule 7.3(b).

Judge Robinson also ruled that Dodson's Motion to Vacate/Modify the
Arbitrator's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is also
denied; Defendant Williams's request that the Arbitrator's Award be
confirmed is granted, the Award is confirmed, and the Court orders
judgment accordingly; Williams's Motion to Dismiss or,
Alternatively, Motion to Transfer Venue is denied under Rule
12(b)(3) and denied as moot under Rule 12(b)(6); and William's
Renewed Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply regarding Dodson's
motion to vacate/modify is denied and Dodson's request for oral
argument is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 15, 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yazg32gv from
Leagle.com.


WIRECARD AG: Brown Slams Share Drop Over Missing Funds
------------------------------------------------------
Carol A. Brown individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wirecard AG, Markus Braun, Jan Marsalek,
Burkhard Ley, Alexander Von Knoop, Susanne Steidl, Wulf Matthias,
and Ernst & Young GmBH Wirtschaftspruefungsgesellschaft,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03326 (E.D. Pa., July 7, 2020), seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by violations of federal
securities laws.

Wirecard is a technology company that provides outsourcing and
white label solutions for electronic payments worldwide including
payment processing and risk management, acquiring and issuing and
call center and communication services. Jan Marsalek, Burkhard Ley,
Alexander Von Knoop, Susanne Steidl and Wulf Matthias served as
members of Wirecard's Board of Directors. Wirecard is incorporated
in Germany. Ernst & Young GmbH Wirtschaftspruefungsgesellschaft was
Wirecard's external auditor. Wirecard's securities trades
over-the-counter under the ticker symbols "WRCDF" and "WCAGY."

Wirecard allegedly overstated its cash balances claiming 1.9
billion Euros of cash in a trust account that was missing due to
inadequate risk management or countermeasures. Ernst & Young
allegedly failed to audit Wirecard in accordance with applicable
auditing principles. On this news, Wirecard's American Depository
Shares, "WCAGY" fell $12.26 per ADR, or over 88%, to close at $1.60
per ADR on June 26, 2020.

Brown purchased Wirecard securities and lost substantially. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com

             - and -

      Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Tel: (215) 600-2817
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com


[*] Foreign Influence Alleged in Australia Class Action Crackdown
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Karp, writing for The Guardian, reports that plaintiff lawyers
have accused an affiliate of the US chamber of commerce of "foreign
influence" for lobbying to tighten Australia's regulation of
litigation funding and class actions.

A fiery inquiry on July 27 descended into claim and counterclaim
regarding lobbying about the reforms, which plaintiff lawyers say
will harm Australians' access to justice by requiring litigation
funders to comply with investment regulations.

Slater and Gordon made the accusation of foreign influence when
incorrectly identifying the chamber affiliate the treasurer, Josh
Frydenberg, met before making changes on May 22 requiring
litigation funders to hold a financial services licence.

Liberal parliamentarians returned fire by arguing 14 plaintiff law
firms and litigation funders had failed to adequately disclose they
were behind the Keep Corporations Honest campaign and questioning
whether a $100,000 donation to Labor was linked to favourable
reforms enacted by the Victorian government.

On July 27, Shine Lawyers' head of class actions, Janice Saddler,
told the parliamentary joint committee on corporations and
financial services there was already "intense scrutiny" on
plaintiff lawyers and litigation funders, with no fees or
commissions paid unless a judge was satisfied they were fair and
reasonable.

Slater and Gordon's head of class actions, Ben Hardwick, told the
inquiry that without class actions, the justice system would be
"accessible only to the wealthy few".

Hardwick said the federal Coalition's reforms had the "unintended
consequence" of harming access to justice by groups such as the
National Farmers Federation's Australian farmers fighting fund,
which helped bankroll the case against Australia's live export
ban.

The Institute for Legal Reform, a US Chamber of Commerce affiliate,
had made a submission to the inquiry urging more regulation of
litigation funding. It said its members had an interest in how
litigation was conducted in "plaintiff-friendly" Australia because
they conducted business or carried on trade with Australia.

The institute has registered on Australia's foreign influence
transparency scheme, disclosing that it has engaged former Law
Council of Australia president Stuart Clark's SSC Advisory to
undertake "parliamentary lobbying . . . in relation to class action
and litigation funding reform".

When answering questions on notice to the inquiry, Frydenberg's
office denied meeting the US Chamber of Commerce or the institute
since January 1.

The answers, seen by Guardian Australia, note the treasurer "met
with an affiliate" of the chamber, the American Chamber of Commerce
in Australia, by videoconference on May 14.

Hardwick incorrectly suggested Frydenberg had met the institute,
seizing on the meeting with the other affiliate to claim there was
"clear evidence of foreign influence".

Liberal MP Jason Falinski reiterated the treasurer and his office
had "not ever met the US Chamber of Commerce" to discuss litigation
funding and accused the plaintiff lawyers of dishonest tactics to
prosecute their case.

The Keep Corporations Honest campaign argued the institute lobbied
to reform Australia's laws "after a series of wins for ordinary
Australians against corporations, including a victory against
US-based pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson for faulty pelvic
mesh implants".

The Liberal senator James Paterson asked Hardwick whether Keep
Corporations Honest had disclosed who was behind the campaign.

Hardwick replied there were "absolutely no secrets behind this
campaign" because the initial press release stated it was funded by
law firms and litigation funders.

He said campaign materials were not authorised because the campaign
had legal advice they were "not political advertisements".

Hardwick noted all 14 bodies were listed on the lobbying register
as clients of Cornerstone Group and were therefore "fully
transparent about the relationship to the campaign". The register
notes they are among 46 clients of the lobbyist but does not
disclose any details about the campaign.

Maurice Blackburn's head of class actions, Andrew Watson, confirmed
the firm had lobbied the Victorian and New South Wales attorneys
general to introduce contingency fees, an alternative method of
funding litigation allowing lawyers to charge clients a percentage
of the compensation won. The reform passed Victoria's parliament in
June.

Falinski asked about a $100,000 donation by Maurice Blackburn to
the Australian Labor party on March 26, 2019, which freedom of
information documents revealed was the same day directors of the
firm had met the Victorian attorney general, Jill Hennessy.

Watson said he had "no idea" who attended the meeting but was
"almost certain" contingency fees were not discussed because he was
not in attendance. He said he had met Hennessy to discuss
contingency fees only once.

Watson replied he was "not in a position to say" if the donation
had been made but Maurice Blackburn was proud of its financial
support to Labor and the trade union movement.

A Victorian government spokesman said "any suggestions of
inappropriate behaviour are simply false", insisting the reforms
were based on independent advice from the Victorian Law Reform
Commission and were designed to "make it easier to bring class
actions for silicosis, wage theft and other forms of wrongdoing".

Matthew Corrigan, the general counsel of the Australian Law Reform
Commission, said "access to justice is a critical issue in
Australia" and it was a "critical concern" that most could not
afford to pursue court cases.

Corrigan said litigation funding protected defendants by providing
security for costs in the event they won a case - something not
provided when plaintiff lawyers worked on a no-win no-fee basis.

Tom Lunn, the senior policy manager of the Insurance Council of
Australia, said Australia had become a "highly profitable"
jurisdiction for class action, causing insurers to withdraw from
the directors' insurance market and a spike in premiums.

The insurance council-backed reforms including a licensing regime
for litigation funders and action to "address inefficiencies such
as multiple competing class actions", he said, while calling for a
review of Australia's continuous disclosure laws.

Guardian Australia contacted Frydenberg and the institute for
comment. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Accrues $581MM for Respirator Suits at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company has an accrual of US$581 million as of June 30, 2020,
for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding those related
to Aearo Technologies), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020.

3M Company states, "The Company regularly conducts a comprehensive
legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities.  The
Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including
without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against
the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the
proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims, and
(iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve
claims, (collectively, the "Claims Data").  As part of its
comprehensive legal review, the Company regularly provides the
Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the
impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs.  The third
party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend and
resolve pending and future claims.  The Company uses these
estimates to develop its best estimate of probable liability.

"Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities.  These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions underlying the
Company's accrual, including, the number of future claims, the
nature and mix of those claims, the average cost of defending and
resolving claims, and in maintaining trial readiness (ii) trial and
appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure applicable to these
claims, and (iv) the financial viability of other co-defendants and
insurers.

"As a result of its review of its respirator mask/asbestos
liabilities, of pending and expected lawsuits and of the cost of
resolving claims of persons who claim more serious injuries,
including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease,
the Company increased its accruals in the first six months of 2020
for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by US$8 million.  In the
first six months of 2020, the Company made payments for legal
defense costs and settlements of US$35 million related to the
respirator mask/asbestos litigation.  During the first quarter of
2019, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of US$313 million in
conjunction with an increase in the accrual as a result of the
March and April 2019 settlements-in-principle of the coal mine dust
lawsuits and the Company's assessment of other current and expected
coal mine dust lawsuits (including the costs to resolve all current
and expected coal mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West
Virginia).

"As of June 30, 2020, the Company had an accrual for respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of US$581
million.  This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of
probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims
that may be filed against the Company approaching the year 2050.
The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of
amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company
has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in
projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or
the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the
complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants
where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to
individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability may
turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by
state, (iii) the multiple factors that the Company considers in
estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible
developments that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

"As of June 30, 2020, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
US$4 million.  The Company continues to seek coverage under the
policies of certain insolvent and other insurers.  Once those
claims for coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected
substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/hjSxbZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Still Faces 1,688 Claimants at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company is still a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants,
in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent
approximately 1,688 individual claimants, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims
resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of
some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages
from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury
from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.  A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure
to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.

"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003.  The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past.  Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and
black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total
claims than in the past.  Over the past twenty plus years, the
Company has prevailed in fourteen of the fifteen cases tried to a
jury (including the lawsuits in 2018).  In 2018, 3M received a jury
verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in California state
court in February and the other in Massachusetts state court in
December – both involving allegations that 3M respirators were
defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs against asbestos
fibers.

"In April 2018, a jury in state court in Kentucky found 3M's 8710
respirators failed to protect two coal miners from coal mine dust
and awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages.

"In August 2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company
appealed.  During March and April 2019, the Company agreed in
principle to settle a substantial majority of the coal mine dust
lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for US$340 million,
including the jury verdict in April 2018 in the Kentucky case.
That settlement was completed in 2019, and the appeal has been
dismissed.

"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless, the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including
mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are
costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it
therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future
claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/hjSxbZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Defends 74 Cases at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. continues to face 74 asbestos
cases pending as of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The Company has been, and continues to
be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or
death and seeking various monetary damages due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations.  The majority of cases are pending in Illinois state
courts.  There were 74 asbestos cases pending as of June 30, 2020.

"Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims.  The aggregate settlement costs and legal and
administrative fees associated with the Company's asbestos
litigation has been immaterial for the last three years.  As of
June 30, 2020, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount related
to pending claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/CjsNol


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defends 3,693 Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is defending 3,693 asbestos-related
claims as of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in
suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs
who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic
dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used
in certain paper mills.

"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims.  Due to the
fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range
of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available
until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful
estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with
respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts
already accrued for pending or future claims.

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case.  Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights.  As of June 30, 2020, we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,835 claims.  The
total cost of resolving all claims was US$10.4 million.  Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has
confirmed that we have approximately US$140 million of remaining
coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available
with respect to current and future asbestos claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/47aRE8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,400 Pending Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to defend
itself against approximately 1,400 pending active asbestos claims
in lawsuits at June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2020.

The Company states, "ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a predecessor of
Meritor, along with many other companies, has been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
products many years ago.  Liability for these claims was
transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business
from Rockwell in 1997.  There were approximately 1,400 pending
active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together with many
other companies, as defendants at June 30, 2020 and September 30,
2019.

"A significant portion of the claims do not identify any Rockwell
products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to
asbestos attributable to Rockwell products, and past experience has
shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never
identify any of Rockwell products.  Historically, AM has been
dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the
past with no payment to claimants.  For those claimants who do show
that they worked with Rockwell products, management nevertheless
believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to
the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/pIIWAE


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had $341MM Reserves at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the total reserves for asbestos
claims were US$341 million at June 30, 2020, compared to US$352
million at September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "The claims alleging personal injury caused by
exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily from
indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with
the sale of Riley.  The amount and timing of settlements and number
of open claims can fluctuate from period to period.  A summary of
Ashland asbestos claims activity, excluding Hercules claims,
follows.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated,
non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the
assistance of Nathan.

"During the most recent annual update of this estimate completed
during the June 2020 quarter, it was determined that the liability
for Ashland asbestos-related claims should be increased by US$13
million.  Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$341 million at
June 30, 2020 compared to US$352 million at September 30, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/bWwW5F


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BASF, Law Firm to Pay $72.5MM in Talc Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that BASF SE, the
world's biggest chemical maker, and a law firm agreed to pay a
combined US$72.5 million to resolve claims they hid evidence that
certain talc products contained asbestos in an effort to scuttle
thousands of lawsuits.

Executives of BASF, along with lawyers from the New York-based
Cahill, Gordon & Reindel LLP, agreed to the joint settlement,
without saying how much each would pay, according to a filing
Thursday in federal court in New Jersey.  Including legal fees and
other costs, the total value of the settlement is almost US$100
million, the filings say.

BASF unit Engelhard Corp. owned a talc mine in Vermont that
produced the mineral for use in industrial settings and in consumer
products such as wallboard and balloons used for kids' parties.  It
later changed its name to BASF Catalysts LLC.  BASF acquired
Engelhard for US$5 billion in 2006.

The settlement resolves claims that credibly alleged actions by
Engelhard and its law firm amounted to a "systematic fraud"
designed to "thwart the judicial process," a federal appeals court
said in 2014.  That court resurrected the case after a judge threw
it out.

The allegations involve Engelhard's conduct prior to the BASF
acquisition and "relate to talc sold from 1967 to 1983," Maureen
Paukert, a spokeswoman for BASF, said in an email.  "The talc at
issue in the lawsuit was primarily used in industrial applications,
such as auto body filler, and generally not used in any cosmetic or
personal care products such as baby powder."

According to Bloomberg News, Julie Cohen, a Cahill spokeswoman,
said Friday the allegations about the law firm's mishandling of
Engelhard's asbestos defense reach back to the 1980s.  "This matter
relates to a representation that was undertaken more than 35 years
ago, and we are pleased to have resolved it amicably," Cohen said
in an emailed statement.

Compensating Claims

Bloomberg News states that BASF and Cahill didn't admit any
wrongdoing and maintain the allegations against them are meritless,
according to court filings.

Under the terms of the deal, potentially thousands of asbestos
claimants will receive compensation.  The settlement also allows
plaintiffs who dropped their cases to revive them, if possible,
according to the filing.  Asbestos claimants who sued Engelhard and
BASF between March 7, 1984 and March 30, 2011 -- and who
voluntarily dismissed their cases or had them thrown out by judges
-- are eligible for compensation, according to court filings.

Talc litigation has become a hot topic recently as Johnson &
Johnson faces a wave of suits alleging its iconic Baby Powder
caused cancer.  The company, which denies the claim, pulled its
talc-based version of the product off the market in the U.S. and
Canada in May.

Federal regulators last year found traces of asbestos in one lot of
the powder, which amounted to about 33,000 bottles.  J&J recalled
the tainted products and retailers such as Walmart Inc. and CVS
Health Corp. took it off shelves.  The world's largest maker of
health-care products faces almost 20,000 lawsuits accusing its baby
powder of causing either ovarian cancer or mesothelioma, a cancer
specifically linked to asbestos exposure.

BASF and other makers of building products are still grappling with
asbestos litigation, which began in the 1970s and has turned into
the longest-running mass tort in U.S. history.  According to a 2005
study by the Rand Corp., companies and insurers had paid at least
US$70 billion to settle injury claims tied to asbestos-laden
products.

In 2012, a federal judge in New Jersey dismissed a proposed
class-action suit in which asbestos claimants alleged Engelhard and
its lawyers schemed to work "a fraud on the court" by lying about
the presence of asbestos in the company's talc products.

'Rigged the Game'

A federal appeals court in Philadelphia revived the case, saying
asbestos claimants properly raised fraud claims and produced
evidence showing Engelhard officials and Cahill's lawyers "rigged
the game from the beginning," Judge Julio Fuentes wrote in a
42-page ruling.

BASF first had to defend the litigation practices of Engelhard and
Cahill in 2009, when Donna Paduano sued in state court in New
Jersey over her mesothelioma.  Paduano, who never worked at
Engelhard, claimed she was exposed to asbestos from washing her
scientist father's clothes or visits to his workplace.  She later
settled her claim.

Bloomberg News noted that in a deposition by her father, David
Swanson, the ex-research scientists admitted company officials knew
about the asbestos in its talc "for years." That triggered an
investigation by lawyers, such as Chris Placitella, that led to the
discovery of what they called a cover-up of evidence of the
carcinogen in Engelhard's talc, court filing show.

The cover-up began after a lawsuit filed in 1979 blamed the
mesothelioma death of a tire worker on Engelhard talc.  Engelhard
settled in 1983 and the pre-trial evidence, including testing that
showed varying levels of asbestos from a Vermont mine that the
company ran since 1967, was sealed by a confidentiality order.  The
company argued in succeeding cases that its talc was asbestos free,
according to the filings.

No-Asbestos Defense

Cahill lawyers, who served as Engelhard's national counsel in
asbestos litigation from the late 1980s until 2009, used the
"no-asbestos" defense to persuade other asbestos plaintiffs to drop
their cases or settle on the cheap.  Some plaintiffs accepted as
little as US$3,000 in settlements of claims they developed
asbestos-related cancer from the talc, the filings show.  Veteran
plaintiffs' lawyers, such as Houston's Mark Lanier, say those cases
now routinely settle for millions of dollars.

"The allegation is that Cahill lawyers helped BASF hide and destroy
evidence of asbestos in its talc," said Stephen Gillers, a legal
ethics professor at New York University Law School.  Ethical
guidelines bar lawyers "from assisting clients in committing a
fraud," said Gillers, adding that the BASF-Cahill case is a
frequent topic in his classes, Bloomberg News notes.

Cahill, founded in 1919, handles corporate and commercial
litigation, along with bankruptcy and tax cases, according to its
website.  It has offices in New York, Washington and London.

Bloomberg News also reported that plaintiffs' lawyers contend
Engelhard officials and Cahill lawyers have finally acknowledged
that "for nearly 30 years, they concealed from the courts and
litigants" the presence of asbestos in their talc.  "This is
admission is long overdue," the lawyers added in the 2018 filing.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John Dickson must decide whether the
settlement passes legal muster.  He took over the case from U.S.
District Judge Esther Salas, whose son was murdered and husband
critically injured in an attack aimed at her over the weekend.
Authorities say a self-described "anti-feminist" lawyer --
disguised as a Federal Express deliveryman -- shot the pair at
Salas' home on July 19.  He later killed himself.

The lower-court case is Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 11-cv-1754,
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Newark).  The appeal
is Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 13-1089, U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit (Philadelphia).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bendix Has 6,298 Claims Still Pending at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that there are 6,298 unresolved asbestos claims
related to the Bendix legacy Honeywell business at June 30, 2020.

The Company also reported that for the six months ended June 30,
2020, there were 1,013 new claims filed and 1,195 claims resolved.

As previously reported, Garrett Motion Inc. became an independent
publicly-traded company on October 1, 2018 through a pro rata
distribution by Honeywell International Inc. of 100% of the
then-outstanding shares of Garrett to Honeywell's stockholders (the
"Spin-Off").

The Company states, "The accounting for the majority of our
asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable reflect
the terms of the Subordinated Indemnity Agreement with Honeywell
entered into by Garrett ASASCO on September 12, 2018, under which
Garrett ASASCO is required to make payments to Honeywell in amounts
equal to 90% of Honeywell's asbestos-related liability payments and
accounts payable, primarily related to the Bendix business in the
United States, as well as certain environmental-related liability
payments and accounts payable and non-United States
asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable, in each
case related to legacy elements of the Business, including the
legal costs of defending and resolving such liabilities, less 90%
of Honeywell's net insurance receipts and, as may be applicable,
certain other recoveries associated with such liabilities.  The
Subordinated Indemnity Agreement provides that the agreement will
terminate upon the earlier of (x) December 31, 2048 or (y) December
31st of the third consecutive year during which certain amounts
owed to Honeywell during each such year were less than US$25
million as converted into Euros in accordance with the terms of the
agreement."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/xJ8N2K


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Defends 7,710 Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics,
Inc., still defends itself against 7,710 asbestos-related claims as
of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020.

Albany International states, "The Company's subsidiary, Brandon
Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"), is also a separate defendant in
many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant,
despite never having manufactured any fabrics containing asbestos.
While Brandon was defending against 7,710 claims as of June 30,
2020, only twelve claims have been filed against Brandon since
January 1, 2012, and no settlement costs have been incurred since
2001.  Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999, and has its own
insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999.  Since 2004,
Brandon's insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification
and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a standard
reservation of rights."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/47aRE8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chanel and Foot Locker Face Talc Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily Sortor, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
customer has hit Chanel and Foot Locker with a lawsuit claiming
that asbestos allegedly present in Chanel's after bath talc
products caused her to develop mesothelioma.  These Chanel products
were allegedly sold and purchased at Publix and Woolworth stores;
Woolworth is now Foot Locker.

The Chanel lawsuit claiming asbestos in talc products was filed by
Dolores G. Dolores asserts that she developed mesothelioma after
using Chanel's after-bath talc products for 30 years — between
1961 and 1991.  She says that she used the products because she
believed them to be safe for use.

Top Class Actions also reports that Dolores claims that Chanel was
aware that asbestos could be present in its talc products, but did
not warn customers about the possible dangers associated with it.

According to Dolores, Chanel continues to sell these talc products,
representing them as safe.  She also challenges Foot Locker's sale
of the products as safe to consumers, Top Class Actions notes.

The Chanel/Foot Locker talc products misrepresentation lawsuit aims
to hold the companies accountable for fraudulent concealment,
negligence, negligence per se, and breach of warranty.

According to Top Class Actions, Dolores explains that ingesting
what she believes to be asbestos in talc led her to suffer physical
injuries in the form of her mesothelioma, as well as emotional and
financial injuries that come with it, from medical costs to lost
wages to emotional trauma.

Contamination Awareness

Top Class Actions notes that Dolores states that as early as the
1930s, research existed that suggested that talc could be
contaminated with carcinogens including asbestos.  Elaborating on
the possible connection between asbestos and talc, her lawsuit
explains that both are naturally occurring minerals that are often
found next to one another in nature.  She goes on to say that when
talc is mined, sometimes asbestos is removed with it, and
contaminates the talc.  This way, asbestos allegedly finds its way
to consumers through talc products.

By the 1970s, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had reportedly
begun to ask if consumers should be warned about the possible
dangers of asbestos in talc.  However, after pressure from the
Cosmetics, Toiletries, and Fragrance Council, a lobbying
organization, the FDA halted these efforts.

According to Top Class Actions, Dolores points a finger at the
council in her Chanel talc lawsuit, saying that the council did not
inform the FDA about the lack of testing around talc.  The FDA says
testing needs to be more stringent.

Her lawsuit says that Chanel, Footlocker "and the CTFC also did not
disclose to the FDA that the overwhelming majority of talcum powder
manufacturers and sellers were not testing their products for
asbestos, and even if they were testing, it was done
superficially." It notes that in many cases, if the organizations
did conduct testing, it was not done on the end-products made to be
purchased by consumers, but done on old products that were not
sold, Top Class Actions notes.

Asbestos Litigation

Chanel is not the only company to face allegations that there is
asbestos in talc products.  Johnson & Johnson has faced many
similar claims, litigation which has led the company to recall its
talc-containing products explains the New York Times.  Allegedly,
documents surfaced in 1999 that show J&J's awareness of
contamination.

Johnson & Johnson's talc supplier, Imerys Talc America, has faced
extreme reactions, as well.  Bloomberg states that the company has
been fielding allegations over the dangers of talc for more than a
decade.  Reportedly, the company sought protection through
bankruptcy last year and has recently agreed to sell its North
American operations at auction to cover the costs of some of the
more than 14,000 lawsuits launched against it.

Once the business sells, the proceeds will reportedly be put into a
fund that will be used to compensate victims allegedly affected by
Imerys talc.

Dolores' Chanel After-Bath Asbestos In Talc Product Contamination
Lawsuit is filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claimants May Pursue Case vs D/C Distribution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roderick Johnston, Rosalyn Johnston, Gary Neto, Larry Walker
(through his estate), Thomas Sinclair, Carlton Keathley and Douglas
Kuznik filed a Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay as to
Certain Asbestos Claimants to pursue in another forum their
asbestos-related personal injury claims against Debtor D/C
Distribution, LLC nominally.  The Claimants do not seek to recover
monetarily from the Debtor or its bankruptcy estate but rather to
recover solely to the extent of and from any available insurance
coverage.

Kaanapali Land Company, LLC, the United States of America, on
behalf of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy,
and the Environmental Protection Agency, Fireman's Fund Insurance
Company and Alex D. Moglia as chapter 7 trustee filed objections or
responses to the Motion.

Bankruptcy Judge Timothy A. Barnes grants the motion, finding that
the Claimants have established both cause for relief from the stay
and that the Debtor lacks equity in the property (insurance
coverage).

The Debtor filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy relief on July 17, 2007.
The Debtor, formerly known as AMFAC Distribution Corporation, was
the successor-in-interest by merger to three California
corporations, who merged between 1976 and 1979. The companies are
described by the Claimants as plumbing supply houses.

The Claimants allege that they have sustained asbestos-related
injuries due to exposure caused by the Debtor or its pre-merger
predecessors and that the automatic stay in this case is preventing
them from seeking redress. As such, they ask for relief from that
stay to seek recovery against insurance policies under which the
Debtor and/or its predecessors were defended and indemnified during
the relevant time periods.  Recovery will only be sought to the
extent of and from insurance coverage.

The Objecting Parties each argue that the Claimants may have claims
against the policy issued by FFIC, which policy the Objecting
Parties wish to use to settle the United States' claim against
KLLLC and Oahu Sugar.

KLLLC argues that the Motion should be denied because the Claimants
have not filed claims in this case.

KLLLC and FFIC argue that determination of which of the Policies
apply to each of the Claimants cases will be a burden to the
Trustee.  KLLLC and FFIC also argue that the Claimants have not
satisfied all of the factors set forth in In re Fernstrom Storage &
Van Co., 938 F.2d 731, 735 (7th Cir. 1991).

The Fernstrom factors are a three-part test stated by the Seventh
Circuit in Fernstrom, but as used earlier by the District Court in
another case. In In re Pro Football Weekly, 60 B.R. 824, 826 (N.D.
Ill. 1986), the District Court considered whether a bankruptcy
court was correct to lift the stay to "allow continuation of a
pending lawsuit."

The District Court adopted a test from an earlier bankruptcy court
decision, asking whether:

     a) Any great prejudice to either the bankrupt estate or the
debtor will result from continuation of a civil suit,

     b) the hardship to the [non-bankrupt party] by maintenance of
the stay considerably outweighs the hardship of the debtor, and

     c) the creditor has a probability of prevailing on the merits
of his case.

In applying the Fernstrom factors, the court is mindful that KLLLC
has argued that the Claimants should not qualify for any relief as
there is no pending civil action. Citing section 362(d)(1)'s
legislative history, KLLLC suggests in a footnote that because most
of the Claimants have not filed lawsuits naming the Debtor, the
Motion is "inconsistent with the paradigm case under Section
362(d)(1)."

The Court says KLLLC's argument is simply misplaced.  The Court
explains the automatic stay is broader than as applied to existing
lawsuits and nothing in section 362(a) (the automatic stay itself)
or section 362(d) (relief from the stay) limits a party to seeking
relief from stay when a contemplated suit has not yet been brought.
Fernstrom seems to apply a test meant for existing suits in a
broader context, but that serves to demonstrate not that cause
cannot be demonstrated where the limited circumstances of Pro
Football Weekly do not exist, but rather that courts should be
flexible in weighing cause irrespective of the circumstances, the
Court adds.

KLLLC clearly does not think much of this argument, relegating it
to a footnote. The Court thinks even less of it. Nothing in the
statute limits the Claimants from seeking the relief they seek in
the Motion under the circumstances at bar. KLLLC's footnote
objection in this regard is overruled.

As to the first Fernstrom factor, there is no "great prejudice" to
the bankrupt estate or the Debtor if the Claimants are allowed to
continue their actions nominally against the Debtor.

This is a chapter 7 case, not a chapter 11 case as in Fernstrom.
Questions of great prejudice to the Debtor are inapplicable. The
Debtor in this chapter 7 case is a corporation and therefore is not
eligible for a discharge. Once this case is closed, the Claimants
will no longer be restrained by the automatic stay and may pursue
the Debtor. Thus, harm to the Debtor is simply not a factor.
Further, there is no reorganization plan to prejudice. What exists
is a very old chapter 7 liquidation in which no concrete plans to
monetize the affected Policies have been advanced. It is difficult
to conclude prejudice where there is nothing to prejudice.

The second factor under the Fernstrom analysis concerns balancing
the hardship of the movants with the hardship to the debtor and
whether one "considerably outweighs" the other.

This is a chapter 7 bankruptcy with limited remaining assets. If
the stay were lifted to allow the Claimants to pursue the Debtor's
insurers, at most the Debtor would have to be involved in
determining which insurer, if any, should defend each claim. This
is something the Debtor would have to do no matter where and when6
the Claimants pursue their claims. Taking into account such
equitable considerations, "[t]he equities weigh heavily in favor of
[the Claimants]" who should be allowed to "establish liability in
the tort system" so that they may recover any damages they have
suffered against the Debtor's proper insurer.

In weighing the harm to the Claimants of being denied redress
versus the harm to a virtually nonexistent process here, the actual
hardship to the Claimants considerably outweighs any ephemeral harm
to the chapter 7 case or the Debtor. The Claimants have satisfied
their burden with respect to the second Fernstrom factor.

The third and final factor in the Fernstrom analysis is whether
"the creditor has a probability of prevailing on the merits."

Asbestos litigation is complex, as can be seen by the numerous
defendants in each of the Claimants' state law complaints. All the
Claimants have filed state court cases alleging asbestos-related
injuries. One of those cases is set to go to trial within the year.
The other six have apparently "proceeded and resolved" either
through a judgment or settlement, suggesting they have probable
claims as well. At the very least, the court can conclude that the
underlying claims are not frivolous and that the Claimants have
colorable claims.

The Claimants have therefore established at least the requisite
probability of prevailing on the merits. Nothing more is needed for
this court's determination of their claims in the state court, the
Court concludes.

The bankruptcy case is in re: In re: D/C Distribution, LLC, Chapter
7, Debtor, Case No. 07bk12776 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.).

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision dated July 21, 2020 is
available at https://bit.ly/3hUcC8l from Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon in Initial Pact with Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the Company has entered into a
tentative agreement with insurance carriers to settle its case
against them for recovery of past and cost-sharing for future
asbestos-related legal defense costs.  The settlement is expected
to be finalized in fiscal 2021.

Columbus McKinnon states, "The Company believes that a share of its
previously incurred asbestos-related expenses and future
asbestos-related expenses are covered by pre-existing insurance
policies.  The Company has been engaged in a legal action against
the insurance carriers for those policies to recover past expenses
and future costs incurred.

"In March of fiscal 2020, the Company came to a tentative agreement
with the insurance carriers to settle its case against them for
recovery of past and cost-sharing for future asbestos-related legal
defense costs.  The settlement is subject to mutual agreement of
the terms and conditions in a coverage in place agreement.  The
terms of the tentative settlement require the carriers to pay gross
defense costs prior to retro-premiums of 65% for future
asbestos-related defense costs subject to an annual cap of
US$1,650,000 for clams covered by the tentative settlement.  In
addition, a payout of approximately US$2,650,000 is expected to be
received for past defense costs which will be reduced by contingent
legal costs.  Further, it is expected that the insurance carriers
will accept coverage for indemnity on all covered cases.  Estimates
of the future cost sharing have been included in the loss reserve
calculation as of March 31, 2020.  The settlement is expected to be
finalized in fiscal 2021.

"The Company received settlement payments of US$290,000 during the
three months ended June 30, 2019, net of legal fees, from its
insurance carriers as partial reimbursement for asbestos-related
expenses.  These partial payments have been recorded as gains in
cost of products sold.  No payments were received in fiscal 2021."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/VKXhZ3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $100MM PCC Liability at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the total amount of remaining payments
due in years 2021 through 2022 for asbestos claims under the
reorganization plan of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC) is
US$100 million, of which US$50 million will be paid in the second
quarter of 2021 and is classified as a current liability.  

The Company states, "Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. each owned
50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC").
PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 2000, and the Modified
Third Amended Plan of Reorganization for PCC (the "Plan") became
effective in April 2016.  At December 31, 2016, the Company's
liability under the Plan was US$290 million, which is required to
be paid through a series of fixed payments that began in the second
quarter of 2017.  Payments of US$35 million and US$50 million were
made in June 2020 and June 2019, respectively.  The total amount of
remaining payments due in years 2021 through 2022 is US$100
million, of which US$50 million will be paid in the second quarter
of 2021 and is classified as a current liability.  The remaining
US$50 million is classified as a non-current liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/S1EPgn



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has $686MM Liability at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has US$686 million liability as of June 30, 2020, for the
estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or subsequently
asserted through 2059, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "In June 2016, the New York State Court of
Appeals issued its opinion in Dummitt v. Crane Co., affirming a
2012 verdict for US$4.9 million against us.  In that opinion, the
court ruled that in certain circumstances we are legally
responsible for asbestos-containing materials made and sold by
third parties that others attached post-sale to our equipment.
This decision provided clarity regarding the nature of claims that
may proceed to trial in New York and greater predictability
regarding future claim activity.  We also reflected the impact of
the Dummitt decision on our expected settlement values.
Accordingly, on December 31, 2016 we updated and extended our
asbestos liability estimate through 2059, the generally accepted
end point.

"Following our experience in the tort system post the Dummitt
decision, we entered into several, increasingly similar, group
settlements with various plaintiff firms, the most recent of which
was in the fourth quarter of 2019.  We expect this new trend of
these types of group settlements to continue, and accordingly,
effective as of December 31, 2019, we updated our estimate of the
asbestos liability, including revised costs of settlement or
indemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pending
claims and future claims projected to be filed against us through
the same expected end point of 2059.  Our estimate of the asbestos
liability for pending and future claims through 2059 is based on
the projected future asbestos costs resulting from our experience
using a range of reference periods for claims filed, settled and
dismissed.  Based on this estimate, we recorded an additional
liability of US$255 million as of December 31, 2019.

"An aggregate liability of US$712 million is recorded as of
December 31, 2019 to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims
now pending or subsequently asserted through 2059, of which
approximately 85% is attributable to settlement and defense costs
for future claims projected to be filed through 2059.  The
liability is reduced when cash payments are made in respect of
settled claims and defense costs.  The liability was US$686 million
as of June 30, 2020.  It is not possible to forecast when cash
payments related to the asbestos liability will be fully expended;
however, it is expected such cash payments will continue for a
number of years past 2059, due to the significant proportion of
future claims included in the estimated asbestos liability and the
lag time between the date a claim is filed and when it is resolved.
None of these estimated costs have been discounted to present
value due to the inability to reliably forecast the timing of
payments.  The current portion of the total estimated liability at
December 31, 2019 and June 30, 2020 is US$65 million and represents
our best estimate of total asbestos costs expected to be paid
during the twelve-month period.  Such amount is based upon the
actuarial model together with our prior year payment experience for
both settlement and defense costs."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/bJtP6P


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had $264MM Accrual at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) has accrued
US$264 million as of June 30, 2020, for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "As of June 30, 2020, the Company's accrual for
pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs
was US$264 million, including US$221 million for unasserted claims.
The Company determines its accrual without limitation to a
specific time period."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/HdHFZt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadline to Amend Suit vs J&J is Extended
----------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated stockholder derivative litigation related
asbestos contamination in body powders with talc, the
shareholders-plaintiffs have until August 2020 to file a
consolidated complaint or identify a previously filed complaint as
the operative complaint, according to Johnson & Johnson's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2020.

The Company states, "In October 2019, December 2019, and January
2020, four shareholders filed four separate derivative lawsuits
against Johnson & Johnson as the nominal defendant and its current
directors and certain officers as defendants in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging a breach of
fiduciary duties related to the alleged asbestos contamination in
body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder,
and that Johnson & Johnson has suffered damages as a result of
those alleged breaches.

"In February 2020, the four cases were consolidated into a single
action under the caption In re Johnson & Johnson Talc Stockholder
Derivative Litigation, and the shareholders have until August 2020
to file a consolidated complaint or identify a previously filed
complaint as the operative complaint."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/0FR3PV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Underway in Securities Class Suit v. J&J
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in a securities class action lawsuit against
Johnson & Johnson and certain named officers in New Jersey related
to alleged violations of federal securities laws by failing to
disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing
talc, according to Johnson & Johnson's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 28, 2020.

The Company states, "In February 2018, a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson and certain named
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, alleging that Johnson & Johnson violated the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose alleged asbestos
contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily
JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that purchasers of Johnson &
Johnson's shares suffered losses as a result.  Plaintiffs are
seeking damages.

"In April 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint and
briefing on the motion was complete as of August 2019.

"In December 2019, the Court denied, in part, the motion to
dismiss.

"In March 2020, Defendants answered the complaint.  Discovery is
underway."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/0FR3PV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had $235MM Reserves at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that that wholly-owned subsidiary
Hercules LLC's total reserves for asbestos claims were US$235
million at June 30, 2020, compared to US$252 million at September
30, 2019.

The Company states, "Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos.  Such claims
typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin
encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of
Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.  The
amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can
fluctuate from period to period.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate, and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated,
non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the
assistance of Nathan.  As a result of the most recent annual update
of this estimate, completed during the June 2020 quarter, it was
determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims
should be decreased by US$3 million.  Total reserves for asbestos
claims were US$235 million at June 30, 2020 compared to US$252
million at September 30, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/bWwW5F


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.26BB Liabilities at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded liabilities of US$2,256
million for asbestos-related matters at June 30, 2020, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Honeywell is named in asbestos related
personal injury claims related to North American Refractories
Company ("NARCO"), which was sold in 1986, and Bendix Friction
Materials ("Bendix") business, which was sold in 2014."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/WnBQqO


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had 6,298 Bendix Claims Pending in June
------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. had 6,298 unresolved asbestos-related
claims at June 30, 2020, involving predecessor company Bendix
Friction Materials business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

Of the 6,298 unresolved claims, 3,020 of which are for nonmalignant
claims while the remaining 3,278 are for mesothelioma and other
cancer claims.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/WnBQqO


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l Paper Has $114MM Liability at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company's total recorded liability with respect
to pending and future asbestos-related claims was US$114 million,
net of estimated insurance recoveries, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various
asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state and
federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of
certain companies previously acquired by the Company.

"The Company regularly conducts a comprehensive legal review of its
asbestos liabilities and reviews recent and historical claims data.
During the quarter ended June 30, 2020, we adjusted our estimated
net liability associated with asbestos-related litigation
concerning products sold by Champion International Corporation
prior to our acquisition of Champion in 2000 to revise the time
period associated with anticipated future claims through 2059, a
commonly viewed end point when such claims are more predictable.
We concluded the adjustment of US$43 million to increase this net
liability, which resulted in a liability of US$75 million, net of
estimated insurance recoveries, was not material to any period.  As
of June 30, 2020, the Company's total recorded liability with
respect to pending and future asbestos-related claims was US$114
million, net of estimated insurance recoveries.

"While it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses
in excess of its recorded liability with respect to
asbestos-related matters, we do not believe additional material
losses are probable."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/heMCMi



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 2,790 Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the Company was a co-defendant as
of June 30, 2020, in cases alleging asbestos induced illness
involving claims by approximately 2,790 plaintiffs, which is a net
decrease of 334 claims from those previously reported.

The Company states, "In each instance, the Company is one of a
large number of defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified
sums.  Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant
in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 55,457
of those claims were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts,
7 were tried to plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved
after appeal), 1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount
and 1,006 were decided in favor of the Company following summary
judgment motions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/W7eDoc


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Had US$86MM Reserves at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 28, 2020, that it had reserves of US$86 million as of June 30,
2020, for asbestos-related liabilities.

Meritor states, "The company engaged a third-party advisor with
extensive experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to
conduct a study to estimate its potential undiscounted liability
for pending and future asbestos-related claims as of September 30,
2019.  Management continuously monitors the underlying claims data
and experience for the purpose of assessing the appropriateness of
the assumptions used to estimate the liability.

"As of September 30, 2019, the estimated probable range of equally
likely possibilities of the company's obligation for
asbestos-related claims over the next 40 years was US$91 million to
US$181 million.  Based on the information contained in the
actuarial study, and all other available information considered,
management concluded that no amount within the range of potential
liability was more likely than any other and, therefore, recorded a
liability at the low end of the range.  The company recognized a
liability for pending and future claims over the next 40 years of
US$86 million as of June 30, 2020 and US$91 million as of September
30, 2019.

"AM has insurance coverage that management believes covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance
retentions, for a significant portion of these claims.  The
insurance receivables for Rockwell asbestos-related liabilities
totaled US$59 million and US$61 million as of June 30, 2020 and
September 30, 2019, respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/pIIWAE


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Faces Falk PI Suits at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation continues to face multiple lawsuits alleging
personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in
certain clutches and drives previously manufactured by The Falk
Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2020.

The Company states, "In connection with the Company's acquisition
of The Falk Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand provided the
Company with indemnification against certain products-related
asbestos exposure liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant
to such indemnity obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to
defend and indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos
claims, and that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity
obligations are not subject to any time or dollar limitations.

"Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant in multiple
lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk.  There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined.  Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations
and has paid 100% of the costs to date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/7WWMY9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Subsidiary Had 6,000 Lawsuits at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 6,000 asbestos-related lawsuits
representing approximately 7,000 claims against Rexnord
Corporation's Zurn subsidiary as of June 30, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "As of June 30, 2020, Zurn and numerous other
unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 6,000 asbestos
related lawsuits representing approximately 7,000 claims.
Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured
by a segment of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or
asbestos components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers.
These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy
funded by insurers.

"As of June 30, 2020, the Company estimates the potential liability
for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims expected to
be filed in the next ten years to be approximately US$50.0 million,
of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to pay approximately
US$38.0 million in the next ten years on such claims, with the
balance of the estimated liability being paid in subsequent years.
The US$50.0 million was developed based on actuarial studies and
represents the projected indemnity payout for current and future
claims.  There are inherent uncertainties involved in estimating
the number of future asbestos claims, future settlement costs, and
the effectiveness of defense strategies and settlement initiatives.
As a result, actual liability could differ from the estimate
described herein and could be substantial.  The liability for the
asbestos-related claims is recorded in Other liabilities within the
condensed consolidated balance sheets.

"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of June 30, 2020, is in excess of
the 10 year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that all
current claims are covered by insurance.

"As of June 30, 2020, the Company had a recorded receivable from
its insurance carriers of US$50.0 million, which corresponds to the
amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery.  However, there is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits.  Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers.  The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in Other assets
within the condensed consolidated balance sheets."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/7WWMY9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had $47.70MM Accrued Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. recorded accrued asbestos liabilities
of US$47,708,000 at June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related
liability, we have considered various factors including, among
other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related
liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our
settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the
jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and
results of such claims.  As is our accounting policy, we consider
the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing
asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim
liability; and perform an actuarial evaluation in the third quarter
of each year and whenever events or changes in circumstances
indicate that additional provisions may be necessary.  The
methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs
in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available
from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent
claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3)
an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an analysis of
our settlements to date in order to develop average settlement
values.  Based on the information contained in the actuarial study
and all other available information considered by us, we have
concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments
and awards of asbestos-related damages was more likely than any
other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we
compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to
determine if an adjustment is required."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Icervo


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor's Appeal in Calif. Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that it is still "pursuing all rights
of appeal" in an asbestos liability case in California wherein the
Company was found liable for US$7.6 million in compensatory
damages.

The Company states, "As related to our potential asbestos-related
liability, we were found liable for US$7.6 million in compensatory
damages as a defendant in a 2018 asbestos liability case in
California.  We are pursuing all rights of appeal of this case.

"In accordance with our policy to perform an annual actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year, an updated actuarial
study was performed as of August 31, 2019.  The results of the
August 31, 2019 study included an estimate of our undiscounted
liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related
damages, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from
insurance carriers, ranging from US$52 million to US$90.6 million
for the period through 2064.  The change from the revised prior
year study, which was performed in the fourth quarter of 2018, was
a US$5.3 million increase for the low end of the range and a US$6.7
million increase for the high end of the range.  The increase in
the estimated undiscounted liability from the revised prior year
study at both the low end and high end of the range reflects our
actual experience, our historical data and certain assumptions with
respect to events that may occur in the future.  Based upon the
results of the August 31, 2019 actuarial study, in September 2019,
we increased our asbestos liability to US$52 million, the low end
of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of
US$9.7 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in
the accompanying statement of operations.  Future legal costs,
which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations, are estimated, according to the updated study, to range
from US$50.6 million to US$85.2 million for the period through
2064.

"We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third
quarter of each year for the foreseeable future and whenever events
or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may
be necessary.  Given the uncertainties associated with projecting
such matters into the future and other factors outside our control,
we can give no assurance that additional provisions will not be
required.  We will continue to monitor events and changes in
circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities in
determining whether to perform additional actuarial evaluations and
whether additional provisions may be necessary.  At the present
time, however, we do not believe that any additional provisions
would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our
liquidity or consolidated financial position.

"Total operating cash outflows related to discontinued operations,
which include settlements and legal costs, were US$3.4 million and
US$5.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019,
respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Icervo


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech. Has $508.1MM Liabilities at June 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trane Technologies plc has total asbestos-related liabilities of
US$508.1 million as of June 17, 2020, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company also disclosed that it has total asset for probable
asbestos-related insurance recoveries of US$270.9 million as of
June 17, 2020.

Trane Technologies states, "The Company's asbestos insurance
receivable related to the predecessors of Aldrich and Murray were
US$160.4 million and US$110.5 million, respectively, at June 17,
2020 and US$188.7 million and US$115.3 million, respectively, at
December 31, 2019.  These receivables attributable to the
predecessors of each of Aldrich and Murray for probable insurance
recoveries as of June 17, 2020 and December 31, 2019 are entirely
supported by settlement agreements between them and their
respective insurance carriers.  Most of these settlement agreements
constitute "coverage-in-place" arrangements, in which the insurer
signatories agree to reimburse the predecessors of Aldrich and
Murray, as applicable, for specified portions of their respective
costs for asbestos bodily injury claims and the predecessors of
Aldrich and Murray, as applicable, agree to certain claims-handling
protocols and grants to the insurer signatories certain releases
and indemnifications.

"Prior to the Petition Date, the costs associated with the
settlement and defense of asbestos-related claims, insurance
settlements on asbestos-related matters and the revaluation of the
Company's liability for potential future claims and recoveries were
included in the income statement within continuing operations or
discontinued operations depending on the business to which they
relate.  Income and expenses associated with asbestos-related
matters of Aldrich and its predecessors were recorded within
discontinued operations as they related to previously divested
businesses, primarily Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which was sold by the
Company in 2000.  Income and expenses associated with
asbestos-related matters for Murray and its predecessors were
recorded within continuing operations.  The six months ended June
30, 2020 includes a US$17.4 million adjustment to correct an
overstatement of a legacy legal liability that originated in prior
years.

"The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets were based on currently
available information.  Key assumptions underlying the estimated
asbestos-related liabilities included the number of people
occupationally exposed and likely to develop asbestos-related
diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer, the number of people
likely to file an asbestos-related personal injury claim against
the Company, the average settlement and resolution of each claim
and the percentage of claims resolved with no payment.
Furthermore, predictions with respect to estimates of the liability
were subject to greater uncertainty as the projection period
lengthened.  Other factors that affected the Company's liability
included uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms that
might be made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state
or federal tort reform legislation.

"The aggregate amount of the stated limits in insurance policies
available to Aldrich and Murray for asbestos-related claims
acquired, over many years and from many different carriers, is
substantial.  However, as a result of limitations in that coverage,
the projected total liability to claimants substantially exceeds
the probable insurance recovery."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/tYGQMA



ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has $30.3MM Liabilities at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that its total asbestos-related liability is $30.3
million as of June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Relatively few claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery
stage.  Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all
such cases, some of which were filed over 25 years ago, have been
approximately US$9.8 million.  All relief sought in the asbestos
cases is monetary in nature.  Based on the settlements made to date
and the number of claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product
identification, the Company believes that the relief sought (when
specified) does not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential
liability.

"There has been significant volatility in the historical number of
claim filings and costs to defend, with previous claim counts and
spend levels much higher than current levels.  Management believes
this volatility was associated more with tort reform, plaintiff
practices and state-specific legal dockets than the Company's
underlying asbestos-related exposures.  In the past 3 years,
however, the number of new claim filings, and costs to defend, have
become much more consistent, ranging between 143 to 173 new claims
per year and total defense costs ranging between US$2.2 million and
US$2.3 million.

"The higher degree of consistency in census data and spend levels,
as well as lower claim activity levels and an evolving defense
strategy, has allowed the Company to more effectively and
efficiently manage claims, making process or local counsel
arrangement improvements where possible.  Given the consistency of
activity over a multi-year period, the Company believed a trend may
have formed where it could be possible to reasonably estimate its
future cash exposure for all asbestos-related activity with an
adequate level of precision.  As such, the Company commissioned an
actuary to help evaluate the nature and predictability of its
asbestos-related costs, and provide an actuarial range of estimates
of future exposures.  Based upon its review of the actuarial study,
which was completed in June 2020 using data as of December 31, 2019
and which projected spend levels through a terminal year of 2064,
the Company affirmed its belief that it now has the ability to
reasonably estimate its future asbestos-related exposures for
pending as well as unknown future claims.

"During the three months ended June 30, 2020, the Company elected
to change its method of accounting for asbestos-related defense
costs from accruing for probable and reasonably estimable defense
costs associated with known claims expected to settle to accrue for
all future defense costs for both known and unknown claims, which
the Company now believes are reasonably estimable.  The Company
believes this change is preferable, as asbestos-related defense
costs represent expenditures related to legacy activities that do
not contribute to current or future revenue generating activities,
and recording an estimate of the full liability for
asbestos-related costs, where estimable with reasonable precision,
provides a more complete assessment of the liability associated
with resolving asbestos-related claims.

"This accounting change has been reflected as a change in
accounting estimate effected by a change in accounting principle.
In the three months ended June 30, 2020, the Company recorded a
non-cash, pre-tax charge for asbestos-related costs of
approximately US$23.4 million, which is included in selling,
general and administrative expenses in the accompanying
consolidated statement of operations.

"Following the change in accounting estimate, the Company's
liability for asbestos-related claims will be based on a study from
the Company's third-party actuary, the Company's review of the
study, as well as the Company's own review of asbestos claims and
claim resolution activity.  The study from the Company's actuary,
based on data as of December 31, 2019, provided for a range of
possible future liability from US$31.5 million to US$43.3 million.
The Company does not believe any amount within the range of
potential outcomes represents a better estimate than another given
the many factors and assumptions inherent in the projections.
Therefore, the Company has recorded the liability at the low-end of
the range.  As of June 30, 2020, the Company's total
asbestos-related liability is US$30.3 million, and is included in
accrued liabilities and other long-term liabilities, respectively,
in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

"The Company's primary insurance, which covered approximately 40%
of historical costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation, expired in November 2018, upon which the Company became
solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments.  The
Company is party to a coverage-in-place agreement (entered into in
2006) with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage
to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims.  The
coverage-in-place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and
indemnity insurance coverage available to the Company that might
otherwise be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology
for the administration of such expenses.  The Company will continue
to be solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments
prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement, the
duration of which would be subject to the scope of damage awards
and settlements paid.  Based upon the Company's review of the
actuarial study, the Company does not believe it is probable that
it will reach the threshold of qualified future settlements
required to commence excess carrier insurance coverage under the
coverage-in-place agreement.

"While the Company recorded a significant non-cash charge in the
three months ended June 30, 2020 in connection with its change in
accounting policy, based upon the Company's experience to date,
including the trend in annual defense and settlement costs incurred
to date, and other available information (including the
availability of excess insurance), the Company does not believe
these cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial
position or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/UMMx25



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 10,823 Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has 10,823 unresolved asbestos-related
claims at June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in a
large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products
that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem
Products, Inc. ("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a
result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted
from exposure to UCC's products.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants.  As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or
any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are
alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury.  In fact,
there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation
and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants.  For these reasons and
based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement experience,
the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged against it
and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its determination of any
potential asbestos-related liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/dFlgBV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whittaker Clark Faces Talc Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer at Mesothelioma.net reports that the Justice of
the New York County Supreme Court Manuel J. Mendez has ordered the
mesothelioma lawsuit of Vincent Luca against Whittaker Clark and
Daniels to proceed.

Mesothelioma.net noted that before he died of malignant
mesothelioma, Vincent Luca recounted a history of exposure to
asbestos that tracked his lifelong career as a barber.  He and his
family filed a lawsuit against Whittaker Clark and Daniels, the
company that supplied talc for the Clubman talcum products that he
used from 1961 until he retired in 2016, but the company filed a
motion for summary judgment.  They denied their own role and
instead blamed his illness on exposure to naturally-occurring
asbestos in the Maletto part of Sicily, Italy, where he lived until
the age of 25.  After reviewing evidence from both the plaintiffs
and the defendants, Justice of the New York County Supreme Court
Manuel J.  Mendez denied the motion and ordered that the case
proceed.

According to Mesothelioma.net, in a deposition given before his
death from malignant pleural mesothelioma, Mr. Luca testified that
he had been born in 1935 and lived in the Maletto part of Sicily
until 1960, when he emigrated to the United States.  He worked in
barbershops in New Jersey and in New York throughout his life, and
recalled using Clubman talcum powder to shave and cut his clients'
hair.  

When asked about his memories of using Clubman, Mr. Luca recalled
that the powder had a scent that he liked.  He remembered the way
it smelled when he would apply it, when he would sweep it up, and
even when he shook out the jacket he wore at the barbershop.  He
recalled the good smell of the powder when it raised a cloud of
dust.  He testified that inhaling those clouds had likely led to
his mesothelioma, Mesothelioma.net noted.

Despite evidence that their talc had been contaminated with
asbestos over the years that it was sold, the attorneys for
Whittaker Clark and Daniels insisted that Mr. Luca's mesothelioma
was caused by asbestos in quarries found in Sicily, Italy.  Mr.
Luca's attorneys presented evidence that though he had indeed lived
in the area, his home had been more than 29 kilometers from those
quarries.

Judge Mendez denied the talc company's motion, pointing to evidence
that the company had conducted testing and found asbestos in their
product yet had "advocated for its talc as uncontaminated for the
use of XRD testing that would not be able to detect any asbestos."
The case will move forward for a jury to make its decision.



                            *********

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 ***