/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200826.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, August 26, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 171

                            Headlines

ABILITY RECOVERY: Robinson Files FDCPA Suit in Delaware
ALEX AND NOVA: Olsen Alleges Violation under ADA
ALORICA INC: Faces Hope Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Tex.
AMAZON.COM INC: Defends Price-Fixing Related Suits in USA & Canada
AUSTRALIA: Bundaberg Farmers File Class Action v. Queensland Gov't.

AVIVA: Canadian Hotel Chains File BI Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Sherman Act Claims in Allianz Suit
BAYER AG: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of September 14 Deadline
BERING TIME: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Guglielmo Alleges
BREAKTIME STORES: Faces Arif Suit Over Unpaid Overtime

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Securities Class Action
CAVALRY SPV I: Nachum Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
CBS CORP: Shareholders Seek Cert. in Moonves Sexual Misconduct Case
CHEETAH MOBILE: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Securities Class Action
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTIC: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action

CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Class Action
COLLECTION BUREAU: Kvilhaug Files FDCPA Suit in Delaware
CONNECTICUT: Bid for Decree Compliance in Rose Suit Partly Denied
CROWN CASTLE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits

CURO: Shareholders Seek Approval of $9MM Class Action Settlement
CYCLE GEAR: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Guglielmo Says
DELTA AIRLINES: Wins Final OK of Fan Suit Accord; $875K Fees OK'd
DENNY'S INC: Court Grants Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Deleon
EASTMAN KODAK: Hagens Berman Announces Securities Class Action

ENERGY RECOVERY: Klein Law Firm Reminds of September 21 Deadline
FIC RESTAURANTS: Court Denies $750K Settlement in Kirby FLSA Suit
FIDELITY BROKERAGE: Helms Sues Over Refusal to Disburse Funds
FIRST ENERGY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
FORD MOTOR: App. Court Flips Denial of MCPA Claims Dismissal in Cyr

FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Bushansky Sues over Merger Deal
GEO GROUP: Schall Law Reminds of Sept. 8 Deadline
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: McManis Atty. Discusses Ruling in Greene Case
HERSHEY: Averts Class Action Over White Kit Kats

HOMEADVISOR INC: Marquette Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
IDEANOMICS INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of August 27 Deadline
IDEANOMICS INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 27 Deadline
INSPERITY INC: Building Trades Fund Sues over Drop in Share Price
INTEL CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 28 Deadline

INTEL CORP: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 28 Deadline
INTEL CORP: Matheson Sues Over Misleading Reports
INTEL CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 28 Deadline
IOOF: Quinn Emanuel Discontinues Class Action
J2 GLOBAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 8 Deadline

JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit over Xyrem Monopoly
KENTUCKY FARM: Ky. App. Affirms Class Certification in Coates Suit
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 31 Deadline
KIRKLAND LAKE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 28 Deadline
MEDICAL DEPOT: Monegro Suit Alleges Violation of ADA

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT: Sept. 3 Settlement Hearing in Paetzold Set
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Mercado et al. Sue Over Overtime Pay
MORTGAGE LENDERS: Leave to Amend Answers in Charbonneau Suit Denied
NAPA STATE HOSPITAL: Atayde's Bid to Impose Sanctions Denied
NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Lord Abbett Fund Class Suit

NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in NJ Consolidated Securities Suit
NG IMPORTS: Schneider Sues Over Unpaid OT, Separation Wages
NIKE INC: Face Mask Policy Violates ADA, Bunn Alleges
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Sup. Ct. OKs Reversal of Order in Disselkamp
PAPA JOHN'S: Lucius Seeks Equal and Full Access to Restaurant App

PERRIGO CO: Baton Class Suit in Tel Aviv Stayed Indefinitely
PERRIGO CO: Litigation Over Contaminated Ranitidine Ongoing
PERRIGO CO: Notice of Pendency of Class Action Issued in Roofers
PERRIGO CO: Suits Alleging Price-Fixing of 135 Drugs Underway
PERRIGO CO: Suits Over Alleged Price-Fixing Underway in Canada

PLATEJOY INC: Crosson Suit Alleges ADA Violation
PLAYAGS INC: Continues to Defend Chowdhury Class Suit
PLAYAGS INC: Labaton Sucharow Announces Expanded Class Action
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Kvilhaug Asserts Breach of FDCPA
PRIME HEALTHCARE: Liable for 401(k) Plan Losses, Ornelas Alleges

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Order on FINRA Arbitration in Dowe Issued
RESTORATION SPECIALTIES: Frias et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
RITE AID: Bid to Certify Fed. Exemption Question in Bailey Denied
SABOR VENEZOLANO: Ruderman Sues Over Background Checks
SAFETY INSURANCE: Refused to Pay Insureds' Losses, Marshall Says

SBE/KATSUYA USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Claims
SCANA CORP: Georgetown Plantation Up for Sale Following Settlement
SCOTT DOLICH: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Allison FLSA Suit
SHIRE LLC: Meijer Can Intervene in Intuniv Antitrust Suit
SIENNA SENIOR: Rochon Genova Launches Class Action

SPARK ENERGY: Final Approval Order Issued in Richardson Settlement
SPARK ENERGY: Mediation in Rolland Suit Scheduled for August 29
SPARK ENERGY: Settlement in Veilleux Suit Wins Initial Approval
SPARTAN RACE: Court Refuses to Transfer or Toss Fruitstone Suit
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Tentative Settlement Reached in Suit Against Unit

SPECTRUM BRANDS: Wisconsin Class Action Settlement Awaits Final OK
SYNOVUS BANK: Accountek Seeks Payment of PPP Loan Agent Fees
TEXTRON INC: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 18 Deadline

UBER: Dispute with Drivers in Heller Case to Remain in Canada
ULSTER SAVINGS: Turner Files Suit in New York
VBFS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Carranza Suit Claims
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Bernstein Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: RM LAW Reminds of September 28 Deadline

VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Robbins LLP Reminds of September 28 Deadline
VERDE ENERGY: Jurich Class Action Concluded
VIP AUTO: Faces Manfredo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
VITOL INC: Burg Alleges Manipulation of Gasoline Prices
WEINSTEIN CO: Prelim. Approval of Settlement in Geiss Suit Denied

WINS FINANCE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 23 Deadline
YAHOO! INC: Court Approves Data Breach Class Action Settlement
YAYYO INC: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action

                            *********

ABILITY RECOVERY: Robinson Files FDCPA Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ability Recovery
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Elyse Robinson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Ability Recovery Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01038-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 4, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Ability Recovery Services operates in the collection industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Antranig N. Garibian, Esq.
   Garibian Law Offices, P.C.
   1010 Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22
   Wilmington, DE 19805
   Tel: (215) 326-9179
   Email: ag@garibianlaw.com



ALEX AND NOVA: Olsen Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------
Alex and Nova, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alex and Nova, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03504 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 4, 2020).

Alex and Nova, LLC offers a curated selection of simple and playful
kids apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
   New York, NY 10170
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com




ALORICA INC: Faces Hope Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, MIKAYLA HOPE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ALORICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00267 (S.D. Tex., August 18, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated call-center employees overtime pay for
off-the-clock work that they performed in excess of 40 hours per
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Customer Service
Representative from approximately March 2019 to May 2019.

Alorica, Inc. is a business process outsourcing company that
operates a call center in Corpus Christi, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Clif Alexander, Esq.
         Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
         Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
         Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
         Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
         John D. Garcia, Esq.
         ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
         819 N. Upper Broadway
         Corpus Christi, TX 78401
         Telephone: (361) 452-1279
         Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
         E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com
                 lauren@a2xlaw.com
                 cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                 carter@a2xlaw.com
                 john@a2xlaw.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Defends Price-Fixing Related Suits in USA & Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company is defending
against several class action suits in U.S.A. and Canada related to
alleged price-fixing arrangements between Amazon.com, Inc. and
third-party sellers.

Beginning in March 2020, a number of class-action complaints were
filed alleging, among other things, price fixing arrangements
between Amazon.com, Inc. and third-party sellers in Amazon's
stores, monopolization and attempted monopolization of an alleged
market in online retail or other submarkets, and consumer
protection and unjust enrichment claims.

In March 2020, Frame-Wilson v. Amazon.com, Inc. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

Beginning in April 2020, class action complaints were filed in the
Superior Court of Quebec – Division of Montreal, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, and the Federal Court of Canada against
Amazon.com, Inc. and related entities.

The complaints allege several distinct purported classes, including
consumers who purchased a product through Amazon's stores and
consumers who purchased a product offered by Amazon through another
e-commerce retailer.

The complaints seek billions of dollars of alleged actual damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

Amazon.com, Inc. said, "We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing
and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters."

Amazon.com, Inc., is an American multinational technology company
based in Seattle, Washington that focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. It is
considered one of the Big Four technology companies along with
Google, Apple, and Facebook.


AUSTRALIA: Bundaberg Farmers File Class Action v. Queensland Gov't.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Hughes, Nicole Hegarty and Scott Lamond, writing for ABC,
report that farmers in the Bundaberg region are launching a class
action against the Queensland Government.

They're alleging "negligent management and deceptive and misleading
conduct" in relation to the handling of Paradise Dam on the Burnett
River.

Last September, dam operator Sunwater and State Government
announced the dam wall would be lowered by 5 metres for safety and
stability reasons.

Lawyer Tom Marland, who is acting on behalf of 2,500 claimants,
said the State Government was aware of potential structural issues
at the dam not long after it was built in 2005.

"We've been trying to work with the State Government since
September last year to try and get common sense in relation to the
management and future management of Paradise Dam," he said.

The legal action follows the judicial review that was filed to the
Supreme Court earlier this year in a bid to stop work going ahead
on the wall.

"The class action is for the damages and losses which are going to
occur as a result of the loss of that water," Mr Marland said.

Mr Marland said the class action was also against alleged
mismanagement.

"There have been millions of dollars of investment poured into this
region directly because of the water reliability of Paradise, and
there is going to be billions of dollars of lost productivity as a
result of the lost water," he said.

'Thousands of jobs on the line'
Bundaberg region macadamia and avocado grower Craig Van Rooyen said
thousands of jobs were at risk if work continued at the dam.

"We have tried on many occasions to bring sense to this matter but
we've now unfortunately had to go to class action," Mr Van Rooyen
said.

"As growers and as a community we want this dam remediated to full
capacity so that it is safe for the community and also water to
supply and grow the region because, at the moment, there are
hundreds of millions of dollars on hold waiting to see what happens
and that's thousands of jobs on hold.

"If that wall keeps coming down we are going to lose thousands of
jobs not just in agriculture."

The class action is due to be filed in coming weeks. [GN]


AVIVA: Canadian Hotel Chains File BI Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Charlie Wood, writing for Reinsurance News, reports that global
insurer Aviva is facing a class action lawsuit in Canada as a
number of hotel groups look to enforce insurance policies covering
business interruption or loss of income.

Several hotel chains are affected, including Best Western, Home 2
by Hilton and Hampton Inn.

This action applies to all hotels who were insured under the
commercial insurance policy issued by Aviva pursuant to the Hotel
Program.

The action alleges that Aviva is in breach of contract when it
denied the hotels' loss of business income coverage after the
Federal and provincial governments declared states of emergency,
restricting their business, due to the outbreak of COVID-19.

The proposed action claims for payment of loss of business income
damages to those hotels with the Aviva policy.

A spokesperson for Aviva said it understood that the hospitality
industry has been "severely impacted" by the COVID-19 pandemic.

"Unfortunately in this instance there is no coverage for
provincial-wide shutdown orders as a result of a worldwide
pandemic," the spokesperson told news site Canada.com, adding that
she could not comment further because "this matter is in
litigation."

In a statement of claim submitted to the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, Aviva are said to have denied coverage to the plaintiff,
despite the fact that the plaintiff is covered for this type of
loss.

On May 22, 2020, Aviva sent a letter to the plaintiff setting out
the basis of its denial of coverage. In a follow up letter on June
8, 2020, Aviva further outlined the basis of its denial of
coverage.

Aviva is interpreting the coverage to apply only to outbreaks that
occurred "at or within the applicable area of the insured
premises".

Aviva further stated that "there is no coverage under the policy
for business income losses resulting from the Closure Orders made
in response to the current worldwide COVID-19 pandemic." [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Sherman Act Claims in Allianz Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned ALLIANZ GLOBAL
INVESTORS GMBH, et al. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Case
No. 18 Civ. 10364 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.).

The case concerns an alleged conspiracy among the world's largest
banks to fix prices in the foreign exchange ("FX") market. The
Plaintiffs bring this action against 16 banks and their affiliates,
alleging that the Plaintiffs transacted in the FX market during the
period that the market was purportedly being distorted in the
Defendants' favor and were, therefore, harmed. The Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") alleges a violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and unjust enrichment. The Defendants
move to dismiss the Complaint in accordance with Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6).

The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion. The Court's Opinion holds as follows:

   (1) the Complaint sufficiently pleads antitrust injury, except
       for claims premised on transactions with non-defendants
       that are not based on the benchmark rate;

   (2) Plaintiffs are efficient enforcers as to transactions on
       the Defendants' single-dealer trading platforms, with the
       exception of algorithmic-based trades where the algorithm
       used trading data that was purportedly corrupted by the
       alleged manipulation of other trades;

   (3) Plaintiffs are efficient enforcers as to transactions in
       exchange-traded FX instruments;

   (4) Plaintiffs' claims based on transactions between
       the Plaintiffs domiciled or operating abroad and
       Defendants domiciled or operating domestically fall within
       the imports exclusion under the Foreign Trade Antitrust
       Improvements Act ("FTAIA");

   (5) Plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims are timely, with the
       exception of claims against Barclays PLC, J.P. Morgan
       Securities LLC, Royal Bank of Canada and SG Americas
       Securities, LLC (the "New Defendants") premised on
       benchmark manipulation, and claims based on transactions
       with non-defendants;

   (6) the Complaint sufficiently pleads that the conspiracy
       began as early as 2003;

   (7) the Complaint sufficiently pleads a timely unjust
       enrichment claim;

   (8) none of Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed on the basis of
       forum non conveniens;

   (9) Allianz Funds, Allianz Funds Multi-Strategy Trust,
       AllianzGI Institutional Multi-Series Trust and Carne
       Global Fund Managers (Ireland) Limited are dismissed for
       failure to opt-out of the In re Forex class action; and

  (10) SG Americas Securities LLC is dismissed.

Specifically, the Defendants' motion is GRANTED and the Sherman Act
claim is narrowed to exclude the following: claims based on
algorithmic-based transactions on Defendants' single-dealer
platforms where the algorithm used trading data that was
purportedly corrupted by the alleged manipulation of other trades;
claims against Barclays PLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Royal
Bank of Canada premised on benchmark manipulation; and claims based
on transactions with non-defendants. The Defendants' motion is
otherwise DENIED.

The Court opines, among other things, that the Complaint fails to
plead injury premised on transactions with non-defendants that are
not based on the benchmark rate. The allegation that the
Defendants' "manipulations of . . . bid-ask spreads harmed all FX
transactions in the marketplace, regardless of who the
counterparties were to any particular trade," is insufficient to
allege injury. Hence, claims premised on those transactions are
dismissed.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Docket Nos.
236 and 307.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9qh6v7w from
Leagle.com.


BAYER AG: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of September 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Enphase Energy, Inc. (ENPH)
Class Period: 2/26/2019 - 6/17/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 17, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-enph/

ProAssurance Corporation (PRA)
Class Period: 4/26/2019 - 5/7/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 17, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-pra/

Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (BAYRY)
Class Period: 5/23/2016 - 3/19/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-bayry/  


FirstEnergy Corp. (FE)
Class Period: 2/21/2017 - 7/21/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 28, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-fe/    

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

                          About KSF

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

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

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]


BERING TIME: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Guglielmo Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BERING TIME INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05923 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2020) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website
-- beringtime.com -- is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Bering Time Inc. is a Danish watch and jewelery brand, inspired by
the arctic beauty. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


BREAKTIME STORES: Faces Arif Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
SHAIKH ARIF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. OMAIR BASHIR; BREAKTIME STORES 25, LLC;
BREAKTIME STORES 26, LLC; BREAKTIME STORES 27, LLC; BREAKTIME
STORES 28, LLC; BREAKTIME STORES 29, LLC; BREAKTIME STORES 30, LLC;
BREAKTIME STORES 31, LLC; BREAKTIME STORES 32, LLC; BREAKTIME
STORES 35, LLC; LOCKWOOD RETAIL SERVICES, LLC; GALVESTON SPEEDY
STOP, LLC; ARK PETROLEUM VENTURES, INC; SEAWALL INVESTMENTS, LLC;
WHITE SETTLEMENT MANAGEMENT LLC; MRS C-STORE INVESTMENTS LLC;
UVALDE VENTURES, LLC; WEST LITTLE YORK INVESTMENTS LLC.; HUMBLE
INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.; HUMBLE C-STORE INVESTMENTS, LLC.; LITTLE YORK
VENTURES, LLC.; ARLINGTON PETROLEUM, L.L.C.; and FORT WORTH
PETROLEUM VENTURES, LLC, Case 4:20-cv-02704 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 1,
2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Arif was employed by the Defendants as store clerk.

Breaktime Stores 25, LLC operates as a chain of retail stores.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Syed N. Izfar, Esq.
          11111 Katy Freeway, Suite 1010
          Houston, TX 77079
          Telephone: (713) 467-0786
          Facsimile: (713) 467-2424
          E-mail: syedizfar@sbcglobal.net


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaints have been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Brookdale Senior Living Inc.
There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a
loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Brookdale Senior Living Inc. (NYSE:BKD)
Class Period: August 10, 2016 - April 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 24, 2020

The BKD lawsuit alleges Brookdale Senior Living Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose during the class period that: (i) Brookdale's financial
performance was sustained by, among other things, the Company's
purposeful understaffing of its senior living communities; (ii) the
foregoing conduct subjected Brookdale to an increased risk of
litigation and, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a
material negative impact on the Company's financial results and
reputation; (iii) as a result, the Company's financial results were
unsustainable; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Learn about your recoverable losses in BKD:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/brookdale-senior-living-inc-loss-submission-form?id=8593&from=1

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

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


CAVALRY SPV I: Nachum Asserts Breach of FDCPA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry SPV I, LLC.
The case is styled as Sarah Nachum, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-06059 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 4, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Cavalry SPV I LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com



CBS CORP: Shareholders Seek Cert. in Moonves Sexual Misconduct Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that CBS Corp. shareholders asked a New York federal
judge to certify their proposed class action over revelations about
former CEO Les Moonves' alleged sexual misconduct that tanked the
broadcasting giant's shares, arguing that they easily fulfill all
of the federal requirements. [GN]



CHEETAH MOBILE: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Cheetah Mobile, Inc. ("Cheetah Mobile" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:  CMCM) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the Central
District of California, and indexed under 20-cv-06896, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Cheetah Mobile
securities between March 25, 2019, and February 20, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  Plaintiff pursues claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Cheetah Mobile securities
during the class period, you have until August 25, 2020, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Cheetah Mobile is a mobile Internet company that offers mobile
utility products (such as Clean Master and Cheetah Keyboard),
casual games (such as Piano Tiles 2, Bricks n Balls), and live
streaming product Live.me.  The Company provides its advertising
customers, which include direct advertisers and mobile advertising
networks through which advertisers place their advertisements, with
direct access to highly targeted mobile users and global
promotional channels.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i)
certain of Cheetah Mobile's apps were not compliant with the terms
of its agreements with Google; (ii) as a result, there was a
reasonable likelihood that Google would terminate its advertising
contracts with the Company; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's ability to attract new users would be adversely impacted;
(iv) as a result, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to
decline; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On February 21, 2020, before the market opened, the Company
disclosed that its Google Play Store, Google AdMob, and Google
AdManager accounts were disabled on February 20, 2020 "because some
of the Company's apps had not been compliant with Google policies,
resulting in certain invalid traffic."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.61 per share, or
nearly 17%, to close at $2.99 per share on February 21, 2020, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Chembio Diagnostics, Inc.
("Chembio" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: CEMI) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Chembio securities between March 12, 2020 and June 16,
2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/cemi.

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

In April 2020, Chembio's Dual Path Platform ("DPP") COVID-19
antibody test was among the first such tests to be granted
Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"). Then, on June 17, 2020, pre-market, news
outlets reported that the FDA had revoked the EUA for Chembio's DPP
antibody test, reportedly citing performance concerns with the
test's accuracy, a determination that its "benefits no longer
outweigh its risks", and "a higher than expected rate of false
results." On this news, Chembio's stock price fell $6.04 per share,
or 60.83%, to close at $3.89 per share June 17, 2020.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/cemi or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Chembio
you have until August 17, 2020 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]

CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Chembio Diagnostics,
Inc. (NASDAQ:  CEMI) ("Chembio") investors that a securities fraud
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Chembio common stock between March
12, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

FINAL DEADLINE REMINDER:  Chembio investors may, no later than
August 17, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/chembio-diagnostics-inc-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=chembio.

According to the complaint, Chembio develops diagnostic solutions
and offers products for treatment, detection, and diagnosis of
infectious diseases. Chembio claims to have developed and patented
a new and innovative technology called the Dual Path Platform
("DPP(R)"), which allows for rapid diagnostic testing of a variety
of chemical substances. On its website, Chembio maintains that its
products "meet the highest standards for accuracy and superior
performance to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases" and
that its "innovative solutions, like the Chembio Dual Path Platform
(DPP(R)), make [point-of-care] testing faster, more accurate, and
more cost effective."

On March 12, 2020, Chembio entered into a worldwide strategic
partnership with LumiraDx Limited, a company focused on developing,
manufacturing, and commercializing industry-leading point-of-care
diagnostic platforms, with the aim of developing a diagnostic test
for the detection of the COVID-19 virus and IgM and IgG antibodies
on both of their DPP(R) platforms (the "DPP COVID-19 Test").
Following this news, Chembio's shares jumped 65% during pre-market
trading. Throughout the Class Period, the defendants touted their
progress in developing the DPP COVID-19 Test, representing that it:
(i) successfully aided in determining current or past exposure to
the COVID-19 virus; (ii) provided high sensitivity and specificity;
and (iii) was 100% accurate. The defendants' overly positive
progress updates convinced some entities to place purchase orders
for the DPP COVID-19 Tests worth millions of dollars. These events
further boosted the price of Chembio shares, including on March 20,
2020, when Chembio's shares rose 54%. Chembio's representations
ultimately drove its stock from a closing price of $3.10 per share
on March 11, 2020, to a Class Period high of $15.54 per share on
April 24, 2020, an increase of more than 400%.

The complaint alleges that, on June 16, 2020, after the market
closed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a
press release disclosing that it had revoked Chembio's Emergency
Use Authorization ("EUA") for its DPP COVID-19 Test. In a public
announcement, the FDA informed that its decision was "due to
performance concerns with the accuracy of the test." More
specifically, the FDA informed that the DPP COVID-19 Test
"generate[d] a higher than expected rate of false results and
higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the
device." As a result, the FDA concluded that the "test's benefits
no longer outweigh its risks."  The next day, on June 17, 2020,
Chembio publicly acknowledged the receipt of the FDA's June 16,
2020 letter and informed the public of the FDA's revocation of its
EUA.  Following this news, Chembio shares declined from a closing
price on June 16, 2020 of $9.93 per share to close at $3.89 per
share on June 17, 2020, a decline of more than 60%.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that Chembio's DPP COVID-19 Test did not provide
high-quality results and there were material performance concerns
with the accuracy of its DPP COVID-19 Test.

Investors who wish to discuss their legal rights or interests with
respect to this securities fraud class action lawsuit are
encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro,
Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or
(610) 667 - 7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

Chembio investors may, no later than August 17, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world.  The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars).  [GN]

COLLECTION BUREAU: Kvilhaug Files FDCPA Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collection Bureau of
America Ltd. The case is styled as Lisa Kvilhaug, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Collection
Bureau of America Ltd. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01044-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 5, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Collection Bureau of America is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Antranig N. Garibian, Esq.
   Garibian Law Offices, P.C.
   1010 Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22
   Wilmington, DE 19805
   Tel: (215) 326-9179
   Email: ag@garibianlaw.com




CONNECTICUT: Bid for Decree Compliance in Rose Suit Partly Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WILLIAM ROE, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL HOGAN, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:89-CV-00570 (KAD) (D. Conn.), Judge
Kari A. Dooley of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut found Anthony Dyous' motion for compliance, moot in
part, and denied it otherwise.

On Aug. 31, 1989, patients committed to the jurisdiction of the
Connecticut Psychiatric Security Review Board ("PSRB") filed the
class action lawsuit against various Commissioners of the
Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services.  The class
alleged violations of: (1) their right to appropriate medical and
psychiatric treatment, (2) right to be free from unnecessary
restraint, (3) their right not to be deprived of their liberty
without due process of law, and (4) their right not to be
fdiscriminated against because of their mental handicap as
guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution.

In December 1990, the parties settled the claims through the entry
of a consent decree, which remains in full force and effect today.
The stated purpose of the Decree is to ensure that PSRB patients
are not denied access to appropriate therapeutic, recreational,
rehabilitative or leisure activities which are available to other
patients solely because of the patient's commitment to the PSRB.  

The Decree recognizes that appropriate psychiatric treatment
requires that patients be given increasing levels of freedom and
responsibility consistent with their individual clinical status.
It further requires that decisions concerning the care and
treatment of PSRB patients be made only after an individualized
evaluation and assessment of each patient which explicitly
considers and documents the patient's mental status and degree of
danger, if any.  To that end, the Decree sets forth several
policies and procedures designed to ensure that PSRB patients are
treated on an individualized basis and in a manner that is least
restrictive on their freedom.

The Decree also contains an enforcement provision, which permits
the Plaintiffs to initiate proceedings in the Court to seek
compliance with the Decree's terms.  Mr. Dyous is currently
committed to the jurisdiction of the PSRB and resides at Dutcher
Enhanced Security Service at Whiting Forensic Hospital.

Pending before the Court is Dyous' motion for compliance.  Mr.
Dyous contends that the Defendants are violating the Decree by (1)
denying him Level 4 pass privileges,2 (2) banning internet and
e-mail access at Dutcher; (3) banning the use of cell phones and
tablets at Dutcher, and (4) not providing an "appropriate venue for
adult consensual relations to take place" at PSRB and Whiting
facilities.

The Defendants respond that the first claim is moot because as of
July 2019, Mr. Dyous now has a Level 4 pass.  They further assert
that the PSRB's involvement in the issuance of such passes is both
appropriate, and in some circumstances, required.  The Defendants
also argue that the bans on e-mail, electronic devices, and
consensual relations further legitimate safety and privacy
interests and, in any event, are not matters addressed in or
covered by the Decree.

Judge Dooley agrees that Dyous' motion is moot to the extent that
it seeks to compel issuance of a Level 4 pass.  The Judge finds
that at the time of the filing of his motion, Mr. Dyous had only a
Level 3 pass, which permits trips into the community with staff
supervision.  By June 2019, and after the filing of the instant
motion, Mr. Dyous had several community trips in which he
demonstrated such behavior that his treatment team and the Forensic
Review Committee supported a Level 4 pass.  Because the PSRB had
requested to be informed in advance of Whiting's intention to grant
Mr. Dyous a Level 4 pass, Whiting informed the PSRB of the
decision.  In July 2019, Mr. Dyous was given a Level 4 pass.  The
PSRB has been so advised, but it is unknown what, if any, action
the PSRB might take in response.

Mr. Dyous also contends that Dutcher's practice and policy of
communicating with the PSRB in connection with the issuance of
Level 4 passes violates the Decree's requirement that PSRB patients
be provided with "clinically appropriate, individualized
treatment."  The Judge finds that Mr. Dyous is incorrect.  Nothing
in the Decree prohibits treatment facilities from consulting or
communicating with the PSRB about leave privileges.  The Decree, as
one would expect, is also consistent with Connecticut law, which
requires treatment facilities to apply to the PSRB for an order
authorizing temporary leave and conditional release.  Accordingly,
because the practice does not violate the Decree, the Motion for
Compliance is denied as to this issue.

As to Mr. Dyous' assertion that the Bans violate the Decree, the
Judge agrees with the Defendants that the Bans serve legitimate
safety and privacy interests and are not covered by the Decree, in
any event.  A review of the entire Decree reveals that nothing
therein prevents mental health facilities from adopting these types
of facility-wide policies to protect the safety and privacy of
patients and staff.

Moreover, the Medical Director of Whiting has identified specific
safety and privacy interests as mandating these restrictions.
Whiting bans the use of e-mail because it is not feasible for staff
members to monitor patient e-mail accounts to ensure that patients
are making only appropriate e-mail contacts with other patients,
staff, and the public.  Finally, Whiting does not provide private
locations for sexual activities for several reasons, including
concerns about patients' ability to consent, the risk of false
accusations of sexual misconduct and unwanted physical contact, and
the possibility that patients who have been the victims of sexual
assault or trauma could be re-traumatized.

For these reasons, Judge Dooley found Dyous' Motion for Compliance
moot in part and denied it otherwise.  The motion is moot to the
extent it seeks to compel issuance of a Level 4 pass.  The motion
is denied in all other respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2019 Memorandum of Decision
is available at https://is.gd/Kj9nMk from Leagle.com.

Roy H. Sastrom, Movant, pro se.

Anthony Dyous, Movant, pro se.

Patrick Arbelo, Movant, pro se.

Robert Schapira, Movant, pro se.

Kenneth B. Ruggles, Movant, pro se.

David Messenger, Movant, represented by John F. Geida, Law Office
of John F. Geida.


CROWN CASTLE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Crown Castle International Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend putative securities class action suits in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In February and March 2020, putative securities class action suits
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current officers.


The lawsuits were filed on behalf of investors that purchased or
otherwise acquired stock of the Company between February 26, 2018
and February 26, 2020.

The allegations relate to allegedly false or misleading statements
or other failures to disclose information about the Company's
business, operations and prospects.

The complaints seek unspecified money damages and the award of the
plaintiffs' costs and expenses incurred in the respective class
action.

The Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an
outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any,
with respect to these lawsuits.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously.

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

Crown Castle International Corp. owns, operates and leases shared
wireless infrastructure, including towers and other structures like
rooftops and small cell networks supported by fiber. The
Houston-based Company's wireless infrastructure is geographically
dispersed throughout the U.S., including Puerto Rico. The company
is based in Houston, Texas.


CURO: Shareholders Seek Approval of $9MM Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that shareholders of online lender Curo asked a
Kansas federal judge on July 31 to approve an almost $9 million
cash settlement to end class action allegations that the company
misled investors about its plans to phase out its lucrative payday
loan program in Canada. [GN]



CYCLE GEAR: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Guglielmo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH GUGLIELMO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CYCLE GEAR, INC., Defendant, Case
1:20-cv-05924 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2020) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website
-- www.cyclegear.com  -- is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction
to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Cycle Gear, Inc. provides motorcycle parts, apparels, and
accessories. The Company offers boots, leather apparels, gloves,
vests, protective gears, sunglasses, casual wear, motorcycle
accessories, tires, chains, sprockets, handlebars, alarms,
protective covers, and electronic accessories. Cycle Gear serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Paul Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


DELTA AIRLINES: Wins Final OK of Fan Suit Accord; $875K Fees OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned HOWARD FAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
DELTA AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-04599-SVW-SS (C.D. Cal.).

District Judge Stephen V. Wilson states that for purposes of this
Final Approval Order and Judgment ("Judgment"), the Court adopts
all defined terms as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
filed in this Action. The Court finds that the Settlement was made
and entered into in good faith and approves the Settlement as fair,
adequate and reasonable to all Class Members.

No objections were received. Any Class Members, who have not timely
and validly requested exclusion from the Class, are thus bound by
this Judgment. Valid and timely Requests for Exclusion were
submitted by three (3) Class Members: 1. John Dessert, 2. Richard
Keating and 3. Kevin Channe.

For purposes of effectuating the Settlement, the Court finally
certifies this Class:

     All persons employed by Delta Air Lines, Inc., in non-exempt
     positions in California (excluding flight attendants and
     pilots) at any time from July 1, 2017 through November 14,
     2019.

The certification of the Class is without prejudice to Plaintiff's
and Delta's rights under the Stipulation if the Stipulation and
this Judgment do not become effective, as provided in the
Stipulation.

The Court confirms the appointment of Plaintiff Howard Fan as class
representative, and Matern Law Group, PC, and Altshuler Berzon LLP
as Class Counsel for purposes of this settlement.

The funds for any check that remains uncashed after 180 days from
the date of issuance will go into a pool of funds to be divided pro
rata among all Class Members, who previously cashed their payment
(unless the Parties agree that the amount is less than $35,000, in
which case it shall be paid as a cy pres award to the Los Angeles
Center for Law and Justice). In such event, the Class Members whose
checks remain uncashed after 180 days, shall nevertheless remain
subject to the terms of the Judgment.

Attorney's fees and litigation costs are addressed in a
accompanying Order. Class Counsel are awarded $875,000 in
attorney's fees and $22,602.26 in costs. Plaintiff Howard Fan shall
be paid a Class Representative Service Award in the amount of
$10,000 from the Gross Settlement Amount in accordance with the
terms of the Stipulation. The Settlement Administrator shall be
paid $45,000.00 from the Gross Settlement Amount for the costs and
expenses of administering the Settlement.

A payment in the amount of $100,000 from the Gross Settlement
Amount shall be allocated to penalties under The Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code sections 2698,
et seq., and paid by the Settlement Administrator directly to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 21, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybz3p65s from Leagle.com.


DENNY'S INC: Court Grants Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Deleon
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony J Oncidi, Esq. -- aoncidi@proskauer.com -- and Philippe A.
Lebel, Esq. -- plebel@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that for years, federal
courts in California have been inundated with wage and hour class
actions.  Because these cases often clogged district court dockets
for months (and, sometimes, even years) on end, the Central
District of California issued the former Local Rule 23-3, which set
a 90-day deadline to file a motion for class certification from the
filing of a complaint in or removal of an action to federal court.
In 2018, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the 90-day deadline, but
judges continue to manage their dockets by imposing shorter than
average deadlines to keep cases moving.  And, as a recent Central
District Judge's order demonstrates, these deadlines are firm, even
during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On July 22, 2020, Judge John F. Walter issued an order granting
Denny's Inc.'s motion to strike plaintiffs Myra Deleon and Karla
Jiminez's ("Plaintiffs'") class allegations.  Plaintiffs had filed
their putative wage and hour class action in California Superior
Court on October 28, 2019, and Denny's removed it to federal court
on February 3, 2020.  Approximately a month later, the District
Court issued a Scheduling Order requiring Plaintiffs to file their
motion for class certification 120 days after removal—i.e., by
June 2, 2020.  When Plaintiffs failed to meet that deadline,
Denny's filed a motion to strike their class allegations.

In arguing that their failure to meet the deadline constituted
"excusable neglect," Plaintiffs' counsel invoked what amounted to a
the "dog ate my homework" argument, with a COVID-19 angle:  They
claimed that the staff member responsible for calendaring deadlines
had been on a leave of absence and, due to COVID-19
shelter-in-place orders, their office staff did not discover the
issue because all support staff had been furloughed.  However,
Denny's presented evidence that the employee's leave actually began
eight days after the Court's Scheduling Order, which was issued
more than two weeks before the shelter-in-place orders that
purportedly triggered staff furloughs.  The Court also noted that
Plaintiffs' counsel were ultimately responsible for managing their
deadlines -- and could not get away with simply delegating their
obligations to furloughed (non-attorney) staff.  The Court also
based its decision on the facts that Plaintiffs' counsel failed to
propound "even the most basic discovery requests" and had served
untimely responses to Denny's discovery—presumably based on the
mistaken belief that COVID-19 could be used as an excuse.  The
Court similarly rejected any argument that a lack of familiarity
with the Local Rules constituted a valid reason for missing the
deadline.

Ultimately, Judge Walter's order is a reminder of the importance of
diligent lawyering, including proper calendaring of deadlines even
in the time of a pandemic!  And, it is a clear indication that, in
the absence of truly extenuating circumstances, even COVID-19 is
not a "get out of jail free" card. [GN]


EASTMAN KODAK: Hagens Berman Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE: KODK) investors
with losses in excess of $250,000 to submit your losses now.  A
securities fraud class action has been filed and certain investors
may have valuable claims.

Class Period: July 27, 2020 - Aug. 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 13, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/KODK
Contact An Attorney Now: KODK@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Eastman Kodak Company (KODK) Securities Class Action:

The complaint alleges that Defendants perpetrated a scheme to
profit from the use of material non-public information by
misrepresenting and concealing material facts regarding a purported
deal Kodak reached with the U.S. International Development Finance
Corporation (DFC).

Specifically, on July 27, 2020, Defendants caused Kodak to issue a
statement to media outlets based in Rochester, New York, where
Kodak is headquartered, on the imminent public announcement of a
"new manufacturing initiative" involving the DFC and the response
to COVID-19. Following media publication of Kodak's initial
statement on the deal, the Company claimed this information was
released inadvertently.

That same day, Kodak granted several insiders options to purchase
approximately 1.885 million shares of the Company's common shares,
including Executive Chairman and CEO Jim Continenza, who received
options to purchase 1.75 million shares, and CFO David E.
Bullwinkle, who received options to purchase 45,000 shares.

On July 28, 2020, the price of Kodak's shares jumped 200% following
news that the Company had won a $765 million government loan from
the DFC to produce pharmaceutical materials, including ingredients
for COVID-19 drugs. Shares continued to surge by over 300% the next
day.  This massive stock price increase allowed Kodak insiders to
enrich themselves from the compensation scheme.

In days following the deal announcement, media outlets uncovered
Defendants' compensation scheme. As a result of these revelations,
the SEC is reportedly investigating, the DFC paused the deal, and
Kodak's share price has declined sharply thereby damaging Class
Period investors.

"We're focused on investors' losses and holding Kodak and its
insiders accountable for their fraudulent compensation scheme,"
said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you are a Kodak investor who lost over $250,000 on Class Period
investments, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.

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

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys.  The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation.  More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com.   [GN]

ENERGY RECOVERY: Klein Law Firm Reminds of September 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaints have been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Energy Recovery, Inc. There is
no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:ERII)
Class Period: August 2, 2017 - June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020

During the class period, Energy Recovery, Inc. allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company had different strategic perspectives
regarding commercialization of the Company's VorTeq technology than
Schlumberger Technology Corp., which had exclusive rights to the
use of VorTeq (ii) these differences created substantial risk of
early termination of the Company's exclusive licensing agreement
with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and
expectations of future license revenue was false and lacked
reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.

Learn about your recoverable losses in ERII:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form?id=8593&from=1

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

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

FIC RESTAURANTS: Court Denies $750K Settlement in Kirby FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New issued a
Memorandum-Decision and Order denying the Parties' Unopposed Motion
for Approval of their Settlement Agreement in the case captioned
BRITTANI KIRBY and KAREEM SULLIVAN, on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. FIC RESTAURANTS, INC., Case No. 5:19-CV-1306
(FJS/ML) (N.D.N.Y.).

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiffs Brittani Kirby and Kareem Sullivan
filed a Class Action Complaint against FIC Restaurants, Inc.,
alleging seven causes of action for various violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The
named Plaintiffs, who were tipped servers working at a Friendly's
restaurant in Syracuse, New York, generally alleged that the
Defendant failed to pay them minimum wage for all hours worked,
required them to work "off the clock" without pay, failed to pay
overtime and "spread of hours" compensation, failed to provide
annual wage notices and accurate wage statements, and failed to
provide a uniform maintenance allowance.

The Parties seek approval of the proposed settlement, as
memorialized in the Settlement Agreement and Release, which
requires the Defendant to pay a Gross Settlement Amount of
$750,000. According to the Agreement, after deductions for the
Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs, administrator fees, and
service awards, the remaining amount of money will be placed in a
Net Settlement Fund to cover the Defendant's obligations under the
Settlement. The Net Settlement Fund is designed to compensate a
nationwide class of the Defendant's employees ("the Settlement
Class") consisting of two subclasses.

The first subclass, the "New York Class," consists of "all current
and former tipped servers employed by Defendant at its restaurants
in New York," who were allegedly paid under full minimum wage for
all hours worked, required to work off the clock, or were not paid
overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week from
October 18, 2013, through the date of the Court's Approval Order.
The second subclass, the "FLSA Collective," includes "all current
and former tipped servers employed by Defendant at its restaurants
in New York, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Virginia, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania," who were
allegedly paid under full minimum wage for all hours worked,
required to work off the clock, or were not paid overtime for hours
worked in excess of forty hours per week from October 18, 2016,
through the date of the Court's Approval Order.

In denying the Motion, District Judge Frederick J. Scullin observes
that the proposed Settlement Agreement does not provide for any
other notice to the New York Class members; those class members
have not even received notice of the current action pending before
the Court. Moreover, as the Court in Xiao Ling Chen v. Xpressspa at
Terminal 4 JFK LLC, No. 15-CV-1347, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169758,
*15 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 3018) ("Chen I") noted in a very similar
case, "[i]f the Court dismisses the case, then recipients of the
settlement checks would have no litigation to opt in to." "Indeed,
it is not clear how this Court would have jurisdiction to decide
whether a settlement is fair with respect to individuals over whom
the Court has not yet acquired personal jurisdiction." Therefore,
the Court rejects the proposed Settlement Agreement with respect to
the New York Class.

As the Court discussed with respect to the New York Class, the
proposed Settlement Agreement deprives individuals of the
opportunity to be heard, requests that the Court determine the
fairness of the settlement simultaneously with its dismissal, and
inexplicably permits FLSA Collective members to "opt in" to a case
that has already been dismissed. Furthermore, this method does not
comply with the requirements in Section 216(b) of the FLSA. Thus,
the Court adopts the reasoning of the courts from the Eastern
District that have considered these issues and rejects the proposed
Settlement Agreement with respect to the FLSA Collective.

As the Court explained, the proposed procedure for notifying New
York Class and FLSA Collective members would call upon the Court to
decide the fairness of a settlement with respect to individuals,
who are not yet parties to the litigation and who have been
provided with no notice of the hearing; and, as such, it would
raise significant Due Process concerns. See Chen I, 2018 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 169758, at *15. Therefore, it does not make sense for the
Court to complete its analysis of the proposed attorneys' fees and
costs, administrator fees, and the proposed service awards now,
when none of those class and collective members have had an
opportunity to be heard. As such, the Court neither accepts nor
rejects these awards at this time and will only address them after
the Settlement Class members have been notified of the litigation
and are provided an opportunity to attend the fairness hearing.

Next Steps

To obtain the Court's approval of their settlement, Judge Scullin
states, the Parties must change the notice provision of their
proposed Settlement Agreement to comply with Rule 23 and the FLSA
requirements set forth in 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and Cheeks v.
Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 206 (2d Cir. 2015). The
Settlement Class must be made aware of the ongoing litigation,
their rights as part of the class, how potential class members can
opt-in to the settlement, and that they may attend the fairness
hearing. The Parties must then submit their revised Settlement
Agreement with the Court for preliminary approval.

If the Court preliminarily approves the Parties' revised Settlement
Agreement, the Parties would then need to send out the notices to
the proposed Settlement Class members. Only after the members of
the proposed Settlement Class have received their notices may the
Court hold a final fairness hearing. If the Court finds that the
Settlement Agreement is fair at that time, then the Court will
approve the final settlement, and the Parties can send the checks
to the Settlement Class members for depositing.

Conclusion

The Court accordingly orders that the Parties' motion to approve
the proposed settlement as articulated in the Settlement Agreement
is denied; to the extent the Parties are requesting that the Court
certify the New York Class as defined in Section 2.16 of the
proposed Settlement Agreement, that request is granted; and the
Parties revise their proposed Settlement Agreement and re-file it
with the Court for preliminary approval within thirty (30) days of
the date of this Memorandum-Decision and Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Memorandum
Decision and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yafysep3
from Leagle.com.


FIDELITY BROKERAGE: Helms Sues Over Refusal to Disburse Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Helms, Jr., individually, and As Trustee and Beneficiary,
on behalf of the John M. Helms Exempt Trust v. Fidelity Brokerage
Services LLC, d/b/a Fidelity Investments, Case No. DC-20-10398
(Tex. Dist., Dallas Cty., July 30, 2020), is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that
Fidelity has unjustifiably and illegally refused to disburse the
funds that the Plaintiff has requested.

According to the complaint, Fidelity does not dispute the fact that
the funds are in the account and that they belong to the Plaintiff,
nor does Fidelity dispute that the Plaintiff has every right to the
funds immediately. Instead, Fidelity has engaged in a pattern of
conduct designed to prevent the Plaintiff from having access to
their money.

John M. Helms Exempt Trust is a Texas trust. The sole beneficiary
is John M. Helms.

Fidelity provides financial brokerage services. The Company
specializes in buying and selling securities, such as stocks,
bonds, and mutual funds.[BN]

The Plaintiff represents himself:

          John M. Helms, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHN M. HELMS
          8100 John W. Carpenter Fwy., Suite 200
          Dallas, TX
          Telephone: (469) 951-8496
          E-mail: John@johnhelmslaw.com


FIRST ENERGY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 4 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of FirstEnergy
Corp. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have
until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details
about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost
or obligation to you.

FE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/firstenergy-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=8351&wire=1

FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE:FE)

FE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 21, 2017
- July 21, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/firstenergy-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=8351&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
FirstEnergy Corp. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the legislative
"solutions" that defendants claimed would resolve problems with the
Company's nuclear facilities were centered on an illicit campaign
to corrupt high-profile state legislators and thus secure
legislation favoring the FirstEnergy; (2) over roughly three years,
FirstEnergy and its affiliates funneled more than $60 million to
prominent state politicians and lobbyists, including Ohio Speaker
Larry Householder, in order to secure the passage of Ohio House
Bill 6, which provided a $1.3 billion ratepayer-funded bailout to
keep the Company's failing nuclear facilities in operation; (3)
defendants falsely represented that they were complying with state
and federal laws and regulations regarding regulatory matters
throughout the Class Period, exposing the Company and its investors
to the extreme risks of reputational, legal, and financial harm;
(4) as a result of defendants' false statements and omissions,
FirstEnergy insiders were able to sell more than $17 million worth
of their FirstEnergy shares at artificially inflated prices.

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

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

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

FORD MOTOR: App. Court Flips Denial of MCPA Claims Dismissal in Cyr
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Michigan reversed a trial court order
denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case commenced by Jordan
Cyr, et al. against Ford Motor Company over defective vehicle
transmissions.

The appellate case is JORDAN CYR, JANIS AICHINGER, CAROL ALSAY,
SONJA ALVAREZ, BRANDON ANDERSON, WALTER BARANOWSKI, JESSICA
BERNIER, JESSIE BROWN, ALONSO CANO, DESIREE CAREY, KATHLEEN L.
CARMAN, JULIE CASTAGNO, RUSSELL CHATWIN, DEBRA CHEETHAM, JESSICA
EVANGELINE CHRISTIE, TARRAH CIARIMBOLI, KEE CLAAR, MAUREEN CLEMON,
JAAVON COLBERT, KAYLA COLEMAN, HEIDI COLLISON, ERICA COOPER,
NICHOLE CRUZ, LARRY DENNISON, TAWNY DMYTRIW, SHERYL DODD, NICOLE
DORR, LESLIE DOUGLASS, BRIAN DOWNING, GABRILLE DRAYTON, SYDNEY
DRENNAN, CALEB DUDA, JACKIE EASTERWOOD, PAMELA ENDERLE, JENNIFER
FAIRCLOTH, TERESA GANN, MELISSA GERKIN, HEATHER GOGGINS, JENNA
GRAHAM, ELIZABETH GRAY, LINDSAY GREGORY, CHRISTINA GUERRERO, FRANK
GUTIERREZ, JASON HAMEL, VIRGINIA HAMM, JILLIAN HARDMAN, JOANN
HEADY, ADRIENNE HERBST, CARMEN HERNANDEZ, SAMANTHA HILL, JENNIFER
HOBSON, TOMEKA HURSE, SARAH JACOB, JEREMIAH JOHNSON, ROBERT
KALBAUGH, OLIVIA KELLOGG, KAY KING, ROCHELLE KING, NICK LAPOINTE,
KAYCEE LARSON, BETTY LEASURE, BRENDA LIMBRICK-SANDERS, JENNA
LITTLE, ALMA MARTIN, RICHARD McCARTHY, RICHARD MCGUIRE, JR., ANNA
MEADER, GARY MICHAEL, AMANDA MILLER, ANGELA MILLER, JULIEANNA
MORALES, LISA MURPHY, PAMELA NEARING, DAVID NEWLAND, ASHLEY
NICHOLSON, PAM NORTON, SUSIE OLAUGHLIN, KENDRA PEELER, MARISSA
PETTIT, AMBER PHELPS, GABRIELLE POWLOSKY, JAMES PRATT, JOSOFAT
RENDON, ELISE RISPOLI, AIDA RIVAS, NICHOLE ROM, MELANIE RUSSELL,
JOSH SENTINELLA, JONATHAN SIVERT, MALLORY SMITH, NIKKI SMITH,
BRANDI SNIDER, DEBORAH SNOW, TERESA SPURGER, JANAI STANBERRY,
JENNIFER TAYLOR, JEREMY TESSIER, SARA TOBIAS, JORDAN TRUPPNER,
SARAH VAN TASSEL, JOSE VAZQUEZ, LEE VINES, TRACEY VOELTNER, HANNAH
WARE, THELMA WARFORD, IMEISHA WASHINGTON, JAPONICA WATERS, VIRGINIA
WHEELER, ROBYN WHITE, VITINA WHITE, SUE WILSON, WILLIAM WISE, DONNA
WOJCIK, VICTORIA WOODS, MANDI WRIGHT, MICHAEL YATES, CRYSTAL YODER,
and SHAWN ROBERT JOLLY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 345751 (Mich. App.).

The case is one of 83 consolidated cases filed in the Wayne Circuit
Court involving more than 12,000 plaintiffs, all of whom opted out
of a class action against Ford alleging defective transmissions in
Ford's vehicles, specifically the 2011-2016 Fiesta and the
2012-2016 Focus. Plaintiffs are residents of all 50 states, plus
Canada and Puerto Rico.

Plaintiffs' second amended complaint alleges eight essential
counts: (1) breach of express warranties, (2) breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, (3) revocation of acceptance, (4)
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA),  (5) violation
of the MCPA, (6) unconscionability under the Michigan Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC), (7) fraud, misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, and (8) unjust enrichment.

In February 2018, Ford filed a motion seeking summary disposition
of plaintiffs' MCPA claims and dismissal of the nonresident
plaintiffs' claims under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.  The
trial court denied the motion.  Ford appeals those decisions.

On appeal, Ford argues that the trial court erred by holding that
it was not entitled to the statutory exemption from MCPA liability
that is set forth by MCL 445.904(1).  The Appellate Court agrees.

The Appellate Court notes that under the rule of law announced in
Liss v Lewiston-Richards, Inc., the extensive regulatory and
licensing framework of the automotive industry under state and
federal law explicitly sanctions the manufacture, sale, and lease
of automobiles, and the provision of express and implied warranties
concerning those automobiles and their components.  Therefore, such
conduct is "specifically authorized" under state and federal law.
Furthermore, several of the laws governing the automotive industry
in those respects are administered by a regulatory board or officer
acting under federal or state statutory authority.  Hence, the
Appellate Court concludes that Ford is exempt from plaintiffs' MCPA
claims under MCL 445.904(1).  Accordingly, the trial court erred by
denying Ford summary disposition of the MCPA claims, the Appellate
Court finds.

Ford next argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
refusing to dismiss the nonresident plaintiffs' claims under the
doctrine of forum non conveniens.  The Appellate Court agrees.

Without any reference to the language of the express agreements or
to the choice-of-law principles set forth in Chrysler Corp v
Skyline Indus Servs, Inc, the trial court held that plaintiffs'
breach-of-warranty claims would be governed by Michigan law
exclusively.  By so holding, the trial court erred, the Appellate
Court opines. Rather, based on the express warranty language cited
by Ford, the contractual claims should be governed by the law of
the states in which the subject vehicles were purchased.

In the present case, the administrative difficulties attending the
adjudication of these "mass actions" in Michigan would be
pronounced, the Appellate Court notes.  The case involves 83
consolidated cases and thousands of parties, with each of the
roughly 12,000 plaintiffs asserting eight distinct claims.  The
sheer volume of individual claims would make the case difficult to
manage, and the choice-of-law implications will only complicate
matters.  Standing alone, the breach-of-warranty claims would
require the trial court to apply the contract law of dozens of
other jurisdictions.  That would be an exceedingly difficult task
for an appellate court; it would likely prove to be an impossible
one for the trial court.  Moreover, the Appellate Court fails to
see how residents of other states or other nations, who purchased
vehicles in other jurisdictions, can avail themselves of statutory
claims related to those purchases under Michigan law.  Such novel
questions of law are bound to arise in mass litigation like this
when it is pursued in a single forum, but there would be no such
questions if the nonresident plaintiffs sought recourse to the
courts of their own respective states under local law.  As a
practical matter, given that plaintiffs' contractual claims are
subject to the law of the jurisdiction where the subject vehicles
were purchased or leased, adjudication of all of their claims in
those fora would be far more efficient.  It would be far easier for
a court in each state to apply its local contract law than it would
be for one court in this state to independently research and apply
the law of all of the others.  Also, although Michigan may have a
vested interest in adjudicating the noncontractual claims against
Ford in this action, it seems that the nonresident plaintiffs' home
jurisdictions have at least an equal stake in adjudicating
controversies that affect their citizens' rights.  And the Michigan

state also has an interest in dissuading this sort of mass
automotive litigation from habitually clogging its court system.
Therefore, the Appellate Court concludes that the public-interest
factors, on the whole, clearly favor resolution of the nonresident
plaintiffs' claims in their home fora rather than in Michigan.

The trial court concluded that Ford had unduly delayed in asserting
forum non conveniens against the nonresident plaintiffs. Ford first
raised the issue on July 17, 2017 - in its first responsive filing
- in which it asserted, as an affirmative defense, that "[a]ll
non-resident Plaintiffs should be dismissed under the doctrine of
forum non conveniens." Because Ford raised this issue at the very
outset of this litigation, and filed its motion to dismiss before
answering plaintiffs' second amended complaint, the trial court was
mistaken when it found that Ford had unduly delayed, the Appellate
Court finds.

In sum, the Appellate Court reverses and remands for further
proceedings.  On remand, the trial court shall enter an order
granting Ford summary disposition of the MCPA claims and dismissing
the nonresident plaintiffs from this suit without prejudice on
grounds of forum non conveniens.  The Appellate Court do not retain
jurisdiction.  

The full-text copy of the Appellate Court's December 2019 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/vp5f9ur from Leagle.com

DANI LIBLANG , 346 Park St. Suite 200, Birmingham, Michigan 48009,
for JORDAN CYR, Plaintiff-Appellee.

JILL M. WHEATON - jwheaton@dykema.com - for FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.


FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Bushansky Sues over Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; MARK
JENSEN, YEHEZKEL YESHURUN; ENRIQUE SALEM; THERESIA GOUW; JAMES
BEER; MICHAEL DECESARE; DAVID G. DEWALT; ELIZABETH HACKENSON; and
KATHY MCELLIGOTT, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-05283 (N.D. Cal.,
July 31, 2020) alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Plaintiff filed a securities class action against the
Defendants on behalf of all other public stockholders of Forescout
Technologies, Inc. ("Forescout" or the "Company"), against
Forescout and the members of Forescout's Board of Directors (the
"Board" or the "Individual Defendants," collectively with the
Company, the "Defendants") for their violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), as a result of the
Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to an investor group led by
Advent International Corporation ("Advent") and Crosspoint Capital
Partners ("Crosspoint") through Advent's affiliates Ferrari Group
Holdings, L.P. ("Parent") and Ferrari Merger Sub, Inc.
("Purchaser") as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price,
and to enjoin the expiration of a tender offer (the "Tender Offer")
on a proposed all cash transaction valued at approximately $1.43
billion (the "Proposed Transaction").

On July 20, 2020, Forescout filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (the "Recommendation Statement") with
the SEC in support of the Proposed Transaction.

In violation of the Exchange Act and their fiduciary duties, the
Defendants caused to be filed the materially deficient
Recommendation Statement on July 20, 2020 with the SEC in an effort
to solicit stockholders to tender their Forescout shares in favor
of the Proposed Transaction. The Recommendation Statement is
materially deficient and deprives Forescout's stockholders of the
information they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational
decision of whether to tender their shares in favor of the Proposed
Transaction. As detailed below, the Recommendation Statement omits
and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) the Company's financial projections and the data and
inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan Stanley"); (ii) Morgan Stanley's
and Company insiders' potential conflicts of interest; and (iii)
the background of the Proposed Transaction.

Forescout Technologies, Inc. provides automated security control
solutions. The Company develops proprietary agentless technology
that discovers and classifies IP-based devices in real time as they
connect to the network and monitors their security posture.
Forescout Technologies serves industries and organizations
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com


GEO GROUP: Schall Law Reminds of Sept. 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against The GEO
Group, Inc. ("GEO" or "the Company") (NYSE:GEO) for violations of
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
27, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 8, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. GEO's COVID-19 response procedures were
ineffective. The Company's failure to maintain appropriate response
procedures placed the residents of its halfway houses at risk.
Placing its residents at significant health risk, in turn, made the
Company vulnerable to financial and reputational harm. Based on
this news, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about GEO, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 4 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Guidewire
Software, Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff
have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further
details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

GWRE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8351&wire=1

Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE:GWRE)

GWRE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 6, 2019 -
March 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8351&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Guidewire Software, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's
transition to the cloud was not going well; (2) that Guidewire's
cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet customer needs
and catch up with rival systems; (3) that the Company's failed
transition to the cloud was also hurting Guidewire's traditional
on-premise business; and (4) as a result, Guidewire's revenue
guidance, including guidance principally based on significantly
increasing demand for the Company's cloud-based products, was
baseless and unattainable.

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

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

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

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: McManis Atty. Discusses Ruling in Greene Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Hammon, Esq. -- phammon@mcmanislaw.com -- of McManis
Faulkner, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in a case focused
on the intersection between two uniquely American institutions--the
Harley-Davidson motorcycle and the class action--the Ninth Circuit
answered "a technical, but unresolved question" in Greene v.
Harley-Davidson, Inc., No. 20-55281, 2020 WL 3969285 (9th Cir. July
14, 2020).  In Greene, the Court of Appeals held that a defendant
may rely on past punitive damages awards in earlier cases in which
the same causes of action were asserted in order to calculate the
amount in controversy for asserting CAFA jurisdiction.  In so
finding, the Ninth Circuit has significantly eased a class action
defendant's burden in seeking to remove a case to federal court.

Background

Matthew Greene filed a putative class action against
Harley-Davidson on June 11, 2019, in California state court,
asserting eight (8) causes of action, including for violations of
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), fraud, false advertising,
and unfair competition.  In his complaint, Greene claimed he
suffered $1,399 in damages, which he asserted amounted to
$1,000,000 per year in class-wide damages, for the period beginning
June 11, 2015 through August 23, 2017.

Harley-Davidson removed the case, invoking federal jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), arguing that the
claimed damages satisfied CAFA's $5 million amount-in-controversy
requirement because (1) the class's compensatory damages amounted
to $2.1 million (or $1.0 million per year for the class period),
(2) there were approximately $2.1 million at stake in punitive
damages (based on a 1:1 punitive/compensatory damages ratio), and
(3) a potential $1.0 million award in attorneys' fees was also
possible.

Greene moved to remand, arguing that any punitive damages
calculation could only be based on his individual damages (i.e.,
$1,399), not the class claims (i.e., $2.1 million).  He also
challenged Harley-Davidson's attorneys' fees amount, claiming that
such fees would come out of the total damages, and therefore should
not be added to the total amount in controversy.

The district court granted Greene's motion to remand.  In doing so,
the court concluded that any potential punitive damages award had
to be based upon Greene's individual damages, not those of the
entire class.  Additionally, the court rejected Harley-Davidson's
argument that punitive damages awards from several past cases in
which similar claims were asserted, and in which juries had awarded
punitive damages on at least a 1:1 ratio, could be used for
projecting punitive damages to determine CAFA jurisdiction.  The
court found Harley-Davidson's showing insufficient since the
defendant had made "no attempt to analogize or explain how [such]
cases [we]re similar to the instant action."  Harley-Davidson
appealed.

Decision

The Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court, finding that
Harley-Davidson had shown there was more than $5 million in
controversy.  The Court of Appeals started its analysis by
explaining that the amount in controversy requirement refers to
"possible liability," not "likely or probable liability."

The Court held that one way a defendant could meet its burden of
showing its "possible liability" is to cite cases involving the
same or similar statutes or claims in which a jury or court awarded
punitive damages based upon the same punitive/compensatory damages
ratio asserted in the defendant's removal notice.  The Ninth
Circuit rejected the district court's logic, which would have
required Harley-Davidson not just to cite such cases, but also to
show how they were similar to its own, explaining that such a
standard would have effectively changed the amount-in-controversy
requirement from "possible liability" to "probable liability."  The
Court of Appeals also rejected the district court's paradigm
because it would create "practical difficulties" for a defendant
asked to analogize a case at the pleading stage to cases tried to
verdict, something the Court called "all but impossible."

While the Court did not specifically address Greene's position that
any such punitive damages estimation should be based upon his
claimed damages alone, rather than those of the class, in finding
that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, the Ninth
Circuit impliedly rejected that argument.

Impact

While ordinarily there is a presumption against federal
jurisdiction in typical diversity cases (see, e.g., Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992)), Greene confirmed there is
"no antiremoval presumption [in] cases invoking CAFA."  Instead,
the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the jurisdictional inquiry under
CAFA is to be simple and mechanical, making it plain that a
defendant seeking to remove merely needs to cite—not
analogize—cases involving similar causes of action to support the
asserted punitive/compensatory ratio for the purpose of calculating
the amount in controversy.  In sum, the Greene decision paves a
clear path for class action defendants to remove cases to federal
court without going through the difficult exercise of estimating
their actual liability. [GN]


HERSHEY: Averts Class Action Over White Kit Kats
------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
judge has thrown out a lawsuit against Hershey that claimed
customers expecting white chocolate in white Kit Kats are being
misled -- becoming at least the second court to recently cite the
dictionary while rejecting the creative claims of class action
lawyers.

Judge Kiyo Matsumoto, of New York's Eastern District, on July 27
dismissed a proposed class action against Hershey with prejudice,
writing that any effort by plaintiff Eva Rivas and her attorneys to
amend their claims would be futile.

Hershey never claimed white Kit Kats are made with the amount of
cocoa that defines what is white chocolate. Instead, the package
only claims they are "white."

Plaintiffs lawyers claimed customers were misled because the
products are placed next to chocolate bars in store displays.

Matsumoto turned to the Merriam-Webster dictionary to point out
white is "the color of new snow or milk."

"There is no dispute that the Kit Kat White is, as the modifying
adjective suggests, white in color," Matsumoto wrote.

"Plaintiff's complaint alleges no plausible facts that the presence
of the word 'white' on the package of Kit Kat White bars gives rise
to a plausible claim that consumers would be misled into believing
that chocolate was an ingredient."

In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit threw
out a case against Dunkin' Donuts over an Angus steak product. The
beef was ground, and plaintiffs lawyers claimed customers expect
steak products to be one solid piece of meat.

But steak is also defined as "ground beef prepared for cooking or
for serving in the manner of a steak," the Second Circuit said in
citing the dictionary. Examples include chopped steak, hamburger
steak and Salisbury steak.



Matsumoto's white ruling follows the reasoning of other judges
tasked with these cases. Ghirardelli and Nestle won dismissal in
two Northern California cases over chocolate chips and white
chips.

Matsumoto also found that Rivas couldn't prove she was harmed
enough by the packaging to meet a $75,000 threshold for his court
to have jurisdiction. She only had a claim under one New York law
remaining at the end, and Matsumoto said it was implausible that
Rivas had purchased 38,000 Kit Kats.

Rivas would not be able to amend her lawsuit to add additional
misleading advertising claims because there was no misleading
advertising, the decision says.

"The gravamen of Plaintiff's complaint is that the Kit Kat White is
'intended to be viewed and understood as white chocolate, on the
labels, point-of-sale marketing, retailers' display ads and
promotion, television and radio ads and websites of
third-parties,'" the decision says.

"Crucially, there is no statement anywhere on Kit Kat White's
packaging, or in any Hershey advertisement cited by Plaintiff, that
describes the product as containing white chocolate."

The plaintiff's lawyer was Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates,
which is best known for the dozens of lawsuits it has filed over
vanilla flavoring in milk, ice cream and other products. [GN]


HOMEADVISOR INC: Marquette Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHRISTOPH MARQUETTE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HOMEADVISOR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:20-cv-01490-GAP-EJK (M.D. Fla., August 18, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant's representatives
made telemarketing calls to his cellular telephone number and the
cellular telephone numbers of Class members using an automatic
telephone dialing system without their prior express written
consent. The Defendant placed numerous unsolicited calls to the
Plaintiff's cellular phone and left several voicemails, despite the
inclusion of his number on the National Do Not Call registry.

HomeAdvisor, Inc. is a company that connects homeowners with
screened professionals to carry out home improvement, maintenance
and remodeling projects. It is headquartered in Denver, Colorado
with operational centers throughout the United States including
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Stefan Coleman, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
         201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (877) 333-9427
         Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
         E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

                - and –

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

IDEANOMICS INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of August 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Ideanomics, Inc. ("Ideanomics" or the
"Company")(NASDAQ: IDEX) and certain of its officers.   The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and indexed under 20-cv-05203, is on behalf
of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Ideanomics,
Inc. ("Ideanomics" or the "Company") securities between March 20,
2020, and June 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This
action is brought on behalf of the Class for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a) and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ideanomics securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 27, 2020, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Ideanomics purports to be a global company focused on facilitating
the adoption of commercial electric vehicles and developing next
generation financial services and Fintech products.  Ideanomics
common stock trades on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the ticker
"IDEX."  The Company is headquartered in New York, New York, and
maintains offices in Beijing and Qingdao, China.

In recent press releases, Ideanomics has lauded its "one million
square foot EV expo center in Qingdao, Shandong Province," in
China, also known as the Company's Mobile Energy Global (MEG)
Division, or the "MEG Center."  According to Ideanomics, the MEG
Center is "the largest auto trading market in Qingdao," China.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Ideanomics' MEG Center in
Qingdao was not "a one million square foot EV expo center"; (ii)
the Company had been using doctored or altered photographs of the
purported MEG Center in Qingdao; (iii) the Company's electric
vehicle business in China was not performing nearly as strong as
Ideanomics had represented; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On June 25, 2020, analyst Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") issued
a series of tweets in which it called Ideanomics "an egregious &
obvious fraud."  Hindenburg asserted that it found evidence that
Ideanomics had doctored photos for use in its press releases to
suggest that the Company owns or operates a vehicle sales center in
Qingdao, China, when it in fact does not.  Hindenburg further
asserted that it had an investigator go to Ideanomics' purported
MEG Center in Qingdao, China, where the investigator was unable to
find any trace of Ideanomics or its purported MEG Center.

Also on June 25, 2020, analyst J Capital Research issued a report
on Ideanomics entitled "Champion of Promotes." J Capital wrote, in
part, that "Ideanomics . . . is a zero. The company changes its
name and promotional story so frequently that it's hard to keep up.
One thing remains a constant, despite all the press releases,
buzzwords and hype: shareholders get wiped out."  J Capital
continued, in a tweet, that "[w]e called all the 'buyers' named in
[Ideanomics'] press releases this month. Not a single one had made
a purchase. One of them thanked us for alerting them to 'fake
news.'"

On this news, Ideanomics' stock price fell from its June 24, 2020
closing price of $3.09 per share to a June 25, 2020 closing price
of $2.44 per share, a one day drop of $0.65 per share, or
approximately 21%.

Then on June 26, 2020, Ideanomics issued a press release in which
it sought to "clarify the status" of its purported EV hub in
Qingdao, China.  In this release, Ideanomics walked back certain of
its prior statements regarding the MEG Center in Qingdao, stating
that it was launching three phases of its MEG Center that will
eventually total one million square feet.  The first phase,
according to Ideanomics, occupies only 215,000 square feet.

The stock price continued to plummet on June 26, 2020, dropping to
a close of $1.46 per share.  This represents a two day drop of
approximately 53%.

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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


IDEANOMICS INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that August 27, 2020 is
the deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class
action lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDEX) common stock
between March 20, 2020 and June 25, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The
case is captioned Lundy v. Ideanomics, Inc., No. 20-cv-04944, and
is assigned to Judge George B. Daniels. The Ideanomics class action
lawsuit charges Ideanomics and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Ideanomics common stock during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Ideanomics
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the Ideanomics class action lawsuit. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Ideanomics class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery of the Ideanomics class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Ideanomics class action
lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the
Ideanomics class action lawsuit, please provide your information
here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Ideanomics
class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than
August 27, 2020.

Ideanomics purports to be a global company focused on facilitating
the adoption of commercial electric vehicles (or "EVs") and
developing next generation financial services and Fintech products.
In recent press releases, Ideanomics has lauded its "one million
square foot EV expo center in Qingdao, Shandong Province," China,
also known as Ideanomics' Mobile Energy Global ("MEG") Division, or
the "MEG Center." According to Ideanomics, the MEG Center is "the
largest auto trading market in Qingdao," China.

The Ideanomics class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Ideanomics' MEG Center in Qingdao was not "a one million square
foot EV expo center"; (ii) Ideanomics had been using doctored or
altered photographs of the purported MEG Center in Qingdao; (iii)
Ideanomics' electric vehicle business in China was not performing
nearly as strong as Ideanomics had represented; and (iv) as a
result, Ideanomics' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On June 25, 2020, analyst Hindenburg Research issued a series of
tweets calling Ideanomics "an egregious [and] obvious fraud."
Hindenburg also asserted that it had found evidence that Ideanomics
doctored photos for use in its press releases to suggest that
Ideanomics owns or operates a vehicle sales center in Qingdao,
China, when it in fact it does not. Also that day, analyst J
Capital Research issued a report concluding that "Ideanomics . . .
is a zero. [Ideanomics] changes its name and promotional story so
frequently that it's hard to keep up. One thing remains a constant,
despite all the press releases, buzzwords and hype: shareholders
get wiped out." J Capital continued, in a tweet, stating that "[w]e
called all the ‘buyers' named in [Ideanomics'] press releases
this month. Not a single one had made a purchase. One of them
thanked us for alerting them to ‘fake news.'" On this news, the
price of Ideanomics stock fell approximately 21%.

Then on June 26, 2020, Ideanomics issued a press release in which
it sought to "clarify the status" of its purported EV hub in
Qingdao, China. In this release, Ideanomics walked back certain of
its prior statements regarding the MEG Center in Qingdao, stating
that it was launching three phases of its MEG Center that would
eventually total one million square feet. The first phase,
according to Ideanomics, occupies only 215,000 square feet. On this
news, the price of Ideanomics stock fell an additional 40%.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is
one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in
securities class action litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class
action recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS
Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual
SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both
amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action
settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the
securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on
behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries
for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in
implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the
financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys
are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations,
and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. [GN]


INSPERITY INC: Building Trades Fund Sues over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDING TRADES PENSION FUND OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
INSPERITY, INC.; PAUL J. SARVADI; and DOUGLAS S. SHARP, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05635 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2020) is a securities
class action brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Insperity common stock from
February 11, 2019 through February 11, 2020, inclusive, and alleges
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the truth about Insperity's deceptive
business practices was revealed through a series of disclosures.
First, on July 29, 2019, Insperity released its second quarter 2019
financial results. Despite delivering year-over-year growth and
meeting analysts' estimates, the Company offered disappointing
third quarter 2019 guidance and reduced its full-year 2019
guidance. Further, the Defendants revealed that in the second
quarter 2019, Insperity had experienced an increase in large
medical claim costs, which the Defendants described as an anomaly
which would not impact projected cost benefit trends. On this news,
Insperity shares fell $35.74 per share, or 25%.

Second, on November 4, 2019, Insperity released its third quarter
2019 financial results, which substantially missed analysts'
estimates and were materially down year-over-year. In addition,
Insperity materially reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. The
Defendants attributed these results to continued large medical
claim costs, which they again attempted to describe as a mere
anomaly to assuage investor concern. On this news, Insperity shares
fell by $36.29 per share, or 34%.

Finally, on February 11, 2020, after the close of trading,
Insperity released its fourth quarter and full-year 2019 financial
results. While the Company's results were in line with its
(repeatedly downgraded) financial forecasts, Insperity revealed
that large medical claims had again impacted the Company by
significantly increasing operational costs. Further, the Company
stated that it had restructured its contract with UnitedHealthcare
to no longer have financial responsibility for any medical claims
over $1 million. Finally, Insperity offered disappointingly bearish
guidance for the first quarter and full-year 2020. Analysts
immediately lowered their views on Insperity stock. For example,
analysts at Baird cut their rating from "Outperform" to "Neutral"
stating that "after three quarters, rising jumbo claims appear to
be a trend, not aberrational." On this news, Insperity shares
declined by $17.44 per share, or 20%.

Insperity, Inc. provides human resources and business optimization
services. The Company offers recruiting, employment screening,
retirement, business insurance, and technology services. Insperity
also provides performance and expense management, time and
attendance, and organizational planning software. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com
                  ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com


INTEL CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of investors that purchased Intel
Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC) securities between April 23, 2020 and
July 23, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until September
28, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.

On July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed that
production of its 7-nanometer chips would be delayed after the
Company had "identified a defect mode in [its] 7-nanometer process
that resulted in yield degradation."

On this news, the Company's share price fell by $9.81, or
approximately 16%, to close at $50.59 per share on July 24, 2020.

The complaint, filed on July 28, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
Intel had identified a defect mode in its 7-nanometer process that
resulted in yield degradation; (2) that, as a result, the Company
would experience a six-month delay in its production schedule for
7-nanometer products; (3) that Intel was reasonably likely to rely
on third-party foundries for manufacturing its 7-nanometer
products; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Intel was
reasonably likely to lose market share to its competitors who are
already selling 7-nanometer products; and (5) that, as a result of
the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Intel securities during the Class Period, are a
long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Melissa Fortunato or Marion Passmore by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

              About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

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

Contacts:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]


INTEL CORP: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC) investors who
have suffered losses in excess of $1 million to submit their losses
now. A securities fraud class action has been filed and certain
investors may have valuable claims. Hagens Berman also encourages
persons who may be able to assist the Firm's investigation of
possible securities fraud to contact the firm.

Class Period: April 23, 2020 - July 23, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sep. 28, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/INTC
Contact An Attorney Now: INTC@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Intel Corporation (INTC) Class Action:

The complaint alleges Intel and senior management misrepresented
and concealed manufacturing and performance issues with its next
generation 7-nanometer chips. Specifically, Intel touted its first
7nm chips, while omitting to disclose that: (1) Intel had
identified a defect mode in its 7-nanometer process that resulted
in yield degradation; (2) that, as a result, the Company would
experience a six-month delay in its production schedule for
7-nanometer products; (3) that Intel was reasonably likely to rely
on third-party foundries for manufacturing its 7-nanometer
products; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Intel was
reasonably likely to lose market share to its competitors who are
already selling 7-nanometer products.

The complaint alleges that investor learned the truth on July 23,
2020, when after the market closed, Intel disclosed production
delays for its 7-nanometer products after the Company had
"identified a defect mode in our seven-nanometer process that
resulted in yield degradation."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $9.81, or
approximately 16%, to close at $50.59 per share on July 24, 2020,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Intel misled
investors about the 7-nanometer schedule and related manufacturing
issues," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

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

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

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. [GN]


INTEL CORP: Matheson Sues Over Misleading Reports
-------------------------------------------------
LINDA MATHESON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTEL CORPORATION, ROBERT H. SWAN and GEORGE
S. DAVIS, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-05780 (N.D. Cal., August 17,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants issued false and
misleading statements about Intel's business and financial
condition with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
during the Class Period, from April 23, 2020 to July 23, 2020, in
order to attract investors and trade securities at artificially
high prices. The Defendants' representations about Intel's gross
margin performance and prospects and the timing and delivery of its
7-nanometer (nm) processor and its relation to demand for 10nm
processor products were each false and misleading in that they
omitted the true facts, including that: (a) Intel's 7nm processor
scheduled for release in 2021 was not on track; (b) the company's
gross margins and fiscal 2020 outlook had been adversely impacted
and would continue to be adversely impacted by continued
acceleration of 10nm production and simultaneous 7nm technology
development problems; (c) Senior Vice President Jim Keller was
pressing to utilize third-party foundries in order to be more
competitive in 10nm and 7nm production and planned to quit (or the
company was planning to terminate him) in the middle of the
development cycle; and (d) because of the ongoing process and
production defects of the 7nm products, the company was considering
material changes to its manufacturing protocols. Following the
disclosures of true facts about Intel's business and financial
condition and the departure of chief engineering officer Murthy
Renduchintala, the company's stock price declined from a close of
$50.59 per share on July 24, 2020, to a close of $49.57 per share
on July 27, 2020, on 107 million shares traded.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff and
Class members suffered damages in connection with their respective
purchases and sales of the company's securities during the Class
Period.

Intel Corporation is a company that designs and manufactures
hardware and software for computing, networking, data storage, and
communications solutions, with its principal executive offices
located in Santa Clara, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         Post Montgomery Center
         One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 288-4545
         Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
         E-mail: shawnw@rgrdaw.com

                - and –

         Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
         Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 231-1058
         Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
         E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                 danim@rgrdlaw.com

INTEL CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 3 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Intel Corporation ("Intel" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:INTC) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 23,
2020 and July 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 28, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Intel identified a fault in its
7-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation in its
product output. This manufacturing problem resulted in a six-month
delay in the Company's schedule for 7-nanometer products. The
Company was likely to rely on third-party foundries to help produce
the 7-nanometer products. The delays and other problems put the
Company at risk of losing market share to competitors already on
the market with 7-nanometer products. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Intel, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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


IOOF: Quinn Emanuel Discontinues Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Mike Taylor, writing for Money Management, reports that the
Institute of Public Accountants has called on the federal
government to extend the write-off initiative for 2017-2018.

IOOF has confirmed final settlement at no cost to itself of a class
action brought against law firm Quinn Emanuel linked, in part, to a
failed legal action mounted by the Australian Prudential Regulation
Authority (APRA).

IOOF confirmed to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) on July
28 that the Supreme Court of NSW had approved discontinuance of the
class action with no order as to costs.

IOOF said in its ASX statement that it was not making any payment
to the plaintiff, its lawyers, its funder or any class member.

Quinn Emanuel confirmed it was discontinuing the class action in
May.

The class action had been premised on APRA's ultimately failed
prosecution of IOOF directors and executives over alleged
misconduct.

The class action had alleged that IOOF shareholders had sustained
losses after misconduct and enforcement action by the Australian
Prudential Regulation Authority was revealed at the Royal
Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and
Financial Services Industry. [GN]


J2 GLOBAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges investors in J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: JCOM) to
submit their losses now.  The September 8, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in a securities fraud class action against J2 Global is
fast approaching.

Class Period: Oct. 5, 2015 – June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sep. 8, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/JCOM
Contact An Attorney Now: JCOM@hbsslaw.com
  844-916-0895
J2 Global (JCOM) Securities Fraud Class Action:

J2 Global is a digital media roll-up that has acquired 186
businesses since its inception.  Its CEO describes the Company's
"acquisition system" as its "single great competitive advantage."

The complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period
misrepresented and concealed that: (1) J2 Global engaged in
undisclosed related party transactions; (2) J2 Global used
misleading accounting to hide requisite impairments and
underperformance in acquisitions; and (3) several so-called
independent members of the Company board of directors and audit
committee were not disinterested.

The complaint alleges that investors began to learn the truth on
June 30, 2020, when research firm Hindenburg released a scathing
report about J2 accusing the Company of engaging in undisclosed
related party transactions and accounting manipulation.  Hindenburg
stated "[w]e . . . believe J2's opaque acquisition approach has
opened the door to egregious insider self-enrichment, which we
believe approximates $117 million to $172 million" and concluded
"We Believe J2 Global's Equity Is Uninvestable."

In response, the price of J2 Global shares traded sharply lower.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving J2 Global
intentionally misrepresented the success of its roll-up strategy,"
said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you purchased shares of J2 Global and suffered significant
losses, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding J2
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email JCOM@hbsslaw.com.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national law firm
with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty
attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers
and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its
successes is located at hbsslaw.com. [GN]


JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit over Xyrem Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------
A.F. OF L. – A.G.C. BUILDING TRADES WELFARE PLAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAZZ
PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.; WEST-WARD
PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.; HIKMA LABS INC.; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA
INC.; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; LUPIN LTD.; LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; and
LUPIN INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-06003 (S.D.N.Y., July 31,
2020) is a civil antitrust action arising out of the Defendants'
anticompetitive conduct that delayed generic competition in the
U.S. and its territories for Xyrem, a prescription drug product
approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in the U.S.
for treatment of cataplexy and daytime sleepiness in patients with
narcolepsy.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in unlawful and
anticompetitive tactics to maintain a monopoly in the market for
sodium oxybate in the U.S., including, inter alia, obtaining
invalid and unenforceable patents and improperly listing these
patents in the FDA's Orange Book; prosecuting sham litigation based
on fraudulent, invalid, or unenforceable patents; and settling that
litigation with payments in exchange for promises to delay generic
entry from drug manufacturers Roxane, Amneal, Lupin, Par, Ranbaxy,
Wockhardt, Watson, and Mallinckrodt.

The Defendants' anticompetitive behavior prevented, delayed, and
restricted competition in the market for Xyrem and AB-rated generic
versions ("generic versions") thereof in the United States. As a
result, no generic version of Xyrem has entered the market and full
generic competition will not occur until December 31, 2025 at the
earliest.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company is a specialty
biopharmaceutical company focused on improving patients' lives by
identifying, developing and commercializing innovative products
that address unmet medical needs. The Company has a diverse
portfolio of products in the areas of narcolepsy, oncology, pain
and psychiatry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
          Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 577-0050
          E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
                  mclerkin@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Loper, Esq.
          LOPER LAW LLC
          452 Government Street, Suite E
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251)288-8308
          E-mail: tloper@loperlawllc.com

               - and -

          Kimberly Calametti Walker, Esq.
          KIMBERLY C. WALKER, P.C.
          14438 Scenic Highway 98
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 928-8461
          E-mail: kwalker@kcwlawfirm.com


KENTUCKY FARM: Ky. App. Affirms Class Certification in Coates Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case, KENTUCKY FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Appellant, v. DAVID A. COATES AND BENITA HATFIELD,
Appellees, Case No. 2018-CA-001329-ME (Ky. App.), the Court of
Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the Nelson Circuit Court's
determination that the Appellees' claims can proceed as a class
action under Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 23.

On July 6, 2009, Defendant Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance
Co. ("KFB") began using a dual-purpose premium
installment/cancellation notice which purported to both notify the
policy owner(s) of the due date of their insurance premium
installment and notify the policy owner(s) that if the designated
premium was not received by the stated due date, their policy would
be cancelled effective on a date prior to the premium due date.

Since July 6, 2009, the court finds KFB used a notice identical in
form and substance to Dual-Purpose Notice to purportedly cancel
hundreds or thousands of policies.  The Plaintiffs and the
intervening Plaintiffs contend this form notice is not effective to
cancel automobile insurance policies under Kentucky Revised
Statutes ("KRS") 304.20-040 and KFB has illegally and ineffectively
claimed cancellation of hundreds or thousands of other such
policies.  They also allege that the mere fact that KFB cancelled
the subject policies, in and of itself, has caused and will
continue to cause pecuniary loss to named insureds.  The
intervening Plaintiffs, David A. Coates and Benita Hatfield (now
Sharp), are two such named insureds allegedly damaged.

The Plaintiffs and the intervening Plaintiffs seek to certify a
class of all similarly situated aggrieved KFB insureds.  

The circuit court went on to analyze the issues pursuant to CR 23
and ultimately defined the class as: For any policy of automobile
insurance written by KFB, or any of its affiliated companies, which
policy was in effect for at least 60 days, and which policy was
purportedly cancelled by KFB for non-payment of premium by use of a
Premium Notice having the dual purpose of notifying the policy
owner(s) and/or insured(s) of the due date of their insurance
premium installment and also notifying the policy owner(s) and/or
insured(s) that their policy will be cancelled if not received by
the stated due date, a class of all persons or entities who are or
were named insureds under said policy.

The circuit court entered its order on Aug. 23, 2018, granting the
Appellees' motion to certify the class (having also modified its
representatives) and appointing the counsel.  The interlocutory
appeal was filed by KFB pursuant to CR 23.06.

KFB first argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in
adopting the appellees' findings of fact.  Next, KFB contends that
the commonality requirement was not sufficiently satisfied under CR
23.01(b).  KFB further maintains that the typicality requirement
(CR 23.01(c)) was not met because resolution of the claims of
Coates and Hatfield "will not advance the claims of other class
members."  Next, KFB questions the circuit court's finding of
adequacy of the class representatives, i.e., whether the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

The only question that is before the Appellate Court is whether the
trial court's decision to certify the class in the case is
arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal
principles.  

In the present case, the Appellate Court finds no such abuse of
discretion.  First, the Appellate Court finds that Nelson Circuit
Court committed no abuse of discretion by requiring the parties to
submit proposed findings and accepting certain of those findings in
its judgment.  Next, the Appellate Court disagrees with KFB's
contention on commonality.  The Appellate Court says review under
CR 23.01(b) should focus on whether the Defendant's conduct was
common as to all of the class members.  And even if some
individualized determinations may be necessary to completely
resolve the claims of each putative class member, those are not the
focus of the commonality inquiry.  The circuit court did not abuse
its discretion in determining that KFB's conduct was common to all
of the class members.

The Appellate Court also finds that the focus when resolving the
typicality issue should be on whether all claims were based on the
same legal theory.  The Nelson Circuit Court ruled that the claims
of the Modified Class Representatives arise out of the same course
of conduct as the other class members' claims and are based upon
the same legal theory. The same alleged unlawful conduct -- use of
the Dual-Purpose Notice -- is directed at the entire class.  The
Appellate Court finds no abuse of discretion in holding that the
typicality requirement was met.

The Appellate Court further finds no error in the circuit court's
determination of the adequacy of the class representatives and
their retained counsel.  In its finding of adequacy, the circuit
court stated that the representatives' and the putative class
members' interests are "co-extensive and not in conflict" and that
they "have the common interest of determining whether KFB's
Dual-Purpose Notice violates KRS section 304.20-040."  Thus, the
named representatives share a common interest with the other class
members and are strongly pursuing these interests through the
appropriate legal counsel.

KFB fails in its burden to demonstrate that the predominance
determination was an abuse of discretion, and the Appellate Court
declines to set it aside.  The circuit court made the appropriate
decision to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages, with the
intent to address the latter question only after the resolution of
the central legal question.

The Appellate Court likewise finds no abuse of discretion in the
circuit court's finding that a class action is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy.  The circuit court based its superiority determination
on factors such as the geographic dispersal of the class, the
avoidance of duplication of actions, the ability to process claims
more quickly, and the ability to eliminate inconsistent outcomes.
These are all valid considerations.  The circuit court fails to see
how a class action in the case would not be superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy.  Allowing the case to proceed as a class action
consolidates all claims.

In light of the foregoing, the Appellate Court affirmed the class
certification order of the Nelson Circuit Court.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's October 2019 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/vUAzPy from Leagle.com.

Joseph L. Hamilton -- jhamilton@mirickoconnell.com -- Michael D.
Risley -- mrisley@stites.com -- Marjorie A. Farris --
mfarris@stites.com -- Louisville, Kentucky.

Robert Spragens, Jr. -- sh@spragenshigdonlaw.com -- Lebanon,
Kentucky, Briefs for Appellant.

Joseph H. Mattingly III -- joe@mattinglylawoffices.com -- Kaelin G.
Reed -- info@reed.law -- Lebanon, Kentucky.

Keith A. Sparks, Bardstown, Kentucky, Brief for Appellees.


KINGOLD JEWELRY: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 31 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Kingold
Jewelry, Inc. ("Kingold" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:KGJI) for
violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 15,
2018 and June 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 31, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Kingold fraudulently secured loans in a
scheme utilizing fake gold. As a result, the Company faces creditor
lawsuits and was delisted by the Shanghai Gold Exchange. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about Kingold, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


KIRKLAND LAKE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. ("Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd.")
(NYSE: KL) between January 8, 2018 and November 25, 2019. You are
hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/kirkland-lake-gold-ltd-information-request-form?prid=8328&wire=5

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) Kirkland lacked adequate internal controls
over financial reporting, especially as it relates to its
projections of risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs;
(ii) as a result of the known, but undisclosed, impending
acquisition of Detour, the Company's projections relating to its
risks, reserve grade, and all-in sustaining costs were false and
misleading; (iii) the Company's financial statements and
projections were not fairly presented in conformity with
International Financial Reporting Standards; (iv) based on the
foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.

If you suffered a loss in Kirkland Lake Gold Ltd. you have until
August 28, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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


MEDICAL DEPOT: Monegro Suit Alleges Violation of ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Medical Depot, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Medical Depot, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06087 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 4, 2020).

Medical Depot, Inc., doing business as Drive DeVilbiss Healthcare,
manufactures and distributes durable medical equipment. The Company
offers beds, wheelchairs, respiratory equipment, rehabilitation,
patient room, personal care, and electrotherapy devices. Drive
DeVilbiss Healthcare serves clients worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Paul Force, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com



METROPOLITAN DISTRICT: Sept. 3 Settlement Hearing in Paetzold Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patch reports that a settlement has been proposed in a class action
lawsuit pending in the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial
District of Hartford. The lawsuit alleges that the Metropolitan
District Commission ("MDC") charged customers in 4 towns (East
Granby, Farmington, Glastonbury, and South Windsor) an unlawful
surcharge (the "Surcharge") from 3/6/12 to 10/1/14. The case is
known as Paetzold v. MDC, Dkt. No. X07-HHD-CV-18-6090558-S. A
hearing is scheduled for September 3, 2020, to consider whether to
approve the Settlement and whether to award up to $1,920,000 (25%
of the total Settlement value) in Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
and/or $5,000 to each of the Class Representatives as a Service
Award.

A postcard was sent by MDC to property owners affected by this
suit. For resident convenience, the Town is passing along a
summarized excerpt of the postcard contents:

"Subject to certain exclusions, the class action affects: All
property owners who were charged the Surcharge by the Metropolitan
District Commission during the period from March 6, 2012 through
October 1, 2014. If you are receiving this notice, you are a Class
Member according. If you are included in this Class -- you would
have received a postcard in the mail from MDC.

If you did not receive a postcard, but you believe that your
property (or former property) is eligible for inclusion, please
contact Peatzhold or MDC. Please do NOT contact Town staff as we
have no involvement in this class action lawsuit."

As noted above, this is NOT a Town matter and therefore the Town of
Glastonbury and Water Pollution Control Authority do NOT have
specific details regarding this suit. If you have any questions,
please contact Peatzhold or MDC directly through the contact
information provided on the postcard or their respective websites.
[GN]


METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Mercado et al. Sue Over Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY MERCADO, TYRONE PRINGLE, ADAM ROMAN, KEVIN KNOIS, and
EDWARD KALANZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and
TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-06533 (S.D.N.Y., August 17, 2020) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated Bridge and Tunnel Officers the required overtime pay for
their off-the-clock worked hours; delaying the payment of overtime
compensation and other wages owed to them beyond the regular
payday; refusing to include certain compensation, differentials,
and bonuses in their regular rate of pay when calculating overtime;
and shaving their recorded work time.

The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendants as Bridge and
Tunnel Officers until the present.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is a public benefit
corporation responsible for public transportation in New York and
Connecticut, with its principal place of business located at 2
Broadway, New York, New York.

Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) is a transportation
and toll collection agency which operates seven intrastate toll
bridges and two tunnels in New York City. It is an affiliate agency
of MTA, with its principal place of business at the Robert Moses
Building Randall's Island, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq.
         Alex J. Hartzband, Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 983-9330
         Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
         E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com
                 ahartzband@faruqilaw.com

                - and –

         Joshua Beldner, Esq.
         Eric S. Tilton, Esq.
         TILTON BELDNER, LLP
         626 RXR Plaza
         Uniondale, NY 11556
         Telephone: (516) 262-3602
         Facsimile: (516) 324-2170
         E-mail: jbeldner@tiltonbeldner.com
                 etilton@tiltonbeldner.com

MORTGAGE LENDERS: Leave to Amend Answers in Charbonneau Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BEAU CHARBONNEAU, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MORTGAGE LENDERS OF AMERICA, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-2062-HLT-ADM (D. Kan.), Magistrate
Judge Angel D. Mitchell of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas denied Defendants Mortgage Lenders of America, LLC
("MLOA"), Bradley Ives, and Philip Kneibert's Motion for Leave to
Amend Answers.

MLOA provides online mortgage lending services.  It employed Beau
Charbonneau as a Team Lead and Loan Officer, originating loans for
individual customers.  In both positions, Charbonneau received
commission payments.

Charbonneau filed the lawsuit against MLOA in February 2018.  His
complaint alleges, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, that the Defendants failed to pay Team Leads and Loan
Officers overtime compensation and failed to pay Loan Officers
minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA, the
Kansas Wage Payment Act ("KWPA"), and Kansas common law.  He
brought the case as a putative FLSA collective action as to the
FLSA claims and as a putative Rule 23 class action as to the KWPA
and common law claims.

The Court convened the initial scheduling conference on June 13,
2018, and issued a scheduling order targeted at an initial round of
discovery and early mediation pending the Court's ruling on the
Plaintiff's then-anticipated motion for conditional certification
of the collective action.  On Dec. 6, 2018, the Court granted
conditional certification of two separate FLSA collective classes,
and the FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs subsequently filed their consents.


On April 18, 2019, the Court reconvened a Phase II scheduling
conference and entered a scheduling order that set the remaining
case management deadlines.  Among other things, the schedule set a
deadline for motions to amend the pleadings of Aug. 7, 2019, which
the court later extended to Aug. 16, 2019.

Charbonneau filed the operative Third Amended Complaint on Aug. 22,
2019, adding Defendants Bradley Ives and Philip Kneibert.  The
Defendants then filed their answers to the Third Amended
Complaint.

In December 2019, the parties moved for an approximately
three-month extension of all remaining pretrial deadlines because
of complications associated with ESI productions.  The Court
granted the motion in part and denied it in part.  Specifically, it
set the following key deadlines: the Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23
class certification by Feb. 21, 2020; substantial completion of
fact discovery by March 6; expert disclosures by March 6 and April
3; completion of all discovery by April 17; final pretrial
conference on May 1; and dispositive motions and motions to
decertify any class by May 7.  The Plaintiffs filed their motion
for Rule 23 class certification and the Defendants filed a motion
for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' KWPA and common law
claims.

On April 21, the parties filed a joint motion to continue various
case management deadlines because of disruptions associated with
the COVID pandemic, because the case had been recently reassigned
to a different district judge, and because the Court's ruling on
the then-pending motions could impact remaining case management
deadlines.  The Court granted the parties' joint motion to continue
and vacated the pretrial conference deadlines and the May 7 motions
deadline.

On June 1, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the FLSA exemptions that the Defendants had previously
asserted as defenses in the action.  The Defendants filed their
response on June 26, and the Plaintiffs filed their reply on July
14.  Meanwhile, on June 20, the Court granted the Defendants'
motion for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' KWPA and
common law claims and, as a result, denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for Rule 23 class certification as moot.

Thus, the current procedural posture of the case is as follows: (1)
discovery was (or should have been) complete by April 17; (2) the
Defendants already filed and the Court already decided the
Defendants' summary judgment motion; (3) the only claims remaining
are the Plaintiffs' FLSA collective action claims; and (4) the
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Defendants' asserted
FLSA exemption defenses is ripe.

Against this backdrop, the Court turns to the timing of the present
motion.  The Defendants filed the current motion to amend on June 9
-- nearly 10 months after the deadline for motions to amend the
pleadings, nearly two months after the April 17 close of all
discovery, and approximately one week after the Plaintiffs filed a
motion for partial summary judgment on the Defendants' other
asserted FLSA exemption defenses.  

By way of the instant motion, the Defendants seek leave to amend
their answers to add a defense under Section 7(i) of the FLSA.
Because the DOL withdrew 29 C.F.R. Section 779.317 on May 19, the
Defendants argue they may now assert in good faith that they
qualify for the Section 7(i) exemption.

In response, the Plaintiffs argue the DOL's withdrawal of this
interpretive rule had no effect on the exemption.  They point out
that the statute remains the same, and many courts have previously
held that loan companies like MLOA do not qualify as retail or
service establishments under Section 7(i).  The Plaintiffs
therefore ask the Court to deny the Defendants' leave to amend
their answers.

Magistrate Judge Mitchell concludes that the DOL's withdrawal of
the interpretive regulation did not change the governing law that
applies in the case.  As such, the Defendants' motion to amend is
untimely under the scheduling order, and they have not shown good
cause for an extension of the deadline to allow the belated motion.
Defendants also unduly delayed in moving to amend in that the
underlying law has not changed.  Thus, the Defendants could have
moved to amend their answers earlier if they truly believed they
had a good-faith argument that MLOA is a retail or service
establishment.  

The Plaintiffs would be unduly prejudiced by the belated amendment
because discovery is closed and the parties have fully briefed
dispositive motions (including the Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment on FLSA exemptions).  The case is on the brink of
being ready for trial.  Allowing the belated amendment would
unfairly put the Plaintiffs to significant time and expense
re-doing discovery and dispositive motions—and all for no
apparent reason because the defense Defendants now seek to assert
would be futile.  Mitchell still dictates that companies like MLOA
are not "retail or service establishments" as that term is used in
the FLSA.

The Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend Answers is accordingly
denied, the Court ruled.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yy62ctbj from Leagle.com.


NAPA STATE HOSPITAL: Atayde's Bid to Impose Sanctions Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiff's motion to compel certain Defendants to comply with
discovery orders, for sanctions, and a finding of contempt in the
case captioned LUCY ATAYDE v. NAPA STATE HOSPITAL, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-00398-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff filed this action on January 5, 2016, and is
proceeding on a second amended complaint filed on June 11, 2019.
The action involves the suicide of Richard Ramirez that occurred in
Merced County jail while he waited to be transferred to Napa State
Hospital after he was found incompetent to stand trial. Plaintiff
Lucy Atayde is proceeding individually and as successor in interest
of the decedent, and brings civil rights and wrongful death claims
against Napa State Hospital, Merced County, the jail medical
provider California Forensic Medical Group ("CFMG"), and the
individuals alleged to be involved. The Plaintiff brings claims for
punitive damages against the Individual Defendants and CFMG.

On December 6, 2019, the Plaintiff served requests for production
of documents, set four, on the individual State Defendants
requesting financial information relevant to the Plaintiff's claim
for punitive damages. Similar requests were served on the County
Defendants and CFMG, who the Plaintiff states has produced the
information requested subject to the protective order, "and did not
require extensive litigation to do so." On January 3, 2020, the
individual State Defendants did not produce responsive documents
and served objections to each request.

Following attempts at meeting and conferring regarding the
discovery, on February 7, 2020, the Court conducted an informal
discovery dispute conference at the parties' request. Following the
conference, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff's request
for an order compelling production of the discovery in question
(the "Discovery Order").

On May 4, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking to
compel the State Defendants' compliance with the financial
condition discovery orders, and requesting sanctions and a finding
of contempt. On the same date, the Plaintiff also filed two
declarations in support of the motion. On May 13, 2020, the State
Defendants filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to compel.
On May 20, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the Plaintiff's motion
via videoconference call.

Decision

The Court ruled that the Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as follows:

   1. Plaintiff's motion for evidentiary sanctions is DENIED;

   2. Plaintiff's motion for an order finding contempt is DENIED;

   3. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions in the form of attorneys'
      fees is GRANTED IN PART;

   4. The State of California, California Attorney General Xavier
      Becerra, Dolly Matteucci, Dana White, Patricia Tyler, Cindy
      Black, and Diane Mond,10 shall, jointly and severally, be
      obligated to pay $13,825.00 in attorneys' fees to
      Plaintiff, to be produced to the offices of Haddad &
      Sherwin LLP no later than fourteen (14) days from the date
      of this order;

   5. Plaintiff's request for an order compelling the State
      Defendants to comply with the previous orders of the Court
      is GRANTED, and within fourteen (14) days of entry of this
      order, the State Defendants shall produce the following
      financial condition information for the period from
      January 1, 2018, to the present:

      (a) Two most recent federal tax returns;

      (b) Monthly bank statements showing balances (charges and
          expenditures to be redacted);

      (c) Monthly, quarterly, and annual brokerage or investment
          statements showing balances;

      (d) Bank/creditor documentation of annual mortgage, credit
          card, and other debt balances; and

      (e) Pension balances.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yal9tdpl from Leagle.com.


NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Lord Abbett Fund Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit entitled, ord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc.,
et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative securities
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in
Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt.

These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court,
with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff. The caption of
the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al.
v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs filed their amended
and consolidated complaint in September 2016.

In September 2017, the Court granted the Navient defendants' motion
and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court in
November 2017 and the Navient defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in January 2018. In January 2019, the
Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the Navient defendants'
motion to dismiss.

The Navient defendants deny the allegations and intend to
vigorously defend against the allegation in this lawsuit. Discovery
is on-going.

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in NJ Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit entitled, In RE Navient Corporation
Securities Litigation.

Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient
Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown,
and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak
Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations
of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

After the cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018
under the caption In RE Navient Corporation Securities Litigation,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018
and the Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2018.

In December 2019, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
and discovery is on-going.

The Company continues to deny the allegations and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NG IMPORTS: Schneider Sues Over Unpaid OT, Separation Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NG IMPORTS, DBA MILANO COLLECTION
WIGS, and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV31332 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 18, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for several violations of the Private
Attorneys General Act of California Labor Code including failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
employees appropriate minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to provide meal
and/or rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, refusing to
pay wages due and owing upon separation of employment, failing to
furnish accurate itemized wage statements upon payment of wages,
and failing to reimburse them for business-related expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee from September 2017 until March 6, 2020.

NG Imports, d/b/a Milano Collection Wigs, is a manufacturer of hair
wigs, with its principal place of business located at 1450 East
33rd Street, Signal Hill, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
         Anna Salusky Mahoney, Esq.
         Lilit Tunyan, Esq.
         MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
         249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814,
         Long Beach, CA 90802
         Telephone: (562) 590-5550
         Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
         E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                 amahoney@mahoney-law.net
                 ltunyan@mahoney-law.net

NIKE INC: Face Mask Policy Violates ADA, Bunn Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
CALI BUNN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NIKE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-585683
(Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., July 30, 2020) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant implemented a mandatory
mask-wearing policy that requires its retail store employees to
wear Nike-supplied and Nike-branded masks made of cloth or other
opaque material whenever they interact with customers and
co-workers. Those masks create unique communications problems for
deaf and hard hearing people, because they muffle speech and block
visualization of the mouth are and facial expressions. The
Defendant's face mask requirement interferes with the Plaintiff's
ability to hear and communicate properly.

Nike, Inc. designs, develops, and markets athletic footwear,
apparel, equipment, and accessory products for men, women, and
children. The Company sells its products worldwide to retail
stores, through its own stores, subsidiaries, and distributors.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          Eve H. Cervantez, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post St., Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: mrubin@altber.com
                  ecervantez@altber.com

               - and -

          James F. Clapp, Esq.
          Marita Murphy Lauinger, Esq.
          CLAPP & LAUINGER LLP
          701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300
          Carlsbad, CA 92011
          Telephone: (760) 209-6565
          E-mail: jclapp@clapplegal.com
                  mlauinger@clapplegal.com


NORTON HEALTHCARE: Sup. Ct. OKs Reversal of Order in Disselkamp
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Kentucky issued an Opinion affirming the Court
of Appeals' judgment reversing the Trial Court's Order in the case
captioned NORTON HEALTHCARE, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee v.
DONNA DISSELKAMP, Appellee/Cross-Appellant and DONNA DISSELKAMP,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. NORTON HEALTH CARE, INC.,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Case No. 2018-SC-000274-DG,
2019-SC-000102-DG (Ky.).

Donna Disselkamp relied on circumstantial evidence at trial to
support her age-discrimination claim under the Kentucky Civil
Rights Act against her former employer, Norton Healthcare, Inc.
Under Kentucky case law, an age-discrimination claimant, like Ms.
Disselkamp, attempting to prove age discrimination using
circumstantial evidence must first make a legally sufficient
initial showing under what is known as the McDonnell Douglas
framework that she can prove, among other elements, that her
employer replaced her with a substantially younger person. The
primary issue is whether the Trial Court committed reversible error
by requiring the jury, rather than the Trial Court itself, to make
the specific factual determination about whether Norton replaced
Ms. Disselkamp with a substantially younger person. See McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36
L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973).

Like the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court holds that instructing
the jury to decide this McDonnell Douglas element was reversible
error by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirms
the decision of the Court of Appeals to reverse the judgment and
remand this case to the Trial Court for further proceedings.

Background

Ms. Disselkamp began working as a supervisor of Imaging Services at
Norton Suburban Hospital in 2002. Norton terminated Ms.
Disselkamp's employment in October 2012. At the time of her
termination, Ms. Disselkamp was 60 years old, had over 30 years'
experience in radiology and mammography, and had over seven years'
management experience. She provided evidence that Norton eventually
replaced her with a 48-year-old woman, Michele Meyers.

In February 2013, Ms. Disselkamp sent a demand letter to Norton
stating her legal claims against Norton, and the following month,
she sued Norton for age discrimination in violation of the Kentucky
Civil Rights Act and for retaliation under the theory that she was
terminated for complaining about her former supervisor's, Kevin
Hendrickson's, behavior before he was replaced by Lori Bischoff.

Throughout pretrial discovery, Ms. Disselkamp made repeated
requests for certain documents from Norton, seeking disclosure of
such things as any emails referencing the Corrective Action Report
(CAR) created for her alleged misconduct and her Quality Management
Team binder. Norton eventually conceded that it could not find some
of the requested documents and admitted that many of them had been
destroyed.

The protracted delay in Norton's response and the ultimate
unavailability of these documents prompted a motion from Ms.
Disselkamp for a missing-evidence jury instruction at trial. The
Trial Court denied this motion. After the Trial Court denied
Norton's motion for summary judgment, finding issues of material
fact concerning, among other things, whether Ms. Disselkamp was
replaced by a substantially younger employee, her case was tried
before a jury over a ten-day period. The jury returned a verdict in
Norton's favor on both of Ms. Disselkamp's claims.

Ms. Disselkamp appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals,
making the following arguments: (1) the Trial Court erred in not
allowing Pam McGinnis (a former co-worker) to be recalled as a
witness; (2) the Trial Court erred in declining to include a
missing-evidence, or spoliation, instruction; (3) the Trial Court
erred in including Norton's Human Resources Manager, Tracy Patton's
name among the list of potential retaliators in the retaliation
jury instruction; (4) the Trial Court erred in providing in the
retaliation jury instruction that the jury could find for her only
if it found that the individuals responsible for her termination
were aware that she complained about "harassment and gender
discrimination," making it seem as though the jury was required to
find that she complained about two separate matters; and (5) the
Trial Court erred in inserting the McDonnell Douglas
substantially-younger requirement into the age-discrimination jury
instruction.

The Court of Appeals found that the Trial Court had the authority
under KRE5 611 to determine whether it would allow McGinnis to be
recalled as a witness and held it was not an abuse of discretion to
deny Ms. Disselkamp's request to recall McGinnis. As to the second
argument, the Court of Appeals held the Trial Court did not abuse
its discretion in declining to give a missing-evidence instruction
because there was no evidence presented that the requested evidence
was "unaccountably missing" or was lost due to conduct by Norton
that went beyond "mere negligence." The Court of Appeals observed
that even if the failure to give a missing-evidence instruction
were an abuse of discretion, the Trial Court's failure here was
harmless.

The Court of Appeals also found, among other things, that including
Patton's name in the retaliation instruction, even if erroneous,
was harmless because the instruction allowed the jury to find for
Disselkamp if either "Richard Shilling, Lori Bischoff, or Tracy
Patton" retaliated against Ms. Disselkamp, and it was not
prejudicial because there was evidence presented that Patton
participated in the decision to terminate. As to the fourth
argument, the Court of Appeals found that this argument was not
preserved for appeal because Ms. Disselkamp did not object when the
Trial Court offered a retaliation instruction that required the
jury to find that she complained of "harassment and gender
discrimination," and her tendered jury instructions on the claim
were not sufficiently different to alert the Trial Court to the
alleged error.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case to
the Trial Court based on Ms. Disselkamp's fifth argument. Here, the
appellate panel agreed with Ms. Disselkamp that the
substantially-younger requirement should not have been included in
the jury instructions because substantially younger was a legal
question for the Trial Court to determine based on the
circumstances of the case. The Court of Appeals noted that the
Kentucky Civil Rights Act, is interpreted consistently with
applicable federal anti-discrimination laws, and Age discrimination
cases under the federal [a]ge Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C.9 Sections 621-634, are analyzed under the same
framework as employment discrimination cases under Title VII.

For the reasons stated in the Opinion, the Supreme Court affirms
the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Because the Supreme Court's
holding with respect to the challenge to the age-discrimination
jury instruction affirms the Court of Appeals' decision to vacate
the judgment and remand the case to the Trial Court for further
proceedings, the Supreme Court considers moot Ms. Disselkamp's
arguments relating to the propriety of the Trial Court's refusal to
allow her to recall Pam McGinnis as a witness to rebut Bischoff's
testimony and provide additional evidence of discrimination.
Consequently, the Supreme Court do not address this argument
further because the Trial Court may revisit the issue under
different circumstances in the event of a new trial.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's May 28, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yakth37a from Leagle.com.

Anna Christine Beilman, Esq., Robert W. Bishiop, Esq., John Saoirse
Friend, Esq., of Biship Friend, P.S.C., at 6520 Glenridge Park
Place, Suite 6, in Louisville, Kentucky, COUNSEL FOR
APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE.

Donna King Perry, Esq. -- donna.perry@dinsmore.com -- Robert
Charles Rives IV, Esq., in Louisville, Kentucky; Jeremy Stuart
Rogers, Esq. -- jeremy.rogers@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP,
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT.


PAPA JOHN'S: Lucius Seeks Equal and Full Access to Restaurant App
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WINDY LUCIUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-23434-BB (S.D. Fla., August 18, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant discriminates against the
Plaintiff and all others similarly blind and visually-impaired
consumers by failing to design, construct, operate, and maintain
its mobile application (app) to be fully and equally accessible to
them. The Defendant's mobile app contains access barriers which
hindered the Plaintiff and Class members to use and enjoy the goods
and services offered on the app just like sighted individuals.
Moreover, the app does not meet the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 A level of accessibility and WCAG 2.1 AA
level of accessibility, which are widely accepted guidelines for
making apps accessible to individuals with disabilities and
compatible with screen reader software.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to modify
its app so that it is fully accessible to, and independently usable
by, blind or visually impaired individuals.

Papa John's International, Inc. is a company that owns, operates
and maintains a restaurant called Papa John's in the Southern
District of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
     
         J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
         J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
         8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 351-2014
         E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com

PERRIGO CO: Baton Class Suit in Tel Aviv Stayed Indefinitely
------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2020, that the court has granted
the company's request to stay the class action suit entitled,
Batonv. Perrigo Company plc, et al., indefinitely.  

On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the
Company, its CEO Murray Kessler, and its former CFO Ronald
Winowiecki in Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo Company
plc, et al.).

The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making
similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted
in the In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig case in New York
federal court.

This case alleges that persons who invested through the Tel Aviv
stock exchange can assert claims under Israeli securities law that
will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.

The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages.

In 2019, the court granted two requests by Perrigo to stay the
proceedings pending the resolution of proceedings in the United
States. Perrigo filed a further request for a stay in February
2020, and the court granted the stay indefinitely.

Perrigo said, "We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously."

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PERRIGO CO: Litigation Over Contaminated Ranitidine Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated consumer class action suit related to
Ranitidine.

After regulatory bodies announced worldwide that ranitidine may
potentially contain N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"), a known
environmental contaminant, the Company promptly began testing its
externally-sourced ranitidine API and ranitidine-based products. On
October 8, 2019, the Company halted shipments of the product based
upon preliminary results and on October 23, 2019, the Company made
the decision to conduct a voluntary retail market withdrawal.

In February 2020, the resulting actions involving Zantac and other
ranitidine products were transferred for coordinated pretrial
proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Zantac/Ranitidine
Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2924) in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. This MDL now includes
three master complaints. The Company is named in two of those: the
Master Personal Injury Complaint and the Consolidated Consumer
Class Action Complaint.

As of July 15, 2020, the Company has been named in twenty-one of
the MDL's consolidated personal injury lawsuits in various federal
courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various types of cancers
or are placed at higher risk of developing cancer as a result of
ingesting products containing ranitidine.

The Company is named in these lawsuits with manufacturers of the
national brand Zantac(R) and other manufacturers of ranitidine
products distributors, repackagers, and/or retailers. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory and punitive damages, and in some instances seek
applicable remedies under state consumer protection laws.

The Company has also been named in a Complaint brought by the New
Mexico Attorney General based on the following theories: violation
of a New Mexico public nuisance statute, NMSA 30-8-1 to -14; common
law nuisance; and negligence and gross negligence.

The Company is named in this lawsuit with manufacturers of the
national brand Zantac(R) and other manufacturers of ranitidine
products and/or retailers. Some of the Company’s retailer
customers are seeking indemnity from the Company for a portion of
their defense costs and liability relating to these and other
consolidated cases.

Perrigo said, "We intend to defend all of these lawsuits
vigorously."

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PERRIGO CO: Notice of Pendency of Class Action Issued in Roofers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2020, that a New Jersey court has
approved the issuance of a notice of the pendency of the class
action in in the consolidated securities class action suit
entitled, Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.

On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the
company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey (Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et
al.).

The plaintiff purported to represent a class of shareholders for
the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The
original complaint alleged violations of Securities Exchange Act
sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against both defendants
and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa.

In general, the allegations concerned the actions taken by the
company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through
November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants
provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration
problems related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April
21, 2015 through May 11, 2016.

On July 19, 2016, a different shareholder filed a securities class
action against the company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, also in
the District of New Jersey (Wilson v. Papa, et al.).

The plaintiff purported to represent a class of persons who sold
put options on our shares between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016.


In general, the allegations and the claims were the same as those
made in the original complaint filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund
case described above. On December 8, 2016, the court consolidated
the Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case under the
Roofers' Pension Fund case number.

In February 2017, the court selected the lead plaintiffs for the
consolidated case and the lead counsel to the putative class. In
March 2017, the court entered a scheduling order.

On June 21, 2017, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint that superseded the original complaints in the
Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case.

In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiffs seek to represent
three classes of shareholders: (i) shareholders who purchased
shares during the period from April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017 on
the U.S. exchanges; (ii) shareholders who purchased shares during
the same period on the Tel Aviv exchange; and (iii) shareholders
who owned shares on November 12, 2015 and held such stock through
at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015 (the final day of the Mylan
tender offer) regardless of whether the shareholders tendered their
shares.

The amended complaint names as defendants the company and 11
current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy
Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs.
Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald
Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O’Connor).

The amended complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act
sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants
and 20(a) control person liability against the 11 individuals.

In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the
company and the former executives to defend against the unsolicited
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through
November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure
throughout the entire class period related to purported integration
problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect
reporting of organic growth at the Company and at Omega, alleges
price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription
pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri(R)
royalty stream. The amended complaint does not include an estimate
of damages.

During 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the
plaintiffs opposed. On July 27, 2018, the court issued an opinion
and order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and
denying the motions to dismiss in part.

The court dismissed without prejudice defendants Laurie Brlas,
Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa,
Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, Donal O'Connor, and Marc Coucke. The
court also dismissed without prejudice claims arising from the
Tysabri(R) accounting issue described above and claims alleging
incorrect disclosure of organic growth described above.

The defendants who were not dismissed are Perrigo Company plc, Joe
Papa, and Judy Brown. The claims (described above) that were not
dismissed relate to the integration issues regarding the Omega
acquisition, the defense against the Mylan tender offer, and the
alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic
prescription pharmaceuticals. The defendants who remain in the case
(the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) have filed answers denying
liability, and the discovery stage of litigation has begun. We
intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On November 14, 2019, the court granted the lead plaintiffs' motion
and certified three classes for the case: (i) all those who
purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2, 2017
inclusive on a U.S. exchange and were damaged thereby; (ii) all
those who purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2,
2017 inclusive on the Tel Aviv exchange and were damaged thereby;
and (iii) all those who owned shares as of November 12, 2015 and
held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015
(whether or not a person tendered shares in response to the Mylan
tender offer) (the "tender offer class").

Defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal in the Third
Circuit challenging the certification of the tender offer class. On
April 30, 2020, the Third Circuit denied leave to appeal.

The District Court has approved the issuance of a notice of the
pendency of the class action.

Perrigo said, "Unless otherwise noted, each of the lawsuits
discussed in the following sections is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and has been assigned to the
same judges hearing the Roofers' Pension Fund case. The allegations
in the complaints relate to events during certain portions of the
2015 through 2017 calendar years, including the period of the Mylan
tender offer. All but one of these lawsuits allege violations of
federal securities laws, but none are class actions. One lawsuit
(Highfields) alleges only state law claims. We intend to defend all
these lawsuits vigorously."

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PERRIGO CO: Suits Alleging Price-Fixing of 135 Drugs Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a number of class action suit related to overarching
conspiracy allegations.  

Three putative classes, including (a) direct purchasers, (b) end
payors, and (c) indirect resellers, have filed two sets of class
action complaints alleging that Perrigo and other manufacturers
(and some individuals) entered into an "overarching conspiracy"
that involved allocating customers, rigging bids and raising,
maintaining, and fixing prices for various products. Each class
brings claims for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act as well as several state antitrust and consumer
protection statutes.

Filed in June 2018, and later amended in December 2018 (with
respect to direct purchasers) and April 2019 (with respect to end
payors and indirect resellers), the first set of "overarching
conspiracy" class actions include allegations against Perrigo and
approximately 27 other manufacturers involving 135 drugs with
allegations dating back to March 2011.

The allegations against Perrigo concern only two formulations
(cream and ointment) of one of the products at issue, Nystatin. The
court denied motions to dismiss the first set of "overarching
conspiracy" class actions, and they are proceeding in discovery.
None of these cases are included in the group of cases on a more
expedited schedule pursuant to the court's July 14, 2020 order.

In December 2019, both the end payor and indirect reseller class
plaintiffs filed a second set of "overarching conspiracy" class
actions against Perrigo, dozens of other manufacturers of generic
prescription pharmaceuticals, and certain individuals dating back
to July 2009 (end payors) or January 2010 (indirect resellers).

The Direct Purchaser plaintiffs filed their second round
overarching conspiracy complaint in February 2020 with claims
dating back to July 2009. This second set of overarching complaints
allege conspiracies relating to the sale of various products that
are not at issue in the earlier-filed overarching conspiracy class
actions, the majority of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells.

The indirect reseller complaint alleges that Perrigo conspired in
connection with its sales of Imiquimod cream, Desonide cream and
ointment, and Hydrocortisone Valerate cream.

The end payor and direct purchaser complaints allege that Perrigo
conspired in connection with its sale of the following drugs:
Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Ciclopirox,
Clindamycin Phosphate, Fenofibrate, Halobetasol Proprionate,
Hydrocortisone Valerate, Permethrin, and Triamcinolone Acetonide.

Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaints, and responses are
currently stayed.

On March 11, 2020, the indirect reseller plaintiffs filed a motion
to amend their second round December 2019 complaint. The proposed
amended complaint adds additional products and allegations to the
original complaint. Perrigo is discussed in connection with
allegations concerning one additional drug, Betamethasone
Dipropionate lotion. Responses to this complaint are currently
stayed pending court order.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PERRIGO CO: Suits Over Alleged Price-Fixing Underway in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2020, that the company is defending
itself against a class action related to the alleged overarching
conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize
prices of dozens of products, most of which the company neither
makes nor sells suit initiated by an end payor, in Ontario,
Canada.

In June 2020, an end payor filed a class action in Ontario, Canada
against Perrigo and 29 other manufacturers alleging an overarching
conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize
prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes
nor sells.

The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the
same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming
Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin.

Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint.

Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


PLATEJOY INC: Crosson Suit Alleges ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------
PlateJoy, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Aretha
Crosson, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. PlateJoy, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03498 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 4, 2020).

PlateJoy is your personal meal planning assistant, providing custom
meal plans and recipes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com




PLAYAGS INC: Continues to Defend Chowdhury Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Playags, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by Manjan Chowdhury.

On June 25, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Case No.
20-cv-1209, by Manjan Chowdhury against the Company and certain of
its officers, individually and on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between August
2, 2018 and August 7, 2019.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's forward-looking financial
outlook and accounting for goodwill and intangible assets in its
RMG Interactive reporting unit, resulting in injury to the
purported class members as a result of the decline in the value of
the Company's common stock following its release of its Second
Quarter 2019 results on August 7, 2019.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The defendants believe the claims are without merit, and intend to
defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as
to the outcome.

Playags, Inc. is a designer and supplier of EGMs and other products
and services for the gaming industry. The company is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada.


PLAYAGS INC: Labaton Sucharow Announces Expanded Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") disclosed that on August
4, 2020, it filed a securities class action lawsuit, captioned
Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. PlayAGS, Inc., No.
20-cv-01443 (D. Nev.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its client,
Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System ("Oklahoma Police").

The Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired PlayAGS, Inc. (NYSE: AGS)
("PlayAGS" or the "Company") common stock during the period from
May 3, 2018 through August 7, 2019, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The claims under the Exchange Act have been
brought against the Company, certain of its executive officers, and
its controlling shareholders at the start of the Class Period.

Additionally, the Action asserts claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"),
on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired PlayAGS common stock: (i) pursuant and/or traceable to the
offering materials issued in connection with the Company's August
2018 secondary offering (the "August 2018 SPO"); and/or (ii) the
offering materials issued in connection with the Company's March
2019 secondary offering (the "March 2019 SPO") (together, the
"Offering Materials"). The Securities Act claims have been brought
against the Company, certain of its executives officers and
directors, the underwriters for the August 2018 SPO and March 2019
SPO, and PlayAGS' controlling shareholders at the time of the
August 2018 SPO.

The Action expands upon the related and first-filed case captioned:
Chowdhury v. PlayAGS, Inc., No. 20-cv-01209 (D. Nev.) (the "
Chowdhury Action"). The Chowdhury Action has asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired PlayAGS
securities between August 2, 2018 and August 7, 2019. Pursuant to
the notice published on June 25, 2020 in connection with the
Chowdhury Action, as required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, investors wishing to serve as Lead Plaintiff
are required to file a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff by
no later than August 24, 2020.

Based in Las Vegas, Nevada, PlayAGS is a designer and supplier of
electronic gaming machines ("EGMs"). The Company's EGM Segment is
its most important business segment, accounting for approximately
95 percent of the Company's revenue in 2019. Additionally, Oklahoma
is PlayAGS' most important market, accounting for approximately 24
percent of the Company's revenue in 2019.

The Offering Materials, as well as Class Period statements made by
the Company and its executives, repeatedly touted PlayAGS'
purported competitive strengths and key growth strategies. These
growth strategies included the optimization of the Company's older,
underperforming EGMs with newer, more profitable EGMs, as well as
the placement of new EGMs within its existing markets.
Additionally, the Offering Materials, as well as the Company's
Class Period reporting with the SEC, attested to the accuracy of
the Company's internal controls over financial reporting.

The Action alleges, however, that these statements were false
and/or misleading because they omitted that: (i) PlayAGS' growth
strategies were failing; (ii) the Company was experiencing major
execution issues in Oklahoma; (iii) therefore, the Company's
purported competitive strengths were not reasonably likely to lead
to increased revenue; (iv) the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting were not effective; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 7, 2019, when the Company reported its second quarter
2019 results, PlayAGS shocked the market by reporting a loss per
share of $0.21, versus expectations of earnings per share of $0.14.
This loss included an impairment of goodwill of $3.5 million and an
impairment of intangible assets of $1.3 million. The Company also
reported disappointing quarterly revenues and adjusted earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA").
Finally, PlayAGS lowered its full-year 2019 adjusted EBITDA
guidance. PlayAGS attributed the weak results to product
underperformance at three Oklahoma properties and problems with its
placement of 800 incremental EGMs into the Oklahoma market over the
past year, as well as the impairment charges.

On this news, PlayAGS stock dropped $8.99 per share, or 52 percent,
to close at $8.31 per share on August 8, 2019. By the commencement
of this Action, PlayAGS stock was trading as low as $3.58 per
share, substantially below the offering price of both the August
2018 SPO and March 2019 SPO.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired PlayAGS stock: (i) during
the Class Period; (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the August 2018
SPO; and/or (iii) pursuant and/or traceable to the March 2019 SPO,
and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may
be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff
motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada no later than August 24, 2020. The Lead
Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of
the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to
share in any Class recovery in the Action. If you are a Class
member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that
recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your
choice to represent you in the Action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact David J. Schwartz,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at
dschwartz@labaton.com.

Oklahoma Police is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which
represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States
and internationally with combined assets under management of more
than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its
excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked
in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York,
NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information about
Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com. [GN]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Kvilhaug Asserts Breach of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Lisa Kvilhaug, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01041-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 4, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC provides debt recovery and
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Antranig N. Garibian, Esq.
   Garibian Law Offices, P.C.
   1010 Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22
   Wilmington, DE 19805
   Tel: (215) 326-9179
   Email: ag@garibianlaw.com




PRIME HEALTHCARE: Liable for 401(k) Plan Losses, Ornelas Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA D. ORNELAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, on behalf of the PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
INC. 401(K) PLAN, Plaintiff v. PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; THE
PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. 401(K) PLAN COMMITTEE; and DOES No.
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01529 (C.D. Cal., August 18,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. 401(k) Plan
and its participants, including the Plaintiff, by: (1) failing to
fully disclose the expenses and risk of the Plan's investment
options to participants; (2) allowing unreasonable expenses to be
charged to participants for administration of the Plan; and (3)
selecting, retaining, and/or otherwise ratifying 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. Moreover, Prime
Healthcare and the Committee have breached their fiduciary
monitoring duties by, among other things: (a) failing to monitor
and evaluate the performance of their appointees or have a system
in place for doing so; (b) failing to monitor their appointees'
fiduciary processes, which would have alerted a prudent fiduciary
to the breaches of fiduciary duties; and (c) failing to remove
appointees whose performances were inadequate in that they
continued to maintain imprudent, excessively costly, and poorly
performing investments within the Plan.

As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plan and its
participants have lost millions of dollars of retirement savings.

Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. is a company that owns and operates
general acute care hospitals in communities in the United States,
with corporate headquarters located in Ontario, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
         SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         1401 Dove Street, Suite 510
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Telephone: (323) 510-4060
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com

                - and –

         James E. Miller, Esq.
         Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
         SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
         65 Main Street
         Chester, CT 06412
         Telephone: (860) 526-1100
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: 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
         Telephone: (610) 891-9880
         Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
         E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                 mols@sfmslaw.com
                 aberin@sfmslaw.com

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Order on FINRA Arbitration in Dowe Issued
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAUREEN DOWE; ELVIE MOORE; and ESTHER BUCKRAM,
individually and on behalf of those Class members similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL INC., parent and
successor in interest to PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES, INC.; ERIC
SCHWIMMER; and JOHN DOES 1-25, fictitious persons and entities,
Defendants, Case No. 18cv11633 (DLC) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
ordered the Plaintiffs to file a status letter by Aug. 21, 2020
indicating whether they will be proceeding with Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") arbitration.  

The action was filed on Dec. 12, 2018.  An Opinion and Order of
Nov. 22, 2019 granted a motion to compel arbitration of the
Plaintiff's claims against Prudential Defendants Prudential
Financial and Schwimmer.  The November 22 Opinion also dismissed
claims against Leeds & Morelli, P.C. and its successors ("LMB") on
statute of limitations grounds.

On May 22, 2020, the Prudential Defendants filed a letter
indicating that the Plaintiffs had not commenced any arbitration
proceedings in the intervening six months.  An Order of May 26
instructed the Plaintiffs to commence arbitration proceedings and
warned that if they did not do so by June 5, their claims against
the Prudential Defendants could be dismissed with prejudice.

On June 4, new counsel appeared for the Plaintiffs.  On June 5, the
Plaintiffs submitted a Statement of Claim to FINRA for arbitration.
On July 22, FINRA issued a deficiency notice indicating, inter
alia, that it would not accept the Plaintiffs' Claim for
arbitration unless it were amended to remove any class action
claims.  The notice gives the Plaintiffs until August 21 to correct
the deficiencies, or FINRA will close the case.

The Plaintiffs filed a letter suggesting the claims against LMB be
severed under Rule 54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and that the November 22
Opinion be certified for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1292(b).  On July 23, the Prudential Defendants filed an
opposing letter, and the Plaintiffs filed a further letter in
reply.

The Plaintiffs argue that an interlocutory appeal is necessary
because they wish to proceed on a class basis, and FINRA will not
accept such claims.  

Judge Cote holds that the Plaintiffs have not shown that a Rule
54(b) severance or a Section 1292(b) certification would be
appropriate.  She explains that rhe Second Circuit has enforced
such arbitration clauses, in which the governing procedural rules
are those in effect at the time a claim is filed, rather than those
from the time the contract was formed.

As the Plaintiffs have not made a formal motion for severance or
for certification of an interlocutory appeal, those issues are not
finally determined at this time.  What is certain is that
resolution of this matter should not be further delayed.  The
Plaintiffs apparently have until August 21 to decide whether to
amend their Claim to be compliant with FINRA rules.

Accordingly, Judge Cote ordered the Plaintiffs to file a status
letter by Aug. 21, 2020 indicating whether they will be proceeding
with FINRA arbitration.  If they decline to proceed with
arbitration, they will show cause by Aug. 28, 2020 why their claims
against the Prudential Defendants should not be dismissed with
prejudice for noncompliance with the November 22 Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/trh3ww from Leagle.com.


RESTORATION SPECIALTIES: Frias et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINGO FRIAS, FRANCISCO REYES, and AGUSTIN OLARTE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
RESTORATION SPECIALTIES, INC. and TIM O'DONOGHUE, Defendants, Case
No. 7:20-cv-06560 (S.D.N.Y., August 18, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs
and all others similarly situated laborers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to post
notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a
conspicuous place at their workplace, and failing to keep accurate
payroll records.

Mr. Frias was employed by the Defendants as a general laborer in
New York from August 2014 until January 2020.

Mr. Reyes was employed by the Defendants as a general laborer in
New York from August 2018 until July 2020.

Mr. Olarte was employed by the Defendants as a general laborer in
New York from September 2002 until February 2019.

Restoration Specialties, Inc. is a family-owned and operated
exterior restoration company with its principal place of business
located at 10 South 2nd Avenue, Mount Vernon, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591

RITE AID: Bid to Certify Fed. Exemption Question in Bailey Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-06926-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Defendant's motion for an order
to certify the question of federal preemption to the Court of
Appeals under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

Bailey commenced the putative class action against Rite Aid
asserting eight causes of action arising out of the Defendant's
sale and marketing of its over-the-counter rapid release
acetaminophen gelcaps.  On Sept. 9, 2019, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint.  Therein, the Court rejected the Defendant's
preemption argument and denied its motion on that basis.

The Defendant's argument regarding federal preemption in its motion
to dismiss relied on its assertion that the Plaintiff's claims were
preempted by (1) a tentative final monograph issued by the FDA in
1988 ("1988 TFM"); and (2) two FDA guidance documents, namely one
regarding Dissolution Testing and Acceptance Criteria for
Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Form Drug Products Containing
High Solubility Drug Substances, Guidance for Industry, U.S. Dept.
of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration and
another regarding the Waiver of In Vivo Bioavilability and
Bioequivalence Studies for Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage
Forms Based on a Biopharmaceutics Classification System, Guidance
for Industry ("FDA Guidance").

In its MTD Order, the Court determined that although the 1988 TFM
constituted federal regulation, the 1988 TFM, as well as the
relevant incorporated documents, was silent as to the dissolution
standards for the type of acetaminophen at issue in the Plaintiff's
complaint, namely rapid release acetaminophen.  With respect to the
FDA Guidance, the Court determined that it did not constitute a
requirement under the National Uniformity for Nonprescription Drugs
provision of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA").

Now, before the Court is the Defendant's motion for an order to
certify the question of federal preemption to the Court of Appeals
under Section 1292(b).  The Defendant asserts that the Court's
determination that the Plaintiff's claims were not expressly
preempted by the FDCA was based on two "relevant components," both
of which, the Defendant asserts provide substantial ground for
difference of opinion.  First, it contends that the Court's
determination that the FDA Guidance did not constitute a
requirement under the FDCA is counter to the Ninth Circuit's
opinion in Degelmann v. Advanced Medical Optics, Inc.  Second, the
Defendant argues that the Court's finding that the dissolution
standards for immediate release acetaminophen did not encompass
testing and dissolution procedures for rapid release acetaminophen
because the two are not synonymous, but rather the latter is a
subset of the former.

Judge Rogers finds that the Defendant does not provide any
authority for its assertion that whether a different FDA
publication constitutes a requirement under the FDCA is dispositive
as to the suitability of another FDA document as a requirement
under the FDCA.  Moreover, the FDA Guidance at issue does not
reflect a similar purpose to establish guidelines for a legally
marketed product.  Accordingly, the Defendant has failed to
establish substantial ground for difference of opinion as to
whether the FDA Guidance at issue here constitutes a requirement
under the FDCA.  Thus, the Judge denies the Defendant's motion on
this basis.

The Judge also finds that the Defendant provides no authority for
its contention that a contrary order from another district court,
outside of the relevant circuit, creates substantial ground for a
difference of opinion.  The Defendant's contention that because the
FDA has regulated the subject matter of the dissolution of
acetaminophen tablets, despite not using the phrase "rapid
release," the Plaintiff's claims are preempted fails.  The
Plaintiff's claims are grounded in whether the acetaminophen
dissolved fast enough to allow for marketing as "rapid release."
The Judge holds that the fact that the FDA may have regulated the
subject-matter of immediate release acetaminophen does not
establish that a substantial ground for a difference of opinion
exists where the Plaintiff challenges the designation and marketing
of the Defendant's product at rapid release.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rogers denied the Defendant's
motion to certify the question of federal preemption to the Court
of Appeals.  

A full-text copy of the Court's October 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/WprA3G from Leagle.com.

Thomas Bailey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany A. Boswell  --
BBoswell@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy, pro hac vice,
Crystal Gayle Foley -- cfoley@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly
Conroy LLC, Adam A. Edwards -- adam@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg
Coleman Law PC, An V. Truong -- atruong@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons
Hanly Conroy, pro hac vice, Eric Steven Johnson --
ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy, pro hac vice,
Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law
PC, Jay Barnes -- jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com -- pro hac vice, Mark
E. Silvey -- mark@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, pro
hac vice & Mitchell M. Breit- mbreit@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons
Hanly Conroy LLC.

Rite Aid Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Alexander
Hickerson -- dhickerson@foley.com -- Foley Lardner LLP, pro hac
vice, Eileen Regina Ridley -- eridley@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner
LLP Attorneys at Law, Jarren Neil Ginsburg -- jginsburg@foley.com
-- Foley and Lardner LLP, pro hac vice & Joshua R. Parr --
jparr@foley.com -- Foley and Lardner LLP.


SABOR VENEZOLANO: Ruderman Sues Over Background Checks
------------------------------------------------------
MARIVIN M. BARBOZA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SABOR VENEZOLANO KENDALL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-23189-WPD (S.D. Fla., July 31, 2020)
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Sabor Venezolano Kendall, Inc. owns and operates as a restaurant.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


SAFETY INSURANCE: Refused to Pay Insureds' Losses, Marshall Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL K. MARSHALL, II, D.M.D., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAFETY INSURANCE COMPANY
and SAFETY INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, (D. Mass.,
August 17, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of contract and violation of Massachusetts General Laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to comply with
their contractual obligations to the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated policyholders after they denied their claims
under Business Income Coverage, Extra Expense Coverage, and Civil
Authority Coverage of Safety's Insurance Policy. The Plaintiff and
Class members suffered business losses as a result of the
suspensions and interruptions of their business operations in order
to comply with Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker's closure
orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These direct physical
losses of and/or damages to their insured premises are covered
losses under the Defendants' Policy and they are obligated to pay
the Plaintiff and Class members for such losses and other extra
expenses incurred.

Safety Insurance Company is a company the provides property and
casualty insurance in Massachusetts, with its principal place of
business located at 20 Custom House Street, Boston, Massachusetts.

Safety Indemnity Insurance Company is a provider of property and
casualty insurance in Massachusetts, with its principal place of
business located at 20 Custom House Street, Boston, Massachusetts.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
         WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
         101 Federal Street, 19th Floor
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 573-5118
         Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
         E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

SBE/KATSUYA USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SBE/KATSUYA USA, LLC; SPOONFUL MANAGEMENT,
LLC; SBE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20STCV27450 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 21, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Flores was employed by the Defendants as a busboy.

SBE/Katsuya USA, LLC is engaged in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
          Ellie Saadat Lank, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          555 12th Street, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.corn
                  lvannote@scalaw.com
                  elank@scalaw.com


SCANA CORP: Georgetown Plantation Up for Sale Following Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Brown, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that a
plantation near Georgetown is on the market for the first time in
more than a century, and the profits from the sale will eventually
flow to electric customers in South Carolina.

The Ramsey Grove Plantation, a 2,689-acre tract on the banks of the
Black River, is up for sale because of the alleged misdeeds of its
former owner, SCANA Corp.

SCANA, which was the parent company of South Carolina Electric &
Gas, was forced to turn over the property as part of a class-action
settlement stemming from the failed expansion of the V.C. Summer
nuclear plant three years ago. The project ended when SCANA and its
utility partner, state-run Santee Cooper, abandoned two unfinished
nuclear reactors after spending more than $9 billion.

The attorneys who represented SCE&G ratepayers in a large
class-action lawsuit following the project's demise negotiated a
settlement in late 2018 that requires the plantation to be sold
along with an office building owned by SCE&G in downtown Charleston
and several other properties owned by the utility company.

All of the proceeds will then be distributed to hundreds of
thousands of current and former electric customers with SCE&G,
which is now owned by Virginia-based Dominion Energy.

John Alphin, an attorney with the Strom Law Firm, said they've
already been able to sell off some of the other properties the
utility gave up as part of the settlement. That includes several
pieces of property near SCANA's headquarters in Cayce.

"That's all money that goes straight to the customers," he said.

Those same ratepayers received the first part of the class-action
legal settlement last year. That part of the deal included $60
million in cash. The payouts were based on how much electricity
each customer used over the course of the nuclear project, and many
recipients received checks for less than $20.

The website marketing the Ramsey Grove Plantation--which has been
used for turkey, deer and waterfowl hunting--was launched. And Tom
Anderson, the senior vice president with Plantation Services Inc.,
said the property has already generated inquiries from potential
buyers.

Plantation Services was hired as part of the court-ordered
settlement to help market and solicit offers for the plantation,
which includes a lodge with 12 bedrooms and a commercial kitchen.

Anderson called the plantation a "legendary property." It was
established in 1731 through a 500-acre land grant by the king of
England.

It's too early, Anderson said, to know how quickly his firm will be
able to net a suitable buyer. Such historic properties, he said,
can sometimes be sold quickly. Other times, it can take several
years to find a good match.

During the settlement process, the plantation and SCE&G's other
properties were estimated to be valued at a combined $60 million to
$85 million.  

But it's yet to be seen what the plantation, located 7 miles from
Georgetown, will be able to fetch now that it's on the open market.
[GN]


SCOTT DOLICH: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Allison FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued a
Memorandum affirming the District Court's judgment granting the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned NANCY
ALLISON; HOLLY BURNEY, both in her individual capacity and in
addition, as a collective action on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SCOTT DOLICH, an individual; et
al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-35259 (9th Cir.).

Plaintiffs Nancy Allison and Holly Burney sued their former
employers ("Defendants") in federal court, alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Three days later, they filed
a putative class action against Defendants in state court, alleging
violations of state law. After a jury rendered a verdict in the
state case, the District Court granted summary judgment to the
Defendants on claim preclusion grounds, which the Plaintiffs
appealed.

According to the Appellate Court, as an initial matter, the
District Court properly concluded that the Defendants did not waive
a claim preclusion defense or otherwise acquiesce to the
Plaintiffs' claim-splitting. The Defendants repeatedly objected to
the splitting of the two actions, first by removing the state case
to federal court and again by moving to dismiss the state case on
prior-action-pending grounds. Under Oregon law, such conduct is
sufficient to preserve objection to the two actions proceeding
simultaneously, citing Rennie v. Freeway Transport, 656 P.2d 919,
924-25 (Or. 1982) (en banc).

The Appellate Court also notes the District Court did not err in
dismissing the federal claims on the basis of claim preclusion. The
Appellate Court also concludes that the Plaintiffs "had a full and
fair opportunity" to join their claims in one proceeding, "whether
or not they actually did so," citing Aguirre v. Albertson's, Inc.,
117 P.3d 1012, 1022 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Finally, because FLSA collective actions require individuals to opt
in--while class actions require putative class members wishing not
to be bound to affirmatively opt out--the Plaintiffs contend that
the opt-out state court judgment lacks preclusive effect with
respect to the federal opt-in plaintiffs. The Appellate Court says
it previously considered, and rejected, an identical argument. See
Rangel, 899 F.3d at 1112.

The Plaintiffs' remaining arguments are likewise unpersuasive.
Hence, the Appellate Court concludes that claim preclusion bars the
federal court claims.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' May 21, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybhb7mxs from Leagle.com.


SHIRE LLC: Meijer Can Intervene in Intuniv Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re INTUNIV ANTITRUST LITIGATION. (Direct
Purchasers), Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-12653-ADB (D. Mass.), Judge
Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted the motion to intervene under Rule 24 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Meijer, Inc. and Meijer
Distribution, Inc., members of the class of Direct-Purchaser
Plaintiffs ("DPPs").

The case arises from an alleged anticompetitive agreement made
between the brand and generic manufacturers of an ADHD medication.
Defendants Shire LLC and Shire U.S., Inc. manufacture Intuniv, the
brand-name for extended release guanfacine hydrochloride.
Defendants Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Holdco US, Inc., and
Actavis LLC manufacture Intuniv's generic counterpart.

The DPPs allege that they paid inflated prices for Intuniv due to
the Defendants having improperly agreeing to delay competition for
both brand Intuniv and generic Intuniv in violation of Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act.

On Sept. 2, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved
a New Drug Application ("NDA") for Shire's brand-name drug,
Intuniv.  A few months later, on Dec. 29, 2009, Actavis filed an
Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") for its proposed generic
version of Intuniv.  Several other companies subsequently sought
FDA approval to manufacture their own generic alternatives to
Intuniv.

As the first generic manufacturer to file an ANDA, Actavis would
have enjoyed a 180-day period of exclusivity during which no other
generic manufacturer could have manufactured an Intuniv
alternative.  During that exclusivity period, Shire and Actavis
would have been the only manufacturers approved by the FDA for
Intuniv or a generic alternative.

Shire filed suit against Actavis pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Section
335(j)(5)(B)(iii), which triggered a 30-month stay of the FDA's
approval of Actavis' ANDA for generic Intuniv.  After a bench
trial, the 30-month stay of the FDA's consideration of Actavis'
ANDA expired and the FDA approved generic Intuniv.

Before the trial court could issue its opinion, however, Shire and
Actavis entered into a settlement agreement.  The DPPs argue that
it appeared likely that the verdict was going to be in Actavis'
favor and that the settlement was a reverse payment agreement,
which guaranteed Actavis a 180-day exclusivity period in return for
its delaying the launch of generic Intuniv until Dec. 1, 2014.

FWK Holdings, LLC filed the instant action on Dec. 30, 2016, and
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. ("RDC") filed similar claims on
Jan. 11, 2017.  The Court granted a joint motion to consolidate the
two actions.  The case has proceeded in coordination with claims
originally brought on behalf of a putative class of indirect
purchasers of Intuniv.

On Sept. 24, 2019, the Court granted the DPPs' motion to certify
the following class:  All persons or entities in the United States
and its territories, or subsets thereof, that purchased Intuniv
and/or generic Intuniv in any form directly from Shire or Actavis,
including any predecessor or successor of Shire or Actvais, from
Oct. 19, 2012 through June 1, 2015.

The Court, however, dismissed FWK as a class representative after
finding that the relationship between FWK and the class counsel was
too entangled.  The Court had reservations about RDC's adequacy as
a class representative given that it had entered into a deferred
prosecution agreement and settled civil claims with the United
States in connection with failures to report suspicious opioid
purchases, but ultimately agreed that it could serve as class
representative.  As the case progressed, the parties filed a number
of evidentiary motions, as well as motions for summary judgment,
which remain pending.

On March 12, 2020, RDC filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York.  The
Defendants moved to decertify the DPP class, in light of RDC's
bankruptcy.  The Court granted the motion in part and found that
RDC could no longer adequately represent the interests of absent
class members due to a conflict of interests arising from its
bankruptcy.  The Court declined to decertify the class, however,
and allowed motions to intervene.

Meijer is a pharmacy retailer headquartered in Michigan.  As a
member of the DPP class, it received notice of the class action on
Jan. 24, 2020.  Meijer claims to have purchased many millions of
dollars of brand and generic Intuniv throughout the class period.
Additionally, it holds a long-standing agreement for assignment of
direct-purchaser claims for brand Intuniv from Frank W. Kerr Co.
Meijer has prepared a complaint in intervention, which is nearly
identical to the second amended complaint, but adds Meijer as a
class representative.

The Defendants argue that Meijer has been on notice of FWK and
RDC's potential inadequacies for years and that its motion to
intervene is therefore untimely.  Meijer maintains that it relied
on RDC's adequacy and therefore did not move to intervene until it
appeared that RDC might no longer be able to adequately represent
the absent the Plaintiffs' interests.

Judge Burroughs holds that although the Court initially found RDC
adequate, once it determined that RDC was no longer an adequate
class representative due to its bankruptcy, it was appropriate to
consider intervention.  Therefore, Meijer may intervene, the Court
opines.  Meijer filed its motion to intervene shortly after it
became apparent that RDC might no longer be able to adequately
represent Meijer's interests, and the interests of other class
members.  Though the Defendants may be prejudiced by having to
address Meijer's adequacy as a potential class representative, such
prejudice is minimal when compared to the potential prejudice to
Meijer and absent class Plaintiffs who would otherwise have no
adequate alternative remedy.  Because she finds that Meijer may
intervene under Rule 24(a), the Judge need not consider the issue
of permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).

Having determined that Meijer should be permitted to intervene in
the action, in order to protect its own interests and the interests
of other absent DPP class members, the Judge must next determine
whether Meijer may act as class representative.  In order for an
intervenor to act as a class representative, it must meet the
requirements for class representation.

The Court finds that Meijer has made a prima facie showing that it
will adequately represent the DPP class in the case.  Meijer has
previously been appointed as a direct-purchaser Plaintiff class
representative in other pharmaceutical antitrust cases, including
cases in the District.  Still, because the Court acknowledges that
the Defendants may be prejudiced by Meijer's intervention at this
point in the proceedings and because Meijer has represented that it
has already prepared to produce its documents responsive to the
Defendants' RFPs to the DPPs and will make witnesses available for
deposition promptly, the Court will allow limited discovery into
Meijer's adequacy.

Accordingly, because Meijer sought to intervene shortly after it
appeared that RDC might no longer be able to adequately represent
its interests and because the Plaintiff class would be unduly
prejudiced if Meijer were not permitted to intervene, the motion to
intervene, is granted.  The parties will have 30 days of discovery
from the entry of the Order to evaluate Meijer's adequacy as a
class representative.  

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/wEPVvn from Leagle.com.


SIENNA SENIOR: Rochon Genova Launches Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Rochon Genova LLP on July 29 disclosed that a class action has been
launched on behalf of the residents of 96 long-term care homes in
Ontario that experienced devastating COVID-19 related outbreaks and
their family members and estates.

The proposed action seeks damages from the owners and operators of
long-term care homes arising from their alleged negligence,
breaches of fiduciary duty and breaches of section 7 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sienna Senior Living Inc.
and the City of Toronto are named as proposed Representative
Defendants. The government of Ontario will be added as a defendant
once the 60-day notice period expires.

Innis Ingram, an advocate for long-term care home residents and one
of the nine proposed Representative Plaintiffs, said: "This class
action seeks accountability from long-term care providers with
regards to their mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The inaction
and slow response time needlessly cost many lives and has seriously
impacted countless more. This suit will hopefully be a catalyst for
the change that is overdue in the long-term care system, which has
been neglected for decades."

The Claim alleges that the government of Ontario and the Defendant
owners and operators of long-term care homes ignored numerous red
flags and failed to adopt timely and reasonable infection
prevention and control measures to avoid exposing the elderly to
the risk of infection with COVID-19. It also alleges that
long-standing deficiencies in Ontario's long-term care system made
these facilities ripe for infectious outbreaks, for which neither
the government nor the homes were prepared. It further alleges that
the Defendants negligently and recklessly adopted ad hoc and
inadequate measures that exposed this elderly population to the
risk of infection.  

Joel P. Rochon, co-lead counsel in the proposed class action,
stated: "This is not a case where it is appropriate to cherry pick
certain homes arbitrarily, leaving hundreds, if not thousands, of
the most vulnerable members of society unrepresented. The
regrettable truth is that the outbreaks at these homes were
entirely preventable".

The action is brought by Rochon Genova LLP, Himelfarb Proszanski
and Cerise Latibeaudiere Law Professional Corporation.

A comprehensive list of all long-term care facilities included in
the Claim can be found at RochonGenova.com, himprolaw.com and
himpro.ca.

For further information: please contact Jon Sloan at
jsloan@rochongenova.com or 416-363-1867 x 299. www.rochongenova.com
[GN]


SPARK ENERGY: Final Approval Order Issued in Richardson Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that a trial court has issued
its Final Approval Order of the settlement in Richardson et al. v.
Verde Energy USA, Inc.

Richardson et al. v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a purported class
action filed on November 25, 2015 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the
Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") by placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system ("ATDS") or a prerecorded voice to the purported
class members' cellular phones without prior express consent and by
continuing to make such calls after receiving requests for the
calls to cease.

Following discovery and dispositive motions, the Verde Companies
received a favorable ruling on summary judgment with the court
agreeing with the Verde Companies that the call system used in this
case was not an ATDS as defined by the TCPA.

Plaintiffs subsequently amended their petition eliminating their
ATDS claim and including a class based on failure to comply with
the National Do Not Call registry. As part of an agreement in
connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the
original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter.
This matter has concluded as the parties reached a settlement in
this matter.

On January 17, 2020, the court approved the Parties' preliminary
settlement and settlement claims' administration continued through
first and second quarter of 2020.

The court issued its Final Approval Order of the settlement on May
19, 2020.

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SPARK ENERGY: Mediation in Rolland Suit Scheduled for August 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that mediation in Janet
Rolland, et al v. Spark Energy, LLC, is scheduled for August 29,
2020.

Janet Rolland, et al v. Spark Energy, LLC is a purported class
action originally filed on April 19, 2017 in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Spark
Energy, LLC charged a variable rate that was higher than permitted
by its terms of service, resulting in breach of contract and
violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Plaintiffs alleged claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The case seeks to certify a putative nationwide class of all Spark
variable rate electricity customers from April 19, 2011 to the
present.

The relief sought includes unspecified actual damages, refunds,
treble damages and punitive damages for the putative class,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

Spark obtained dismissal with prejudice of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act claim and has sought dismissal of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim and other claims.
Discovery is ongoing in this matter.

In April 2020, the Judge granted a stay and mediation is scheduled
for August 29, 2020.

Spark continues to deny the allegations asserted by Plaintiffs and
intends to vigorously defend this matter.

Spark said, "Given the ongoing discovery and current stage of this
matter, we cannot predict the outcome of this case at this time."

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SPARK ENERGY: Settlement in Veilleux Suit Wins Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the court has granted
preliminary approval of the settlement in Katherine Veilleux, et
al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo,
LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet.

Katherine Veilleux, et al. v. Electricity Maine LLC, Provider
Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean, and Emile Clavet is a
purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the
United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity
Maine, LLC ("Electricity Maine"), an entity acquired by Spark
Holdco in mid-2016, enrolled customers and conducted advertising,
and promotions allegedly not in compliance with law.

Plaintiffs seek damages for themselves and the purported class,
injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees.

The parties participated in mediation in July 2019 and reached a
settlement.

The court granted preliminary approval of that settlement on May
13, 2020. The claims administration process pursuant to the
settlement began on June 12, 2020.

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SPARTAN RACE: Court Refuses to Transfer or Toss Fruitstone Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AARON FRUITSTONE, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. SPARTAN RACE INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-20836-BLOOM/Louis (S.D. Fla.)., the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida issued an Order denying the
Defendant's Motion to Transfer this Case under 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a) or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint.

On April 13, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended
Class Action Complaint, which asserts three causes of action:
violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law,
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A (Count I), violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat.
Section 501.201 et seq. ("FDUTPA") (Count II), and unjust
enrichment (Count III).

According to the Complaint, the Defendant is a widely-known
obstacle course race organizer that conducts the "Spartan Races,"
which races have attracted millions of participants worldwide.

The Plaintiff alleges that, in addition to collecting funds based
on registration racer fees, parking services and bag check fees,
the Defendant has "extracted millions of additional dollars from
consumers, through an unfair and deceptive self-enrichment scheme
that violates state consumer protection laws" in Massachusetts and
Florida based on a "mandatory 'Racer Insurance Fee.'" Specifically,
the Defendant "purchased a group insurance policy through CHUBB
that covers each racer and costs Spartan Race much less than what
they represent ($14) to all racers." The Complaint states that each
time a consumer registers for a Spartan Race event, the Defendant
"charges a mandatory, non-transferable, and non-refundable 'Racer
Insurance Fee'" of $14, which operates as a "secret revenue source"
because the insurance fee costs the Defendant less than $1 per
racer per day.

In its Motion, the Defendant contends that the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts is the "more convenient forum for
this litigation" and the action "should have been brought" there.
The Defendant asserts that if the Court declines to transfer the
case, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate as to each count.

The parties do not dispute that this matter could have been brought
in the District of Massachusetts. The Defendant asserts that
factors 1 (convenience of the witnesses), 3 (convenience of the
parties), and 5 (the availability of process to compel the
attendance of unwilling witnesses) favor transfer because the
Defendant is based in Massachusetts, the bulk of its business
operations are conducted there, and most of the "key witnesses" are
located there.

Upon consideration, the Court states that it is unpersuaded that
these factors weigh in favor of transfer. Regarding factor 3, the
convenience of the parties, this factor is "practically irrelevant
to whether the motion to transfer should be granted," citing Cent.
Money Mortg. Co. v. Holman, 122 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1346 (M.D. Fla.
2000).

The Court also agrees with the Plaintiff that factor 2, the
location of relevant documents and relative ease of access to
sources of proof, is "virtually irrelevant" and does not favor
transfer under the present circumstances. Accordingly, the Motion
is denied as to Defendant's request to transfer this lawsuit to the
District of Massachusetts.

On its refusal to dismiss the case, the Court says, among other
things, that taken as a whole, the Court finds that the Plaintiff
has sufficiently alleged that a reasonable consumer could be
deceived to conclude that the Racer Insurance Fee was a
pass-through charge, and that dismissal is not warranted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 28, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6v2ao2l from Leagle.com.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Tentative Settlement Reached in Suit Against Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 28, 2020, that a tentative
settlement has been reached in the consolidated class action suit
initiated against Spectrum Brands' Legacy, Inc.

On July 12, 2019, an amended consolidated class action complaint
filed earlier in 2018 was filed in the United State District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin by the Public School
Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago and the Cambridge
Retirement against Spectrum Brands' Legacy, Inc. ("Spectrum
Legacy").

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions in
Spectrum Legacy's financial statements.

The amended complaint added HRG Group, Inc. ("HRG") as a defendant
and asserted additional claims against the Company on behalf of a
purported class of HRG shareholders.

The class period of the consolidated amended complaint is from
January 26, 2017 to November 19, 2018, and the plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest, attorneys'
and expert fees and costs.

Subsequent to June 28, 2020, the Company has reached a tentative
settlement with all parties.

Spectrum Brands said, "There is no incremental loss recognized as a
result of the tentative settlement, net third party insurance
coverage and payment. Based on information currently available, the
Company does not believe that any other matters related to this
complaint will have a material adverse effect on its business or
financial condition."

Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is a diversified global branded
consumer products company. The company manage the businesses in
four vertically integrated, product-focused segments: (i) Hardware
& Home Improvement, (ii) Home and Personal Care, (iii) Global Pet
Care, and (iv) Home and Garden. The Company manufactures, markets
and/or distributes its products globally in the North America,
Europe, Middle East & Africa, Latin America and Asia-Pacific
regions through a variety of trade channels, including retailers,
wholesalers and distributors, original equipment manufacturers, and
construction companies. The company is based in Middleton,
Wisconsin.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Wisconsin Class Action Settlement Awaits Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 28, 2020, that settlement reached
in a Wisconsin class action suit is awaiting final approval by the
Circuit Court of Dane County.

On August 16, 2019, a state court class action complaint was filed
in the Circuit Court of Dane County, Wisconsin against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers.

The complaint alleged that certain financial statements contained
misstatements in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

During the nine month period ended June 28, 2020, the Company
recognized an estimated cost of $1.1 million for a proposed
settlement, net third party insurance coverage and payment, which
has been paid and is being held in escrow pending a final approval
by the Circuit Court of Dane County.

Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is a diversified global branded
consumer products company. The company manage the businesses in
four vertically integrated, product-focused segments: (i) Hardware
& Home Improvement, (ii) Home and Personal Care, (iii) Global Pet
Care, and (iv) Home and Garden. The Company manufactures, markets
and/or distributes its products globally in the North America,
Europe, Middle East & Africa, Latin America and Asia-Pacific
regions through a variety of trade channels, including retailers,
wholesalers and distributors, original equipment manufacturers, and
construction companies. The company is based in Middleton,
Wisconsin.


SYNOVUS BANK: Accountek Seeks Payment of PPP Loan Agent Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
ACCOUNTEK FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, LTD., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNOVUS BANK; and
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL CORP., Defendants, Case 5:20-cv-00047-EKD (W.D.
Va., August 2, 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 ("PPP"), a federal program implemented to
provide small businesses with loans to combat the economic impact
of COVID-19.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint 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 the Plaintiff and the Class Members.
Instead, the Defendants have kept the agent fees for themselves

Synovus Bank operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current
account, investment, financial services, online banking, mortgage,
and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues credit card and
business loans. Synovus Bank serves customers in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven T. Webster,Esq.
          WEBSTER BOOK LLP
          300 N. Washington St., Suite 404
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (888) 987-9991
          Facsimile: (888) 987-9991
          E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Adler, Esq.
          GRAYLAW GROUP, INC.
          26500 Agoura Road, Suite 102-127
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 532-2833
          Facsimile: (818) 532-2834

               - and -

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

               - 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


TEXTRON INC: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on July 20, 2020, Judge Denise Cote of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with
prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a manufacturer of
recreational vehicles and certain of its executives.  In re
Textron, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 19-CV-7881 (DLC), 2020 WL 4059179
(S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2020).  Plaintiff generally alleged the company
made misleading statements suggesting that it was successfully
integrating an acquired company when in fact it allegedly was
struggling to do so.  Id. at *3.  The Court held that none of the
alleged misstatements were materially false or misleading.

The Court observed that plaintiff's claims were based on four
categories of alleged misstatements: (1) the target company's
inventory; (2) the target company's anticipated performance; (3)
the target company's integration into the acquiring company; and
(4) the value of goodwill and other intangible assets of the
acquiring company's own specialized vehicles business line.  See
id. at *10.  The Court then explained why each of these categories
of misstatements was not actionable.  With respect to statements
about the target company's inventory, plaintiff alleged that the
company made misleading statements suggesting that it was clearing
out the target company's inventory of older vehicles, when in fact
the number of vehicles of older model years (2015 through 2017) at
dealerships had not materially changed over the period in question.
Id.  The Court observed that this argument failed because it
assumed that the model years 2015 through 2017 were
interchangeable, and a statement that the company was clearing
"older" inventory might still be true if, for example, the 2015 and
2016 model years were being sold even as the company pushed 2017
inventory out to dealers.  Id. at *11.

With respect to statements about the target company's anticipated
performance—namely, that the acquisition would be accretive in
2018, that the company was "seeing profit improvement" at the
target company, and that the company "would continue to expect to
see incremental margins . . . improving as the year goes on"—the
Court explained that these were forward-looking statements which
were not actionable because plaintiff failed to allege that they
were false when made.  Id.  The Court also noted that these
statements were accompanied by meaningful cautionary language, and
that certain of these statements were non-actionable statements of
opinion by the company's executives, as they were prefaced with the
phrase "I think."  Id.

With respect to challenged statements that the target company's
integration was "successful[]" and that a particular restructuring
plan was "substantially completed," the Court held that these
statements were not materially misleading.  Id. at *12.  While
plaintiff argued that the first statement suggested that the
integration was substantially complete, the Court observed that on
the same call the company indicated that the integration
"continues" and there was "obviously still work to do in finishing
the integration."  Id.  The Court also rejected plaintiff's
allegation that the company's statement that a restructuring plan
was "substantially completed" was misleading because there was
allegedly work to be done to reduce redundant departments and
unsold inventory.  The Court noted this specific statement appeared
in a note to the company's financial statements about "Special
Charges," and in context meant that the company had spent the
majority of the funds it had allocated for the integration project,
for which plaintiff alleged no facts to the contrary.  Id.

Finally, the Court addressed plaintiff's allegations that the
company's characterization that a decline in profit was "not
something like an impairment of goodwill or intangible" was
misleading because the company stated in a filing one week later
that it was "reasonably possible that an impairment loss of certain
long-lived assets could be recognized," and the company did
ultimately recognize an impairment.  Id. *7-8.  Read in context,
the Court held, the challenged statement related to the company's
accounting practices and was "not a guarantee that the poor
third-quarter results . . . would not result in an impairment to
goodwill."  Id. at *12.  The Court concluded that plaintiff failed
to plead facts suggesting that the company's failure to make a
disclosure a week sooner regarding the potential risk of an
impairment amounted to a fraudulent statement.  Id. at *13. [GN]


TUFIN SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 4 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Tufin Software
Technologies Ltd. Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court.
Further details about the case can be found at the link provided.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

TUFN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tufin-software-technologies-ltd-loss-form?prid=8351&wire=1

Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. (NYSE:TUFN)

Affected investors purchased TUFN securities pursuant and/or
traceable to documents issued in connection with the Company's
April 2019 initial public offering and/or its December 2019
secondary public offering
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tufin-software-technologies-ltd-loss-form?prid=8351&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (i) Tufin's customer
relationships and growth metrics were overstated, particularly with
respect to North America; (ii) Tufin's business was deteriorating,
primarily in North America; (iii) as a result, Tufin's
representations regarding its sustainable financial prospects were
overly optimistic; and (iv) as a result, the documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering were
materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information
required to be stated therein.

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

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

TUFIN SOFTWARE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 18 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 3 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. ("Tufin" or "the Company")
(NYSE:TUFN) for violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with Tufin's April 2019 initial public offering (the "IPO") and its
December 2019 secondary public offering ("SPO") are encouraged to
contact the firm before September 18, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Tufin misled investors on key topics,
including its North American business, growth metrics, and customer
relationships. In fact, the Company's business was deteriorating.
The Company's representations were overly optimistic, and adverse
conditions impacting its financial prospects were known and
concealed by the Company and its executives. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading. When the market learned the truth about Tufin,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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


UBER: Dispute with Drivers in Heller Case to Remain in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Edinger, Esq., -- dedinger@singleton.com -- and Talya
Nemetz-Sinchein, Esq. -- tnemetz-sinchein@singleton.com -- of
Singleton Reynolds, report that the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC")
ruled in Uber v Heller ("Heller") that a dispute between Uber and
its drivers will remain in Canada. The dispute dates back to 2017
when Mr. Heller, who worked as a food delivery driver for Uber in
Toronto, commenced a class proceeding against Uber for violations
of the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000, c. 41 ("ESA") in the
Ontario Superior Court. Uber brought a motion to stay the class
proceeding in favour of arbitration in the Netherlands as provided
in the standard form services agreement between Mr. Heller and
Uber. Mr. Heller argued that the arbitration clause in the services
agreement was invalid on two grounds: it was unconscionable and it
contracted out of mandatory provisions of the Ontario ESA.

Initially, Uber was successful in staying the class proceeding. Mr.
Heller appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal ("ONCA") reversed the
motion judge's decision and held that the arbitration clause was
unconscionable. Uber appealed to the SCC. On June 26, 2020, the SCC
affirmed the ONCA's finding that the arbitration clause is invalid
because it is unconscionable. The SCC did not directly address the
issue of invalidity arising from contracting out of the Ontario
ESA. The class action is now able to proceed in Ontario as Mr.
Heller originally intended. The classification of the working
relationship between Uber and its drivers, and consequently the
applicability of the Ontario ESA to those drivers will be the
primary issue.

The impact of Heller on the law of unconscionability in Canada is
the subject of our colleagues Bruce and Nicholas Reynolds' recent
article. The implications of Heller on the law of arbitration,
including the limits to the applicability of the
competence-competence principle in Canada are discussed in our
colleagues David Edinger and Tristan Packwood-Greaves' recent
article.

Implications for Employment Law Class Actions in Canada

Despite not shedding light on whether, and if so, how the Ontario
ESA applies to Uber's drivers, the implications of the Heller
ruling are potentially far-reaching in the employment realm given
the prevalence of standard form employment contracts, especially in
the gig economy. It is commonplace for employers, especially those
operating in multiple jurisdictions, to utilize boilerplate clauses
regarding classification of working relationships, employment
standards, and privacy rights. Misclassification of working
relationships and entitlements to benefits and overtime pay have
been the subject of class proceedings in Canada in recent years and
continue to be so. For example, in Cervantes v Pizza Nova Take Out
Ltd., the proposed class action concerns the classification of
workers -- whether Pizza Nova's drivers are employees and therefore
entitled to payment of minimum wage, overtime, vacation pay, and
public holiday pay in accordance with the Ontario ESA, or whether
they are independent contractors to whom the Ontario ESA does not
apply.

The use of standard form employment contracts opens employers up to
such class proceedings. The use of standard forms across a
workforce may make it easier for courts to find some of the
important factors favoring certification: an identifiable class of
two or more persons who can be represented by the class
representative; a claim that raises one or more issues that all
members of the class have in common; and circumstances where
proceeding via class action is preferable for the fair and
efficient resolution of the common issue(s).  Examples of class
actions against both federally and provincially regulated employers
are set out below.

Federally Regulated Employers

Class actions against federally regulated employers have involved
unpaid overtime wages owing pursuant to the Canada Labour Code (the
"Code"). In McCracken v Canadian National Railway Company, 2012
ONCA 445, the representative plaintiff McCracken was a Canadian
National Railway Company ("CN") "first line supervisor" who brought
the case on behalf of over one thousand present and former CN first
line supervisors working across Canada. The claim alleged that CN
misclassified first line supervisors as management employees in
order to escape its obligations to pay overtime under the Code.
Ultimately, the class action was not certified by the ONCA on the
basis that there was not sufficient commonality between the
individuals in the proposed class.

In Fulawka v The Bank of Nova Scotia, 2012 ONCA 443, the class
members were current and former non-management, non-unionized
employees working as personal bankers or other front-line customer
service staff in any of Scotiabank's Canadian retail branches from
2000 to 2012. The plaintiff alleged that members of the class were
assigned heavier workloads than could be completed within their
standard working hours and that Scotiabank failed to pay for the
overtime work in direct contravention of the Code. Ultimately, the
parties reached a settlement.

In Fresco v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2012 ONCA 444, the
ONCA allowed the certification of certain common issues concerning
unpaid overtime for a class of 31,000 current and former
non-management, non-unionized employees of CIBC in Canada who
alleged that they were assigned heavier workloads than can be
completed within their standard working hours and that CIBC failed
to pay for the overtime work in direct contravention of the Code.
In 2020, after more than a decade of litigation, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice has found CIBC liable for breaching its
obligations to pay overtime under the Code.

Provincially Regulated Employers

Each provincial government is responsible for legislating the
employment standards minimums within their province. While there
are many similarities across provinces, differences exist in
categories such as, for example, minimum wages, hours of work and
overtime, pregnancy and parental leave, and vacation entitlement.
Advancing a class action within a province is relatively
straightforward, but the pursuit of a multijurisdictional class
action with differing employment standards in play across multiple
jurisdictions is not without its challenges.

Aps v Flight Centre is a proposed class action filed in Ontario
against Flight Centre, a travel services provider operating in
Canada and internationally. The claim alleges that Flight Centre
systematically failed to pay overtime to its retail sales employees
and implemented policies that failed to comply with the overtime
entitlements in different jurisdictions. The claim is advanced on
behalf of all current and former Travel Consultants employed by
Flight Centre in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Despite operating in
provinces with different employment standards legislation, the
class asserts that the legislation in each jurisdiction contains
materially similar provisions with respect to overtime
entitlements. Certification is likely to depend on whether the
Court finds that there are sufficient common issues. This matter is
still in the early stages of litigation before the Ontario Superior
Court.

Employment Class Actions in Ontario and British Columbia

The vast majority of employment-related class actions within Canada
are advanced in Ontario. Cases have been advanced in Ontario in
respect of failure to provide wages in accordance with the Ontario
ESA including overtime pay, holiday pay, vacation pay, termination
pay, and severance pay.

In Kumar v Sharp Business Forms Inc., [2001] O.J. No. 1729, the
plaintiff worked for Sharp Business Forms and brought an action for
breach of contract alleging that Sharp had failed to provide
minimum overtime pay, holiday pay, and vacation pay as required
under the Ontario ESA. Mr. Kumar brought the action on behalf of
approximately 50 of Sharp's former and current employees and was
successful. This is a landmark decision that set out the
circumstances in which class actions can be brought to enforce the
Ontario ESA.

Sondhi v Deloitte Management Services LP, 2018 ONSC 271, is a class
action in which document reviewers hired by Deloitte allege that
their working relationship was misclassified.  They argue that they
are employees, not contractors, and are thus entitled to certain
protections afforded by the Ontario ESA. The class members include
"all persons having performed or currently performing document
review or eDiscovery services at Deloitte pursuant to an
independent contractor agreement since January 2014 to the date of
certification". Three out of the seven common issues advanced by
the class were certified, one of which is whether the class members
were employees or independent contractors. The lawsuit will now
proceed to a common issues trial or summary judgment motion. As of
the date of writing, neither a trial date nor a motion date has
been set by the Court.

Fewer employment-related class actions have been brought in British
Columbia because BC courts have repeatedly held that claims founded
on breach of the British Columbia ESA must be addressed by
utilizing the enforcement mechanisms set out in the British
Columbia ESA. For example, in Belanger v Tsetsaut Ventures Ltd.,
2019 BCSC 560, the BC Supreme Court followed the BC Court of
Appeal's ruling 11 years before in Macaraeg v E Care Contact
Centres Ltd., 2008 BCCA 182 which held that employees are not able
to enforce their statutory rights under the British Columbia ESA
through a civil action. The Ontario ESA, however, only restricts
employees from pursuing a civil action in respect of failure to pay
wages or comply with Part XIII (Benefit Plans) if they have
advanced a complaint under the ESA with respect to the same
matter.

As a result, class actions recently advanced in British Columbia in
the employment realm involve claims of systemic harassment and/or
discrimination rather than breach of the British Columbia ESA. In
Merlo v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCSC 1136, the class
members were formed of female employees of the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police. The class claimed, among other things, that the
RCMP systemically failed to provide a workplace free of gender and
sexual orientation-based discrimination, bullying, and harassment.
Settlement of this matter, and the related class action brought in
Ontario, Davidson v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 ONSC 8008, was
approved by the Federal Court in May 2017.  

Importantly, the type of class actions being advanced in British
Columbia may change.  British Columbia's Class Proceeding Act, RSBC
1996, c 50, prior to amendments effective October 1, 2018, made it
procedurally more challenging to advance multi-jurisdictional class
proceedings in British Columbia. One of the major amendments to the
British Columbia CPA was moving from an opt-in to an opt-out
scheme, which now mirrors that in place in Ontario. Previously,
class actions were limited to BC residents; non-residents had to
make an election to opt into the class action if they wished to
join a BC proceeding. With an opt-out regime in place, both
resident and non-resident class members are automatically part of a
class unless they opt out of the action. In addition, the
amendments provided procedural guidance for the certification of
multi-jurisdictional class proceedings.

On July 8, 2020, Bill 161, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act,
2020 ("SSJA") passed third reading in the Ontario provincial
legislature and received royal assent, becoming law. The SSJA
amends several pieces of legislation including the Ontario Class
Proceedings Act, SO 1992, c 6. Perhaps the most significant of the
amendments is the coordination requirement for multi-jurisdictional
class proceedings. Ontario courts, at certification, will now need
to assess whether a class proceeding has been commenced within
Canada but outside of Ontario involving the same or similar matters
and, if so, whether it is preferable for some or all of the issues
before the court to be resolved in another proceeding. While it
seems that Ontario is now in line with other jurisdictions within
Canada regarding the coordination of multi-jurisdictional class
proceedings, it remains unknown whether this will hinder or help
employment related class proceedings being advanced in Canada.

Analysis

Mr. Heller's case, if certified, may widen the already open door in
Canada to class proceedings claims in the employment law context,
particularly on the issue of alleged misclassification. Class
proceedings based on standard form contracts appear to be good
candidates for certification based on the common issue that may
predominate in such cases. On the other hand, resistance to
certification may be possible on a closer look at whether or not:

   -- individual issues are likely to predominate (see McCracken v
Canadian National Railway Company, 2012 ONCA 445);

   -- in the case of proposed multi-jurisdictional class
proceedings there are an unwieldy number of different jurisdictions
with different applicable laws; or there are reasons under the SSJA
or equivalent legislation or jurisprudence to determine that some
or all of the issues in the proposed class proceeding should be
determined in another jurisdiction.

Should employers, especially those in the gig economy, brace for a
deluge of class action proceedings in the near future post-Heller?
Heller may be the thin end of the wedge.  Following the SCC's
ruling in Heller, the proposed class action against Winnipeg-based
food delivery company Skip the Dishes filed in 2018 is set to
proceed. The action was on hold while Heller was before the SCC but
will now proceed to an application for certification. The action,
filed by a former Skip the Dishes courier, alleges that the company
misled its drivers by classifying them as independent contractors
rather than employees. The misclassification allowed the company to
avoid statutory requirements covering minimum wages, paid sick
leave, and other benefits. It is expected that class actions in
other jurisdictions will follow.

Though Heller may have left many unanswered questions in its wake
concerning the law of unconscionability and the enforceability of
arbitration clauses, it may now be clearer sailing to
certification.  The courts' gatekeeping function in certifying
class actions remains intact but a perfect storm may be brewing
following the SCC opening the door to Mr. Heller's class
proceeding. This is especially so in light of the recent mass
terminations and temporary layoffs flowing from the COVID-19
outbreak.  There is a real chance of increased employment-related
class actions in Canada given the ongoing pandemic and its
predicted long-term economic repercussions. Which issues are
suitable for class proceedings remain an open question and may
depend upon the jurisdiction in which the proceedings are
advanced.

Employers should take this opportunity to take stock of their
workforce, what agreements and policies are in place, the different
jurisdictions in which they operate, and should critically assess
those agreements and policies to assess their risks. As Uber v
Heller shows, boilerplate clauses, especially in regards to dispute
resolution, are clearly no longer sufficient. Even if an employer
operates in multiple jurisdictions it may have common issues across
its workforce or contractors. Familiarity with Canadian class
proceedings may turn out to be the price of doing business using
standard form contracts. [GN]


ULSTER SAVINGS: Turner Files Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ulster Savings Bank.
The case is styled as Rhonda Turner, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ulster Savings Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-06084 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 4, 2020).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

Ulster Savings Bank is a mutual savings bank headquartered in
Kingston, New York. The bank has 14 branches, all of which are in
Ulster County, Orange County, or Dutchess County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Shamis, Esq.
   Shamis & Gentile P.A.
   14 N.E. 1st Ave, Ste. 705
   Miami, FL 33132
   Tel: (305) 479-2299
   Fax: (786) 623-0915
   Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com



VBFS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Carranza Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
FILI ABUNDIZ CARRANZA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VBFS INC. (D/B/A M&M MARKET DELI);
and VIRGILIO BRANCO, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05947 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 30, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Carranza was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

VBFS Inc. owns, operates, or controls a market deli, located at New
York, New York, under the name M&M Market Deli. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Bernstein Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Aug. 3 disclosed that a securities class action has been
filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the common
stock of Velocity Financial. ("Velocity" or the "Company") (NYSE:
VEL) issued in connection with Velocity's January 2020 IPO (the
"Offering Materials").  The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

If you purchased Velocity securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Velocity Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement featured false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that a
significantly higher proportion of its loan portfolio had become
non-performing loans; and (2) any information regarding the onset
of the coronavirus, including whether the coronavirus was adversely
impacting the real estate market or the Company's business,
operations or financial condition.

On May 13, 2020 Velocity issued a release and investor presentation
and held an earnings call providing the Company's financial and
operational results for the first quarter of 2020.  The Company
stated that its net income decreased 50% sequentially during the
quarter to just $2.6 million.  The Company also confirmed that the
suspension of loan origination would continue for an indeterminate
amount of time, effectively halting all potential growth in the
Company's loan portfolio.  In addition, the Company stated that its
proportion of non-performing loans had accelerated to $174 million,
nearly double the unpaid principal amount year over year, and
constituted 8.17% of the Company's total portfolio, 252 basis
points over the prior year.  Velocity's portfolio yield also fell
32 basis points sequentially to 8.57% due in substantial part to
the rising number of non-performing loans.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Velocity securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/velocityfinancial-vel-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-287/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

Contact Information
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


VELOCITY FINANCIAL: RM LAW Reminds of September 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. on Aug. 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased
Velocity Financial, Inc. ("Velocity Financial" or the "Company")
(NYSE: VEL) pursuant to the Company's January 2020 initial public
offering ("IPO").

Velocity Financial shareholders may, no later than September 28,
2020, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the
Class. If you purchased shares of Velocity Financial and would like
to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these
matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844)
291-9299.

According to the complaint, Velocity held its IPO on January 22,
2020, offering shares at $13.00 per share for gross proceeds of
approximately $100.7 million. In its offering documents, Velocity
touted it "ha[d] developed the highly-specialized skill set
required to effectively compete in this market" and that this
allowed Velocity to have "a durable business model capable of
generating attractive risk-adjusted returns for [its] stockholders
throughout various business cycles." However, Velocity's offering
documents failed to disclose that many of Velocity's loans were in
non-accrual status and at least 90 days past due by the time of its
IPO. Velocity's true financial condition was revealed on May 13,
2020, when Velocity released its financial results for the first
quarter of 2020, the same quarter as its IPO, revealing that its
net income decreased 50% sequentially during the quarter to just
$2.6 million and that its proportion of non-performing loans had
accelerated to $174 million, nearly double the unpaid principal
amount year-over-year. Velocity later revealed that by April 2020,
non-performing loans accounted for 9.9% of the Company's total
portfolio, which was expected, but not disclosed in the offering
materials. On this news, Velocity's share price fell more than 80%,
to close at just $2.53 per share on May 15, 2020.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than September
28, 2020, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that
the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com.   

RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm.  RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal
courts nationwide.

CONTACT:      

RM LAW, P.C.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
484-324-6800
844-291-9299
rm@maniskas.com [GN]


VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Robbins LLP Reminds of September 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP on Aug. 3 disclosed that a
purchaser of Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE: VEL) filed a class
action complaint against the Company for alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 pursuant to the Company's January 2020
initial public offering ("IPO"). Velocity operates as a real estate
finance company in the United States.

Velocity Financial, Inc. (VEL) Accused of Misleading Shareholders

According to the complaint, Velocity held its IPO on January 22,
2020, offering shares at $13.00 per share for gross proceeds of
approximately $100.7 million. In its offering documents, Velocity
touted it "ha[d] developed the highly-specialized skill set
required to effectively compete in this market" and that this
allowed Velocity to have "a durable business model capable of
generating attractive risk-adjusted returns for [its] stockholders
throughout various business cycles." However, Velocity's offering
documents failed to disclose that many of Velocity's loans were in
non-accrual status and at least 90 days past due by the time of its
IPO. Velocity's true financial condition was revealed on May 13,
2020, when Velocity released its financial results for the first
quarter of 2020, the same quarter as its IPO, revealing that its
net income decreased 50% sequentially during the quarter to just
$2.6 million and that its proportion of non-performing loans had
accelerated to $174 million, nearly double the unpaid principal
amount year-over-year. Velocity later revealed that by April 2020,
non-performing loans accounted for 9.9% of the Company's total
portfolio, which was expected, but not disclosed in the offering
materials. On this news, Velocity's share price fell more than 80%,
to close at just $2.53 per share on May 15, 2020.

If you purchased Velocity Financial, Inc. (VEL) securities
traceable to its January 2020 IPO, you have until September 28,
2020, to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff for the
class.

Contact us to learn more:
Lauren Levi
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
(800) 350-6003
llevi@robbinsllp.com
www.robbinsllp.com

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

Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]


VERDE ENERGY: Jurich Class Action Concluded
-------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the class action suit
entitled, Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. has been concluded.

Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a class action originally filed
on March 3, 2015 in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed on October 8,
2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of Hartford, State
of Connecticut.

The Amended Complaint asserts that the Verde Companies charged
rates in violation of its contracts with Connecticut customers and
alleges (i) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 42-110a et seq., and (ii) breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages for
the class and injunctive relief.

As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the
Verde Companies, the seller of the Verde Companies is handling this
matter as it was an indemnified matter in the original sale to the
Company.

This matter has concluded as the parties have reached a class
settlement, which received final court approval, and an order of
dismissal on February 24, 2020.

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


VIP AUTO: Faces Manfredo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN MANFREDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIP AUTO GROUP OF LONG ISLAND, INC.;
LEVITTOWN FORD LLC; WESTBURY JEEP CHRYSLER DODGE, INC.; WESTBURY
IMPORTS LLC f/k/a WESTBURY FIAT LLC d/b/a ALFA ROMEO OF WESTBURY
and FIAT OF WESTBURY; GRAND PRIX SUBARU, LLC; LINDENHURST SUBARU
LLC d/b/a SOUTH SHORE SUBARU; VIP OF HUNTINGTON, LLC f/k/a and
d/b/a VOLVO CARS OF HUNTINGTON, LLC; GARDEN CITY JEEP CHRYSLER
DODGE, LLC; and JOEL SPORN, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-03728-MKB-AYS (E.D.N.Y., August 17, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated salespersons appropriate minimum
wage and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek, failing to provide wage statements, and failing to
maintain accurate payroll records.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a salesperson at
Levittown Ford in New York from March 2018 through March 2020.

VIP Auto Group of Long Island, Inc. is an automotive dealership
business with its principal place of business located at 3195
Hempstead Turnpike, Levittown, New York.

Levittown Ford LLC is an automotive dealership business with its
principal place of business located at 3195 Hempstead Turnpike,
Levittown, New York.

Westbury Jeep Chrysler Dodge, Inc. is an automotive dealership
business with its principal place of business located at 100
Jericho Turnpike, Jericho, New York.

Westbury Imports LLC, f/k/a Westbury Fiat LLC and d/b/a Alfa Romeo
of Westbury and Fiat of Westbury, is an automotive dealership
business with its principal place of business located at 928
Jericho Turnpike, Westbury, New York.

Grand Prix Subaru, LLC is an automotive dealership business with
its principal place of business located at 500 South Broadway,
Hicksville, New York.

Lindenhurst Subaru LLC, d/b/a South Shore Subaru, is an automotive
dealership business with its principal place of business located at
305 East Sunrise Highway, Lindenhurst, New York.

VIP of Huntington, LLC, f/k/a and d/b/a Volvo Cars of Huntington,
LLC, is an automotive dealership business with its principal place
of business located at 345 West Jericho Turnpike, Huntington, New
York.

Garden City Jeep Chrysler Dodge, LLC is an automotive dealership
business with its principal place of business located at 283 North
Franklin Street, Hempstead, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
         Garrett Kaske, Esq.
         KESSLER MATURA P.C.
         534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
         Melville, NY 11747
         Telephone: (631) 499-9100
         E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
                 gkaske@kesslermatura.com

VITOL INC: Burg Alleges Manipulation of Gasoline Prices
-------------------------------------------------------
MYRA BURG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VITOL INC.; SK ENERGY AMERICAS INC.; SK
TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.; and DOES 1–100, Defendants, Case
No. 3:20-cv-05246 (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2020) alleges violation of
the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' illegal
scheme commenced as a result of a disruption in certain refining
capacity that occurred at the ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance,
California, on February 18, 2015. Portions of that refinery,
specifically the refinery's cracking unit, exploded in the early
morning hours of that day and, as a result, eliminated certain
portions of that refinery's ability to refine alkylates between
February 2015 and June 2016. Alkylates are chemicals that are the
primary product of alkylation, which converts light olefins, such
as butylene, into a high-quality gasoline blendstock by reacting it
with isobutane, which are then blended with gasoline in order to
boost Octane ratings.

The Defendants being the major traders in the California spot
market for gasoline and gasoline blending products realized that
the refinery explosion could serve as an opportunity to
artificially inflate the price of gasoline traded on wholesale spot
markets in California and to also increase the price of alkylates,
the prices of which are tied directly to the wholesale price of
gasoline, without unwanted scrutiny by other market participants
and regulators.

Immediately upon learning of the explosion at the Torrance
refinery, the Defendants Vitol and SK Energy negotiated large
contracts to supply gasoline and gasoline blending components for
delivery in California. The largest of these contracts exceeded
more than ten million gallons. Prices for spot market gasoline
contracts went up almost immediately for deliveries to San
Francisco and Los Angeles. Empirical studies demonstrate that
changes in the wholesale price of gasoline are passed through to
retail prices and that wholesale price increases are passed through
much more quickly than wholesale price decreases.

Vitol Inc. operates a trading firm. The Company charters tankers
and transports crude oil along with other oil products, as well as
offers pipe gas, fill and operate terminals, and ship coal and
sugar. Vitol serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
          ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
          155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 986-1400
          Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
          E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com

               - and -

          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
          Rachel E. Kopp, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: BCaldes@srkattorneys.com
                  JSpector@srkattorneys.com
                  RKopp@srkattorneys.com


WEINSTEIN CO: Prelim. Approval of Settlement in Geiss Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOUISETTE GEISS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE WEINSTEIN
COMPANY HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17 Cv. 9554
(AKH) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Settling
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement,
Certification of Settlement Classes, Appointment of Class Counsel,
and Permission to Disseminate Class Notice.

The action was brought by victims of Harvey Weinstein's alleged
sexual misconduct, and on behalf of a class they seek to represent.
Weinstein, with his brother, Robert Weinstein, founded Miramax
Film NY LLC in the late 1970s, sold Miramax to Disney in 1993 but
remained in charge, and departed for their new production company,
The Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC ("TWC"), on Sept. 30, 2005.
Throughout, Plaintiffs allege, Weinstein used his power in the
industry to sexually harass and assault them.

Weinstein set up meetings with his victims under the guise of
hiring them, making business deals, or networking.  Then, he
allegedly isolated them, often in hotel rooms, offices, or other
private spaces, and engaged in unwanted flashing, groping,
fondling, harassment, battering, false imprisonment, sexual
assault, attempted rape, and/or rape, and threatened or blacklisted
his victims if they opposed his advances or disclosed them to
others.

The Plaintiffs allege that people associated with Miramax, Disney,
and TWC knew about Weinstein's misconduct, facilitated it, enabled
it, and covered it up.  The companies' officers, directors, and
employees allegedly procured women who aspired to be actresses,
producers, or directors in the motion picture industry, lured them
to hotel rooms, approved Weinstein's expenses for hotel rooms, and
approved large settlement payments and legal fees to procure
women's silence and cover up Weinstein's behavior.  After a New
York Times article in 2017, scores of women began to come forward
and allege claims against him, his companies, and their officers
and directors.  Weinstein was fired from TWC's Board.  In 2018, TWC
and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The Plaintiffs filed the action on Dec. 6, 2017 on behalf of two
groups: (1) Plaintiffs Katherine Kendall, Nannette Klatt, Caitlin
Dulany, Zoe Brock, Larissa Gomes, and Melissa Sagemille ("Miramax
Plaintiffs") sue on behalf of victims of Weinstein while Weinstein
was associated with Miramax and Disney (i.e., before Sept. 30,
2005), and (2) Plaintiffs Louisette Geiss, Sarah Ann Thomas, and
Melissa Thompson ("TWC Plaintiffs") sue on behalf of victims of
Weinstein while Weinstein was associated with TWC (i.e., after
Sept. 30, 2005).  The Plaintiffs sue Harvey and Robert Weinstein;
TWC; Miramax; Disney and Disney affiliates; and certain officers
and directors of the companies.

Judge Hellerstein dismissed the Plaintiffs' initial complaint with
leave to amend.  The Plaintiffs then filed the operative complaint,
the First Amended Complaint.  The First Amended Complaint includes
federal claims pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
("TVPA") and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), and state claims for negligent supervision and retention,
battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and
ratification.

The Defendants again moved to dismiss all claims.  By his order and
opinion of April 17, 2019, the Judge dismissed all the Defendants
except Weinstein, and all claims except Count I, the TVPA claim
brought by the TWC Plaintiffs against Weinstein.  He dismissed all
other claims of the TWC Plaintiffs, all claims of the Miramax
Plaintiffs, and all Defendants other than Harvey Weinstein.  Only
the TVPA claim against Weinstein survives.

The proposed settlement is complicated.  The only Defendant
remaining in the action, Weinstein, joins those who ask to approve
it, but makes no contribution to the settlement.  Indeed, he
benefits from it, financially as well as by obtaining a release of
claims.  

Louisette Geiss, Sarah Ann Thomas (also known as Sarah Ann Masse),
and Melissa Thompson, the only Plaintiffs remaining in the case,
seek approval, and are joined by several of the Plaintiffs that the
Court dismissed: Melissa Sagemiller, Nannette May (formerly known
as Nannette Klatt), Katherine Kendall, Caitlin Dulany, Larissa
Gomes, and Jill Doe ("Settling Plaintiffs").  All the Settling
Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the class settlement,
preliminary approval of class certification, appointment of the
class counsel, and permission to disseminate class notice.
Thirteen women, having their own claims and lawsuits, strongly
object.

The proposed class action settlement is paired with a proposed
settlement of the bankruptcy proceedings initiated by TWC and its
affiliates.  In the bankruptcy proceedings, the insurers of the
bankrupt TWC propose to create a fund of $46,786,000.  Of that
fund, $5.4 million are allocated to settlements for individual
Plaintiffs who have pending sexual abuse lawsuits and who are bound
by a separate settlement agreement, $7,295,000 are allocated to
payment of claims unrelated to Weinstein's alleged sexual
misconduct toward women, $12,216,000 are allocated to defense costs
for TWC's officers and directors (including the Weinstein
Brothers), an additional $1.5 million are allocated to defense
costs for just the Weinstein Brothers, $1.5 million are allocated
to defense costs for TWC officers and directors in contract and
commercial cases, and $18,875,000 are allocated to the proposed
class action settlement.  This last amount, $18,875,000, is
allocated for the administrative expenses associated with the
settlement, taxes, attorneys' fees and costs, any service award
approved by the court for representatives of the class, and
distributions to claimants.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the Plaintiffs' counsel may
seek an award up to 25% of the settlement fund, or $4,718,750, plus
expenses.  The Settlement Agreement provides for releases by the
class members of their claims against the Weinstein Brothers, their
companies, and the officers and directors of their companies.  The
Individual Plaintiffs who have sued Weinstein in separate suits or
have settled with him and the other Defendants are excluded from
the settlement class.

The Settlement Agreement provides for the appointment of a Special
Master, selected by the class counsel and the New York Attorney
General and approved by the Court, to adjudicate the claims of the
members of the class and fix the amounts of their compensation.

The Special Master assigns points to each claimant, up to 100
points.  Up to 80 points can be assigned based on Weinstein's
conduct toward the claimant, depending on the severity of
Weinstein's offenses against the particular claimant, for example,
to the extent he committed unwanted sexual penetration, indecent
exposure, false imprisonment, and retaliation.  The Agreement
authorizes the Special Master to award up to 20 points for the
impact of Weinstein's conduct, for example, to the extent he caused
physical injury, emotional distress, or economic harm.  The Special
Master is to consider the totality of the circumstances and the
likelihood that a claimant would have been able to prove her claim
in court, including whether the statutes of limitations had run.

Awards for each claimant would be based on the points allocated
through this system.  Each Tier 1 claimant would be eligible for an
award between $7,500 and $150,000, and each Tier 2 claimant would
be eligible for an award between $7,500 and $750,000, but with all
awards subject to pro-rata increase or decrease based on
sufficiency or inadequacy of settlement funds.  Disappointed
claimants are given the right to ask the Special Master for
reconsideration.  There is no recourse to the Courts; the award of
the Special Master is final and binding.

The Settling Plaintiffs propose two subclasses: one for victims
during Weinstein's time with Miramax and Disney, and one for
victims during Weinstein's time with TWC.

The "Pre-2005 Subclass" is defined as: all women who met with
Harvey Weinstein in person, before June 30, 2005, (i) to audition
for or to discuss involvement in a project to be produced or
distributed by Miramax, LLC, Miramax Film Corp., Miramax Film NY,
LLC, The Walt Disney Company, Disney Enterprises, Inc., or Buena
Vista International, Inc. or (ii) in a meeting or event
facilitated, hosted, or underwritten by Miramax, LLC, Miramax Film
Corp., Miramax Film NY, LLC, The Walt Disney Company, Disney
Enterprises, Inc., or Buena Vista International, Inc.

The "Post-2005 Subclass" is defined as: all women, on or after June
30, 2005, who (i) met with Harvey Weinstein in person (a) to
audition for or to discuss involvement in a project to be produced
or distributed by The Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC or a
subsidiary or division thereof, or (b) in a meeting or event
facilitated, hosted, or underwritten by The Weinstein Company
Holdings, LLC or a subsidiary or division thereof; or (ii) were
employed, whether fulltime, part-time, temporarily, as an
independent contractor, or as an intern, by The Weinstein Company
Holdings, LLC or a subsidiary or division thereof.

As an initial matter, Judge Hellerstein opines that the proposed
subclasses are overbroad.  They include all women who met Weinstein
for certain business purposes or who were employed at certain
Weinstein companies, without regard to whether Weinstein abused
them.  The proposed subclasses also are too narrow.  The Settlement
Agreement excludes from the proposed class certain Individual
Plaintiffs who have live cases against Weinstein and who have not
entered separate settlement agreements.

In addition, parties seeking class certification under Rule
23(b)(1)(B) must show that the fund is limited by more than the
agreement of the parties, and the parties must present evidence on
which the district court may ascertain the limit and the
insufficiency of the fund.  Put simply, a fund is not limited just
because the parties say so.  The Judge cannot relax these
requirements to certify a mandatory class and deprive class members
of their opt-out rights.

The Settling Plaintiffs seek certification of the Pre-2005 Subclass
under Rule 23(b)(3), which is appropriate where the court finds
that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.  The unique
facts and legal issues applicable to each claim would predominate
over common questions.  The potential claimants were allegedly
harmed in different manners, in different locations, across
Weinstein's decades-long career.  The strength of their claims
depends on unique legal issues like application of statutes of
limitations.  Courts have sometimes found the predominance
requirement satisfied in cases of widespread sexual abuse.
However, those cases typically involved fewer variables, as the
alleged abuse involved factually similar acts and a pattern of
behavior at a single institution.

With respect to preliminary approval of the settlement, the Judge
considers whether he is likely to find that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate in light of the factors enumerated in Rule
23(e)(2) and City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp.  He finds that
numerous factors weigh against approval.  Critical considerations
as to the availability and scope of recovery are delegated to a
non-judicial officer, the Special Master, with insufficient
guidelines tested by adversarial process and pre-trial discovery.
Even if the Special Master had authority to make these decisions,
the underdeveloped guidelines are likely to lead to arbitrary
awards for claimants.

Finally, the Bankruptcy Agreement proposes major deductions from
the amounts that otherwise would be available to claimants.  At the
preliminary approval hearing, the Judge observed that favoring
these groups at the expense of the people suffering sexual abuse by
Harvey Weinstein was "obnoxious."  The Judge continues to hold to
that view.  Furthermore, the Judge cannot fully assess the numerous
factors related to the size of the potential awards because the
proposed class is too indefinite, and the parties' proposed process
gives insufficient clarity regarding how funds would be allocated.
In light of these considerations, the Judge would not be able to
find at the final approval stage that the proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hellerstein denied the Settling
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement,
Certification of Settlement Classes, Appointment of Class Counsel,
and Permission to Disseminate Class Notice.  If the Plaintiffs
still intend to move to certify the class, they should do so
promptly.  In any event, the parties will swiftly complete
discovery and be ready for trials.  

A full-text copy of the Court's July 24, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/SoEBts from Leagle.com.


WINS FINANCE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 3 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
Wins Finance Holdings Inc. ("Wins" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:WINS)
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October
31, 2018 and July 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 23, 2020.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Wins' repayment of its RMB 580 million
Guohong Loan suffered from grave uncertainty. If the Company failed
to repay the loan, its financial and operating condition would be
severely impacted. The Company failed to maintain internal controls
on financial reporting despite promising its investors that
weaknesses had been rectified. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about Wins,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

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


YAHOO! INC: Court Approves Data Breach Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zarish Baig, Esq. -- zarish.baig@squirepb.com -- of Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports
that Yahoo!'s data breach class action is finally being put to
rest. Last month, the Northern District of California approved the
proposed $117.5M settlement to resolve the claims of approximately
194 million class members in In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec.
Breach Litig., No. 16-MD-02752-LHK, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129939
(N.D. Cal. July 22, 2020). This approval did not come easily.
During several rounds before the Court to obtain settlement
approval, the Court pointed out that while "other data breach cases
focus on one data breach, the instant case involves multiple data
breaches over a period of five years, each of which Yahoo failed to
timely disclose."

In reaching its decision, the Court compared Yahoo!'s proposed
settlement to a few other class action settlements, including in
particular, In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, 327 F.R.D.
299, 318 (N.D. Cal. 2018), where the Court approved a $115 million
settlement to a class of roughly 79 million members. The Court
noted numerous differences between the Yahoo! settlement and that
in Anthem, and ultimately deemed the Yahoo! settlement to be "fair,
adequate, and reasonable." In an 88-page opinion, the Court
discussed its detailed criterion in granting the final approval,
some of which included:

Criteria Favorable to Approval
Data at Issue:
The Court acknowledged, and took into consideration "that the
Personal Information impacted by the data breaches" with Yahoo!,
varied significantly. Beyond email addresses, passwords, telephone
numbers, birth dates, and security questions and answers, the more
sensitive personal information, such as social security numbers,
financial and bank records, and medical records, largely depended
on the types of accounts the user's had with Yahoo!. Thus, every
class member was not equally impacted by the data breach, as is
often the case in standard data breach cases.

Out-of-Pocket Costs:
Yahoo!'s settlement class members' out-of-pocket costs are capped
at $25,000, whereas out-of-pocket costs for settlement class
members in Anthem were capped at $10,000 figure. In both Yahoo! and
Anthem, recovery for out-of-pocket costs included time spent
responding to data breaches. Overall, what this came down to was
that Yahoo!'s settlement class members who spent time responding to
the data breaches are entitled to reimbursement at a minimum rate
of $25 per hour, while Anthem's settlement class members rate were
entitled to $15 per hour.

Extent of Discovery Completed:
Prior to the proposal of the settlement, both parties engaged in
extensive discovery, which to the Court signaled that both parties
had developed a perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of
their respective cases in order to "make an informed decision about
settlement." For the Court, the extent of discovery was indicative
of a lack of collusion, as the parties had litigated the case in an
adversarial manner.

Number of Class Members Objecting to Proposed Settlement:
Out of approximately 194 million settlement class members, only 31
settlement class members submitted objections. Although the Court
analyzed and responded to each objection submitted, the Court was
very comfortable in concluding that none of the objections
warranted rejection of the Settlement.

Criteria Unfavorable to Approval
Delayed Notification of Breach:
Yahoo!'s data was breached in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, but
Yahoo! denied any knowledge of unauthorized access of personal data
in its 2016 filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, and delayed notification to users even when Yahoo! had
contemporaneous knowledge of the breaches. By comparison, Anthem's
data breach occurred between December 2014 and January 2015 and
Anthem disclosed the data breach to affected users in February and
March 2015 (i.e. within weeks of the breach.) Anthem also, soon
after disclosing the breach, provided two years of free credit
monitoring to each affected user, prior to any settlement of
litigation. On the other hand, although part of the final approved
class action settlement, Yahoo!'s affected users did not receive
free credit monitoring until nearly eight years after the data
breach. The Court also identified Yahoo!'s delayed disclosure, and
its denial of the breach despite having "contemporaneous
knowledge," as facts making Yahoo!'s breach much greater than
Anthem's.

Size of Class:
Yahoo!'s total class size was far larger than any other data breach
case this Court had previously handled. "Indeed, the 79 million
class in Anthem was roughly 40% the size of the 194 million." The
large size of the settlement class is significant because it meant
that the settlement fund yields a lower per-capita recovery for
settlement class members than in cases involving similar funds for
smaller classes. The Court was, in fact, recognizing the difference
between $1.46, what each class member was awarded in Anthem, and
$0.60, what each class member received in Yahoo!.

Severity of Data Breach:
The Court stated that "Yahoo's history of nondisclosure and lack of
transparency related to the data breaches [is] egregious." As a
result of Yahoo!'s lack of disclosure, settlement class members
were unaware of the need to take any steps to protect themselves
for several months. Whereas with Anthem, not only were users
notified within weeks of the data breach, they were also provided
with free credit monitoring immediately following the breach.

All in all, despite the number of data breaches at issue, the large
settlement class size, Yahoo!'s delayed disclosure to impacted
individuals and the public, and the sale of the breached Yahoo!
data on the web, after taking into consideration the overall relief
offered by the proposed settlement, and the distinguishing factors
of the data breaches, the Court deemed the $117.5 million
settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable.

Notably, approximately 1,779 of the settlement class members opted
out of the approved settlement for a release of any claims against
Yahoo!. Thus, with those class members' claims still lingering,
this may not be the last we hear of Yahoo!'s extensive litigation
related to the data breaches. [GN]


YAYYO INC: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of YayYo, Inc. (OTC PINK: YAYO) pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted in
November 2019 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for YayYo investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the YayYo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1915.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, the IPO Registration Statement featured
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Founder and former CEO El-Batrawi continued, directly and/or
indirectly, to exercise supervision, authority, and control over
YayYo, and was intimately involved, on a day-to-day basis, with the
business, operations, and finances of the Company, including
assisting the underwriters in marketing YayYo's IPO from Westpark's
offices in Los Angeles; (2) El-Batrawi never sold his 12,525,000
"Private Shares" and continued to own a controlling interest in
YayYo despite the NASDAQ's insistence that he retain less than a
10% equity ownership interest in connection with the listing
agreement; (3) certain creditors of YayYo were promised that in
exchange with their agreeing to purchase shares in the IPO (in
order to permit the underwriters to close the IPO), YayYo would
repurchase those shares from them after the IPO using proceeds from
the IPO; (4) the defendants intended to repurchase shares purchased
by creditors of YayYo in the IPO using IPO proceeds; (5) YayYo owed
its former President, CEO, and Director a half of million dollars
at the time of the IPO; and (6) YayYo owed Social Reality, Inc.
$426,286 in unpaid social media costs, most of which were more than
a year overdue and payment had been delayed while YayYo attempted
to complete the IPO. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. 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-1915.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***