/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200904.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, September 4, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 178

                            Headlines

ABBVIE INC: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Suit Ongoing
ABBVIE INC: Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation Dismissed
ADCS CLINICS: Shinn Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
ALPINE SITE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Barnes Says
AMERI HOME: Fails to Pay Retail Clerks' OT Wages, Rodriguez Says

AMERICAN HONDA: Browning Sues in Calif. Over Transmission Defect
AMERICAN INCOME: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Bell Says
AMERICAN INTL: Court Wants Artiste Class Certification Bid Revised
AMERICARE INC: Heredia Appeals Rulings in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
ANAPLAN INC: Misled Investors to Inflate Stock Price, Grobler Says

APPLE INC: Class Certification Sought in Macbook Keyboard Case
APPLE INC: MacBook Pro Flex Cables "Defective," Ocampo Alleges
AVERITT EXPRESS: Slocum Seeks Overtime Pay for Dock Workers
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Binding Term Sheet Signed in Gaynor Suit
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Freedman Suit Upheld

BANK OF AMERICA: Compu-Tax Suit Seeks Payment of PPP Agent Fees
BATSHEVA HAY: Web Site Is Inaccessible to Blind, Fischler Claims
BBVA USA: Hill Suit Underway in California
BBVA USA: Zamora-Orduna Realty Sues Over PPP Loan
BEE SWEET: Montes et al. Seek Proper Pay for Agricultural Workers

BERG'S YACHT: Morales Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Goodell Files Telemarketing Suit in Arizona
BEST STORM LEADS: Faces Pepper Suit Over Illegal Marketing Calls
BLOCK.ONE: Judge Raises Concerns Over Choice of Lead Plaintiff
BRIXTON CAPITAL: Faces Rogers Suit Over Illegal Text Message Ads

BROOKLINEN INC: Goodman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Faria Suit Against Unit Formally Closed
CELSION CORP: O'Connor Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 8
CF ARCIS IX: Chess Appeals N.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
CLARISONIC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Face Brushes

CLASSIC PARTY: Blair Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
CMR CONSTRUCTION: Avedyan TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
COLLECTION BUREAU: Roeder Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces FoFA-Related Class Action
COMMONWEALTH EDISON: South Branch Sues Over Bribery, Fraud Scheme

CONSUMER SAFETY: Dover Sues Over Unclear Fees on Lease Agreements
CONSUMERS ENERGY: Wisconsin Class Action Deal Underway
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Oct. 8 Oral Argument in Melucci Suit
COSTA CRUISES: French Passengers File Collective Suit in Paris
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Von Asten Class Cert. Proceedings Stayed

CRODA INC: Faces Baker Suit in Delaware Alleging Personal Injury
DEALERS' CHOICE: Bridges Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
DIRECT ENERGY: Faces Shelton Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Call
ELCERRITOHOP LLC: Garner Sues Over Untimely/Improper Meal Periods
ENPHASE ENERGY: Hurst Securities Class Action Ongoing

EVERI HOLDINGS: Still Awaits Approval of Donahue Settlement
EXELON CORP: Litigation Over SEC Probe Ongoing
FACEBOOK INC: Must Face Israeli Class Action
FARM ON ADDERLEY: Luc Sues in N.Y. Over Employment Discrimination
FEDEX GROUND: Oglesby Seeks Overtime Pay for Delivery Workers

FIDELITY NATIONAL: 401(k) Plan-Related Suit v. Reliance Ongoing
FIRST CHOICE: Fabricant et al Sue Over Unsolicited Telephone Ads
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Frand Suit Over 45% Drop in Share Price
FSMZA LLC: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Patzfahl Claims
GENERALI GLOBAL: Robbins Sues Over Denied Travel Insurance Claims

GIOSTAR LABS: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Fabricant Claims
GLACIER BANK: Faces Turnidge Suit Over Charging of OD & OON Fees
GOOGLE LLC: Class Certification Bid in "Roley" Granted in Part
HENRY SCHEIN: Fairness Hearing in Securities Suit Set for Sept. 16
HERITAGE COMPANY: Class Status Sought in Call Center Staff Litig.

HOUSE OF CB: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says
HUGHES CITY, AR: Conditional Certification of Collectives Sought
HYATT HOTELS: Antitrust Suits Remain Underway in Illinois
ICON MANAGEMENT: Lee Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay & Retaliation
ICONIC MORTGAGE: Correll Sues Over Unsolicited Calls and Messages

INCOL LLC: Reed et al Seek Conditional FLSA Class Certification
INSPERITY INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
JACOBS ENGINEERING: Roane County Resident's Class Suit Ongoing
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Xyrem(R) Related Class Suits Ongoing
JOHN C. HEATH: Trim & Frey Seek to Certify TCPA Class

JPMORGAN CHASE: $10MM Accord Reached in Indirect Purchasers' Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Interchange Fees Suit Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Certifies FCOI Investigators Class
JPMORGAN CHASE: LIBOR and Benchmark Rate Litigation Ongoing
JPMORGAN CHASE: Precious Metals Futures Suit Stayed Until 2021

KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suits Over SOPRA Trial Ongoing
KEEPER SECURITY: Vergo Seeks OT Pay for Customer Success Managers
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Faces Class Actions Over Fake Gold Bars
LALAJA INC: FLSA Collective Action Wins Class Status
LAROSA'S INC: Anderson Seeks Reimbursements for Delivery Drivers

LDA CONSTRUCTION: Faces Mendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Securities Litig. Has Final OK
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Smith Suit in District of Massachusetts
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fails to Provide COVID-19 Coverage, Melcorp Claims
LIFETOUCH NATIONAL: Schaefer Alleges Unfair Labor Practices

LINCOLN LIFE: Nitkewicz Sues in New York Seeking Premium Refunds
LINDENWOOD UNIVERSITY: Keeps Tuition Despite Closure, Martin Says
LITE BITES: Guerrero Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
MAA WWARRS: Faces Hollis Suit Seeking to Stop Unsolicited Calls
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway

MACY'S RETAIL: Carmine Suit Alleges Violation of BIPA in Illinois
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Massive Data Breach
MAXIM INTEGRATED: Post Suit Challenges Sale to Analog Devices
MAYNARD MARKS: Class Action Over Leaky Building Pending
MAYO CLINIC: Prelim. Approval of Class Action Settlement Denied

MCKESSON CORP: Agreement Reached in Suit Against RelayHealth
MDL 2460: End-Payers' Bid for Class Certification Denied
MERCY HEALTH: Mismanages Retirement Plans, Hill ERISA Suit Claims
MICHIGAN: Castillo Sues Over COVID-19 Testing for Latino Workers
MING JIANG: Gen Wang Han Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Dishwashers

MISSOURI DOC: Bid to Decertify Adult Parolees Class Denied
MONSANTO CORP: D.C. County Expect to Get $7.5MM From Class Action
MOSAIC CO: Cruz Suit Over Exposure of Hazardous Substances Ongoing
MOSAIC COMPANY: Examination in Uberaba EHS Suit Pending
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholders' Appeal in Texas Suit Pending

NANO: Fabian Seeks Certification of Classes & Subclasses
NCAA: Disregards Concussion Effects to Footballers, Ori Claims
NCAA: Disregards Concussion Effects to Footballers, Robinson Says
NESTLE PURINA: Facility Produces Noxious Odor, Fuehrer Suit Says
NEW PRIME: Haworth Suit Moved From W.D. Missouri to Massachusetts

NOBLE ENERGY: Assad Balks at False Statement on Chevron Merger
NTI SERVICES: Morse Seeks to Certify Cable Tech Class
ORACLE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Data Collection
ORANGE, CA: Injunction in Inmates' COVID-19 Class Action Stayed
PACCAR INC: Claims Over European Commission Probe Ongoing in UK

PACTIV LLC: Wilson Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
PALCO INC: Peel's Bid for Conditional Certification Granted in Part
PATRICK TA: Monegro Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
PINNACLE: Lockett Suit Seek to Certify FLSA / Rule 23 Classes
PONCE & PONCE: Walworth Alleges Abusive Telemarketing Practices

PUBLIC REPUTATION: Marrero Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
RALLYE MOTORS: Stile Sues Over Deceptive Collision Repair Scheme
RANDSTAD INHOUSE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Moseley Says
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Hubbard Seeks to Certify Hourly Employees Class
RD FUNDING: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls

REALOGY GROUP: Whitlach Class Action Underway in California
RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN: Schacht Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
RETAILMENOT INC: Powell TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
RITE AID: Lemons Suit Transferred From N.D. to C.D. California
RUBIO REAL: Walworth Balks at Abusive Telemarketing Practices

RUSSELL P. GOLDMAN: Final Settlement Approval Sought
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: DeMartini Suit Removed to N.D. California
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Washington Seeks to Recover Pay-to-Pay Fees
SERVISFIRST BANK: Sued for Refusing to Pay Accounts for PPP Work
SI-BONE INC: Settlement Paid in Fromer Class Suit

SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Feldkamp Suit Moved From Ill. to W.D. Missouri
ST. BASIL'S HOME: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Response
STERIGENICS US: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Vallejo Claims
STRATTON MEDICAL: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY: Foti Seeks Tuition Refund Over Campus Closure

SUPERSONIC OF FLORIDA: Rodriguez et al. Sue Over Unpaid OT, Wages
TIKTOK: Privacy Suits Consolidated Into Single Class Action
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Appeal in Securities Class Suit Dismissed
TWITTER INC: Class Suit Over User Setting Ongoing in California
TWITTER INC: Jury Trial Postponed Sine Die Due to COVID-19

UNION INSURANCE: Deer Mountain Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in Hughes Wage-and-Hour Suit Still Pending
UNITED STATES: Kluge, et al. File Motion for Class Certification
UNITED STATES: Samma Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
UNITED STATES: Scholl Seeks to Certify Incarcerated Persons Class

UNITED STATES: Washington Federal Appeals Rulings to Fed. Cir.
UNLOCKED BIZ: Certification of Autodialed Cellphone Class Sought
US HEALTH: Rangel Sues Over Wrongful Termination and Unpaid Wages
VAXART INC: COVID-19 Vaccine Reports Misleading, Himmelberg Says
VIVINT SOLAR: Wolf Securities Suit Balks at Sale to Sunrun Inc.

VOLKSWAGEN: Ingolstadt Court Tosses Audi Exhaust Gas Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN: March 2022 Trial Set for Emissions Scandal Lawsuit
VOLKSWAGEN: Must Face UK Group Action Over Dieselgate Scandal
WIDEOPENWEST INC: Appeal in Kirkland Suit Underway
WISE FOODS: Wallace Sues Over False Marketing of Potato Chips

XCEL ENERGY: Final Approval of Arandell Deal Took Effect Aug. 20
YGRENE ENERGY: Woolley Appeals Ruling in Fraud Suit to 9th Cir.
YRC WORLDWIDE: Notice of Appeal Filed in Lewis Suit
[*] New Securities Law to Promote Dev't of Arbitration Business

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $191.4MM Liability Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 139 Pending Talc Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $272MM for PI Matters at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Fined $950K on Asbestos Claim Reporting
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Has $21MM Reserves for Respirator Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 16,858 Unresolved Claims at July 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Awards AU$1M to Cancer Patient v. James Hardie
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $590MM Reserves in June
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Had $1.05BB Liability at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Pledges $1B to Bestwall Trust Fund
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Lawsuits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 1,121 New Claims in 1H 2020
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 118 Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Still Defends Suits at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at June 30


                            *********

ABBVIE INC: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that Allergan Inc. continues to defend a consolidated
putative class action suit entitled, In re: Allergan Generic Drug
Pricing Securities Litigation

Lawsuits are pending against Allergan Inc. and certain of its
current and former officers alleging they made misrepresentations
and omissions regarding Allergan's former Actavis generics unit and
its alleged anticompetitive conduct with other generic drug
companies.

The lawsuits were filed by Allergan shareholders and consist of
three purported class actions and one individual action that have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey as In re: Allergan Generic Drug Pricing Securities
Litigation, and one individual action that is pending in New Jersey
state court.

The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ABBVIE INC: Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the court dismissed the consolidated litigation
entitled, In re: Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation with
prejudice but the plaintiffs have indicated they plan to appeal.

Between March and May 2019, 12 putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois by indirect Humira purchasers, alleging that AbbVie's
settlements with biosimilar manufacturers and AbbVie's Humira
patent portfolio violate state and federal antitrust laws.

The court consolidated these lawsuits as In re: Humira (Adalimumab)
Antitrust Litigation.

In June 2020, the court dismissed the consolidated litigation with
prejudice.

The plaintiffs have indicated they plan to appeal.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ADCS CLINICS: Shinn Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
RYAN SHINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, V. ADCS CLINICS, LLC, d/b/a ADV AN CED
DERMATOLOGY AND COSMETIC SURGERY, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-20-013056 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., August 11,
2020) contends that Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging
with no regard for consumers' privacy rights to promote its
dermatology services, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq.

Defendant -- or third parties directed by Defendant -- used
equipment having the capacity to store telephone numbers, using a
random or sequential generator, and to dial such numbers and/or to
dial numbers from a list automatically, without human intervention,
to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

Defendant violated Section 227(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using
an ATDS to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of
Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their
prior express consent.

ADCS Clinics, LLC, d/b/a Advanced Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery,
is a Florida-based company that offers management and
administrative services for dermatology and cosmetic surgery
clinics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com  

               - and -
           
          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 628-5793
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

ALPINE SITE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Barnes Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOMMY BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALPINE SITE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-02906
(S.D. Tex., Aug. 18, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to
pay the Plaintiff proper overtime wages, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a laborer from
January 21, 2019, to June 20, 2019.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. However, the Defendant did not pay the
Plaintiff overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for all the hours he worked in excess of 40
per week.

Alpine Site Services, Inc., is a construction company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana St., Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002-1063
          Tel: (713) 222-6775
          Fax: (713) 222-6739
          Emails: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net


AMERI HOME: Fails to Pay Retail Clerks' OT Wages, Rodriguez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERI HOME ELECTRONICS INC. and SHOUQIANG
ZHENG a/k/a CALVIN ZHENG, Case No. 1:20-cv-03872 (E.D.N.Y., Aug.
21, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and other workers appropriate minimum wages and
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

The Defendants also failed to keep and maintain accurate records of
the employees' total worked hours, to give notices of the minimum
wage and overtime wage requirements, and to provide weekly wage
statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a retail clerk at
Ameri Home store in Brooklyn, New York, from August 2015 through
March 2020.

Ameri Home Electronics Inc. owns and operates a retail appliance
and electronics store with a principal place of business at 5108
5th Avenue, in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         David Stein, Esq.
         SAMUEL & STEIN
         38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
         New York, NY 10001
         Telephone: (212) 563-9884
         E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Browning Sues in Calif. Over Transmission Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
RONDA ANN BROWNING; DIVINA PAPPAS; BRIAN PAPPAS; KALI WESCOTT; and
ERIC WESCOTT, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.; and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY
LTD., Case No. 3:20-cv-05417 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2020), alleges
that the Defendants failed to disclose to the Plaintiff and the
class the transmission defects in the 2018-2019 Honda Odyssey, sold
and manufactured by the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the 2018-2019 Honda
Odyssey equipped with the ZF 9HP transmission operate erratically,
causing numerous safety concerns. The Transmission Defect causes
unsafe conditions, including delayed acceleration, abrupt forward
propulsion, and sudden loss of power, which are hazardous because
they severely affect the driver's ability to control the car. For
example, these conditions may make it difficult to change lanes
safely, make turns, merge into traffic, and accelerate from stop at
intersections, because the motor vehicles can fail to respond
correctly to driver's input during these normal traffic
conditions.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., develops and manufactures
automobiles. The Company offers passenger cars, trucks,
motorcycles, ATVs, generators, marine engines, lawn and garden
equipment, parts, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          Amey J. Park, Esq.
          Abigail J. Gertner, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604


AMERICAN INCOME: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Bell Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE BELL; GISELE MOBLEY; ASHLY RAI; and JOHN TURNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL INCOME LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; and Does 1-20, Case No. 2:20-cv-07046 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 5, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime compensation, to authorize and permit
meal and rest periods, to provide accurate wage statements, and to
reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as agents.

American Income Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company. The Company provides life, health, and disability
insurance services. American Income Life Insurance Company serves
customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Fisher, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          246 5th Avenue, Suite 522
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          E-mail: rfisher@bradleygrombacher.com


AMERICAN INTL: Court Wants Artiste Class Certification Bid Revised
------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Maison D. Artiste v. American
International Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-07574-SVW-E
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court granted the Plaintiff 90 additional days to file a
renewed motion for class certification, addressing the issues
raised by the Court in more detail.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff's motion seeking class certification
does not cite to any evidence regarding the number of homeowner's
insurance policies that were subject to the depreciation of sales
tax that the Plaintiff alleges violates the California Insurance
Code. Absent any support for this figure (the deposition Plaintiff
cites only establish that Defendants did have a policy of
depreciating sales tax in ACV payments during the relevant time
period), the Court does not find that an unsupported estimate by
the Plaintiff without any factual support is sufficient to
establish numerosity under [FRCP] 23(a)(1).

The Plaintiff initially filed this putative class action in
California state court on July 29, 2019, against the Defendants.
The Plaintiff's state court complaint seeks relief under
California's Unfair Competition Law.

AIG is an American multinational finance and insurance corporation
with operations in more than 80 countries and jurisdictions.[CC]

AMERICARE INC: Heredia Appeals Rulings in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Esthefany Heredia, Eslaini Fernandez, and Estela Taveras
filed an appeal from the District Court's Decision and Order dated
July 13, 2020, and Judgment dated July 15, 2020, entered in their
lawsuit entitled Heredia v. Americare, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-6219,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge William
H. Pauley, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (i) granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective, and (ii) denied
their motion to certify Rule 23 classes.

The Plaintiffs and the classes they seek to represent are home
health aides ("HHAs") employed by Americare in New York City.
Defendant Martin Kleinman is Americare's owner and chief executive
officer. Americare provides healthcare services to individuals in
their homes.

The Plaintiffs claim they (1) worked numerous 24-hour shifts, but
were paid for only 13 hours per shift; (2) worked more than 40
hours per week, but were not paid time-and-a-half for any overtime
work; and (3) were not paid an extra hour of pay for hours worked
over a "spread" of 10 hours per day.  As such, they seek unpaid
minimum wages, overtime wages, and spread-of-hour wages. The
Plaintiffs further allege that they did not receive appropriate
FLSA or NYLL notices from Americare.

The appellate case is captioned as Heredia v. Americare, Inc., Case
No. 20-2679, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Esthefany Heredia, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated; Eslaini Fernandez,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated;
and Estela Taveras, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, are represented by:

          William Coudert Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com

Defendants-Appellees Americare, Inc. and Martin Kleinman are
represented by:

          Kevin J. O'Connor, Sr., Esq.
          PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C.
          70 Grand Avenue
          River Edge, NJ 07661
          Telephone: (201) 343-3434
          E-mail: koconnor@pecklaw.com


ANAPLAN INC: Misled Investors to Inflate Stock Price, Grobler Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO GROBLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ANAPLAN INC., FRANK CALDERONI, and DAVID H. MORTON,
Case No. 3:20-cv-05959 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements about Anaplan's business, operations, and
prospects to artificially inflate Anaplan's stock price from
November 21, 2019, through February 26, 2020. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors, including the
Plaintiff, that: (1) the Company was undergoing sales organization
and execution challenges; (2) these organizational challenges were
causing the Company to miss on closing very important large deals;
and (3) as a result, Anaplan's financial guidance for calculated
billings growth was baseless and unattainable.

When the truth about the Company's operations and performance was
belatedly disclosed to investors, Anaplan's share price plummeted
25% in one day, wiping out $1.9 billion in market capitalization.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Anaplan Inc. is a global cloud-based planning software company with
its principal executive offices located in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 785-2610
         Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


APPLE INC: Class Certification Sought in Macbook Keyboard Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit re: MACBOOK KEYBOARD LITIGATION, Case No.
5:18-cv-02813-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs including Zixuan Rao,
Joseph Baruch, Bo Laurent, Ashley Marin, Kyle Barbaro, Steve Eakin,
Michael Hopkins, Adam Lee, Kevin Melkowski, Lorenzo Ferguson, and
Benjamin Gulker will move the Court on December 3, 2020, for an
order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who purchased, other than for resale, within
      California, New York, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey,
      Washington, or Michigan, an Apple MacBook from any of the
      model years 2015-2017, an Apple MacBook Pro from any of
      the model years 2016-2019 (excluding the 16" MacBook Pro
      released in November 2019), or an Apple MacBook Air from
      any of the model years 2018-2019."

      Excluded from the Class are Apple Inc., its parents,
      subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors; any
      entity in which Apple has a controlling interest;
      governmental entities; and all judges assigned to hear any
      aspect of this litigation, as well as their staff and
      immediate family members.;

   2. certifying subclasses of purchasers in the seven states
      listed in the definition;

   3. appointing themselves as class and subclass
      representatives;

   4. appointing the law firms of Girard Sharp LLP and Chimicles
      Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs each purchased a new MacBook with a butterfly
keyboard that failed. They all purchased a Butterfly Laptop after
seeing Apple's advertising, product pages, or other marketing
materials that, for example, represented that the butterfly
keyboard is "highly responsive" and provides "four times more key
stability." Like millions of others, when they bought their laptops
the Plaintiffs had no idea about the severe design flaws in the
keyboard mechanism. Had Plaintiffs known of the butterfly keyboard
problems, they would not have bought these computers or would have
bought them only at a much lower price, says the complaint.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and
sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Simon S. Grille, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
                  jelias@girardsharp.com
                  apolk@girardsharp.com
                  sgrille@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          Beena M. McDonald, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
          & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: sas@chimicles.com
                  bfj@chimicles.com
                  awf@chimicles.com
                  bmm@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq
          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq
          Noah M. Schubert, Esq
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
                  wjonckheer@sjk.com
                  nschubert@sjk.law

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  jhashmall@bm.net

               - and -

          Esfand Nafisi, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          388 Market Street, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 489-7004
          Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
          E-mail: enafisi@classlawdc.com

APPLE INC: MacBook Pro Flex Cables "Defective," Ocampo Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN OCAMPO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC. and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 5:20-cv-05857 (N.D. Cal., August 19, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the Consumer
Fraud Statutes of all 50 States and the District of Columbia.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false and
deceptive advertising and selling of the October 2016 and later
Apple MacBook Pro laptop models. The Plaintiff, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated consumers, alleges that
the MacBook Pro laptop's flexible ribbon cables are defective. By
opening and closing the laptop screen, the flex cables wear out
over time. Consequentially, the laptop's display backlight shows
dark spots across the screen and/or stops working altogether. When
the display backlight issues surface in the MacBook Pro, the laptop
essentially becomes nonfunctional. Further, repairing the display
backlight issue is not a simple fix. Because the flex cables are
part of the display, the cables cannot simply be replaced. Instead,
the entire display unit needs to be replaced, therefore
substantially increasing the repair cost.

As a result of the Defendants' fraudulent conduct, the Plaintiff
and Class members suffered an injury-in-fact and lost of money. Had
they known that the MacBook Pro laptop had a defective flex cable
and that it would manifest backlight display issues, they would not
have purchased the product.

Apple Inc. is a multinational company that designs, develops, and
sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services,
with its principal place of business located at One Apple Park Way,
Cupertino, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
         Tatiana G. Avakian, Esq.
         MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
         29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
         Agoura Hills, CA 91301
         Telephone: (818) 991-8080
         Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
         E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                 tavakian@marlinsaltzman.com

AVERITT EXPRESS: Slocum Seeks Overtime Pay for Dock Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ted Slocum, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Averitt Express, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-02789 (S.D. Tex., August 10, 2020) is a putative collective
action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated individuals, to recover overtime pay from
Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 201, et seq. ("FLSA").

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Dock Worker in Houston,
Texas, and had been employed in the position since July 2005.

Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals are or were paid
wages with no overtime pay when Defendant classified them during
the statutory period. Defendant permitted Plaintiff and the other
similarly situated individuals to work more than 40 hours per week
without overtime pay.

Plaintiff routinely worked overtime hours. On average, Plaintiff
estimates he worked about 44 and 50 hours per week. Defendant
expects Plaintiff and other Dock Workers to work long hours to meet
their production goals, which routinely results in overtime work.

Plaintiff also worked some weekends, resulting in additional unpaid
overtime hours. Defendant knew that Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals worked overtime hours, not only because the
demands they placed on their Dock Workers required it, but also
because Plaintiff notified supervisors he received no overtime
pay.

Averitt Express, Inc. is a privately owned transportation and
supply chain management company based in Cookeville, Tennessee. The
company was founded as Livingston Merchant's Co-op in 1958 and
incorporated as Averitt Express, Inc. in 1969.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith Lovelace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEITH LOVELACE
          8303 Southwest Freeway, Suite 975
          Houston, TX 77074-1622
          Telephone: (713) 777-0500
          Facsimile: (713) 995-5555
          E-mail: klovelace@lovelacefirm.com

B RILEY FINANCIAL: Binding Term Sheet Signed in Gaynor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company has signed a binding term
sheet to settle the case, Gaynor v. Miller et al. suit.

Any settlement in the case is subject to court approval.

On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May 2016
naming MLV & Co. ("MLV"), a broker-dealer subsidiary of B. Riley
FBR, Inc. (FBR), as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits
alleging claims under the Securities Act, in connection with the
offerings of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. have been consolidated.


The Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al.,
is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor complaints,
continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectuses issued in connection with six offerings (February 13,
2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17,
2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged
aggregate offering price of approximately $151,000.

The Court ordered mediation before a federal magistrate took place
on August 6, 2019, with no resolution.

In December 2019, the Court remanded the case to state court.

In July 2020, the Company signed a binding term sheet to settle
this matter, subject to court approval.

B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
collaborative financial services and solutions in North America,
Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments:
Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal,
and Principal Investments - United Online and magicJack. The
company was formerly known as Great American Group, Inc. and
changed its name to B. Riley Financial, Inc. in November 2014. B.
Riley Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in
Woodland Hills, California.


B RILEY FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Freedman Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that an appeals court has ruled in favor of
the company upholding the district court's dismissal of the case,
Freedman v. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et al. suit.

On August 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit titled Freedman
v. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. et al., Case 9-17-cv-80940, was filed
against magicJack and its Board of Directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No:
9:17-cv-80940-RLR).

In November 2018, the District court granted the Company's request
for dismissal of the case. However, the plaintiff appealed the
ruling and oral arguments for the appeal were held in January 2020.


On June 25, 2020, the Appeals court provided its ruling in favor of
the Company, upholding the District court's dismissal of the case.

B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
collaborative financial services and solutions in North America,
Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments:
Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal,
and Principal Investments - United Online and magicJack. The
company was formerly known as Great American Group, Inc. and
changed its name to B. Riley Financial, Inc. in November 2014. B.
Riley Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in
Woodland Hills, California.

BANK OF AMERICA: Compu-Tax Suit Seeks Payment of PPP Agent Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
COMPU-TAX & ACCOUNTING, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; DESERT
FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. D/B/A CHASE BANK;
NOTRE DAME FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; & U.S. BANK, N.A., Case No.
2:20-cv-01554-MHB (D. Ariz., Aug. 5, 2020), seeks to obtain fees
owed to the Plaintiff as a result of its work as an agent assisting
small business borrowers in getting federally guaranteed loans
through the Paycheck Protection Program.

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

According to the complaint, 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 as agents, the Defendants
have failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Class Members. Instead,
the Defendants have kept the agent fees for themselves.

Bank of America, National Association, operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          14646 North Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
          E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com


BATSHEVA HAY: Web Site Is Inaccessible to Blind, Fischler Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. BATSHEVA HAY LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06592-PAE
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act relating
to its blind-inaccessible Web site, http://www.batsheva.com/.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the Title III of
the ADA.

The Plaintiff asserts that when he visited Defendant's Web site on
July 6, 2020, with the assistance of screen-reading software, he
encountered multiple barriers that denied him full access similar
to that of a sighted individual and the full enjoyment of the
facilities, goods, and services of the Web site and the Defendant's
retail operations.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

Batsheva Hay LLC is an online retailer of clothing and accessories
for women and girls, and operates its Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Ave., Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Tel: 212-392-4772
          Emails: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  chris@lipskylowe.com


BBVA USA: Hill Suit Underway in California
------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that BBVA USA continues to defend a putative
class action suit entitled, Sarah Hill v. BBVA USA.

In June 2020, BBVA USA was named as a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California styled Sarah Hill v. BBVA USA,
challenging BBVA USA's assessment of certain overdraft fees.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. is a financial holding company that
conducts its business operations primarily through its commercial
banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama banking
corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The Parent was
organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April, Banco Bilbao
Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was moving to
unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding, the Bank
will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name and be
re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective June 10,
2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to change its
legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA USA
Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.


BBVA USA: Zamora-Orduna Realty Sues Over PPP Loan
-------------------------------------------------
BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company has been named as a defendant
in a putative class action suit entitled, Zamora-Orduna Realty
Group LLC v. BBVA USA.

In April 2020, the Bank was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the District Court of Bexar County, Texas styled
Zamora-Orduna Realty Group LLC v. BBVA USA, wherein plaintiffs
allege the Bank tortiously failed to process certain loan requests
submitted in connection with the federal Paycheck Protection
Program.  

The plaintiffs seek an amount not less than $10 million along with
other demands for unspecified monetary relief.

The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims
and intends to defend them vigorously.

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

BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding
company that conducts its business operations primarily through its
commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama
banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The
Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April,
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was
moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding,
the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name
and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective
June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to
change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA
USA Bancshares, Inc.

The Parent is a wholly owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global
financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant
market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in
Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in
Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA
acquired the Company in 2007.


BEE SWEET: Montes et al. Seek Proper Pay for Agricultural Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Montes; Maria Diaz; Octaviano Montalvo, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BEE SWEET
CITRUS, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01162-NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal., August 18, 2020) is a class
action by current and former employees of Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc.
for recovery of unpaid wages and penalties, failure to provide paid
rest breaks, failure to keep accurate records, failure to record
and pay for travel and post-shift work, failure to reimburse
expenses, damages under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural
Worker Protection Act ("AWPA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1801 et seq. for
the foregoing violations, for injunctive and declaratory relief,
and for attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs Daniel Montes, Maria Diaz, and Octaviano Montalvo are
residents of Fresno County, California. Plaintiffs are or were
seasonal agricultural workers, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1802(10), and are or were employed by Defendants, within
the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 1802(3), to work in Defendants'
agricultural fields, that is, on land owned, leased, managed and/or
operated, harvested or otherwise made productive by Defendants.

Plaintiffs complain that Defendants have required their
agricultural workers to perform unpaid and/or undercompensated
work, in violation of federal and state wage and hour laws.
Plaintiffs also complain that Defendants have committed other
violations of applicable law, including failing to pay minimum
wages, failing to appropriately provide or compensate for mandated
rest periods, failing to pay its agricultural workers the wages due
at the agreed-upon wage rate for work performed and/or fruit
harvested under the workers' piece rate, failing to pay workers for
post-shift work, failing to pay for travel time, and failing to
reimburse for tools and equipment.

Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc. is a California-based produce company within
the citrus fruits industry specializing in growing citrus
commodities such as lemons, grapefruit, and oranges, among other
citrus commodities, and providing packing and shipping services
across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com

               - and -

          Mario Martinez, Esq.
          Edgar L. Aguilasocho, Esq.
          MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH, A Prof. Law Corp.
          P.O. Box 1998
          Bakersfield, CA 93303
          Telephone: (661) 859-1174
          Facsimile: (661) 840-6154
          E-mail: mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com
                  eaguilasocho@farmworkerlaw.com

BERG'S YACHT: Morales Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
RAMON ERNESTO BOURDET MORALES, and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff v. BERG'S YACHT REFINISHINGS,
INC., and JEFFREY BERG, Defendants, Case No. CACE-20-012883 (Fla.
Cir., August 6, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for
their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
willfully and intentionally refusing to pay overtime wages.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a yacht repairer from on or
about November 11, 2016 through to on or about April 4, 2020.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked approximately 69 hours
per week for Defendants, but he was not paid at one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
in a week as required by the FLSA.

Jeffrey Berg is the owner and manager of the Defendant
Corporation.

Berg's Yacht Refinishings, Inc. offers yacht refinishing services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st St., Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Tel: (305) 865-6766
          Fax: (305) 865-7167
          Email: zabogado@aol.com


BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Goodell Files Telemarketing Suit in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Goodell and Kerri Wolski, individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Berkshire
Hathaway Automotive, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-01657-JJT (D. Ariz.,
Aug. 21, 2020), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, a federal statute enacted in response to widespread public
outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance
telemarketing practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendant made automated calls to
the Plaintiffs' cellphones, as well as those of other class
members, without their prior express written consent. In fact, the
Defendant has placed telemarketing telephone calls to the
Plaintiffs and putative class members despite not implementing the
policies and procedures required by law prior to making such
calls.

The complaint further states that the Defendant nonetheless engaged
in a nationwide telemarketing campaign designed to sell its
products to consumers. Because this telemarketing campaign placed
calls to many thousands of potential customers en masse, the
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of other persons, who received illegal telemarketing calls
from or on behalf of the Defendant.

Berkshire Hathaway Automotive is one of the largest dealership
groups in the U.S., with 85 independently operated dealerships with
over 100 franchises in 10 states, including Arizona, California,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico
and Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathan Brown, Esq.
          BROWN PATENT LAW
          15100 N 78th Way, Suite 203
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Telephone: (602) 529-3474
          E-mail: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          E-mai: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                 llafornara@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Mary C. Turke, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          E-mail: Mary@turkestrauss.com


BEST STORM LEADS: Faces Pepper Suit Over Illegal Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Pepper, Dallas Dean, Dave Semans, Carl Moreland, Harold
Aydelott, David Cathey, Justin Evans, Kathy Duff, Melanie Edwards,
Michael Delong, Nicole Vela Groskopf, Richard Henderson, Todd
Cianciulli, Julie Leichtle, and Clint Steiner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Storm Leads Corp.,
Case No. 4:20-cv-02961 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 24, 2020), is brought under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to obtain redress for the
Defendant's illegal marketing calls.

The Defendant made automated telemarketing calls to the Plaintiffs
using equipment prohibited by the TCPA, even though it did not have
their prior express written consent to do so, according to the
complaint. The Defendant also made unsolicited telemarketing calls
to the Plaintiffs despite their inclusion on the national "Do Not
Call" registry. The Plaintiffs did not give prior express written
consent to receive autodialed phone call on their cellular phone
from the Defendant. Moreover, these calls injured the Plaintiffs
and the Class because they were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying,
and a nuisance, and disturbed their solitude.

The Plaintiffs are individuals and citizens of Texas, Minnesota,
Florida and Colorado.

Best Storm Leads Corp. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
          712 Main Street, Suite 800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (281) 254-7717
          Fax: (530) 748 - 0601
          Email: cory@coryfeinlaw.com

               - and -

          Sean C. Wagner, Esq.
          Derek M. Bast, Esq.
          WAGNER HICKS PLLC
          831 E. Morehead Street, Suite 860
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Phone: (704) 705 7358
          Email: sean.wagner@wagnerhicks.law
                 derek.bast@wagnerhicks.law


BLOCK.ONE: Judge Raises Concerns Over Choice of Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Drake, writing for Coingeek, reports that a U.S. judge has
raised concerns about the choice of lead plaintiff in the class
action lawsuit against Block.one, suggesting the case against the
digital currency platform may be motivated by high legal fees
rather than the pursuit of justice.

U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan told the court in New York
that the class action raised on behalf of five investors in the
firm shows a lack of commitment and diligence, suggesting they were
unsuitable lead plaintiffs.

Referred to as the Williams Group, Judge Kaplan said the lead
plaintiffs had filed incomplete and inaccurate information with the
court, including unsubstantiated accusations against Block.one.

In one instance, one of the plaintiffs submitted data erroneously
showing a sell-side transaction for EOS tokens, when he was
actually the buyer. There is also the suggestion that one of the
plaintiffs, Token Fund I, was set up specifically for the purposes
of the lawsuit, having been registered just days before it filed a
motion to become lead plaintiff in the case.

A move to withdraw several of the plaintiffs at the eleventh hour
only heightened the suspicions of Judge Kaplan, who said this
"raises further concerns that the application is being driven by
the lawyers, rather than the plaintiffs."

As lead plaintiffs, representatives for the Williams Group are the
only party that will present the case in court, on behalf of all
other investors party to the case. With an anticipated lengthy
legal struggle set to run for possibly a number of years,
representing the plaintiffs looks likely to be lucrative for the
legal team involved.

Dismissing the application from the Williams Group on this basis,
Judge Kaplan chose Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund (CAOF) to be lead
plaintiff instead, citing their greater financial interest in the
fund as well as the fact they had submitted more accurate and
complete trading information.


BRIXTON CAPITAL: Faces Rogers Suit Over Illegal Text Message Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARRELL ROGERS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BRIXTON CAPITAL, LP, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-01352-MC (D. Or., August 11, 2020) is a class action
lawsuit alleging that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and implementing regulations by using an automatic
telephone dialing system ("ATDS") when it sent Plaintiff and the
Putative Class text message advertisements without obtaining prior
express written consent.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant invaded their right to privacy and
seclusion, which it benefited from, and which arise from text
message advertisements sent to Plaintiff and the Putative Class in
order to advertise the commercial availability or quality of
products and services, by encouraging Plaintiff and the Putative
Class to patronize the Rogue Valley Mall, to patronize stores at
the Rogue Valley Mall, to make purchases online for in-store
pick-up at the Rogue Valley Mall and/or to offer incentives and
inducements to patronize the Rogue Valley Mall, including but not
limited to sales, discounts, sweepstakes, contests, giveaways, and
special events taking place at the Rogue Valley Mall, without the
requisite Prior Express Written Consent.

Defendant failed to obtain a written agreement that discloses that
Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

     (1) are agreeing to receive Telemarking text messages;

     (2) are agreeing to receive text messages sent using an ATDS,
and

     (3) are not required to sign the agreement, or agree to enter
into such an agreement, as a condition of purchasing any property,
goods, or services.

Without an agreement with those disclosures, there is no Prior
Express Written Consent.

Brixton Capital, LP operates as an investment company. The Company
focuses on real estate investments, recapitalizations, performing
and non-performing loans, sale leasebacks, opportunistic lending,
and structured finance transactions. Brixton Capital serves
customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leta Gorman, Esq.
          Shawn Alex Heller, Esq.
          BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
          One SW Columbia Street Suite 800
          Portland, OR 97258
          Telephone: (503) 228-6351
          Facsimile: (503) 295-0915
          E-mail: leta.gorman@bullivant.com
                  shawn@sjlawcollective.com

BROOKLINEN INC: Goodman Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW GOODMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BROOKLINEN, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-07478 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began receiving multiple
spam text messages from the Defendant after he visited the
Defendant's Web site, http://brooklinen.com/in order to make a
purchase in April 2020.  The Plaintiff contends that he was not
informed and never presented any language or agreement by the
Defendant to use his number for spam text messages using an
automatic telephone dialing system.

The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff was harmed by the unlawful
conduct of the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks damages and
injunctive relief.

Brooklinen, Inc., sells direct to market linens and home goods to
hundreds of thousands of consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: 323-306-4234
          Fax: 866-633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com
                 mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                 twheeler@toddflaw.com


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Faria Suit Against Unit Formally Closed
----------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the class action suit entitled, Faria, et al.
v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., Superior Court of California,
Contra Costa County, Case No. MSC18-00606, had been formally
closed.  

On March 26, 2018, six Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., the company's subsidiary,
their alleged employer, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated current and former employees.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and claim that Carriage Funeral
Holdings, Inc. failed to pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest
breaks, provide accurately itemized wage statements, reimburse
employees for required expenses, and provide wages when due.

Plaintiffs also claim that Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. violated
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. On
June 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint to add a
claim under the California Private Attorney General Act.

On October 23, 2018, the parties mediated this matter and executed
a Memorandum of Understanding for class settlement.

In February 2019, a Class Action Settlement Agreement was fully
executed and was approved by the Court in October 2019. We paid
$0.7 million under the settlement agreement in November 2019.

This case was formally closed on May 25, 2020.

Carriage Services, Inc., provides funeral and cemetery services and
merchandise in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Funeral Home Operations and Cemetery Operations. The Company was
founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


CELSION CORP: O'Connor Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 8
---------------------------------------------------------
Celsion Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that a hearing to determine
whether the Court should issue a final order approving the proposed
Settlement in O'Connor v. Braun et al., has been scheduled for
September 8, 2020.

The company is a defendant in a derivative and putative class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division, filed by a shareholder against the Company (as both a
class action defendant and nominal defendant), and certain of its
officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants"), with the
caption O'Connor v. Braun et al., Docket No. MER-C-000068-19 (the
"Shareholder Action").

The Shareholder Action alleges breaches of the defendants'
fiduciary duties based on allegations that the defendants omitted
or made improper statements when seeking shareholder approval of
the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan.

The Shareholder Action seeks, among other things, any damages
sustained by the Company as a result of the defendants' alleged
wrongdoing, a declaratory judgment against all defendants
invalidating the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan and declaring any awards
made under the Plan invalid, rescinded, and subject to
disgorgement, an order disgorging the equity awards granted to the
Individual Defendants under the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Without admitting the validity of any of the claims asserted in the
Shareholder Action, or any liability with respect thereto, and
expressly denying all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability,
or damage against the Company and the Individual Defendants arising
out of any of the conduct, statements, acts or omissions alleged,
or that could have been alleged, in the Shareholder Action, the
Company and the Individual Defendants have concluded that it is
desirable that the claims be settled on the terms and subject to
the conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Company
and the Individual Defendants are entering into the Settlement
Agreement for settlement purposes only and solely to avoid the cost
and disruption of further litigation.

On April 24, 2020, the Company, the Individual Defendants, and the
plaintiff (the "Parties") entered into a Settlement Agreement and
Release (the "Settlement Agreement"), which memorializes the terms
of the Parties' settlement of the Shareholder Action (the
"Settlement").

On July 24, 2020, the Court issued an order approving the Parties'
proposed form of notice to shareholders regarding the Settlement.

A hearing to determine whether the Court should issue a final order
approving the proposed Settlement has been scheduled for September
8, 2020.

Celsion Corporation, a development stage oncology drug company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of directed
chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA based therapies
for the treatment of cancer. Its lead product candidate is
ThermoDox, a liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in
Phase III clinical trial for treating primary liver cancer. The
company is also developing GEN-1, a DNA-based immunotherapeutic
product for the localized treatment of ovarian and brain cancers.
Celsion Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in
Lawrenceville, New Jersey.


CF ARCIS IX: Chess Appeals N.D. California Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John Chess and David Orenberg filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit entitled John Chess, et al. v. CF
Arcis IX LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01625-CRB, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 16,
2020, the case was removed from the California Superior Court for
County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 5, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01625-LB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as other contract.

CF Arcis IX LLC is a company located in United States of America.

The appellate case is captioned as John Chess, et al. v. CF Arcis
IX LLC, Case No. 20-16621, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellants John Chess and David Orenberg's opening brief is
      due on October 19, 2020;

   -- Appellee CF Arcis IX LLC's answering brief is due on
      November 18, 2020; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN CHESS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; and DAVID ORENBERG, As individuals on
behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated and the
general public, are represented by:

          Melvin Neal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MELVIN NEAL
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-5331
          Facsimile: (213) 260-6000
          E-mail: mneal@mneallaw.com

Defendant-Appellee CF ARCIS IX LLC, DBA The Club at Ruby Hill, is
represented by:

          Jaikaran Singh, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 847-6700
          E-mail: jsingh@foley.com


CLARISONIC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Face Brushes
----------------------------------------------------------
Christine Esposito, writing for Happi, reports that when Clarisonic
announced that it was closing shop, fans of the facial brush
wondered what they would do when they needed a replacement. Michael
Todd Beauty is there for them.

In late July, the Port St. Lucie, FL-based beauty company announced
that it will launch a line of Clarisonic-compatible replacement
brushes.

According to Lewis Hendler, Michael Todd's chair, "millions of
Clarisonic users in the marketplace deserve great facial cleansing
at a fair price. Our Clarisonic compatibles will do just that. By
launching Clarisonic compatibles, Michael Todd will fulfill its
role as steward of the category, strategically ensuring the needs
of Clarisonic users are met despite the withdrawal of Clarisonic
from the market."

Michael Todd Beauty says the patent-pending Clarisonic compatibles
will feature polished bristle tips for gentle, non-irritating
cleansing and the company's signature antimicrobial
protection—the same features found on its own Soniclear brand
brushes, noted Michael Friend, president. The replacement brushes
will initially be offered in two skin types -- regular and
sensitive.

While the Clarisonic news took many by surprise, Michael Todd
executives said they were not shocked after seeing a proposed class
action lawsuit that was filed in early June.  According to a report
from Classaction.org, the lawsuit claims Clarisonic face brushes
have a defect that can cause the product to fail when used in the
shower, bath or sink although the Clarisonic brushes are reported
to be waterproof. According to the lawsuit, consumers have
reportedly experienced battery failure and the inability to
recharge or turn on their devices.

According to Friend, Michael Todd Beauty's Soniclear has been
growing in the category year-on-year, and what's more, since
COVID-19, the company overall has experienced growth of 240%, the
majority of which was in the cleansing category.

The firm has made the decision to shift its business model to focus
solely on hardware.

"Michael Todd Beauty's future concentration lies with the beauty
device category and the firm hopes to address all beauty/skin care
needs of the world. Since we are concentrating in this area we have
begun to phase out of the skin care/liquids category," said Friend.
[GN]


CLASSIC PARTY: Blair Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled ZACHARY BLAIR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CLASSIC PARTY RENTALS, INC., and DOES
1-100, et al., Case No. Case No. CIVDS2004284, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of
Stanislaus, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on August 24, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-at-00622 to the
proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and Class members appropriate wages and overtime pay,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to provide wage
statements, and failure to pay due wages upon separation in
violation of California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code.

Classic Party Rentals, Inc., is a full-service event rental company
with principal place of business in California. Insperity PEO
Services, L.P., provides human resources and payroll processing
support services.[BN]

Defendant Insperity PEO Services, L.P., is represented by:       
      
         Mark J. Jacobs, Esq.
         Christopher M. Ahearn, Esq.
         Lauren Stockunas, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
         Irvine, CA 92614
         Telephone: (949) 851-2424
         Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
         E-mail: mjacobs@fisherphillips.com
                 cahearn@fisherphillips.com
                 lstockunas@fisherphillips.com


CMR CONSTRUCTION: Avedyan TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled VARUJAN AVEDYAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CMR CONSTRUCTION AND ROOFING, LLC,
Case No. 50-2020-CA-007658-XXXX-MB, was removed from the Florida
Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
August 21, 2020.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-81362 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending an unsolicited text
message to the Plaintiff's telephone number.

CMR Construction and Roofing, LLC, provides construction and
roofing services with its principal office located at 3006 North
Lindbergh Blvd., Suite 703, in St. Ann, Missouri.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:       
      
         Alan S. Feldman, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF ALAN S. FELDMAN, PA
         10396 West State Road 84, Suite 106
         Davie, FL 33324
         Telephone: (954) 465-7655
         E-mail: afeldman@alanfeldmanlaw.com


COLLECTION BUREAU: Roeder Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM ROEDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLLECTION BUREAU OF THE HUDSON VALLEY,
INC., a New York corporation, Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-06200
(S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by making prerecorded calls to consumers
without their consent.

According to the complaint, Defendant placed a call to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in late December 2019 or January 2020. Plaintiff
called Defendant's main office number that the call was not for
him. But, despite letting Defendant know that it was calling the
wrong phone number, Plaintiff received a second call on May 26,
2020 from Defendant's phone number 845-913-7499. Although Plaintiff
did not answer the second call, but prerecorded message was left on
his voicemail.

Allegedly, Defendant engages in skip-tracing to call consumers who
can assist in tracking down consumers with outstanding debts, and
unfortunately, Defendant lacks a sufficient opt-out system that
results in consumers being inundated with calls.

Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc. is a private
third-party debt collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10001
          Tel: 877-333-9427
          Fax: 888-498-8946
          Email: law@stefancoleman.com

                - and –

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


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces FoFA-Related Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Mike Taylor, writing for Money Management, reports that
commission-based remuneration and the implementation of the Future
of Financial Advice (FoFA) legislation will be wheeled into the
courts again, with a legal firm announcing it is preparing class
actions against AMP, the Commonwealth Bank and Westpac and their
former dealer groups.

The legal firm, Piper Alderman said it was planning to bring a
series of class actions arising out of a failure by the
institutions to properly engage with the changes designed to be
implemented by the FoFA reforms.

In a statement issued late on Aug. 7, Piper Alderman said the
Financial Services Royal Commission had uncovered serial misconduct
and "Piper Alderman is now planning to bring claims designed to
compensate customers of three institutions who were charged
commissions in contravention of the law".

"More particularly, Piper Alderman's claims will allege that AMP
financial services licensees (AMP Financial Planning, Charter
Financial Planning, and Hillross Financial Services), CBA financial
services licensees (Commonwealth Financial Planning, Count
Financial and Financial Wisdom) and Westpac financial services
licences (Securitor and Magnitude) contravened specific obligations
owed to their customers when taking commissions from product
issuers and/or customers themselves."

The actions will be backed by litigation funder, Woodsford
Litigation Funding and will seek the return of commissions to
clients.

Commenting on the move, Piper Alderman partner, Martin del Allego
said the FoFA reforms were designed to protect customers and the
Piper Alderman claims would "demonstrate these institutions'
failure to do just that".

"These claims have the prospect of recovering significant sums of
money for a large number of individuals. On the institutions' own
numbers, over a million individuals may have been affected. We are
encouraging any individual who acquired, renewed or continued to
hold a financial product (including life insurance) on the advice
of an adviser from one of these institutions to register their
details with us."

Del Allego and the other partners claimed the claims that would be
made by the company did not overlap with other already commenced
actions against the financial institutions.

Both the Commonwealth Bank and Westpac have sold out of their
financial planning businesses but have indemnified the new owners
against legal action relating to past events. [GN]


COMMONWEALTH EDISON: South Branch Sues Over Bribery, Fraud Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
South Branch LLC, TFO Golub Burnham LLC, d/b/a The Burnham Center,
TFO Golub IT 2.0 LLC, d/b/a International Tower, and Rockwell on
the River LLC, for themselves individually and for all class
members similarly situated v. Commonwealth Edison Company d/b/a
ComEd; and Exelon Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-04980 (N.D. Ill.,
Aug. 24, 2020), is brought under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act to seek compensation for damages arising
from the Defendants' illegal scheme of bribery, fraud, and
corruption.

Defendants ComEd and its parent company, Exelon, have admitted to
an extraordinary nine-year scheme, which involved the payment of
repeated bribes to and for the benefit of the Speaker of the
Illinois General Assembly, Michael Madigan ("Speaker Madigan"), his
associates, and other Illinois legislators in exchange for the
passage of legislation that earmarked well over two billion dollars
in subsidies for Exelon and allowed, and continues to allow, ComEd
and Exelon to take billions of dollars from Illinois utility
customers to unlawfully inflate their profits.

The legislation secured by the Defendants' illegal bribery scheme
locked in automatic and ongoing utility distribution rate and other
fee increases for customers of ComEd, according to the complaint.
The legislation was designed to and did raise profits for the
utilities and it soaked ComEd's largest customers with the bulk of
the cost. The cost increases associated with the illegally
conceived legislation fell disproportionately on ratepayers in
ComEd's largest rate classes. Those ratepayers bore the largest and
highest percentage rate increases and a disproportionate burden
from new utility revenues enabled by the illegally purchased
legislation.

The Defendants have confessed to numerous unlawful acts of
corruption, fraud, and bribery through a sprawling criminal
enterprise involving energy executives, lobbyists, law firms, and
consultants that spans at least nine years and continued to operate
until exposed by the criminal prosecution of the United States
Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. While the bribery
and illegal manipulation of the legislature may have ceased, the
harms inflicted on ComEd's ratepayers continue, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are electric utility customers of ComEd.

ComEd is the largest utility company in the State of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          Mark Dym, Esq.
          Chirag G. Badlani, Esq.
          Charles D. Wysong, Esq.
          Emily R. Brown, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          70 W. Madison St., Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Email: mpiers@hsplegal.com
                 mdym@hsplegal.com
                 cbadlani@hsplegal.com
                 cwysong@hsplegal.com
                 ebrown@hsplegal.com


CONSUMER SAFETY: Dover Sues Over Unclear Fees on Lease Agreements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY DOVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CONSUMER SAFETY TECHNOLOGY, LLC d/b/a INTOXALOCK, Case
No. 2:20-cv-04321-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 24, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Consumer Leasing Act.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated customers, alleges that the Defendant failed to comply
with CLA requirements by providing insufficient payment disclosures
in its ignition interlock device lease agreements to customers. The
Defendant includes data processing fees, administrative closing
fees, and state fees in its lease agreements without providing
clear explanation whether any or all of these fees and charges
would be assessed to the customers, and under what circumstances,
or when such assessment would take place.

As a result of the Defendant's faulty disclosures, the Plaintiff
and other lessees rented ignition interlock equipment without
understanding their true financial obligations.

Consumer Safety Technology, LLC, d/b/a Intoxalock, leases ignition
interlock devices to drivers across Ohio, with its principal
offices located in Urbandale, Iowa.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:             
  
         H. Lee Thompson, Esq.
         THE THOMPSON LAW FIRM CO. LPA
         3360 East Livingston Ave., Suite 2 B
         Columbus, OH 43227
         Telephone: (614) 461-9000
         E-mail: thomlaw@msn.com

                - and –

         Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
         GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
         7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230
         Boca Raton, FL 33487
         Telephone: (561) 826-5477
         E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


CONSUMERS ENERGY: Wisconsin Class Action Deal Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Consumers Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that a hearing was scheduled in August 2020 to
consider the fairness of the settlement in the Wisconsin class
action suit related to gas index price reporting.

CMS Energy, along with  CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company
(CMS MST), CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and
Cantera Gas Company, were named as defendants in four class action
lawsuits and one individual lawsuit arising as a result of alleged
inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report
trade information.

Allegations include price‑fixing conspiracies, restraint of
trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in
Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

In 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a settlement with the
plaintiffs in the Kansas and Missouri class action cases for an
amount that was not material to CMS Energy. In 2017, the federal
district court approved the settlement.

Plaintiffs are making claims for treble damages, full consideration
damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorneys'
fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process.

In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS Energy defendants were
dismissed by the district court based on The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) preemption.

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court decision. The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The
appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to
amend to add federal antitrust claims. The matter was appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth Circuit's
decision. The cases were remanded back to the federal district
court.

In 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit filed in Kansas
based on a release in a prior settlement involving similar
allegations; the order of summary judgment was subsequently
appealed. In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the case back to the
federal district court.

In 2017, the federal district court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the two pending class action cases in
Wisconsin. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and in 2018, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the matter back to the
federal district court for further consideration.

In January 2019, the judge in the multidistrict litigation granted
motions filed by plaintiffs for Suggestion of Remand of the actions
back to the respective transferor courts in Wisconsin and Kansas
for further handling. In the Kansas action, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the remand and the case has been
transferred. In the Wisconsin actions, oppositions to the remand
were filed, but the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted the remand in June 2019.

In 2019, CMS Energy and the plaintiffs in each of the Kansas and
the Wisconsin actions engaged in settlement discussions and CMS
Energy recorded a $30 million liability at December 31, 2019 as the
probable estimate to settle the two cases.

The parties executed a settlement agreement in the Kansas case in
February 2020, and that case is now complete. The parties executed
a settlement agreement in the Wisconsin case, and a motion for
preliminary approval was filed with the Federal District Court in
March 2020.

In April 2020, the Wisconsin court issued a preliminary approval
order.

A fairness hearing will occur in August 2020.

CMS Energy can give no assurances that the Wisconsin court will
approve the settlement.

Consumers Energy said, "If settlement is not approved and the
outcome after appeals is unfavorable to CMS Energy, the remaining
Wisconsin case could negatively affect CMS Energy's liquidity,
financial condition, and results of operations."

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

Consumers Energy Company operates as an electric and gas utility in
Michigan. The company operates Electric Utility and Gas Utility
segments. The Electric Utility segment generates, purchases,
transmits, distributes, and sells electricity. The company was
founded in 1886 and is based in Jackson, Michigan. Consumers Energy
Company is a subsidiary of CMS Energy Corporation.


CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Oct. 8 Oral Argument in Melucci Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated  said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that oral argument on the company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint filed in Nicholas
Melucci (Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Case
No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK), is set for October 8, 2020.

On March 14, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Nicholas Melucci (Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK).

The complaint named the company and certain of its executive
officers as defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.

The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from August
2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified monetary relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.

On October 7, 2019, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. The lead plaintiff's consolidated complaint was filed on
December 6, 2019.

The company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on January
27, 2020. Rather than oppose the company's motion to dismiss, on
March 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.

On May 11, 2020, the company moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

The company received plaintiff's opposition to its motion on June
25, 2020 and filed its reply on July 27, 2020. Oral argument of the
company's motion to dismiss is set for October 8, 2020.

Corcept said, "We will respond vigorously to plaintiff’s claims,
but cannot predict the outcome of this matter."

Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated discovers, develops, and
commercializes drugs for the treatment of severe metabolic,
oncologic, and psychiatric disorders in the United States. Corcept
Therapeutics Incorporated was founded in 1998 and is headquartered
in Menlo Park, California.


COSTA CRUISES: French Passengers File Collective Suit in Paris
--------------------------------------------------------------
MercoPress reports that around 850 French passengers who were
onboard a coronavirus-riddled cruise ship that was turned away from
numerous ports in March have filed a collective suit in Paris with
180 complaints, including manslaughter, against Costa Cruises,
their lawyer said on Aug. 9.

The class action, which includes complaints from the families of
three passengers who died of COVID-19, accuses the Italy-based
cruise giant of negligence and various faults during their trip on
the Costa Magica.

From March 6 to 13, the ship was refused to dock in most of the
Caribbean islands it visited, including Trinidad and Tobago,
Grenada, Barbados and Saint Lucia.

In the absence of stopovers, the crew encouraged the passengers to
use the ship's shops, spas, restaurants and casino without
sufficiently putting health measures in place -- or informing them
there were suspected infections onboard -- the complainants said in
their suit.

The staff members on the ship "were at fault, the passengers had
almost no information and only found out from local media that
there were cases on the ship," Lawyer Philippe Courtois, who
represents the collective of some 850 French passengers said.

Courtois also criticized the "extremely light" virus measures on
the ship. "It was meant to be a dream cruise, but it ended in an
ordeal," he said.

Costa Cruises, which is part of the Carnival group, has suspended
its trips worldwide until August 15 due to the pandemic. [GN]


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Von Asten Class Cert. Proceedings Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TERRY VON ASTEN v. CREDIT
MANAGEMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2:20-cv-01175-WED (E.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin granted Plaintiff's
request to stay further proceedings on the motion for class
certification.

On July 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At
the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers
to as a "protective" motion for class certification.

The plaintiff has moved to certify the class described in the
complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on
that motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class‐action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs."

However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a
motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the
Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to
delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation."

Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the
Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its
protective purpose under Damasco.

Credit Management provides financing solutions.[CC]

CRODA INC: Faces Baker Suit in Delaware Alleging Personal Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Croda Inc. The case
is styled as Catherine Baker, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Croda Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01108 (D.
Del., Aug. 24, 2020).

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

Croda, Inc. supplies natural based specialities and oleochemicals
for consumer products. The Company offers the products for personal
care, health care, nutrition, home care, crop care, polymers,
lubricants, and industrial applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle John McGee, Esq.
          GRANT & ESISENHOFER, P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 622-7126
          Email: kmcgee@gelaw.com


DEALERS' CHOICE: Bridges Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled HERSHAL BRIDGES III, and JASON C. HURD, III,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
DEALERS' CHOICE TRUCKAWAY SYSTEM, INC., D/B/A TRUCKMOVERS;
IRONTIGER LOGISTICS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
19STCV46408, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on August 24, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00678-DGK to the
proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated current and former
drivers appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to furnish accurate wage
statements, failure to pay all wages due upon separation, failure
to reimburse for job-related expenses, and unlawful deductions from
wages in violations of California Labor Code.

Dealers' Choice Truckaway System, Inc., d/b/a Truckmovers, is a
trucking company with its headquarters located in Independence,
Missouri. IronTiger Logistics, Inc. is a transportation service
provider located in Independence, Missouri. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:    

         Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
         SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
         2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
         Pasadena, CA 91101
         Telephone: (626) 795-4700
         Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
         E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com


DIRECT ENERGY: Faces Shelton Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Call
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVERETT SHELTON v. DIRECT ENERGY, LP and KAA ENERGY, INC.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-03966-CMR (E.D. Pa., Aug. 11, 2020), alleges that
despite a prior lawsuit against the same parties for the same
conduct, Direct Energy hired KAA, who made an automated call to the
Plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991.

The Plaintiff contends that he never consented to receive the call
that was placed to him for telemarketing purposes and in fact had
sued the same parties for making such calls. Because telemarketing
campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even
millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this
action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons,
who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of
Defendants.

The calls allegedly violate the TCPA as they are made using the
ViciDial automated dialing system to the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone.

The Plaintiff and the other call recipients were harmed by the
calls, according to the complaint. They were temporarily deprived
of legitimate use of their phones because the phone line was tied
up during the telemarketing calls, and their privacy was improperly
invaded. Moreover, the calls injured the Plaintiff and the other
call recipients because they were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying,
were a nuisance, and disturbed the solitude of the Plaintiff and
the class.

KAA Energy, Inc., is a Texas-based energy company.

Direct Energy, LP, is a North American retailer of energy and
energy services based in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murray@mmmb.com
                  murphy@mmmb.com
                  misny@mmmb.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


ELCERRITOHOP LLC: Garner Sues Over Untimely/Improper Meal Periods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ELCERRITOHOP, LLC and DOES 1 through 50, Case No.
20SMCV01136 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 21, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' failure to provide the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated current and former employees with timely
and duty-free meal periods or give compensation in lieu thereof.

The complaint also asserts claims for failure to maintain accurate
records of meal records, to pay overtime compensation for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, to timely pay all wages
at termination, and to furnish accurate itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at its restaurant in
El Cerrito, California.

Elcerritohop, LLC, operates a franchised IHOP restaurant in El
Cerrito, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
         Danielle Sherrod, Esq.
         RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
         22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200
         Torrance, CA 90505
         Telephone: (310) 961-9600
         Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
         E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
                 danielle@rastegarlawgroup.com


ENPHASE ENERGY: Hurst Securities Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Enphase Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a securities
class action suit initiated by Gregory A. Hurst.

On or about June 17, 2020, Gregory A. Hurst filed a securities
class action lawsuit against the company, its chief executive
officer and its chief financial officer in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
a class consisting of those individuals who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's common stock between February 26, 2019 and
June 17, 2020.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Plaintiff does not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, he seeks to recover
damages on behalf of himself and other persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's stock during the putative class
period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered
financial harm as a result.

Enphase said, "We dispute all allegations, intend to defend the
matter vigorously and believe the claims are without merit."

Enphase Energy, Inc. is a global energy technology company. The
company delivers smart, easy-to-use solutions that manage solar
generation, storage and communication on one intelligent platform.
The company revolutionized the solar industry with our
microinverter technology and it produces a fully integrated
solar-plus-storage solution. The company is based in Fremont,
California.


EVERI HOLDINGS: Still Awaits Approval of Donahue Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that a settlement has been reached in the class
action suit entitled, Geraldine Donahue, et al. v. Everi FinTech,
et al.

Geraldine Donahue, et al. v. Everi FinTech, et al., is a putative
class action matter filed on December 12, 2018, in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois County Division, Chancery Division.


The original defendant was dismissed and the Company was
substituted as the defendant on April 22, 2019. Plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleges that Everi
FinTech and the Company (a) have violated certain provisions of The
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA) by their
failure, as agent to the original defendant, to properly truncate
patron credit card numbers when printing cash access receipts as
required under FACTA, and (b) have been unjustly enriched through
the charging of service fees for transactions conducted at the
original defendant's facilities.

Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and
costs.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle for settlement
of this matter, which will include the settlement and resolution of
all the FACTA-related matters pending against the Company and Everi
FinTech.

The settlement requires court approval, which the parties are in
the process of working to obtain.

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

Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding
company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi
Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc.
(Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two
segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and
mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated
gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software.
The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


EXELON CORP: Litigation Over SEC Probe Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the Company and Commonwealth Edison Company
(ComEd) continue to defend putative class suits related to an
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Exelon and Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) received a grand
jury subpoena in the second quarter of 2019 from the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois (USAO)
requiring production of information concerning their lobbying
activities in the State of Illinois.

On October 4, 2019, Exelon and ComEd received a second grand jury
subpoena from the USAO requiring production of records of any
communications with certain individuals and entities.

On October 22, 2019, the SEC notified Exelon and ComEd that it had
also opened an investigation into their lobbying activities. On
July 17, 2020, ComEd entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement
(DPA) with the USAO to resolve the USAO investigation. Under the
DPA, the USAO filed a single charge alleging that ComEd improperly
gave and offered to give jobs, vendor subcontracts, and payments
associated with those jobs and subcontracts for the benefit of the
Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives and the Speaker's
associates, with the intent to influence the Speaker's action
regarding legislation affecting ComEd's interests.

The DPA provides that the USAO will defer any prosecution of such
charge and any other criminal or civil case against ComEd in
connection with the matters identified therein for a three-year
period subject to certain obligations of ComEd, including payment
to the United States Treasury of $200 million, with $100 million
payable within 30 days of the filing of the DPA with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and an
additional $100 million within ninety days of such filing date.

The payments were recorded within Operating and maintenance expense
in Exelon's and ComEd's Consolidated Statements of Operations and
Comprehensive Income in the second quarter of 2020.

The payments will not be recovered in rates or charged to customers
and ComEd will not seek or accept reimbursement or indemnification
from any source other than Exelon.

Exelon was not made a party to the DPA, and therefore the
investigation by the USAO into Exelon's activities ends with no
charges being brought against Exelon.

The SEC's investigation remains ongoing and Exelon and ComEd have
cooperated fully and intend to continue to cooperate fully with the
SEC. Exelon and ComEd cannot predict the outcome of the SEC
investigation. No loss contingency has been reflected in Exelon's
and ComEd's consolidated financial statements with respect to the
SEC investigation, as this contingency is neither probable nor
reasonably estimable at this time.

Management is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss as this matter is subject to change.

Subsequent to Exelon announcing the receipt of the subpoenas, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed against Exelon and certain
officers of Exelon and ComEd alleging misrepresentations or
omissions purporting to relate to matters that are the subject of
the subpoenas and the SEC investigation.

In addition, a derivative shareholder lawsuit was filed against
Exelon, its directors and certain officers of Exelon and ComEd
alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties also
purporting to relate to matters that are the subject of the
subpoenas and the SEC investigation. On July 28, 2020, plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed this derivative action without prejudice to
refile.

Two additional putative class actions have been filed on July 27
and July 28, 2020. The first putative class action lawsuit against
ComEd and Exelon has been filed in Illinois state court and seeks
restitution and compensatory damages on behalf of ComEd customers.


The second putative class action lawsuit against ComEd has been
filed in federal court and alleges civil violations of federal
racketeering laws.

On August 2, 2020, plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit requested that
ComEd waive service, which would make ComEd's response due in
October 2020. Both putative class action lawsuits relate to the
conduct alleged in the DPA.

No loss contingencies have been reflected in Exelon's and ComEd's
consolidated financial statements with respect to these matters, as
such contingencies are neither probable nor reasonably estimable at
this time. Management is currently unable to estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss due to the early stages of the lawsuits.

Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to
customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas
to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear
power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.


FACEBOOK INC: Must Face Israeli Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Omer Kabir, writing for CTech, reports that Facebook is going to
have to defend itself in a class-action lawsuit in Israel after the
court rejected the company's request to reject the motion, claiming
the plaintiffs aren't "consumers" of the social media network.

The ruling by Tel Aviv District Court judge Rhachamim Cohen, hinged
on the question of who constitutes a Facebook "consumer." The
social media company claimed that the definition only covers
regular users and therefore according to its terms of use, the
lawsuit cannot be conducted in Israel, rather only in the
California court system. The plaintiffs, two operators of pages who
in the past paid for advertising on Facebook before the company
closed down their accounts, claimed that they meet the definition
of "consumers" and therefore their lawsuit can be heard in the
Israeli class-action suit.

The plaintiffs, attorney Eli Nacht and independent marketer Semion
Valdberg, filed the lawsuit on behalf of "all Facebook users whose
accounts were frozen by Facebook without warning and without the
ability to appeal the move." The two claimed that Facebook violated
its own terms of use when it de-activated their accounts without
warning, and that it acted in bad faith and counter to contract
law. They claimed the account closure caused the users direct and
indirect financial damages. It was further argued that any clause
that allows Facebook to willy nilly deactivate the accounts of its
users without prior notice and without the possibility of restoring
it is a discriminatory condition in a uniform contract that must be
rescinded.

Facebook's terms of use state that in the case that a "consumer"
has grievances or claims against the company, they are subject to
the laws of the state in which they reside and the relevant
authority is the court in the same country. Other users can only
sue the company in a California court.

Facebook, who asked that the lawsuit be dismissed, claimed the
plaintiffs were not consumers, since they presented themselves at
registration as business users who purchased services from the
company. "The plaintiffs are not ordinary non-paying users of the
Facebook platform (i.e. consumers), but rather are "non-consumers'
(i.e. advertisers)," wrote Cohen in his summary of Facebook's
response. In response, the plaintiffs said that Facebook's
classification of them as business clients was wrong since they
were also the owners of user accounts that were also de-activated.

In his decision, the judge noted that alongside the business
account the plaintiffs also created personal profiles and that
Facebook had shut both down. "Linguistically the plaintiffs are
"consumers' of Facebook as they "use' Facebook services," he said.
"Facebook is asking to differentiate between non-paying customers
who are "consumers,' and users who paid for Facebook advertising
services, who aren't "consumers.' In my judgment, the issue of
payment cannot be the sole criterion for distinguishing between who
is and who isn't a consumer."

"In the regular world, a consumer pays for the services he or she
uses. Therefore the act of payment does not turn the plaintiffs
into non-consumers, the claim that only those who don't pay are
"consumers' is not an obvious one. In this case, we are dealing
with a mix of personal use of the personal account and business use
for marketing courses and the advancement of public issues on the
'pages.' Keeping in mind that the service is "mainly personal' and
that Facebook deactivated the personal profile, it appears that the
plaintiffs should be viewed as Facebook "consumers.'"

Cohen also highlighted the power disparity between the plaintiffs
and Facebook: "the plaintiffs are private individuals who
occasionally purchased advertising and marketing packages while
Facebook is a powerful multinational company who's products are
used by more than two billion people, the inequality between
Facebook and the plaintiffs is so significant that the
distinctions, if they exist, between users who only have a private
profile and users who also have business pages are subject to
blurring. Both are in a position of weakness relative to Facebook
and both deserve protection under consumer legislation."

The judge ruled that the plaintiffs are indeed Facebook
"consumers," rejected the motion to dismiss and ordered it to pay
legal expenses worth NIS 30,000 (approximately $9,000). The case is
now set to advance to the next stage, a hearing related to the
content of the class action suit, after which the court will
determine whether to approve or dismiss it.

Facebook declined to comment on the report. [GN]


FARM ON ADDERLEY: Luc Sues in N.Y. Over Employment Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDDY LUC, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. THE FARM ON ADDERLEY, and STEVEN HUBLLE, Case No. 1:20-cv-03840
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2020), seeks relief from employment
discrimination under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as line cook from
approximately 2008 to August 19, 2019.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of knowingly and willfully compensating black and brown
employees, less than their Caucasian colleagues in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New York City and
State equal pay laws.

The Defendants also allegedly maintained a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, to
work an excess of 40 hours per week without providing the overtime
compensation required by federal and state laws and regulations.

The Farm on Adderley is an American restaurant located in New York
City, in the borough of Brooklyn.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tyrone A. Blackburn, Esq.
          1242 E. 80th Street, 3rd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11236
          Telephone: (347) 342-7432


FEDEX GROUND: Oglesby Seeks Overtime Pay for Delivery Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tawanna Oglesby Plaintiff, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00346-WHR (S.D. Ohio, August 18, 2020)
is a class and collective action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff
against Defendant on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals who have been employed by FedEx through intermediary
employers to perform delivery services on FedEx's behalf and who
have been eligible to receive overtime pay but have not been paid
time-and-a-half compensation for their hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver for FedEx in an around the
Dayton, Ohio area from approximately October 2016 through
approximately June 2020 through intermediary entities that FedEx
calls an "independent service provider" ("ISP").

Plaintiff seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable
relief based on Defendant's willful failure to compensate Plaintiff
and similarly-situated individuals with overtime wages as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et
seq., the Ohio Minimum Wage Fairness Act ("OMFWSA"), O.R.C.
4111.01, et seq., O.R.C. Section 4113.15, and O.R.C. §2307.60.
Plaintiff further seeks appropriate relief for Defendant's failure
to provide fringe benefits to Plaintiff and other similarly
situated delivery drivers in violation of ERISA.

Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. operates a package pickup and
delivery business servicing customers throughout Ohio and the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN  
          8 N. Court St. Suite 403
          Athens, OH 45701
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

FIDELITY NATIONAL: 401(k) Plan-Related Suit v. Reliance Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the class action suit
against Reliance Trust Company related to its 401(k) Plan remains
pending and a decision in the case is expected in the second half
of 2020.

Reliance, the Company's subsidiary, is named as a defendant in a
class action arising out of its provision of services as the
discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan (the "Plan") for one of its
customers.

On behalf of the Plan participants, plaintiffs in the action, which
was filed in 2015, seek damages and attorneys' fees, as well as
equitable relief, against Reliance and the Plan's sponsor and
record-keeper for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Reliance is vigorously defending the action and believes it has
meritorious defenses. Reliance contends that no breaches of
fiduciary duty or prohibited transactions occurred and that Plan
participants suffered no damages.

A non-jury trial of the case was conducted in March 2020. At trial,
Plaintiffs sought damages of approximately $127 million against all
defendants.

A decision in the case is expected in the second half of 2020.

Fidelity National said, "While we are unable at this time to
estimate more precisely the potential loss or range of loss because
of unresolved questions of fact and law, we believe that the
ultimate resolution of the matter will not have a material impact
on our financial condition. Because we do not believe a liability
for this action is probable, we have not recorded a liability for
it."

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. operates as a
financial services technology company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Integrated Financial Solutions
and Global Financial Solutions segments. The company was founded in
1968 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


FIRST CHOICE: Fabricant et al Sue Over Unsolicited Telephone Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TERRY FABRICANT, ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., and
SID NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FIRST CHOICE DEBT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-07062 (C.D. Cal., August 6, 2020) arises from Defendants'
alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants contacted Plaintiffs on
their respective cellular telephone numbers beginning in or around
April 2018 in an attempt to promote its services. Defendants
allegedly used automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS)in placing
multiple calls even though Plaintiffs did not provide "prior
express consent" to receive such calls using an ATDS or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on their cellular telephones.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs were harmed by the unlawful
calls of Defendants because it caused them to incur certain charges
or reduced telephone time for which they previously paid, and it
has invaded their privacy.

First Choice Debt Solutions, LLC is a marketing service provider
for debt settlement programs, debt relief services, and law firms.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: 323-306-4234
          Fax: 866-633-0228
          Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Faces Frand Suit Over 45% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHANA FRAND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FIRSTENERGY CORP., CHARLES E. JONES, JAMES F. PEARSON,
STEVEN E. STRAH and K. JON TAYLOR, Case No. 2:20-cv-04287-JLG-EPD
(S.D. Ohio., Aug. 21, 2020), seeks to pursue remedies against
FirstEnergy and certain of its current and former most senior
executives under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

The lawsuit is a federal securities class action brought by the
Plaintiff on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities, other than the Defendants, that purchased or otherwise
acquired FirstEnergy securities between February 21, 2017, and July
21, 2020, inclusive.

According to the complaint, the Defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding FirstEnergy's internal
controls, business practices, and prospects. Specifically, the
Defendants touted FirstEnergy's legislative "solutions" to problems
with its nuclear facilities, but failed to disclose that these
"solutions" centered on an illicit campaign to corrupt high-profile
state legislators to secure legislation favoring the Company. Over
a nearly three-year period, FirstEnergy and its affiliates funneled
more than $60 million to prominent state politicians and lobbyists,
including Ohio Speaker Larry Householder, to secure the passage of
Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB6"), which provided a $1.3 billion
ratepayer-funded bailout to keep the Company's failing nuclear
facilities in operation.

In addition, the 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 undisclosed risks of reputational,
legal, and financial harm.

On July 21, 2020, federal agents announced the arrest of Mr.
Householder and four other persons, including a prominent
FirstEnergy lobbyist, in connection with a $60 million racketeering
and bribery scheme. The 82-page criminal complaint and affidavit
detailed a pay-to-play scheme in which FirstEnergy corrupted the
legislative process to ensure the passage of HB6. Prosecutors
described the case as involving the "largest bribery,
money-laundering scheme" in Ohio history.

On this news, FirstEnergy's stock price fell, trading as low as
$22.85 per share on July 22, 2020, down nearly 45% from its closing
price of $41.26 per share on July 20, 2020, damaging FirstEnergy
shareholders.

This lawsuit seeks recompense for FirstEnergy shareholders' losses,
which resulted from the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws.

FirstEnergy Corp. is an Akron, Ohio-headquartered electric utility
company with subsidiaries and affiliates involved in the
distribution, transmission, and generation of electricity, as well
as energy management and other energy-related services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Wagoner, Esq.
          ROBERT J. WAGONER CO., LLC
          445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43235
          Telephone: (614) 796-4110
          Facsimile: (614) 796-4111
          E-mail: bob@wagonerlawoffice.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


FSMZA LLC: Fails to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Patzfahl Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON PATZFAHL, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FSMZA, LLC, d/b/a Toppers Pizza, GARETT BURNS; Doe
Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01202-WED (E.D. Wis., August 6, 2020) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their
alleged repeated and willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Wisconsin Wage and Hour Laws by failing to adequately
reimburse delivery drivers.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants at the Toppers Pizza store in
Franklin, Wisconsin from October 2019 to July 2020 as a delivery
driver.

Plaintiff claims that Defendants required him and other delivery
drivers to incur and/or pay job-related expenses such as automobile
costs and depreciation, gasoline expenses, insurance, and other
equipment necessary for delivery drivers to complete their job
duties. However, Defendants did not track the actual expenses
incurred by delivery drivers and did not ask them to provide
receipts of the expenses. As a result, Defendants failed to
reimburse delivery drivers' expenses based on their actual
delivery-related expenses, and at the IRS standard mileage rate for
the miles they drive while completing deliveries.

The complaint also asserts that Defendants failed to:

     -- properly take a tip credit from Plaintiff's wages because
Defendants take more tip credit than they informed Plaintiff they
would be taking;

     -- require Plaintiff to sign a tip declaration each pay period
showing on Defendants' payroll records; and

     -- pay Plaintiff minimum wage as required by law.

Garett Burns is the owner and CEO of FSMZA, LLC d/b/a Toppers
Pizza.

FSMZA, LLC operates four Toppers Pizza stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Nathan B. Spencer, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Tel: (513) 715-8711
          Fax: (614) 340-4620
          Emails: akimble@billerkimble.com
                  nspencer@billerkimble.com
          Website: www.billerkimble.com


GENERALI GLOBAL: Robbins Sues Over Denied Travel Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD ROBBINS, RENEE CLONTS, MAX BACHARA, MELISSA GARNER, and
AMITABH SHARMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERALI GLOBAL ASSISTANCE, INC., d/b/a CSA
Travel Protection and Insurance Services, and GENERALI U.S. BRANCH,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06635 (S.D.N.Y., August 19, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for breach of contract and
tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated consumers, allege that the Defendants have breached the
terms of their travel protection and insurance policy by denying
them coverage for their losses following the cancellation of their
trips in 2020. The Plaintiffs were forced to cancel their trips due
to travel prohibition orders issued by various states in the U.S.
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The insurance policy that the
Plaintiffs purchased from the Defendants are applicable for any
covered loss for travel due to covered event, such as a quarantine
and travel prohibitions in the wake of natural disasters, prompted
by the coronavirus.

Generali Global Assistance, Inc., formerly doing business as CSA
Travel Protection and Insurance Services, is an insurance services
provider with its principal place of business at 4340 East West
Highway, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland.

Generali U.S. Branch is an insurance services provider, which
maintains its headquarters and principal place of business at 250
Greenwich Street, 33rd Floor, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
     
         Brittany Weiner, Esq.
         IMBESI LAW GROUP P.C.
         1501 Broadway, Suite 1915
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (646) 767-2271
         Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
         E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com

                - and –

         J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
         David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
         Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
         Alia M. Abdi, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         1100 IDS Center
         80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 341-0400
         Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
         E-mail: gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com
                 david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                 christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
                 alia.abdi@zimmreed.com

                - and –

         Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
         ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP
         16311 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
         Encino, CA 91436-2152
         Telephone: (818) 788-0877
         Facsimile: (818) 788-0885
         E-mail: Germain@Lalawyer.com

GIOSTAR LABS: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Fabricant Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GIOSTAR LABS, INC., D/B/A FUNDING MERCHANT
GROUP; JARRETT GOLDSTEIN; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case
No. 2:20-cv-07514 (C.D. Cal., August 19, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants contacted the cellular
telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated individuals using an automatic telephone dialing system in
an attempt to promote or sell Giostar Labs' services without
getting prior express written consent.

As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members were harmed in at least the following ways: causing them to
incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they had
previously paid by having to retrieve or administer messages left
by the Defendants during those unwanted calls, and invading their
privacy.

Giostar Labs, Inc., d/b/a Funding Merchant Group, is a lender
providing business loans, lines of credit and other financial
products in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
         Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
         21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
         Woodland Hills, CA 91367
         Telephone: (323) 306-4234
         Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
         E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com

GLACIER BANK: Faces Turnidge Suit Over Charging of OD & OON Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Turnidge and James Housego, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. GLACIER BANK d/b/a MOUNTAIN WEST BANK,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00303-RMP (E.D. Wash., Aug. 24, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant arising from the Bank's routine practice of
charging its customers: overdraft fees on transactions that did not
overdraw their account, and out-of-network ATM Fees, despite the
Defendant not disclosing these fees in its Fee Schedule and account
documents, as required.

The Defendant's practices breach the contractual promises contained
in the account documents; violate the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; and/or result in the Bank being unjustly enriched,
the Plaintiffs allege. Glacier's customers, including the
Plaintiffs, have been injured by Glacier's deceptive and outright
fraudulent practices to the tune of millions of dollars bilked from
their accounts; all of which is done in violation of the agreements
between Glacier and its customers.

Besides being deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable, the Plaintiffs
argue, the Defendant's practices breach the express promises
contained in their customers' adhesion contracts--agreements which
also misrepresent and deceive reasonable consumers about the true
nature of Glacier's overdraft fee processing logic and practices.
These unfair practices are also used by the Defendant to exploit
the contractual discretion afforded to it.

In plain, clear, and simple language, the checking account contract
documents relating to OD Fees promise that Glacier will only charge
OD Fees for transactions in situations where the customer's account
has insufficient funds to cover the transaction. In short, Glacier
is not authorized under the account documents to charge OD Fees for
transactions that have not overdrawn an account. Yet, it has
repeatedly done so and will continue to do so unless the practice
is halted by this Court, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs hold a Glacier Bank checking account.

Glacier is a Montana bank engaged in the business of providing
retail banking services to consumers through its retail bank
branches in Washington, Idaho, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado,
and Nevada, as well as its branches doing business under the name
"Mountain West Bank."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
          THE HARBOR LAW GROUP
          3615 Harborview Drive NW, Suite C
          Gig Harbor, WA 98332-2129
          Phone: (253) 251-2955
          Email: Kira@theharborlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Phone: (202) 350-4783
          Facsimile: (202) 871-8180
          Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                 sgold@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
          Aaron Ahlzadeh, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: 305-975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                 aaron@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


GOOGLE LLC: Class Certification Bid in "Roley" Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ROLEY, v. GOOGLE LLC,
Case No. 5:18-cv-07537-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson
Freeman entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court's Order has been redacted as it may contain information
that the Court previously allowed to be filed under seal.

A Further Case Management Conference has been set for Sept. 18.

The case was originally filed in Santa Clara Superior Court, Case
No. 18CV336773.  Google removed the case to the District Court in
December 2018.

Google is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.[CC]

HENRY SCHEIN: Fairness Hearing in Securities Suit Set for Sept. 16
------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that the court in the class action suit entitled, In
re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities Litigation, has scheduled a
fairness hearing for September 16, 2020.

On March 7, 2018, Joseph Salkowitz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against
Henry Schein, Inc., Stanley M. Bergman and Steven Paladino in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No.
1:18-cv-01428.

The complaint sought to certify a class consisting of all persons
and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased Henry
Schein securities from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018 (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants had
made materially false and misleading statements about Henry
Schein's business, operations and prospects during the Class
Period, thereby causing the plaintiff and members of the purported
class to pay artificially inflated prices for Henry Schein
securities.

Those alleged statements included matters relating to the issues in
the In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, which Henry Schein
settled and which the court dismissed in June 2019, and in the
United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") administrative
proceeding, in which an administrative law judge ruled in Henry
Schein's favor in October 2019 after a trial, as described in the
company's prior filings with the SEC.

The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), the court appointed lead
plaintiff and lead counsel on June 22, 2018 and recaptioned the
putative class action as In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities
Litigation, under the same case number.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on
September 14, 2018. The consolidated class action complaint asserts
similar claims against the same defendants (plus Timothy Sullivan)
on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers during the Class
Period.

It alleges that Henry Schein's stock price was inflated during that
period because Henry Schein had misleadingly portrayed its
dental-distribution business "as successfully producing excellent
profits while operating in a highly competitive environment" even
though, "in reality, Henry Schein had engaged for years in
collusive and anticompetitive practices in order to maintain
Schein's margins, profits, and market share.” The complaint
alleges that the stock price started to fall from August 8, 2017,
when the company announced below-expected financial performance
that allegedly "revealed that Schein's poor results were a product
of abandoning prior attempts to inflate sales volume and margins
through anticompetitive collusion," through February 13, 2018,
after the FTC filed a complaint against Benco, Henry Schein and
Patterson alleging that they violated U.S. antitrust laws.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On September 27, 2019, the court issued a decision partially
granting and partially denying defendants' motion to dismiss the
securities action. The court dismissed all claims against Messrs.
Bergman and Paladino as well as the Section 10(b) claim against
Henry Schein to the extent that that claim relied on the Company's
financial results and margins to allege a material misstatement or
omission.

The court also dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against Henry
Schein to the extent that it relied on the Company's August 8, 2017
disclosure to allege loss causation. The court otherwise denied the
motion as to Henry Schein and Mr. Sullivan. Henry Schein and Mr.
Sullivan moved for partial reconsideration of the court's decision.


Pursuant to all parties; request, the court temporarily took the
motion off the calendar after it was fully briefed. The parties
later agreed to resolve this matter in exchange for a cash payment
of $35 million, which will be covered by the Company's insurance
and will have no earnings impact to the Company. The proposed
settlement is subject to various conditions, including court
approval.

The Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement on May 5,
2020 and has scheduled a fairness hearing for September 16, 2020.

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HERITAGE COMPANY: Class Status Sought in Call Center Staff Litig.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNATHAN YASEVICH, et al.,
Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
THE HERITAGE COMPANY, INC., and SANDRA FRANECKE, Case No.
3:20-cv-00019-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all employees who worked for The Heritage Company, Inc.,
      and Sandra Franecke in Arkansas the Sherwood, Searcy or
      Jonesboro facilities as of December 22, 2019";

   2. designating Kailey Dickerson, Kathy Burdess, Katrina
      Grimes, Marni Chagala, Megan Fisher, Paula Gammons, Ronald
      Denney, Shelly Thomason, Sherri Denney, Sierra Nelson,
      Stephanie Dunbar, and Stephen Parnell as class
      representatives;

   3. appointing attorneys Daniel Ford and Josh Sanford and the
      Sanford Law Firm, PLLC, as class counsel to represent them
      in this case pursuant to FRCP 23(g);

   4. approving Plaintiffs' proposed Notice, and directing that
      the same be sent to all Unnamed Class Members who fall
      within the class definition;

   5. granting their counsel a period of 21 days -- beginning
      on the date on which the Defendants fully and completely
      release the Unnamed Class Members' contact information to
      the Plaintiffs' counsel -- during which to distribute
      the Notice and receive opt-out requests.

   6. directing the Defendants to provide the names, and last
      known home and work addresses, and email addresses of
      class members in an electronically manipulatable format no
      later than two weeks after the date of the entry of the
      Order;

   7. directing the Defendants to provide the dates of birth and
      partial social security numbers for any class members
      whose mailed notice is returned by the post office.

The Plaintiffs include Jerol Amaya, Gabrielle Anderson, Livinus
Azumara, Detrick Brown, Kathy Burdess, Ashley Byrd, Pamela Cannon,
Marni Chagala, Roxanne Crowe, Ronald Denney, Ronnie Denney, Kailey
Dickerson, Stephanie Dunbar, Megan Fisher, Paula Gammons, Amy
Goodrum, Cedrick Gray, Monica Gurnsey, Jay Hayes, Katherine
Hensley, Desaray Holmes, Alison Jackson, Laquisha Jackson,
Christine Jones, Arnell Jones, Chastiee Jones, Danielle Lisko,
Jennifer Long, Owen McMullen, Sierra Nelson, Stephen Parnell,
Charles Perry, Laura Perry, Nicole Reid, Amber Rice, Lonna Rose,
Brandy Smith, Daisy Stiel, Joshua Stringer, Shelly Thomason,
Krystal Todd, Larry Underwood, Sherry Weeks, Kiana Welch, Channell
Williams, Robert Wilmoth, Wallis Wilson, Jana Wood, Johnathan
Woods, Rebekah Wyman and Shynnah Zumudio (collectively "TSR
Plaintiffs"), Jerol Amaya, Gabrielle Anderson, Livinus Azumara,
Detrick Brown, Kathy Burdess, Ashley Byrd, Pamela Cannon, Marni
Chagala, Roxanne Crowe, Ronald Denney, Ronnie Denney, Kailey
Dickerson, Stephanie Dunbar, Megan Fisher, Paula Gammons, Amy
Goodrum, Cedrick Gray, Monica Gurnsey, Jay Hayes, Katherine
Hensley, Desaray Holmes, Alison Jackson, Laquisha Jackson,
Christine Jones, Arnell Jones, Chastiee Jones, Danielle Lisko,
Jennifer Long, Owen McMullen, Sierra Nelson, Stephen Parnell,
Charles Perry, Laura Perry, Nicole Reid, Amber Rice, Lonna Rose,
Brandy Smith, Daisy Steil, Joshua Stringer, Shelly Thomason,
Krystal Todd, Larry Underwood, Sherry Weeks, Kiana Welch, Channell
Williams, Robert Wilmoth, Wallis Wilson, Jana Wood, Johnathan
Woods, Rebekah Wyman, Jonathan Yasevich, and Shynnah Zumudio,
Kristin Costner, Sherri Denney, Adam Followell, Katrina Grimes,
Danielle Gross, Heath Hatcher, Tehrell Jefferson, Aimee Milam,
Tiauana Murphy,
Charlotte Norman, Katie Reed, Kadi Stonecipher, Corey Throgmartin,
Ruby Walton, Ashley Watts, Ashley West, Andrew West, Heather
Whitener, Bertha Williams, and Lillian
Wilson.

On December 22, 2019, the Defendants without warning shut down
their call centers at Sherwood, Searcy and Jonesboro and ordered
all employees laid off, furloughed and/or terminated until further
notice.

The Heritage Company and Sandra Franecke own and operate a
telemarketing company with call centers that are or were located in
Central Arkansas.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Ford, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

HOUSE OF CB: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HOUSE OF CB USA, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-01606-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal., Aug. 11, 2020), is brought to
secure redress against the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully and
equally accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights
Act.

Because Defendant's Web site, https://www.houseofcb.com/, is not
fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Sacramento. The
Plaintiff is a legally blind, visually-impaired handicapped person,
and member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA.

House of CB USA, LLC, is a London, England-headquartered company
that provides a collection of luxury ready to wear women's
apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  ada@wilshirelawfirm.com


HUGHES CITY, AR: Conditional Certification of Collectives Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SMART, TERRY ROSS
RIGGS, and JOHNATHAN JACKSON, Each Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. CITY OF HUGHES, ARKANSAS, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00047-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:

   1. conditionally certifying following collectives:

      "all full-time hourly-paid water department employees of
      the Defendant since April 22, 2016"; and

      "all full-time hourly-paid police department employees
      of Defendant since April 22, 2016";

   2. approving the Plaintiffs’ proposed Notice and Consent to
      Join and proposed method of distribution including mailing
      and emailing;

   3. approving form and content;

   4. directing the Defendant to produce the requested contact
      information of each putative class member in an
      electronically importable and malleable electronic format,
      such as Excel, within seven days after this Court's Order
      is entered;

   5. allowing for an opt-in period in which class members may
      submit Consents to Join this lawsuit as opt-in plaintiffs,
      ending 90 days after notice is sent by the Plaintiffs;

   6. allowing the Plaintiffs to send a follow-up postcard by
      U.S. Mail and follow-up email 30 days after notice is
      originally sent to those Collective Members who have not
      responded; and

   7. awarding costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and
      granting all other relief to which the Plaintiffs may be
      entitled, whether specifically prayed for or not.

The Plaintiffs worked as full-time hourly employees for City of
Hughes, Arkansas's water and police departments. They brought this
suit individually and on behalf of all other current and certain
former full-time hourly-paid water department and police department
employees who worked for the Defendant, who are similarly situated,
to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, costs, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Hughes is a town in St. Francis County, Arkansas.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake Hoyt, Esq.
          Stacy Gibson, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: blake@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  stacy@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

HYATT HOTELS: Antitrust Suits Remain Underway in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
Hyatt Hotels Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself
against class action suits alleging violation of antitrust laws.

In March 2018, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and several other hotel companies in federal district court
in Illinois, Case No. 1:18-cv-01959, seeking an unspecified amount
of damages and equitable relief for an alleged violation of the
federal antitrust laws.

In December 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against the Company by
TravelPass Group, LLC, Partner Fusion, Inc., and Reservation
Counter, LLC in federal district court in Texas, Case No.
5:18-cv-00153, for an alleged violation of federal antitrust laws
arising from similar conduct alleged in the Illinois case and
seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

The Company disputes the allegations in these lawsuits and will
defend its interests vigorously.

Hyatt said, "We currently do not believe the ultimate outcome of
this litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operation, or liquidity."

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

Hyatt Hotels Corporation, a hospitality company, develops, owns,
operates, manages, franchises, licenses, or provides services to
hotels, resorts, residential, and other properties. It operates
through four segments: Owned and Leased Hotels, Americas Management
and Franchising, ASPACManagement and Franchising, and EAME/SW Asia
Management and Franchising. The company was formerly known as
Global Hyatt Corporation and changed its name to Hyatt Hotels
Corporation in June 2009. Hyatt Hotels Corporation was founded in
1957 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


ICON MANAGEMENT: Lee Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay & Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVIE P. LEE, and other similarly situated individuals v. ICON
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., SARASOTA NATIONAL MASTER ASSOCIATION,
INC., and HRSMARTERIV, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-01948 (M.D. Fla., Aug.
21, 2020), seeks to recover damages for unpaid overtime wages and
retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a groundkeeper for
the Defendants' business at the Sarasota National Golf Course from
April 15, 2019, through June 20, 2019. While employed by the
Defendants, the Plaintiff says he worked approximately an average
of 90 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not
less than one- and one-half times the regular rate at which he was
employed. Specifically, if Plaintiff worked approximately 90 hours
in any given week, he was paid his regular rate for the first 40
hours, then he was paid at time and one half for an additional 10
hours, but he was not paid any wages for hours worked after 50 per
week. In essence, Plaintiff asserts that he was not paid at all for
approximately 40 hours of overtime.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff complained about his
unpaid overtime wages to the Defendants on multiple occasions up
until the time of his termination. On June 20, 2019, he was
terminated. The motivating factors, which caused his discharge were
the complaints seeking the payment of overtime wages from the
Defendants. In other words, the Plaintiff contends that he would
not have been fired but for his complaints about unpaid overtime
wages.

Icon Management Services, Inc., is a property management company
providing services at the Sarasota National Golf Course in Florida.
Sarasota National Master Association, Inc. is an association, which
manages the Sarasota National Golf Course.

HRSmarterIV, LLC, is an employee leasing company providing services
to both Icon Management Services, Inc. and Sarasota National Master
Association, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


ICONIC MORTGAGE: Correll Sues Over Unsolicited Calls and Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIRSTEN CORRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ICONINC MORTGAGE CORP., a Florida corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00426 (E.D. Va., Aug. 18, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant placed multiple
unsolicited calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number that
was registered on the Do Not Call Registry on February 27, 2019.
Despite the Plaintiff's opt-out requests to stop calling her
cellular telephone number, the Defendant continued placing
autodialed calls and text messages using phone number
540-215-1008.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's unauthorized telephone
calls have harmed her in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and
invasion of privacy.

Iconic Mortgage Corp. provides consumers and veterans with mortgage
loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Robinson, Esq.
          WILLIAM ROBINSON
          1934 Old Gallows Road, Suite 350K
          Vienna, VA 22181
          Tel: (703) 789-4800
          Email: william@robinsonlaw.com

                - and –

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


INCOL LLC: Reed et al Seek Conditional FLSA Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as TYHESIA REED, ET AL., On
Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals
v. INCOL, LLC d/b/a THE ROSE GENTLEMEN'S CLUB d/b/a FLASHDANCE,
Case No. 9:19-cv-81145-RKA (S.D. Fla), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of this action and for
      court-authorized notice pursuant to section] 216(b) of the
      Fair Labor Standards Act;

   2. granting approval of the proposed notice of this action
      and the consent and opt-out forms;

   3. requiring the Defendant to produce the names, last known
      mailing addresses, last-known cell phone numbers, email
      addresses, and dates of employment of all putative
      plaintiffs within 15 days of the Order;

   4. directing the Plaintiffs to distribute the Notice and Opt-
      in Form via first class mail and email to all putative
      plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective, with
      a reminder mailing to be sent 30-days after the initial
      mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs; and

   5. requiring the Defendant to post the Notice and Consent
      Form in a conspicuous location within the dressing room at
      the Defendant's the Rose and/or Flashdance strip club for
      the full 60-day Notice period.

The Defendant operates a strip club.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

INSPERITY INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Aug. 10 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.

Insperity, Inc. (NYSE:NSP)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT NSP:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/insperity-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8454&from=1

Class Period: February 11, 2019 - February 11, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a)
the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its
customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately
disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (b)
Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical
claims; (c) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to
increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted
customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (d) the
foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially
impact Insperity's financial results.

J2 Global, Inc. (NASDAQ:JCOM)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT JCOM:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/j2-global-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8454&from=1

Class Period: October 5, 2015 - June 29, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 8, 2020

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) J2
Global engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (2) J2
Global used misleading accounting to hide requisite impairments and
underperformance in acquisitions; (3) several so-called independent
members of the Company' board of directors and audit committee were
not disinterested; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE:VEL)

CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT VEL:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8454&from=1

This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased VEL stocks
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus, as amended, issued in connection with Velocity's
January 2020 initial public offering.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020

According to the filed complaint, defendants failed to disclose
that, at the time of Velocity's initial public offering (the
"IPO"), the Company's non-performing loans had dramatically
increased in size from the figures provided in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus that Velocity had issued in connection
with the IPO. Further, defendants failed to provide any information
to investors regarding the potential impact of the novel
coronavirus on Velocity's business and operations, despite the fact
that the international spread of the virus had already been
confirmed at the time of the IPO. The failure to disclose the
substantial and growing proportion of the Company's loans that were
non-performing and/or on non-accrual status as of the IPO rendered
the statements contained in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus regarding the quality of the Company's loan portfolio
and underwriting practices materially misleading.

Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]


JACOBS ENGINEERING: Roane County Resident's Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 26, 2020, that the company and Tennessee Valley
Authority ("TVA") continue to defend a putative class action suit
initiated by a resident of Roane County.

On December 22, 2008, a coal fly ash pond at the Kingston Power
Plant of the Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA") was breached,
releasing fly ash waste into the Emory River and surrounding
community.

In February 2009, TVA awarded a contract to the Company to provide
project management services associated with the clean-up. All
remediation and dredging were completed in August 2013 by other
contractors under direct contracts with TVA.

The Company did not perform the remediation, and its scope was
limited to program management services. Certain employees of the
contractors performing the cleanup work on the project filed
lawsuits against the Company beginning in August 2013, alleging
they were injured due to the Company's failure to protect the
plaintiffs from exposure to fly ash, and asserting related personal
injuries. There are currently six separate cases pending against
the Company.

The primary case, Greg Adkisson, et al. v. Jacobs Engineering Group
Inc., case No. 3:13-CV-505-TAV-HBG, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, consists of 10
consolidated cases. This case and the related cases involve several
hundred plaintiffs that have been filed against the Company by
employees of the contractors that completed the remediation and
dredging work.

The cases are at various stages of litigation, and several of the
cases are currently stayed pending resolution of other cases.
Separately, in May 2019, Roane County and the cities of King and
Herriman filed a claim against TVA and the Company alleging that
they misled the public about risks associated with the released fly
ash.

In December 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
a portion of the plaintiffs' complaint and scheduled this matter
for trial in 2021 with respect to the remaining claims.

In addition, in November 2019, a resident of Roane County filed a
putative class action against TVA and the Company alleging they
failed to adequately warn local residents about risks associated
with the released fly ash.

In February 2020, the Company learned that the district attorney in
Roane County recommended that the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
investigate issues pertaining to clean up worker safety at
Kingston, with that investigation still pending.

There has been no finding of liability against the Company or that
any of the alleged illnesses are the result of exposure to fly ash
in any of the above matters. The Company disputes the claims
asserted in all of the above matters and is vigorously defending
these claims.

The Company does not expect the resolution of these matters to have
a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

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

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., is a
global provider of technical, professional, and scientific
services, including engineering, architecture, construction,
operations and maintenance.


JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Xyrem(R) Related Class Suits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend several
class action suit related to Xyrem(R).

On June 17, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBS, against Jazz
Pharmaceuticals plc, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Jazz
Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited.

The BCBS Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals plc, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., and
Lupin Inc., or, collectively, the BCBS Defendants.

On June 18 and June 23, 2020 respectively, two additional class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company Defendants and the
BCBS Defendants: one by the New York State Teamsters Council Health
and Hospital Fund in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, and another by the Government
Employees Health Association Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On June 18, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California by
the City of Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, and
Roxane Laboratories, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma
Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and Hikma
Pharmaceuticals plc, or, collectively, the City of Providence
Defendants.

On June 30, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by UFCW
Local 1500 Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd., Jazz
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals plc, Eurohealth (USA), Inc. and West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals Corp., or collectively the UFCW Defendants.

On July 13, 2020, the plaintiffs in the BCBS Lawsuit and the GEHA
Lawsuit dismissed their complaints in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and refiled their
respective lawsuits in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On July 14, 2020, the plaintiffs in the UFCW Lawsuit dismissed
their complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and on July 15, 2020, refiled their
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On July 31, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the
A.F. of L.-A.G.C Building Trades Welfare Plan on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc
(hereinafter referred to as the AFL Plan Lawsuit). The AFL Plan
Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories Inc., West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc,
Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Ltd.,
Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc.

The plaintiffs in the BCBS Lawsuit, Teamsters Lawsuit, the GEHA
Lawsuit, and the UFCW Lawsuit are seeking to represent a class of
direct purchasers, and the plaintiffs in the City of Providence
Lawsuit, the UFCW Lawsuit, and the AGL Plan Lawsuit are seeking to
represent a class of indirect purchasers of Xyrem(R).

The lawsuits generally allege violations of U.S. federal and state
antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws in
connection with the Company Defendants' conduct related to Xyrem,
including actions leading up to, and entering into, patent
litigation settlement agreements with the BCBS Defendants,
including the City of Providence Defendants.

The suits seek monetary damages, exemplary damages, equitable
relief against the alleged unlawful conduct, including disgorgement
of profits and restitution, and injunctive relief.

Jazz said, "It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed
against the Company Defendants making similar or related
allegations. If the plaintiffs were to be successful in their
claims, they may be entitled to injunctive relief or we may be
required to pay significant monetary damages, which could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and growth prospects."

Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc is a biopharmaceutical company based in
Ireland. It was founded in 2003. One of the company's most
significant products is the United States Food and Drug
Administration approved drug Xyrem, the sodium salt of the
naturally occurring neurotransmitter I3-Hydroxybutyric acid.


JOHN C. HEATH: Trim & Frey Seek to Certify TCPA Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as LUCINE TRIM and ANTHONY FREY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JOHN C. HEATH, ATTORNEY AT LAW, d/b/a LEXINGTON LAW FIRM, a Utah
corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-02161-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on September 14, 2020, for an
order:

   1. certifying a class of the following individuals pursuant
      to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:

      "all persons in the United States who, (1) from March 5,
      2016 through the present, (2) Defendant called, (3) on the
      person's cellular telephone, (4) using the same equipment
      that was used to call Plaintiff Trim, (5) for the purpose
      of marketing or selling Defendant’s products and services,

      and (6) for whom Defendant claims it obtained prior
      express consent via OneLoanPlace.com and/or
      CarLoanClub.com";

   2. appointing Plaintiff Trim as the Class Representative; and

   3. appointing the law firm of Woodrow & Peluso, LLC as Class
      Counsel.

The lawsuit alleges the Defendant's violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant called Plaintiff and the
proposed Class members on their cellphones soliciting its credit
report correction services. Lexington Law made the calls itself and
obtained Trim's and the Class's lead information from two sources:
CarLoanClub.com and OneLoanPlace.com.

John Heath operates the Lexington law firm.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class is:

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

JPMORGAN CHASE: $10MM Accord Reached in Indirect Purchasers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company and 11 other defendants have agreed
to settle the class action related to foreign exchange ("FX") by
purported indirect purchasers for a total of $10 million.

The company (the Firm) previously reported settlements with certain
government authorities relating to its foreign exchange ("FX")
sales and trading activities and controls related to those
activities. Among those resolutions, in May 2015, the Firm pleaded
guilty to a single violation of federal antitrust law. In January
2017, the Firm was sentenced, with judgment entered thereafter and
a term of probation ending in January 2020. The term of probation
has concluded, with the Firm remaining in good standing throughout
the probation period.

The Department of Labor granted the Firm a five-year exemption of
disqualification that allows the Firm and its affiliates to
continue to rely on the Qualified Professional Asset Manager
exemption under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") until January 2023. The Firm will need to reapply in due
course for a further exemption to cover the remainder of the
ten-year disqualification period.

A South Africa Competition Commission matter is the remaining
FX-related governmental inquiry, and is currently pending before
the South Africa Competition Tribunal.

In August 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted final approval to the Firm's
settlement of a consolidated class action brought by U.S.-based
plaintiffs, which principally alleged violations of federal
antitrust laws based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign
exchange rates and also sought damages on behalf of persons who
transacted in FX futures and options on futures.

Certain members of the settlement class filed requests to the Court
to be excluded from the class, and certain of them filed a
complaint against the Firm and a number of other foreign exchange
dealers in November 2018.

A number of these actions remain pending.

Further, putative class actions have been filed against the Firm
and a number of other foreign exchange dealers on behalf of certain
consumers who purchased foreign currencies at allegedly inflated
rates and purported indirect purchasers of FX instruments; these
actions also remain pending in the District Court.

In 2020, the Firm and 11 other defendants agreed to settle the
class action filed by purported indirect purchasers for a total of
$10 million.

That settlement remains subject to court approval. In addition,
some FX-related individual and putative class actions based on
similar alleged underlying conduct have been filed outside the
U.S., including in the U.K., Israel and Australia.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Interchange Fees Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the appeal by certain merchants in the class
action seeking primarily monetary relief over interchange fees
remains pending.

Groups of merchants and retail associations filed a series of class
action complaints alleging that Visa and Mastercard, as well as
certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit card
interchange fees and enacted related rules in violation of
antitrust laws.

In 2012, the parties initially settled the cases for a cash
payment, a temporary reduction of credit card interchange, and
modifications to certain credit card network rules.

In 2017, after the approval of that settlement was reversed on
appeal, the case was remanded to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York for further proceedings
consistent with the appellate decision.

The original class action was divided into two separate actions,
one seeking primarily monetary relief and the other seeking
primarily injunctive relief.

In September 2018, the parties to the class action seeking monetary
relief finalized an agreement which amends and supersedes the prior
settlement agreement. Pursuant to this settlement, the defendants
collectively contributed an additional $900 million to the
approximately $5.3 billion previously held in escrow from the
original settlement.

In December 2019, the amended agreement was approved by the
District Court.

Certain merchants appealed the District Court's approval order, and
those appeals are pending.

Based on the percentage of merchants that opted out of the amended
class settlement, $700 million has been returned to the defendants
from the settlement escrow in accordance with the settlement
agreement.

The class action seeking primarily injunctive relief continues
separately.

In addition, certain merchants have filed individual actions
raising similar allegations against Visa and Mastercard, as well as
against the Firm and other banks, and some of those actions remain
pending.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Certifies FCOI Investigators Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as OPHELIA HAWKINS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A., Case No. 8:19-cv-02174-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Virginia M. Hernadez Covington entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a Rule 23 class consisting of:

      "all persons employed by Defendant as FCOI Investigators
      at any time in during the period from February 5, 2017, or
      three years back from the date of Opt-in if earlier,
      through the date of this Order and who either do not have
      arbitration agreements or who Opted-in to this litigation
      on or before April 8, 2020, except that any individual who
      timely submitted or submits a valid request for exclusion
      shall not be included in the Class";

   2. appointing Ophelia Hawkins to serve as Class
      Representative, for settlement purposes only;

   3. appointing Rowdy Meeks Law Group, LLC and the Shavitz Law
      Group, P.A. as Class Counsel because they meet all of the
      requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g),
      for settlement purposes only; and

   4. approving, as to form and content, the Notice of Proposed
      Settlement of Class and Collective Action Lawsuit and
      Fairness Hearing, and authorizing the Claims Administrator
      to mail these documents, after they are updated with the
      appropriate dates and deadlines consistent with the
      Stipulation, to the applicable Class/Collective Members as
      provided in the Stipulation.

JPMorgan is a national bank headquartered in Manhattan, New York
City, that constitutes the consumer and commercial banking
subsidiary of the U.S. multinational banking and financial services
holding company, JPMorgan Chase.[CC]

JPMORGAN CHASE: LIBOR and Benchmark Rate Litigation Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to face investigations
and lawsuits related to LIBOR and Other Benchmark Rate matters.

JPMorgan Chase has responded to inquiries from various governmental
agencies and entities around the world relating primarily to the
British Bankers Association's London Interbank Offered Rate
("LIBOR") for various currencies and the European Banking
Federation's Euro Interbank Offered Rate ("EURIBOR"). The Swiss
Competition Commission's investigation relating to EURIBOR, to
which the Firm and other banks are subject, continues.

In December 2016, the European Commission issued a decision against
the Firm and other banks finding an infringement of European
antitrust rules relating to EURIBOR. The Firm has filed an appeal
of that decision with the European General Court, and that appeal
is pending.

In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with
other banks in a series of individual and putative class actions
related to benchmarks, including U.S. dollar LIBOR during the
period that it was administered by the BBA and, in a separate
consolidated putative class action, during the period that it was
administered by ICE Benchmark Administration.

These actions have been filed, or consolidated for pre-trial
purposes, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. In these actions, plaintiffs make varying
allegations that in various periods, starting in 2000 or later,
defendants either individually or collectively manipulated various
benchmark rates by submitting rates that were artificially low or
high. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives
or other financial instruments whose values are affected by changes
in these rates and assert a variety of claims including antitrust
claims seeking treble damages.

In actions related to U.S. dollar LIBOR during the period that it
was administered by the BBA, the Firm has resolved certain of these
actions, and others are in various stages of litigation. The
District Court dismissed certain claims, including antitrust claims
brought by some plaintiffs whom the District Court found did not
have standing to assert such claims, and permitted certain claims
to proceed, including antitrust, Commodity Exchange Act, Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and common law claims.

The plaintiffs whose antitrust claims were dismissed for lack of
standing have filed an appeal.

The District Court granted class certification of antitrust claims
related to bonds and interest rate swaps sold directly by the
defendants and denied class certification motions filed by other
plaintiffs.

In the consolidated putative class action related to the time
period that U.S. dollar LIBOR was administered by ICE Benchmark
Administration, the District Court granted defendants’ motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, and the plaintiffs have appealed.

The Firm's settlements of putative class actions related to Swiss
franc LIBOR, the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and the Singapore
Swap Offer Rate ("SIBOR"), the Australian Bank Bill Swap Reference
Rate, and certain of the putative class actions related to U.S.
dollar LIBOR remain subject to court approval.

In the class actions related to SIBOR and Swiss franc LIBOR, the
District Court concluded that the Court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction, and plaintiffs’ appeals of those decisions are
pending.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Precious Metals Futures Suit Stayed Until 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the consolidated putative class action suit
related to alleged manipulation of precious metals futures has been
stayed through May 2021.

Various authorities, including the Department of Justice's Criminal
Division, are conducting investigations relating to trading
practices in the metals markets and related conduct.

The company (the Firm) also is responding to related requests
concerning similar trading-practices issues in markets for other
financial instruments, such as U.S. Treasuries. The Firm continues
to cooperate with these investigations and is currently engaged in
discussions with various regulators about resolving their
respective investigations. There is no assurance that such
discussions will result in settlements.

Several putative class action complaints have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Firm and certain former employees, alleging a precious
metals futures and options price manipulation scheme in violation
of the Commodity Exchange Act. Some of the complaints also allege
unjust enrichment and deceptive acts or practices under the General
Business Law of the State of New York.

The Court consolidated these putative class actions in February
2019, and the consolidated action is stayed through May 2021.

In addition, several putative class actions have been filed in the
United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois
and Southern District of New York against the Firm, alleging
manipulation of U.S. Treasuries futures and options, and bringing
claims under the Commodity Exchange Act. Some of the complaints
also allege unjust enrichment.

A motion is pending before the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate or coordinate
the actions. The Firm is also a defendant in a consolidated action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York alleging monopolization of silver futures in violation
of the Sherman Act.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suits Over SOPRA Trial Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that additional briefing deadlines are
scheduled through September 2020 in the class action lawsuit
related to the disclosed results from the Phase 2 SOPRA study and
Part 2 of the Phase 2b STORM study.

The company had been named as a defendant in a securities class
action litigation filed on July 23, 2019, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint was filed by the Allegheny County Employees'
Retirement System, against the company and certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors as well as the
underwriters of the company's public offerings of common stock
conducted in April 2017 and May 2018.

This complaint was voluntarily dismissed on March 12, 2020.

A second complaint was filed by Heather Mehdi on September 17,
2019, in the same court and against the same defendants with the
exception of the underwriters.

In April 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, Myo Thant, who
filed an amended complaint on June 29, 2020.

The amended complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws
based on the company's disclosures related to the results from the
Phase 2 SOPRA study and Part 2 of the Phase 2b STORM study, and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, including interest;
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' and expert
fees; and such equitable/injunctive relief or other relief as the
court may deem just and proper.

The company had reviewed the allegations and believe they are
without merit.

Karyopharm said, "We moved to dismiss the complaint on July 31,
2020 and additional briefing deadlines are scheduled through
September 2020. We intend to defend vigorously against this
litigation."

Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., incorporated on December 22, 2008, is
an oncology-focused pharmaceutical company. The Company is focused
on the discovery, development, and commercialization of drugs
directed against nuclear export and related targets for the
treatment of cancer and other diseases. The company is based in
Newton, Massachusetts.


KEEPER SECURITY: Vergo Seeks OT Pay for Customer Success Managers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CORINNE VERGO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, PLAINTIFF VS. KEEPER SECURITY, INC. DEFENDANT, Case No.
1:20-cv-4703 (N.D. Ill., August 11, 2020) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
201, et seq. ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS
105/1. et seq. ("IMWL"), and applicable administrative rules and
regulations for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated a proper overtime compensation
for all hours that Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
worked.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as Customer Success Manager
from February 2020 to July 2020. As a Customer Success Manager,
Plaintiff was responsible for maintaining, renewing and expanding
the service provided to current clients, as well as training
clients on using Defendant's products.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other Customer Success
Managers were not paid overtime wages for hours worked over 40 per
week.

Keeper Security is a Chicago, Illinois-based software company that
develops secure password manager and digital vault systems for
businesses and individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

KINGOLD JEWELRY: Faces Class Actions Over Fake Gold Bars
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Helms, writing for Bitcoin.com, reports that the
Nasdaq-listed company that allegedly used 83 tons of fake gold bars
as collateral to secure loans worth about $2 billion from multiple
financial institutions in China is now in default and facing
several class-action lawsuits.

The gold industry was recently shaken when it was discovered that a
U.S. publicly-traded company was allegedly using 83 tons of fake
gold bars to secure loans worth $2 billion in China. Kingold
Jewelry Inc. is based in Wuhan, China, but it is listed on Nasdaq
in the U.S. under the ticker symbol KGJI.

Following the fake gold news, the Chinese jeweler informed Nasdaq
in a filing that it had received default notices of approximately
RMB10 billion (US$1.44 billion) from seven Chinese lenders. These
loans were backed by the gold bars found to be gilded copper alloy.
The Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE) has also terminated Kingold's
membership and Chinese authorities have launched a fraud
investigation into the company.

Furthermore, a number of lawsuits have been filed against Kingold
as the company's stock price plummeted 24.11% on June 29 following
the fake gold reports. One class-action lawsuit was filed by The
Rosen Law Firm with the U.S. court for the Eastern District of New
York for violations of federal securities laws. It names Kingold,
its chairman Jia Zhihong, and former CFO Bin Liu as the defendants,
claiming that they operated the company fraudulently and deceived
investors.

Law firms Pomerantz and Bronstein, Gewirtz and Grossman also filed
a class-action lawsuit against Kingold, its CEO, and former CFO.
The complaint alleges that between March 15, 2018, and June 28, the
company made materially false or misleading statements about its
operations, specifically about using "fake gold as collateral to
fraudulently secure loans." It also failed to disclose material
consequences that "the company would face creditor lawsuits and be
delisted from the Shanghai Gold Exchange," law firm Pomerantz
described.

In a July filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), Kingold declared that its Wuhan operations "have been
significantly impacted by the disclosed loan defaults, related loan
disputes, various legal proceedings and the resulting freezing of
bank accounts." Furthermore, the company's jewelry production was
halted between January and early April due to the covid-19 outbreak
and Wuhan's lockdown.

To help small investors in China recoup investment losses from
large companies, the Chinese supreme court green-lighted a historic
class-action lawsuit system for retail investors. The system will
be a "convenient and low-cost claim channel" for small and medium
volume investors and form a strong deterrent to financial
criminals, the supreme court reportedly said in a statement.

China's market regulators are investigating Kingold Jewelry over
the fake gold allegation, calling for stricter risk management. "A
number of banking, insurance and trust institutions were involved
in the Wuhan Kingold Jewelry fake gold incident," the China Banking
and Insurance Regulatory Commission said. "Other than the problems
associated with the company itself, the incident also revealed that
the internal controls and risk management of some financial
institutions were empty shells." [GN]


LALAJA INC: FLSA Collective Action Wins Class Status
----------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE VAZQUEZ-AGUILAR, JUSTA
HERNANDEZ-ROJO, JOSAFAT JUAREZ-CHAVEZ, SUSANA MENDOZA-BUSTILLO,
SANDRA CATALINA-TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons, v. ARTURO GASCA, MARIA D. GASCA, and
LALAJA, INC., d/b/a El Cerro Grande Restaurant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00171-FL (E.D.N.C. Filed November 29, 2019), the Hon. Judge
Louise W. Flanagan entered an order:

  1. conditionally certifying this action as a Fair Labor
     Standards Act collective action for the following three
     groups of workers who were employed by the defendants]
     in the restaurant at any time in the period from
     November 29, 2016 through March 19, 2019:

     (a) "Tipped Worker Class" consisting of all tipped
         employees of the Defendants who were not paid cash
         wages of at least $2.13 per hour and the minimum and
         overtime rates required by 29 U.S.C. sections 203(m),
         206(a)(1), and 207(a)(1), and 29 C.F.R. sections
         531.50(a)(1), 531.60, and 780.107";

     (b) "Salary Worker Class" consisting of all cooks and
         dishwashers who were paid a flat weekly wage as
         employees of the Defendants"; and

     (c) "Straight Time Worker Class" consisting of taco chip
         servers and other non-exempt employees who were paid a
         straight hourly wage for all hours worked even when
         they worked more than 40 hours in the same workweek";

  2. directing the Plaintiffs to file, within ten days of the
     date of this order, a motion for approval of the form
     of notice and method of distribution of the same; and

  3. directing he parties to file a joint notice regarding
     phase two discovery and other deadlines.

The Court said, "The plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated a
sound basis for proceeding as a collective action considering all
the evidence presented at this time. The Defendants' contentions
that there are too many individualized determinations to make are
not supported by reference to prior cases or the present record.
Therefore, the court in its discretion grants plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification."

The plaintiffs seeks to recover back wages and liquidated damages
asserting violation of the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons who
were employed by the Defendants for work at the El Cerro Grande
Mexican Restaurant, in New Bern, North Carolina. The Defendants
Arturo Gasca and Maria D. Gasca are alleged to be individual owners
and operators of defendant Lalaja Inc., which does business as the
restaurant.[CC]

LAROSA'S INC: Anderson Seeks Reimbursements for Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOAH ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LAROSA'S INC., MICHAEL LAROSA, DOE CORPORATION 1-10,
and JOHN DOE 1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-00651-TSB (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 21,
2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Wage Fairness Act, and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to reimburse the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated current and former
delivery drivers for job-related expenses that they incurred to
perform their duties, and to record or track their actual expenses.
As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members' wages fell below the required minimum wage.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver
at the LaRosa's store in Pleasant Ridge, Ohio, from January 2020
through August 2020.

LaRosa's Inc. operates several LaRosa's Pizza stores in Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
         BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
         4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
         Columbus, OH 43219
         Telephone: (614) 604-8759
         Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
         E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com

                - and –

         Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
         Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
         Nathan B. Spencer, Esq.
         BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
         8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
         Cincinnati, OH 45236
         Telephone: (513) 715-8711
         Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
         E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
                 pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
                 nspencer@billerkimble.com


LDA CONSTRUCTION: Faces Mendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
AGUSTIN MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, -against- LDA CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN GROUP,
INC. and ANTHONY CRECCO, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
7:20-cv-06602 (S.D.N.Y., August 18, 2020) is an action to recover
damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour
laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment at Defendants.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from in or around August 2014
until in or around February 2020. During Plaintiff's employment by
Defendants, Plaintiff's primary duties were laying bricks, pouring
cement, and performing other miscellaneous duties.

Although Plaintiff worked approximately 54 or more hours per week
during his employment, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a
half for hours worked over 40 hours, a blatant violation of the
overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

Further, Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum
wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the
location of their employment while also willfully failing to keep
accurate payroll records as required by both the state and federal
laws.

LDA Construction and Design Group, Inc. is a Thornwood, New
York-based construction company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Securities Litig. Has Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 3, 2020, that the court has granted final approval of the
settlement in the class action suit entitled, In Re: SAIC, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions against Leidos and several former
executives relating to a contract to develop and implement an
automated time and attendance and workforce management system for
certain agencies of the City of New York ("CityTime").

One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in In Re:
SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegations that Leidos and individual defendants made
misleading statements or omissions about revenues, operating income
and internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to
the CityTime project.

The plaintiffs sought to recover from Leidos and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly
incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price.

The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice
and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs then appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued
an opinion affirming in part, and vacating in part, the District
Court's ruling.

Leidos filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S.
Supreme Court, which was granted on March 27, 2017. The District
Court granted Leidos' request to stay all proceedings, including
discovery, pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

In September 2017, the parties engaged in mediation resulting in an
agreement to settle all remaining claims for an immaterial amount
to be paid by Leidos.

On October 2, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement and on June 29, 2020, the court granted final
approval effective July 30, 2020.

The amounts payable by Leidos are covered by an insurance policy.

Leidos Holdings, Inc. provides services and solutions in the
defense, intelligence, civil, and health markets in the United
States and internationally. It operates through three segments:
Defense Solutions, Civil, and Health. The company was founded in
1969 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Smith Suit in District of Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Ruth Smith, on
behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated v. Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company, John Does 1-10, Case No.
1:20-cv-11583-ADB (D. Mass., Aug. 24, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Commerce ICC Rates, Etc. for the
Sherman-Clayton Act.

Liberty Mutual Group is an American diversified global insurer and
the third-largest property and casualty insurer in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 739-4200
          Fax: (312) 419-0379
          Email: courtecl@edcombs.com
                 hkolbus@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq.
          PO Box 479
          Pawtucket, RI 02862
          Phone: (401) 728-6060
          Fax: (401) 728-6534
          Email: court@lefebvrelaw.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fails to Provide COVID-19 Coverage, Melcorp Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case MELCORP, INC. d/b/a GREAT STEAK & POTATO COMPANY, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY and WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-04839 (N.D. Ill., August 18, 2020) arises out of
Defendants' failure to provide insurance coverage for the business
income Plaintiff lost because of the ongoing Coronavirus (COVID-19)
pandemic.

In 2019, Defendants sold Plaintiff a commercial property and
casualty insurance policy with an effective date of coverage of
April 1, 2019. Pursuant to the Building and Personal Property
Coverage Form-an "all-risk" property insurance policy-Defendants
agreed to "pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered
Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or
resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss."

On March 17, 2020, the Fox Valley Mall notified its tenants
including the Plaintiff that it would temporarily close the mall
from March 19, 2020 through March 31, 2020 "[i]n response to
[then-current] federal and local guidelines with respect to
COVID-19 developments."  On or about March 19, 2020, pursuant to
the mall's closure, Plaintiff suspended all restaurant operations
and began suffering an ongoing loss of business income.

On or about April 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a claim with Defendants
related to its lost business income. On or about April 27, 2020,
Defendants denied coverage for the lost income Plaintiff suffered
because of the Closure Orders.

Plaintiff brings this action for declaratory relief and breach of
contract on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
Illinois businesses.

Melcorp., Inc., owned and operated Great Steak & Potato Company, a
restaurant in the Fox Valley Mall in Illinois.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is a Boston, Massachusetts-based
company that sells commercial property and casualty insurance
policies to businesses including Illinois.

West American Insurance Company is an insurance corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Indiana, with its
principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert R. Duncan, Esq.
          James H. Podolny, Esq.
          DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 2550
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 202-3283
          Facsimile: (312) 202-3284
          E-mail: rrd@duncanlawgroup.com
                 jp@duncanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Esbrook, Esq.
          Michael Kozlowski, Esq.
          ESBROOK LAW, LLC
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 319-7680
          E-mail: christopher.esbrook@esbrooklaw.com
                  michael.kozlowski@esbrooklaw.com

LIFETOUCH NATIONAL: Schaefer Alleges Unfair Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
KATYA SCHAEFER, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and as private attorney general, Plaintiff, v. LIFETOUCH
NATIONAL SCHOOL STUDIOS, INC., a Minnesota Corporation, and DOES 1
through 50, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-07168-DDP-AS (C.D. Cal.,
August 10, 2020), contends that the Defendant failed to:

     (1) provide meal breaks in violation of Labor Code sections
226.7, 512(a), 1198, and Wage Order 4-2001;

     (2) provide rest breaks in violation of Labor Code sections
226.7 and 1198;

     (3) pay overtime in violation of Labor Code sections 204, 510,
1194, 1194.5;

     (4) pay minimum wages in violation of Labor Code sections
1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198;

     (5) timely pay wages in violation of Labor Code sections 204,
510;

     (6) reimburse employees for business expenses in Violation of
Labor Code section 2802;

     (7) provide compliant wage statements and failure to maintain
accurate payroll records in violation of California Labor Code
sections 226(a), 1174(d), and 1198, as well as an accurate itemized
paystub in violation of Labor Code sections 226, 226.3 and 1174;
and

     (8) timely pay employees for all wages owed at termination in
violation of Labor Code sections 201 and 202.

Plaintiff also alleges violations of Bus. & Prof. Code sections
17200 et seq.; and liability and civil penalties under Labor Code
Sections 2698 et seq.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a photographer in California
from approximately March 2019, to December 2019.

Plaintiff frequently worked shifts far in excess of eight hours,
but was expected to, and frequently did, work through her meal
breaks, and rest breaks. Even when she did have a meal or rest
break, she was not relieved of all work duties: she often had to
field questions from customers at the photo shoot site during
break.

Plaintiff was required to use her cell phone for work, to
coordinate with other employees, to call the office during a photo
shoot if needed, and to stream music to entertain children she was
photographing. Plaintiff only received the $20 flat cell phone
reimbursement provided by Lifetouch, even though her cell phone
plan costs much more.

Plaintiff also was not reimbursed fully, per California law, for
use of her personal vehicle for work. When Lifetouch did reimburse
Plaintiff for the use of her car, it typically did so very late,
often after a month or two, and it was often less than required.

Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff all overtime wages due as
required by California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders. Plaintiff was limited to overtime in the
amount of "one point per day," which equaled two hours of
overtime.

Although Lifetouch provided wage statements, the wage statements
regularly incorrectly listed the hours actually worked by Plaintiff
as well as the number of overtime hours Plaintiff worked.
Therefore, Plaintiff's wage statements were inaccurate and
noncompliant, in violation of Labor Code section 226.

After Plaintiff was laid off from Lifetouch, she did not receive
her final pay for between seven and 14 days, in direct violation of
Labor Code sections 201 and 203. Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff her final wages immediately, as required, was willful,
and, on information and belief, is a consistent practice of
Defendant in California.

Lifetouch National School Studios, Inc. is a subsidiary of
Lifetouch, Inc., an American-based photography company
headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
                  mappel@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2049 Century Park E., Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-0130
          Facsimile: (310) 229-5800
          E-mail: gdanas@robinskaplan.com

LINCOLN LIFE: Nitkewicz Sues in New York Seeking Premium Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Nitkewicz, as trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Family Trust, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LINCOLN LIFE
& ANNUITY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:20-cv-06805 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 24, 2020), seeks relief for the premium refunds that Lincoln
NY has wrongly refused to pay its customers that it was required to
pay under New York law.

A New York statue governing insurance requires Lincoln NY to refund
to all owners of life insurance (with two exceptions not applicable
here) any premium paid for any period beyond the end of the policy
month in which an insured dies. The Plaintiff alleges that Lincoln
NY unquestionably does not pay any of those statutorily required
refunds, and instead unlawfully pockets the premiums for itself.

The Plaintiff owns a life insurance policy issued in New York by
Lincoln NY with a $1.5 million face value. The Plaintiff paid an
annual planned policy premium of $53,877.72 on May 7, 2018, the
precise amount of the annual planned policy premium provided for in
the policy. The insured passed away five months later, on October
6, 2018. Lincoln NY paid the death benefit but did not include the
premium refund for any of the months for which the Plaintiff paid
an annual planned premium after the policy month of the insured's
death.

According to the complaint, in written correspondence dated January
28, 2019, Lincoln NY rejected paying to the Plaintiff the required
premium refund, stating that the Plaintiff's annual planned
premiums paid increased the policy value, earned interest, was
accessible for a policy loan, withdrawal or cash surrender, and
could have been used to cover future policy expenses. "As a
result," Lincoln NY stated, "no premiums paid are 'unearned' and
they cannot be refunded as part of a policy's death benefit," and
"there was no 'unearned premium' and no refund of premium was
payable."

Lincoln NY's refusal to pay the refund stands in stark contrast to
Athene Life Insurance Company of New York ("Athene"), according to
the complaint. The Trust also owned a $180,000 universal life
insurance policy issued by Athene, with a $3,230 "planned premium"
due "annually." The Trust paid that annual planned premium,
including that exact amount on June 6, 2018. Following the maturity
of the policy, after the Trust inquired about the pro-rated refund
owed by Athena under New York Insurance Law, Athena promptly paid
the refund owed plus interest ($2,186.34), without any dispute.

As a result of Lincoln NY's misconduct, the Plaintiff seeks relief
for the premium refunds that Lincoln NY has wrongly refused to pay
its customers that it was required to pay under New York law.

The Plaintiff Andrew Nitkewicz is the trustee of the Joan C. Lupe
Family Trust, which owns Lincoln NY policy number LJ7197774.

Lincoln NY is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth Ard, Esq.
          Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-336-3330
          Fax: 212-336-8340
          Email: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                 rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Steven Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310-789-3100
          Fax: 310-789-3150
          Email: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com


LINDENWOOD UNIVERSITY: Keeps Tuition Despite Closure, Martin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DYLAN MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LINDENWOOD UNIVERSITY, Case No. 4:20-cv-01128-RLW (E.D.
Mo., Aug. 24, 2020), is a class action against the Defendant for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to return to
its students, including the Plaintiff, pro-rated portion of tuition
and fees paid for the Spring 2020 academic semester. Lindenwood
University has not held in-person classes since March 13, 2020, due
to the COVID-19 pandemic. Classes that have continued since then
have only been offered in an online format, at times with little or
no actual, real-time instruction from professors.

As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the
Plaintiff and Class members cannot use and access the educational
services that they contracted and paid for, according to the
complaint. The Defendant has not delivered the services and/or
opportunities that the students anticipated to experience such as
collaborative learning and in-person education. The remote learning
options being offered by the Defendant are subpar and are in no way
equivalent of in-person education. Nonetheless, the Defendant has
improperly retained funds for services that have diminished in
value or are not being provided at all.

Lindenwood University is a private institution of higher education
with its principal place of business at 209 S. Kingshighway, in St.
Charles, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com

                - and –

         Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
         Miami, FL 33133
         Telephone: (305) 330-5512
         Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
         E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com


LITE BITES: Guerrero Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO IVAN RODRIGUEZ GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. LITE BITES ASTORIA INC. (D/B/A LITE BITES)
and HERMAT PERSAD, Case No. 1:20-cv-03871 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 21,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The lawsuit is also brought for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law
and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was employed as a line cook at the diner operated by
the Defendants in Astoria, New York, from March 2014 until May 8,
2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he
worked. The Defendants also failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked at additional overtime premium.
The Defendants further failed to pay the Plaintiff the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day, and they also repeatedly failed to pay the Plaintiff
wages on a timely basis.

Lite Bites Astoria Inc. (d/b/a Lite Bites) is an Astoria, New
York-based restaurant company.[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
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcomplieance.com


MAA WWARRS: Faces Hollis Suit Seeking to Stop Unsolicited Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
AARON HOLLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MAA WWARRS, LLC d/b/a POST SOHO SQUARE, Case No.
CACE-20-012534 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Aug. 3, 2020), seeks to
stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.

MAA WWARRS, LLC, doing business as Post Soho Square, is engaged in
apartment leasing business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com


MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (MIC) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company's motions to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint is still pending.

On April 23, 2018, a complaint captioned City of Riviera Beach
General Employees Retirement System v. Macquarie Infrastructure
Corp., et al., Case 1:18-cv-03608 (VSB), was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

A substantially identical complaint captioned Daniel Fajardo v.
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03744 (VSB) was filed in the same court on April 27, 2018.


Both complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of MIC
common stock between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 2018. The
named defendants in both cases were the Company and four current or
former officers of MIC and one of its subsidiaries, IMTT Holdings
LLC.

The complaints in both actions allege that the Company and the
individual defendants knowingly made material misstatements and
omitted material facts in its public disclosures concerning the
Company's and IMTT's business and the sustainability of the
Company's dividend to stockholders.

On January 30, 2019, the Court issued an opinion and order
consolidating the two cases, appointing Moab Partners, L.P. (Moab)
as Lead Plaintiff and approving Moab's selection of lead counsel.
On February 20, 2019, Moab filed a consolidated class action
complaint.

In addition to the claims noted above, the consolidated class
action complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the Company's
November 2016 secondary public offering of common stock. The
consolidated amended complaint also adds Macquarie Infrastructure
Management (USA) Inc., Barclays Capital Inc. and seven additional
current or former officers or directors of MIC as defendants.

On April 22, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in its
entirety, with prejudice. Briefing concluded on July 22, 2019.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the claims
asserted, which the Company believes are entirely meritless.

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

Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns and operates a portfolio
of businesses that provide services to other businesses, government
agencies, and individuals. It operates through: International-Matex
Tank Terminals (IMTT), Atlantic Aviation, and MIC Hawaii segments.
The company was founded in 2004 and is based in New York, New
York.


MACY'S RETAIL: Carmine Suit Alleges Violation of BIPA in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ISELA CARMINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04589
(N.D. Ill., Aug. 5, 2020), alleges violation of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant does not
provide notice that individual's entering their stores will be
photographed or filmed and that their faces will be run through the
illegal surveillance database done by Clearview AI, Inc. The
Defendant does not notify consumers that it acquired their identity
and personal information from the Clearview database. The
Defendant's secret collection of photos and videos and positive
identifications through Clearview's database occurred in the course
of commerce or trade.

Macy's Retail Holdings Inc. owns and operates department stores.
The Company offers shoes, bed, bath, and cosmetic products,
apparel, accessories, and jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Drew, Esq.
          NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL LLC
          20 N. Clark Street #3300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 967-7220
          E-mail: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com

               - and -

          Michael Wood, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS LLC
          20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Massive Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Lomas, writing for TechCrunch, reports that a class action
style suit has been filed in the UK against hotel group Marriott
International over a massive data breach that exposed the
information of some 500 million guests around the world, including
around 30 million residents of the European Union, between July
2014 and September 2018.

The representative legal action against Marriott has been filed by
UK resident, Martin Bryant, on behalf of millions of hotel guests
domiciled in England & Wales who made reservations at hotel brands
globally within the Starwood Hotels group, which is now part of
Marriott International.

Hackers gained access to the systems of the Starwood Hotels group,
starting in 2014, where they were able to help themselves to
information such as guests' names; email and postal addresses;
telephone numbers; gender and credit card data. Marriott
International acquired the Starwood Hotels group in 2016 -- but the
breach went undiscovered until 2018.

Bryant is being represented by international law firm, Hausfeld,
which specialises in group actions.

Commenting in a statement, Hausfeld partner, Michael Bywell, said:
"Over a period of several years, Marriott International failed to
take adequate technical or organisational measures to protect
millions of their guests' personal data which was entrusted to
them. Marriott International acted in clear breach of data
protection laws specifically put in place to protect data
subjects."

"Personal data is increasingly critical as we live more of our
lives online, but as consumers we don't always realise the risks we
are exposed to when our data is compromised through no fault of our
own. I hope this case will raise awareness of the value of our
personal data, result in fair compensation for those of us who have
fallen foul of Marriott's vast and long-lasting data breach, and
also serve notice to other data owners that they must hold our data
responsibly," added Bryant in another supporting statement.

Reached for a response, a Marriott International spokesperson said
it does not comment on pending litigation.

A claim website for the action invites other eligible UK
individuals to register their interest -- and "hold Marriott to
account for not securing your personal data", as it puts it.

Here are the details of who is eligible to register their
interest:

"The "class' of claimants on whose behalf the claim is brought
includes all individuals who at any date prior to 10 September 2018
made a reservation online at a hotel operating under any of the
following brands: W Hotels, St. Regis, Sheraton Hotels & Resorts,
Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury
Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le Meridien Hotel & Resorts, Four
Points by Sheraton, Design Hotels. In addition, any other brand
owned and/or operated by Marriott International Inc or Starwood
Hotels and Resorts Worldwide LLC. The individuals must have been
resident in England and Wales at some point during the relevant
period prior to 10 September 2018 and are resident in England and
Wales at the date the claim was issued. They must also have been at
least 18 years old at the date the claim was issued."

The claim is being brought as a representative action under Rule
19.6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, per a press release, which also
notes that everyone with the same interest as Bryant is included in
the claimant class unless they opt out.

Those eligible to participate face no fees or costs, nor do
affected guests face any financial risk from the litigation --
which is being fully funded by Harbour Litigation Funding, a global
litigation funder.

The suit is the latest sign that litigation funders are willing to
take a punt on representative actions in the UK as a route to
obtaining substantial damages for data issues. Another class action
style suit was announced -- targeting tracking cookies operated by
data broker giants, Oracle and Salesforce.

Both lawsuits follow a landmark decision by a UK appeals court last
year which allowed a class action-style suit against Google's use
between 2011 and 2012 of tracking cookies to override iPhone users'
privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser to proceed, overturning
an earlier court decision to toss the case.

The other unifying factor is the existence of Europe's General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR) framework which has opened the door to
major fines for data protection violations. So even if EU
regulators continue to lack uniform vigour in enforcing data
protection law, there's a chance the region's courts will do the
job for them if more litigation funders see value in bringing
representative cases to pursue damages for privacy violations.

The dates of the Marriott data breach means it falls under GDPR —
which came into application in May 2018.

The UK's data watchdog, the ICO, proposed a $123M fine for the
security failing in July last year -- saying then that the hotel
operator had "failed to undertake sufficient due diligence when it
bought Starwood and should also have done more to secure its
systems".

However it has yet to hand down a final decision. Asked when the
Marriott decision will be finalized, an ICO spokeswoman told us the
"regulatory process" has been extended until September 30. No
additional detail was offered to explain the delay.

Here's the regulator's statement in full:

"Under Schedule 16 of the Data Protection Act 2018, Marriott has
agreed to an extension of the regulatory process until 30
September. We will not be commenting until the regulatory process
has concluded." [GN]


MAXIM INTEGRATED: Post Suit Challenges Sale to Analog Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Post, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC., TRACY ACCARDI, JAMES
R. BERGMAN, JOSEPH R. BRONSON, TUNC DOLUCA, ROBERT E. GRADY,
MERCEDES JOHNSON, WILLIAM P. SULLIVAN, WILLIAM D. WATKINS, MARYANN
WRIGHT, ANALOG DEVICES, INC., and MAGNETO CORP. Case No.
1:20-cv-01110-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 24, 2020), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Maxim will be acquired by Analog
Devices, Inc. and Magneto Corp.

On July 12, 2020, Maxim's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Analog. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Maxim's stockholders will
receive 0.630 shares of Parent common stock for each share of Maxim
common stock they own.

On August 18, 2020, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Registration Statement.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement omits
material information regarding the Company's and Analog's financial
projections. The Registration Statement also omits, among other
things, material information regarding the analyses performed by
the Company's financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC.

The omissions and false and misleading statements in the
Registration Statement are material in that a reasonable
stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on
the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff asserts. Because of the
false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement, the
Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with irreparable harm, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff owns Maxim common stock.

Maxim develops innovative analog and mixed-signal products and
technologies to make systems smaller and smarter, with enhanced
security and increased energy efficiency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          Email: rm@maniskas.com


MAYNARD MARKS: Class Action Over Leaky Building Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Harris, writing for Stuff, reports that Paul Running says
he is financially and emotionally wrung out after a decade-long
battle to repair what may be the country's most expensive leaky
building.

Mountain View, a 99-unit complex in Auckland's Mt Wellington, is
the country's biggest claimant for government leaky home
assistance, with a repair bill of $41 million plus GST.

Leaky cladding was just the start. Further investigations revealed
problems with the roof, shared walls, passive fire protection
systems and balconies.

After nearly four years, the repair work was finished in 2018. Now
Running and about 50 other owners have secured litigation funding
to sue building consultants Maynard Marks, claiming the project
would have come in $20 million cheaper if they had been advised to
demolish and start again.

Running, 54, bought a unit at Mountain View in 2007 after a
divorce. He never had a chance to live in his unit, firstly because
of the need for repairs and, secondly, because he met someone.

However, as his only property, it had been a costly investment.

"It's personally cost me -- what with loss of rent and everything
else - over half-a-million dollars," he says.

"People are absolutely destroyed. If I sell it tomorrow, I walk
away with absolutely nothing."

Peter Mansfield also estimates he's lost about half-a-million
dollars. He lived at Mountain View for 20 years before selling his
unit earlier this year.

"We've come away with about $90,000 after paying off all the
loans."

As a result, he was renting rather than owning a house in
retirement.

Mansfield was also building manager at the complex for a couple of
years and said many of the owner occupiers were not wealthy. He had
seen people literally "worry themselves to death" over the stress.

Another ex-owner, Lee van Rees, had to take a mortgage in
retirement. She said the strain of paying for Mountain View's
repairs had "broken marriages, families and wrecked people".

She bought her property in 2003 for $240,000 and sold it earlier
this year with a $211,000 debt.

And under the Unit Titles Act, she believes she might still be
liable for historic debts.

"Is the word ruined [too strong?]. I'm retired, I'm 72 years old .
. . We would have been freehold."

The residents are claiming general damages of $50,000 each, and at
least $100,000 each for "consequential losses", plus overpayment on
the repair costs. All up, around $250,000 to $350,000 each, Thorn
said.

Running's own unit was empty for two-and-a-half years. His father
helped put a roof over his head for six months, after which he paid
rent and his mortgage of about $1000 a week.

But he still counted himself lucky.

"A lot of them probably weren't. If not [for my luck] I would have
been declared bankrupt . . . or I would have had [incurred] a lot
of debt.''

Although Mountain View is now finished, the issues continue. The
body corporate is in dispute with the construction company's new
owner over a repayment of over $2m, and residents are split between
those who support the case against Maynard Marks and those who do
not.

Lawyer Adina Thorn, who is heading the class action, said residents
had effectively paid twice the value of their homes.

Maynard Mark's original estimate for repairs in 2010 had been $8.3
million, jumping to $41 million plus GST.

"Here the reality is, the costs are being passed down to the next
generation."

The claim alleges Maynard Marks, which later became the project
engineer, only recommended repairing the building, never to
demolish and rebuild.

The residents claim Maynard Marks breached its contract, duty of
care and consumer obligations.

However, a lawyer for Maynard Marks, Peter Hunt, says it does not
accept that claim.

"The body corporate looked into the option of demolition prior to
engaging Maynard Marks, and chose to proceed with a
weathertightness remediation/recladding project," he said.

"Maynard Marks also looked into the option to demolish and rebuild
but correctly concluded that was not a financially viable option,
compared to repairs."

Hunt said his client had warned residents at the start of the
process that there could be hidden defects, which there were.

Resident and former body corporate chairman Peter Scott said when
construction began, the body corporate was convinced that
demolishing and rebuilding was the much more expensive option.

He said it formed this opinion not from information from Maynard
Marks but from valuations given to them by insurers.

Maynard Marks had worked to its scope, and it was hard to turn back
when the full scale of the problem was revealed, he said.

Scott, who still lives at the complex, says everyone was
disappointed by the repair bill. And as he recalled, the
Government's assistance package -- a programme now closed but which
contributed 25 per cent to the costs -- only supported repair work,
not rebuilds.

He thought many residents would have struggled to get their banks
to agree to a loan for rebuilding, in any case.

Still, he agreed it had been a traumatic process for everyone.

"We didn't have anyone take their life or anything like that, but
there was a lot of depression, and a lot of sad stories, a lot of
anger. I empathise with that.

"But we were in a situation where we had 99 apartments and they
have all been returned to owners . . . in a better condition than
they were."

The class action has been backed by Australian litigation funder
Court House Capital. [GN]


MAYO CLINIC: Prelim. Approval of Class Action Settlement Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE KUHR, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. MAYO CLINIC
JACKSONVILLE and PROFESSIONAL SERVICE BUREAU, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00453-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales
Howard entered an order denying, without prejudice:

   --  Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
       Class Action Settlement

   --  Certification of the Settlement Class

   --  Approval of Class Notice

   --  Scheduling of Final Approval Hearing, and Incorporated
       Memorandum of Law.

The renewed motion is due September 8, 2020. The Plaintiff's Motion
for Attorney's Fees is also due September 8.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Shaw, Esq.
          Kimberly Slaven, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE LLP
          110 SE 6th St Ste 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-5016
          Telephone: 954 989-6333
          Facsimile: 954-801-9895
          E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christi A. Lawson, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP.
          Telephone: 407 244 3235
          E-mail: clawson@foley.com

MCKESSON CORP: Agreement Reached in Suit Against RelayHealth
------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that an agreement has been reached in the
consolidated class action suit against the company's subsidiary
NDCHealth Corporation dba RelayHealth.

In October 2019, the Company's subsidiary NDCHealth Corporation dba
RelayHealth ("RelayHealth") was served with three purported class
action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The complaints allege that RelayHealth violated the Sherman Act by
entering into an agreement with co-defendant Surescripts, LLC not
to compete in the electronic prescription routing market, and by
conspiring with Surescripts, LLC to monopolize that market, Powell
Prescription Center, et al. v. Surescripts, LLC, et al., No.
1:19-cv-06627; Intergrated Pharmaceutical Solutions LLC v.
Surescripts, LLC, et al., 1:19-cv-06778; Falconer Pharmacy, Inc. v.
Surescripts LLC, et al., No. 1:19-cv-07035.

In November 2019, three similar complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Kennebunk Village Pharmacy, Inc. v. SureScripts, LLC, et al.,
1:19-cv-7445; Whitman v. SureScripts, LLC et al., No. 1:19-cv-7448;
BBK Global Corp. v. SureScripts, LLC et al., 1:19-cv-7640.

In December 2019, the six actions were consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois.

The complaints seek relief including treble damages, attorney fees,
and costs.

Subject to court approval, plaintiffs and RelayHealth reached an
agreement to resolve the class action lawsuits with RelayHealth
paying an amount that is not expected to be material in the context
of the Company’s overall financial results.

The settlement does not include any admission of liability, and
RelayHealth expressly denies wrongdoing.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson
Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving,
California.

MDL 2460: End-Payers' Bid for Class Certification Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that a court has denied the end-payers' motion to certify a
class in the coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings
under the MDL Rules as In re: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
2460.

Lawsuits are pending against AbbVie and others generally alleging
that the 2005 patent litigation settlement involving Niaspan
entered into between Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired
by Abbott in 2006 and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a
generic company violates federal and state antitrust laws and state
unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws.

Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits consist of four individual plaintiff lawsuits and two
consolidated purported class actions: one brought by Niaspan direct
purchasers and one brought by Niaspan end-payers.

The cases are pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated
pre-trial proceedings under the MDL Rules as In re: Niaspan
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460.

In August 2019, the court certified a class of direct purchasers of
Niaspan.

In June 2020, the court denied the end-payers' motion to certify a
class.

In October 2016, the Orange County, California District Attorney's
Office filed a lawsuit on behalf of the State of California
regarding the Niaspan patent litigation settlement in Orange County
Superior Court, asserting a claim under the unfair competition
provision of the California Business and Professions Code seeking
injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties and attorneys'
fees.

In June 2020, the California Supreme Court reversed a lower court's
ruling and held that the District Attorney's suit may proceed on a
statewide basis.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


MERCY HEALTH: Mismanages Retirement Plans, Hill ERISA Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE HILL; and KATHRYN NEILD, as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Mercy Health
Corporation Employees' Retirement Plan, the Rockford Health System
Retirement Plan, and the Rockford Health Physicians Retirement Plan
v. MERCY HEALTH CORPORATION; MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM CORPORATION; and
DOES 1-20, Case No. 3:20-cv-50286 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 4, 2020),
alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duty under ERISA by (1) failing to monitor and control
the fees paid by the Plans, and (2) failing to monitor the
investment performance of certain funds. The Defendants' actions
and omissions have caused millions of dollars in losses to the
Plans.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to employ a
prudent process for managing the Mercy Health Corporation
Employees' Retirement Plan ("Mercy Plan"), the Rockford Health
System Retirement Plan ("RHS Plan), and the Rockford Health
Physicians Retirement Plan ("RHP Plan") (collectively, the "Plans")
and failed to prudently monitor and control the Plans' fees.
Instead, the Defendants allowed the Plans to pay excessive sales
commissions on investment products and services. These sales
commissions have increased the investment fund fees that the Plans'
participants must pay by as much as 135%. Likewise, an add-on
investment service in the Plans that utilizes an outside firm to
choose participants' investments (known as a "managed account
service") charges a hefty fee mark-up to generate commissions.

The Defendants also failed to monitor the performance of certain
investment funds held by the Plans. The Plans' investment options
include several funds managed by an affiliate of the Plans'
administrative services vendor, Voya. These funds appear to have
been promoted by Voya, yet there is no reasonable fiduciary basis
for the Defendants to retain them. The funds have consistently
underperformed their benchmark indexes, and the investment
marketplace for similarly-sized plans is replete with lower cost,
better performing funds. The Defendants' retention of these funds
illustrates their failure to prudently monitor the Plans'
investment performance on behalf of participants, the Plaintiffs
assert.

Mercy Health Corporation provides hospital services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristen Prinz, Esq.
          1 East Upper Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Tel: (312) 212-4450
          Fax: (312) 284-4822
          E-mail: kprinz@prinz-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Chloe A. Raimey, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Tel: (612) 256-3200
          Fax: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com
                  bpsecht@nka.com
                  craimey@nka.com


MICHIGAN: Castillo Sues Over COVID-19 Testing for Latino Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSANA CASTILLO, CLARISSA VASQUEZ, VERONICA BOTELLO, DULCE
SOSTENES, DORAELIA NUNEZ, MANUEL NUNEZ MORALES, JR., TRUE BLUE
BERRY MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company,
SMELTZER ORCHARDS CO., LLC, a Michigan limited liability company v.
GRETCHEN WHITMER, in her official capacity as Governor of the State
of Michigan, and ROBERT GORDON, in his official capacity as the
Director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services,
and GARY MCDOWELL, in his official capacity as the Director of the
Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Case No.
1:20-cv-00751-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich., Aug. 11, 2020), alleges that the
MDHHS has singled out Latino agricultural workers for mandatory
COVID-19 testing, in violation of their rights and privileges under
the United States Constitution.

According to the complaint, MDHHS Director Gordon asserts that
Latinos disproportionately carry the COVID-19 virus, and
consequently pose a disproportionate risk for spreading the
disease. On this rationale, Director Gordon issued an emergency
order targeting Latinos for mandatory COVID-19 testing; something
unheard of during this pandemic. In short, migrant/seasonal workers
and workers in the meat, poultry and egg processing industries (who
are predominantly Latino) must submit to COVID-19 testing, or lose
their jobs and housing.

According to the complaint, pandemic or not, the State cannot
subject one racial class of people to a different set of rules than
it applies to others. The Equal Protection Clause is at the heart
of our Constitution and it remains in force notwithstanding any
declared state of emergency. Governor Whitmer and Director Gordon
are free to battle COVID-19, but they must do so in a racially
neutral manner. If mandatory testing must be done, then it must be
done for everyone; not based on racial classifications and
stereotypes.

The Order ignores both the areas of the "food and beverage"
industry that are less likely to have Latino workers and similarly
situated housing scenarios, the Plaintiffs assert. They add that
despite the apparent COVID-19 outbreaks in other industries, the
Order chooses to focus on Latino agricultural workers.

Plaintiffs Castillo, Vasquez, Botello, Sostenes, Nunez, and Morales
have been seasonal Latino agricultural workers for years. Plaintiff
True Blue Berry Management, LLC, is the administrative arm of the
True Blue farming entities in Michigan, which own and harvest
fruit. Over 90% of True Blue's workforce is Latino, including 95%
of its migrant and seasonal workers.

Plaintiff Smeltzer Orchards Co., LLC, is both a producer and
processor of fruit products, including cherries, blueberries,
strawberries, and apples, and is located in Michigan. As a producer
and processer of fruit, Smeltzer Orchards employs numerous Latino
agricultural workers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald G. DeWaard, Esq.
          Aaron M. Phelps, Esq.
          Brion B. Doyle, Esq.
          Seth B. Arthur, Esq.
          VARNUM LLP
          333 Bridge St. NW, Ste. 1700
          Grand Rapids, MI 49504
          Telephone: (616) 336-6000
          E-mail: rgdewaard@varnumlaw.com
                  amphelps@varnumlaw.com
                  bbdoyle@varnumlaw.com
                  sbarthur@varnumlaw.com


MING JIANG: Gen Wang Han Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Dishwashers
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GEN WANG HAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MING JIANG SERVICES CORP, d/b/a Yokohama; WEN
HUI WANG, a/k/a Nicky Wang, a/k/a Nick Wang; QIAO MEI LIU, a/k/a
Qiao Mei Liu Wang, a/k/a Qiao Mei Wang, a/k/a Cindy Liu Wang, a/k/a
Cindy Liu, a/k/a Cindy Wang; MICHAEL WANG; and JIAN RONG LIU,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01206 (D. Conn., August 19, 2020),
arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated dishwashers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek and failing to keep full and accurate payroll records.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher at
Yokohama Japanese restaurant located at 131 Danbury Rd., New
Milford, Connecticut from October 10, 2017 to January 08, 2018.

Ming Jiang Services Corp is a company that owns and operates a
Japanese restaurant called Yokohama located at 131 Danbury Rd., New
Milford, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         John Troy, Esq.
         TROY LAW, PLLC
         41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
         Flushing, NY 11355
         Telephone: (718) 762-1324
         E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com

MISSOURI DOC: Bid to Decertify Adult Parolees Class Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE GASCA, et al., v.
ANNE PRECYTHE, Director of the Missouri, Department of Corrections,
et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04149-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen R. Bough entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to
decertify the class consisting of:

   "all adult parolees in the state of Missouri who
   currently face, or who in the future will face,
   parole revocation proceedings."

The Court said it found no basis for decertifying the class on
commonality grounds. The Defendants' attempt to now portray the
common issue(s) in this case as uncommon in this very late stage of
the proceedings, particularly considering their consent to class
treatment and summary judgment, is unmeritorious. Finding no new
facts or changes in circumstance that did not exist at the time of
class certification, the Court said decertification is unwarranted.
The Defendants' policies, practices, and procedures remain
applicable to the entire class. For these reasons, decertification
for lack of standing is unwarranted.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the parole
revocation policies, procedures, and practices of the Missouri
Department of Corrections and its Division of Probation and Parole.
After the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs' initial motion
for class certification, the Plaintiffs conducted comprehensive
discovery and filed a renewed motion for class certification. The
Defendants did not object to the renewed motion, and after
conducting a rigorous analysis, the Court certified this matter as
a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2).

MODOC operates state prisons in the U.S. state of Missouri. It has
its headquarters in Missouri's capital of Jefferson City.[CC]

MONSANTO CORP: D.C. County Expect to Get $7.5MM From Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy B. Wheeler, writing for BayJournal.com, reports that it's
been a slog, but efforts are making headway to rid the Anacostia
River of long-banned toxic chemicals that make it unsafe to eat
many locally caught fish.

After years of sampling and studies, District of Columbia officials
have proposed tackling 11 hot spots of contamination in the lower
Anacostia, which flows through DC before joining the Potomac River.
The sediments in those places are laden with PCBs, or
polychlorinated biphenyls, a pernicious family of synthetic
chemicals still making their way into fish more than four decades
after being outlawed because of their risks to human health and
wildlife.

"We are making real progress," Tommy Wells, director of the
district's Department of Energy and the Environment, said at a
cleanup planning meeting in June. The department's "early action"
plan, unveiled late last year, calls for a combination of dredging,
capping, and treatment of the PCB-tainted sediments. The projected
$30 million costs is nevertheless only a down payment on dealing
with the full mixture of toxic wastes, pesticides, and other
harmful substances fouling the river.

But officials hope that by addressing these hot spots, they can at
least reduce the health risks from eating locally caught fish.
After reviewing hundreds of comments on the plan, they intend to
announce Sept. 30 how they'll proceed.

"I have to temper my desire to have it all done yesterday," said
Jim Foster, president, and CEO of the Anacostia Watershed Society.
"But it seems as if we are finally on a trajectory to get it
done."

Elsewhere, there's far less getting done about the PCB
contamination that's widespread throughout the Chesapeake Bay and
its tributaries. In the Gunpowder and Bird rivers north of
Baltimore, Maryland regulators have concluded there's little they
can do to reduce the PCBs that are responsible for fish consumption
advisories there on channel catfish, carp, and white and yellow
perch, among other species.

Anglers hoping to eat uncontaminated catch from those two linked
rivers may have to wait for PCB levels to decline on their own,
state officials said. But it could be a long wait for the
persistent chemicals to break down naturally or become buried under
cleaner sediment. In the Gunpowder, that could take 49 years,
officials project; in the Bird, 93 years.

Theaux Le Gardeur, the Gunpowder Riverkeeper, finds that
intolerable. "In many cases, that's three generations of
Marylanders subject to fish consumption advisories due to PCBs," he
said. Le Gardeur runs a fly-fishing shop and fishing guide service
that focuses on the Gunpowder.

On July 29, the riverkeeper filed suit against the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency challenging the federal agency's
approval of what Le Gardeur contends is an inadequate state study
of what can be done about PCBs contaminating the rivers.

In the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, he complains that the Maryland Department of the
Environment didn't sample enough and didn't propose to do anything
about the main source of PCBs contaminating fish - the bottom
sediments. EPA neglected its duty under the Clean Water Act by
signing off on the state's plan, the suit contends.

Still a widespread problem

The Anacostia and the pair of Baltimore County rivers illustrate
the challenges Bay watershed communities face in dealing with
problems posed by PCBs and other toxic contaminants.

While Bay watershed states, localities and federal agencies have
focused on reducing water pollution from nutrients and sediment,
they've done much less to deal with PCBs, mercury, pesticides,
pharmaceuticals and toxic metals in sediment, water, and fish.

According to the state-federal Chesapeake Bay Program, 82% of the
Bay and tidal waters of its tributaries are considered either fully
or partially impaired by toxic contaminants.

In 2014, all six watershed states, the district, and the EPA
pledged to make the Bay and its rivers "free of effects of toxic
contaminants on living resources and human health." They agreed
specifically to go after PCBs.

Once widely used as coolants or insulators in electrical equipment
and other products, PCBs were banned by the EPA in 1979 amid
research linking exposure to cancer and other health effects. They
break down very slowly, however, so have continued to contaminate
many waterways, where they tend to collect in bottom sediments.

PCB concentrations in water and sediment have declined some since
being banned. But PCBs bioaccumulate, meaning that seemingly
minuscule doses build up in the fatty tissue of fish when they
ingest the chemicals. The contamination is passed up the food chain
as predators, including humans, consume tainted fish.

PCBs are the basis for many of the fish consumption advisories in
effect throughout the Bay and its tributaries. Anglers are urged to
limit or even avoid eating much locally caught fish including, in
some places, the highly prized striped bass.

Over the last two decades, the Bay watershed jurisdictions, under
EPA supervision, have developed pollution-reduction strategies,
known as "total maximum daily loads," for eliminating PCB
contamination in dozens of tidal waterways.

The District worked with Maryland, Virginia, and the EPA to develop
a PCB-reduction strategy for its stretch of the Anacostia and
Potomac in 2007. The plan unveiled by the district last December
came after years of studies.

District officials say the measures they're considering for dealing
with hot spots in the lower Anacostia should reduce health risks
from eating fish caught there by 90%. Some dredging is proposed,
but in other areas, the district is weighing sequestering
contaminated silt under a layer of clean sediment or treating it on
the river bottom.

Upal Ghosh and Kevin Sowers, a pair of researchers at the
University of Maryland Baltimore County, have shown that depositing
activated carbon pellets on contaminated sediment can "lock-up" the
PCBs and dramatically reduce what's getting into the water. Coating
the pellets with certain naturally occurring bacteria can even
speed up the normally slow breakdown of the chemicals "from decades
to months," according to Sowers.

Fresh sources of PCBs

But cleaning up legacy contamination in sediment won't be enough as
long as more PCBs are getting into the river, as studies have
shown, Ghosh said.

A 2019 report by the U.S. Geological Survey concluded that lower
Beaverdam Creek is the dominant source of fresh PCBs to the lower
Anacostia. A study that Ghosh and other researchers presented to
the district earlier this year found dissolved PCB levels in the
creek to be "screaming high," as he put it — up to 20 times the
levels measured in the river.

In March, Maryland regulators reported finding elevated PCBs in
both sediment and water in two stretches of the creek in Prince
George's County. One is by the Landover Metrorail Station, they
said.

Sherry Lin, a spokesperson for the transit agency, said Metro has
cooperated with MDE investigators. Metro conducts annual
inspections of all rail station outfalls and has programs in place
to detect and prevent stormwater contamination, she said.

The other PCB-laden stretch of the creek is near its confluence
with the Anacostia, the MDE reported. It flows there through a
metal recycling facility owned by Joseph Smith & Sons. The MDE said
PCB levels in creek sediment "spike rapidly" at this location,
"indicating that there may be legacy contamination" on land there.

State inspectors last year sampled a retention pond at the 16-acre
scrapyard and found PCBs in the water, according to information
supplied by the MDE.

Dale Mullen, a lawyer representing the company, said it is
voluntarily cooperating with the state and has taken steps to
address the situation, including building a new concrete wall to
prevent runoff or seepage to the creek. The company is also
installing a new stormwater treatment system capable of removing
PCBs and other contaminants. In the meantime, he noted, all
stormwater outfalls from the site have been closed for now.

The next steps in the investigation, MDE officials said, include
checking storm drains for PCB-tainted sediment that may be flushed
out when it rains as well as other possible sources of runoff and
seepage from tainted soil.

Elsewhere, there's not been as much activity. Maryland has produced
PCB-reduction strategies for 31 of its rivers. But nearly half of
those, including the one for the Gunpowder and Bird rivers, don't
identify any local sources of contamination to be remediated.

State officials say that's because water sampling and computer
modeling indicates the vast majority of PCBs in those rivers come
from other water bodies - the Susquehanna River, in the case of the
Gunpowder and Bird. PCBs from there are flowing into the Bay, they
say, where currents and tides carry them into the tributaries.

"To see meaningful progress, you would need to change what's
flowing in from the Chesapeake," said Lee Currey, director of MDE's
water and science administration. The agency is working on a
strategy for reducing PCBs in the lower Susquehanna, including in
the sediments built up behind the Conowingo Dam.

Problems on the Gunpowder

But Le Gardeur, the Gunpowder Riverkeeper, contends that the
state's PCB reduction strategy for the Gunpowder and Bird rivers
doesn't address the major source: chemicals already in the
sediments, which can get back into the water to be ingested by
fish.

Le Gardeur argues that the state also overlooked potential local
sources of PCBs, such as Aberdeen Proving Ground, where the Army
tests munitions and at one time tested chemical warfare agents. The
entire base is a federal Superfund site undergoing multiple
cleanups as a legacy of past releases and the burial of hazardous
and explosive materials.

In developing its strategy, the MDE said a review of its records
didn't find any legacy PCB contamination in the areas of the
proving ground that drain into the Gunpowder.

But a 2016 consultant's report measured high levels of PCBs, along
with other contaminants, in upper Canal Creek, which drains into
the Gunpowder from the proving ground's Edgewood area. The Army is
studying the feasibility of options for remediating the PCBs in
Canal Creek, according to Bethani Crouch, a base spokesperson.

MDE spokesman Jay Apperson acknowledged the PCB contamination in
Canal Creek and said it "will be considered" in any future revision
to the rivers' cleanup strategy.

Le Gardeur questioned why the MDE didn't consider dredging or
treating contaminated sediments in the rivers, as was done in
waters just south of the Gunpowder. From 2016 through 2018,
Lockheed Martin Corp., which for decades has produced aircraft and
aviation electronics on Middle River, removed PCB-laden sediment
from two of its tributaries, Darkhead Cove and Cowpen Creek. The
company also treated an undredged portion of the bottom with
activated carbon to keep the chemicals there from getting back into
the water.

The MDE has said it generally doesn't favor dredging because it
could stir up contaminated sediments and harm aquatic life. In
Middle River, Currey said the agency approved dredging and
treatment of the bottom because it was a relatively small area with
documented high levels of the chemicals.

Brady Locher, deputy director of Baltimore County's Department of
Environmental Protection and Sustainability, said the county "has
worked diligently" to address PCB contamination, which impairs Back
River and Baltimore Harbor in addition to the Gunpowder and Bird.

The county partnered with state regulators and the UMBC researchers
to assess PCB levels in fish tissue, aquatic insects, sediment and
water in Back River. County officials are now looking to contract
with an external laboratory capable of analyzing contaminant
concentrations.

"Because PCB remediation is so expensive, it is crucial that we
base our actions on reliable and comprehensive monitoring results,"
Locher said.

The county is preparing to dredge more than 50 acres of the Bird
River -- but to improve boater access, not remove PCBs. The MDE is
reviewing the county's plan. Apperson said a study of dredging in
Baltimore Harbor, where contamination is worse, indicated the
activity would have only "limited impact" on fish tissue levels.

Meanwhile, the county should soon have more resources for combating
PCBs. Officials expect to get more than $7.5 million from a federal
class-action lawsuit against Monsanto Corp., which at one time made
PCBs. The company agreed to pay a total of $550 million to settle
water contamination claims by nearly 2,000 towns, cities, counties,
and port districts. The District of Columbia is slated to get $52
million from that settlement to put toward cleaning up the
Anacostia and Potomac rivers.  

Le Gardeur said he didn't want to file a lawsuit, but felt he had
little choice given the lack of action proposed for the Gunpowder
and Bird rivers. He owns a fly-fishing shop and runs a fishing
guide service that caters to anglers fishing the Gunpowder, he
noted in the legal complaint, so the contamination directly affects
his livelihood. Similar lawsuits alleging inadequate cleanup plans
have on occasion led to revisions that strengthened them.

A spokesperson for EPA's mid-Atlantic regional office said the
agency and the Justice Department are currently reviewing the
riverkeeper's lawsuit.

The tidal Gunpowder and Bird are used by boaters and swimmers, the
riverkeeper noted. They're also popular for fishing and crabbing.

Bill Temmink, a local angler, said he doesn't eat what he catches
in the Gunpowder, but he knows of "a bunch of people who are out
here three and four times a week and keep the fish."

Of the projected date when the MDE said the river's fish should be
free of PCB contamination, Temmink said, "50 years is a long time."
[GN]


MOSAIC CO: Cruz Suit Over Exposure of Hazardous Substances Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the "Cruz Litigation" over exposure of
hazardous substances, is ongoing.

On May 5, 2020, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against The
Mosaic Company and two co-defendants.

The complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of
radiation at two manufactured housing communities located on
reclaimed mining land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, due to
phosphate mining and reclamation activities occurring decades ago.


Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages,
injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties, and a
medical monitoring program funded by the defendants.

On July 6, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel advised of their intent to (i)
voluntarily dismiss their suit due to lack of subject matter
jurisdiction in the federal court and (ii) file the action in
Florida state court.

Mosaic said, "We understand any newly filed action would name as a
defendant our wholly owned subsidiary, Mosaic Global Operations
Inc. (the correct entity based on corporate successorship), not The
Mosaic Company. We intend to vigorously defend this matter now and
later, if dismissed and filed in state court."

The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients worldwide. The
company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and
International Distribution. The Mosaic Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.


MOSAIC COMPANY: Examination in Uberaba EHS Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the examination in the Uberaba EHS class action
is pending and the parties are negotiating a settlement.

In 2013, the State of Minas Gerais public prosecutor filed a class
action claiming that the company's predecessor company in Brazil
did not comply with labor safety rules and working hour laws.

This claim was based on an inspection conducted by the Labor and
Employment Ministry in 2010, following which the company was fined
for not complying with several labor regulations.

The company filed its defense, claiming that we complied with these
labor regulations and that the assessment carried out by the
inspectors in 2010 was abusive. Following the initial hearing, the
court ordered an examination to determine whether there has been
any non-compliance with labor regulations.

The examination is currently pending and the parties are
negotiating a settlement.

The amount claimed in the proceeding is $27.0 million.

The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients worldwide. The
company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and
International Distribution. The Mosaic Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholders' Appeal in Texas Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit from a lower court decision in the putative class
action suit initiated against the company and Tesco Corporation
remains pending.

On September 29, 2017, the company was sued, along with Tesco
Corporation and its Board of Directors, in a putative shareholder
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The plaintiff alleges that the September 18, 2017 Preliminary Proxy
Statement filed by Tesco with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission omitted material information with respect to
the proposed transaction between Tesco and Nabors announced on
August 14, 2017.

The plaintiff claims that the omissions rendered the Proxy
Statement false and misleading, constituting a violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The court consolidated several matters and entered a lead plaintiff
appointment order.

The plaintiff filed their amended complaint, adding Nabors
Industries Ltd. as a party to the consolidated action. Nabors filed
its motion to dismiss, which was granted by the court on March 29,
2019.

The parties have filed appellate briefs with the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals, and arguments were heard on March 4, 2020.

Nabors will continue to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations.

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

Nabors Industries Ltd. provides drilling and drilling-related
services and technologies for land-based and offshore oil and
natural gas wells. It operates through five segments: U.S.
Drilling, Canada Drilling, International Drilling, Drilling
Solutions, and Rig Technologies. Nabors Industries Ltd. was founded
in 1952 and is headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda.


NANO: Fabian Seeks Certification of Classes & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES FABIAN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NANO F/K/A RAIBLOCKS
F/K/A HIEUSYS, LLC; COLIN LEMAHIEU; MICA BUSCH; ZACH SHAPIRO; TROY
RETZER; BG SERVICES, S.R.L. F/K/A BITGRAIL S.R.L. F/K/A WEBCOIN
SOLUTIONS; and FRANCESCO "THE BOMBER" FIRANO, Case No.
4:19-cv-00054-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the appointed Lead Plaintiff James
Fabian will move Court on Jan. 21, 2021, for an order certifying
the following class:

   "all BitGrail investors and accountholders who are citizens
   of the United States, and who, between April 1, 2017 and
   March 31, 2018, transferred bitcoins, alternative
   cryptocurrencies, or any other form of monies or currency to
   BitGrail to purchase, invest in, or stake XRB."

If the Court chooses not to certify the Class, the Lead proposes
the following alternative class:

   "all BitGrail investors and accountholders who are citizens
   of the United States, and who, between April 1, 2017 and
   March 31, 2018, transferred bitcoins, alternative
   cryptocurrencies, or any other form of monies or currency to
   BitGrail to purchase, invest in, or stake XRB."

If the Court chooses not to certify the Class nor the Alternative
Class, Lead Plaintiff proposes the following alternative state-law
subclasses:

   -  "all California BitGrail investors and accountholders who,
      between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018, transferred
      bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form
      of monies or currency to BitGrail to purchase, invest in,
      or stake XRB";

   -  "all New York BitGrail investors and accountholders who,
      between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018, transferred
      bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form
      of monies or currency to BitGrail to purchase, invest in,
      or stake XRB";

   -  "all Texas BitGrail investors and accountholders who,
      between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018, transferred
      bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form
      of monies or currency to BitGrail to purchase, invest in,
      or stake XRB";

   –  "all Illinois BitGrail investors and accountholders who,
      between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018, transferred
      bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form
      of monies or currency to BitGrail to purchase, invest in,
      or stake XRB";

   –  "all New Jersey BitGrail investors and accountholders who,

      between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018, transferred
      bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form
      of monies or currency to BitGrail to purchase, invest in,
      or stake XRB";

   –  "all Michigan BitGrail investors and accountholders who,
      between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018, transferred
      bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form
      of monies or currency to BitGrail to purchase, invest in,
      or stake XRB";

   –  "all Wisconsin BitGrail investors and accountholders who,
      between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018, transferred
      bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form
      of monies or currency to BitGrail to purchase, invest in,
      or stake XRB.

   –  "all Minnesota BitGrail investors and accountholders who,
      between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018, transferred
      bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form
      of monies or currency to BitGrail to purchase, invest in,
      or stake XRB";

   –  "all Florida BitGrail investors and accountholders who,
      between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018, transferred
      bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form
      of monies or currency to BitGrail to purchase, invest in,
      or stake XRB"; and

Additionally, and as to the Class and the Alternative Class, the
Lead Plaintiff moves to appoint James Fabian as Class
Representative, and Levi & Korsinsky LLP and Silver Miller as Class
Counsel.

Should the Court choose not to certify the Class nor the
Alternative Class, Lead Plaintiff moves to:

   –  appoint James Fabian, Craig Clemens, Anan Thamarnan, Alec
      Otto, and Kyle Penn as Class Representatives for the
      California Subclass;

   –  appoint James Supple as Class Representative for the New
      York Subclass;

   –  appoint Michael Migliero as Class Representative for the
      Texas Subclass;

   –  appoint Peter Dedes and Jesse Case as Class
      Representatives for the Illinois Subclass; Richard Barilla
      as Class Representative for the New Jersey Subclass;

   –  appoint Michael Oliver as Class Representative for the
      Michigan Subclass; Robert Ireland as Class Representative
      for the Wisconsin Subclass; and

   –  appoint Edward Seimon as Class Representative for the
      Minnesota Subclass; and Matthew Barristini and Kadeem
      Blanchard as Class Representatives for the Florida
      Subclass.[CC]

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff James Fabian are represented by:

          Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          388 Market Street, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 373-1671
          Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
          E-mail: rmah@zlk.com
                  denright@zlk.com

               - and -

          David C. Silver, Esq.
          Jason S. Miller, Esq.
          Todd R. Friedman, Esq.
          SILVER MILLER
          11780 W. Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 516-6000
          E-mail: JMiller@SilverMillerLaw.com
                  DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com
                  TFriedman@SilverMillerLaw.com

               - and -

          John A. Carriel, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          1775 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 375
          Telephone: (202) 899-4111
          Facsimile: (612) 336-9100
          E-mail: jcarriel@zelle.com

NCAA: Disregards Concussion Effects to Footballers, Ori Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK ORI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02109-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., August 10,
2020) is a class action complaint and demand for jury trial brought
by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against Defendant to obtain redress for
injuries sustained as a result of Defendant's reckless disregard
for the health and safety of generations of University of Northern
Iowa student-athletes.

According to the complaint, Defendant knew about the debilitating
long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and
sub-concussive injuries -- referred to as "traumatic brain
injuries" or "TBIs" -- that resulted from playing college football,
but recklessly disregarded this information to protect the very
profitable business of "amateur" college football.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, Parkinson's disease,
and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they played their
last game, they are left with a series of neurological events that
could slowly strangle their brains.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of TBIs like those Plaintiff experienced,
Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect
Plaintiff and other University of Northern Iowa football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so
knowingly and for profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former University of Northern Iowa football players
suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA
football. As such, Plaintiff brings this class action complaint and
demand for jury trial in order to vindicate those players' rights
and hold the NCAA accountable.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association serves as the
governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees 23 college
sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate
athletics across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

NCAA: Disregards Concussion Effects to Footballers, Robinson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DELJUAN ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02106-JRS-DML (S.D. Ind.,
August 10, 2020) is a class action complaint and demand for jury
trial brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, against Defendant to obtain redress for
injuries sustained as a result of Defendant's reckless disregard
for the health and safety of generations of Mississippi State
University student-athletes.

According to the complaint, Defendant knew about the debilitating
long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and
sub-concussive injuries -- referred to as "traumatic brain
injuries" or "TBIs" -- that resulted from playing college football,
but recklessly disregarded this information to protect the very
profitable business of "amateur" college football.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, Parkinson's disease,
and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they played their
last game, they are left with a series of neurological events that
could slowly strangle their brains.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of TBIs like those Plaintiff experienced,
Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect
Plaintiff and other Mississippi State University football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so
knowingly and for profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former Mississippi State University football players
suffered brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA
football. As such, Plaintiff brings this class action complaint and
demand for jury trial in order to vindicate those players' rights
and hold the NCAA accountable.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association serves as the
governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees 23 college
sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate
athletics across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

NESTLE PURINA: Facility Produces Noxious Odor, Fuehrer Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK and LORI FUEHRER, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE CO., a Missouri
Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-03910-EGS (E.D. Pa., Aug. 11, 2020),
alleges that the Defendant's facility releases noxious odor that
enters the Plaintiffs' property and caused property damage through
nuisance and negligence.

The Defendant owns and operates the pet food manufacturing
facility, located at 2050 Pope Road in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs reside within 1.75 miles
of the facility's property boundary. The Plaintiffs' property has
been and continues to be physically invaded by noxious odors, which
entered their property and originated from the Defendant's
Facility.

The Defendant's industrial operations produce substantial
quantities of excess wastewater containing highly odiferous organic
matter. The Defendant maintains an on-site wastewater treatment
operation, which is a substantial contributing factor to the
noxious odors generated by the Facility. The Defendant's failures
to prevent noxious off-site odors included: operating and
maintaining inadequate systems for processing wastewater and
organic sludge, and operating and maintaining a pet food cooking
process that inadequately captures, controls, and/or mitigates
odors.

Nestle Purina Petcare Co. is a Missouri-based pet food
manufacturing company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin S. Riechelson, Esq.
          KAMENSKY COHEN & RIECHELSON
          194 South Broad Street
          Trenton, NJ 08608
          Telephone: (609) 394-8585
          Facsimile: (609) 394-8620
          E-mail: KRiechelson@kcrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          Laura Sheets, Esq.
          Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN PC
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207-3101
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
          E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com
                  lsheets@ldclassaction.com
                  mrobb@ldclassaction.com


NEW PRIME: Haworth Suit Moved From W.D. Missouri to Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled ROCKY L. HAWORTH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NEW PRIME, INC., Case No.
6:19-cv-03025, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on August 24, 2020.

The clerk of court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:20-cv-11584-PBS to the proceeding.

The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
drivers the required minimum wages and failing to keep accurate
records of their total worked hours.

New Prime, Inc., is a refrigerated, flatbed, tanker and intermodal
trucking company, with headquarters located in Springfield,
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Matthew R. Crimmins, Esq.
         Virginia Stevens Crimmins, Esq.
         CRIMMINS LAW FIRM, LLC
         214 S. Spring Street
         Independence, MO 64050
         Telephone: (816) 974-7220
         Facsimile: (855) 974-7020
         E-mail: m.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com
                 v.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com

                - and –

         Garrett M. Hodes, Esq.
         HODES LAW FIRM, LLC
         900 Westport Road, 2nd Floor
         Kansas City, MO 64111
         Telephone: (816) 931-1718
         Facsimile: (816) 994-6276
         E-mail: garrett@hodeslawfirm.com


NOBLE ENERGY: Assad Balks at False Statement on Chevron Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE ASSAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NOBLE ENERGY, INC., JEFFREY L. BERENSON, JAMES E.
CRADDOCK, BARBARA J. DUGANIER, THOMAS J. EDELMAN, HOLLI C. LADHANI,
DAVID L. STOVER, SCOTT D. URBAN, WILLIAM T. VAN KLEEF, MARTHA B.
WYRSCH, CHEVRON CORPORATION, and CHELSEA MERGER SUB INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-01075-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 18, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violation of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 relating to the proposed merger with Chevron.

The Plaintiff owns Noble Energy common stock.

According to the complaint, Defendant Noble Energy was caused to
enter into Merger Agreement by its Board of Directors on July 20,
2020, with Defendant Chevron, in which Noble Energy's stockholders
will receive 0.1191 of a share of Parent common stock for each
share of Noble Energy common stock they own. However, the
Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction was false
and misleading because there were omitted material information,
such as the Company's and Chevron's financial projections, the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, and JPM's engagement.

The Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement is an
essential link in causing the Plaintiff and the Company's
stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction. The complaint
asserts that the Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with
irreparable harm because of the false and misleading statements.

Noble Energy, Inc., is an independent oil and natural gas
exploration and production company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Ave., Suite 210
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Tel: (302) 295-5310
          Fax: (302) 654-7530
          Emails: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

                - and –

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Tel: (484) 324-6800
          Fax: (484) 631-1305
          Email: rm@maniskas.com


NTI SERVICES: Morse Seeks to Certify Cable Tech Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL MORSE, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. NTI SERVICES, CORP.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02173-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order granting a joint stipulation for conditional
class certification of, and approval of court-supervised notice to,
potential opt-in plaintiffs:

   "all current and former cable technicians and/or installers
   of NTI Services, Corp. who, following introductory training,
   worked over 40 hours in any workweek beginning April 29, 2017
   through the date of final disposition of this case."

NTI is a communications contractor servicing cable companies
throughout the midwest.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James H. Grove, Esq.
          NICOLA, GUDBRANSON & COOPER, LLC
          Landmark Office Tower
          1400 Republic Building
          25 W. Prospect Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 621-7227
          Facsimile: (216) 621-3999
          E-mail: grove@nicola.com

ORACLE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Munsterman, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Oracle
Corp. and Salesforce.com Inc. face a class-action lawsuit in the
Netherlands over what a privacy group says is the illegal
collection of data from millions of users.

The group known as the Privacy Collective sued the U.S. tech
companies in what may be the first class-action suit under the
European Union's strict General Data Protection Regulation. The
group said a similar suit could be filed in the U.K. as well.

"Oracle and Salesforce collect data from website visitors at any
time and on a large scale," the group states. [GN]


ORANGE, CA: Injunction in Inmates' COVID-19 Class Action Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wells, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that in a
5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court stayed an injunction originally
granted on May 26 on the basis of a class-action lawsuit brought by
over 3,000 inmates to protect them against COVID-19 in the
pandemic. The suit sought to force Sheriff Don Barnes and Orange
County, California, to take urgent steps to remedy conditions in
Orange County jails, a four-facility penitentiary complex. The
Supreme Court ruling reflects the contempt of the ruling class for
constitutional rights and its indifference for human life.

The Ahlman v. Barnes complaint, granted and injunction in May,
alleged various causes of action, such as unconstitutional
conditions of confinement and unconstitutional punishment in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and, where applicable, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution. It also
alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and of Section 504
of the rehabilitation Act. The District Court concluded that the
risk of harm in the jail was "undeniably high."

The lawsuit sought the immediate release of vulnerable and disabled
people in jail, plus the demand to expand social distancing, care,
testing and personal protective equipment (PPE). It also sought
additional releases to bring the jail population to a level that is
compatible with public health experts' recommendations.

At the time of this writing, the Orange County Sheriff's Department
alleges that all inmates and staff are tested for the coronavirus.
This claim is contradicted by facts presented in the complaint, as
well as inmates' reports, taken into account by the District and
Appeals' courts, that the facility was not testing all suspected
cases and that at least one symptomatic inmate was left in areas
with inmates displaying no symptoms. The Orange County jails
complex has run 3,133 tests, with 489 positive results.

In Ahlman v. Barnes, the plaintiff alleged that limits in the
jail's design and capacity preclude full social distancing, with
beds less than six feet apart. Symptomatic inmates mingle in common
areas. Cleaning supplies are insufficient to disinfect living
areas, with several cases of supplies not received for days.
Moreover, on many occasions, inmates were not tested after exposure
to an infected individual.

Remarkably, the original injunction specifically focused on
deliberate indifference on the part of the defendant, who was
alleged to have made an intentional decision with respect to the
conditions that put inmates at substantial risk of suffering
serious harm, evinced by the high number of confirmed infections.
The injunction agreed that the defendant was not even complying
meaningfully with the meek Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) guidelines, which focus on prevention and
management and don't even contemplate a situation where hundreds
within the inmate population have indeed been infected.

The accounts of several inmates depicted highly dangerous housing
conditions and were a determining factor in the lower courts'
decision to grant injunction.

* Melissa Ahlman, 32, one of the plaintiffs in Ahlman v. Barnes,
is a nursing mother, pumps milk for her baby several times a day
and shares housing with other women nursing, some with diabetes,
others with autoimmune disease. She has to wait in a crowded area
among sick inmates who are seeking medical treatment. "I wonder
what will happen if I get sick and it spreads to my baby through my
milk," Ahlman declared. "And I worry that I will get sick in here
and not be able to come home to her."

* Cynthia Campbell, 64, has rheumatoid arthritis, a painful
autoimmune condition affecting joints and at times the liver,
kidneys and heart. The jail conditions force her to come into
closer than six feet contact with other inmates, even when she goes
for her medical treatment: "Between myself and the three diabetic
cellmates, I believe that we are constantly at risk to contract
COVID because of our increased interaction with deputies and other
inmates every time we go to medical."

* Monique Castillo, 43, has type 1 diabetes and is insulin
dependent. She's picked up by guards four times a day and taken to
the medical room. Because of that, she fears exposure: "When I
travel to the waiting area of the medical office, there are many
times that there are too many people in the waiting area to
properly distance myself. When we wait to see a doctor, we sit on
benches that are close together."

* Don Wagner, 68, survived cancer and is dangerously exposed to
COVID-19, especially when he visits the inmates' medical station
for regular monitoring of blood pressure and thyroid levels. He
complained about lack of PPE: "We are not given gloves. We were not
given masks either, instead we were given sheets to cut up and
bandanas to use. We were not even given these materials until two
weeks ago." He is given a bar of soap a week and has no money to
buy any additional cleaning supplies.

* Cecibel Caridad Ortiz, 31, has type 1 diabetes and shares her
medical module with six other people: "There are two women who use
canes, one who uses a walker, two who are nursing mothers, one who
is not autoimmune, and three of us who are diabetic." She's been
provided one single-use face mask that she had to use for three
weeks.

* Enrique Hernandez, 42, explained it's impossible to maintain
social distancing: "The beds are very close together, only a couple
of inches apart. If people sleep with their heads facing each
other, their heads will touch. I sleep with my feet facing a
cellmate's feet, and our feet touch each other's during the
night."

The conditions that prevail in the Orange County jails are
widespread in California and throughout the US. There have been
8,726 confirmed COVID-19 cases among inmates in the California
prison system, with 52 deaths. California's oldest prison, San
Quentin, has been the ground of numerous complaints, with nearly
2,200 infections. As of the end of July, the number of inmates'
deaths rose to 13. "Inhumane conditions" were widely reported by
inmates as part of a petition sent to a local Fox television
station.

California jails and prisons conditions are so dire that state
prison employees represented by the Service Employees International
Union (SEIU) filed a health and safety grievance on July 28 against
the state corrections department and its health care system,
alleging staffers' exposure to "uncontrolled" coronavirus outbreaks
inside state-run prisons. Additionally, hundreds of guards and
prison staff have also contracted the virus.

The Supreme Court decision denies the right to safety during a
deadly pandemic and at the same time shows contempt for the lives
of the poor and destitute. This is an expression of the ideology of
the ruling class, which is indifferent to the suffering of working
people and loss of lives, as clearly evidenced by the back-to-work
and back-to-school policies.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, highlighted the jail's awareness of
the facts and knowledge that the pandemic was spreading rapidly.

As the dissenting opinion states, "[I]nmates described being
transported back and forth to the jail in crammed buses,
socializing in dayrooms with no space to distance physically,
lining up next to each other to wait for the phone, sleeping in
bunk beds two to three feet apart, and even being ordered to stand
closer than six feet apart when inmates tried to socially
distance."

In a section of the dissenting opinion that speaks more to the
crisis of bourgeois democracy than to its virtues, Justice
Sotomayor wrote, "It has long been said that a society's worth can
be judged by taking stock of its prisons. That is all the truer in
this pandemic, where inmates everywhere have been rendered
vulnerable and often powerless to protect themselves from harm."

Indeed, there remains no significant constituency within the ruling
class for democratic rule. The most modest demand, such as the
guarantee of survival, safe living and working conditions, is
viewed with hostility. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
are no longer basic rights, they are privileges reserved only to
the rich.

As social inequality accelerates, so does the reactionary response
of the bourgeoisie through the agencies of its state in an attempt
to defend its class privileges against the antagonist, the working
class. [GN]


PACCAR INC: Claims Over European Commission Probe Ongoing in UK
---------------------------------------------------------------
PACCAR Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the company continues to defend claims related to an
European Commission (EC) probe.

On July 19, 2016, the European Commission (EC) concluded its
investigation of all major European truck manufacturers and reached
a settlement with DAF.

Following the settlement, claims and lawsuits have been filed
against the Company, DAF and certain DAF subsidiaries and other
truck manufacturers in various European jurisdictions. These claims
and lawsuits include a number of collective proceedings, including
proposed class actions in the United Kingdom, alleging EC-related
claims and seeking unspecified damages.  

Others may bring EC-related claims and lawsuits against the Company
or its subsidiaries.

While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses, such claims
and lawsuits will likely take a significant period of time to
resolve.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any,
that may result given the early stage of these claims and lawsuits.
An adverse outcome of such proceedings could have a material impact
on the Company's results of operations.

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

PACCAR Inc. is a global technology company whose Truck segment
includes the design and manufacture of high-quality light-, medium-
and heavy-duty commercial trucks. In North America, trucks are sold
under the Kenworth and Peterbilt nameplates, in Europe, under the
DAF nameplate and in Australia and South America, under the
Kenworth and DAF nameplates. The Parts segment includes the
distribution of aftermarket parts for trucks and related commercial
vehicles. The company is based in Bellevue, Washington.


PACTIV LLC: Wilson Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MARK WILSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PACTIV LLC and DOES 1 through 10,
Case No. CIV DS 2012450, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on August 21,
2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-01691 to the
proceeding.

The case asserts claims for the Defendants' violations of the
California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code.
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and Class members appropriate minimum wages and overtime
pay, to provide meal and rest periods, failure to maintain payroll
records, to pay vacation time and paid time off upon termination,
and to reimburse business expenses.

Pactiv LLC is a manufacturer and distributor of food packaging and
foodservice products, with a principal place of business located in
Lake Forest, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:       
      
         Jon Meer, Esq.
         Bethany A. Pelliconi, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
         Telephone: (310) 277-7200
         Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
         E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                 bpelliconi@seyfarth.com


PALCO INC: Peel's Bid for Conditional Certification Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as FELISHA PEEL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PALCO, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-00795-BSM (E.D. Ark.), the Court entered an order:

   1. granting in part Felisha Peel's motion for conditional
      certification, with alteration to her proposed notice
      forms; and

   2. granting Peel's motion for leave to file a response to
      Palco, Inc.'s sur-reply.

The Court said, "Peel's request for conditional certification is
granted because she has alleged enough to support conditional
certification. This is true because she seeks conditional
certification of a class of all other home health workers employed
by Palco in Arkansas since November 13, 2016; and she contends that
these home health workers are similarly situated because Palco 1)
did not pay them for overtime hours worked, and
2) did not pay them minimum wage for all hours worked. Palco
opposes certification, arguing that the clients, who are Medicaid
participants, are individually responsible for training and
supervising home health workers to suit their care needs, and --
per Medicare's regulatory structure -- Palco merely functions as a
"bookkeeper" that processes payroll. Accordingly, Palco argues, it
was not Peel's employer. Conditional certification is granted over
Palco's objection because an evaluation of Palco's arguments is not
appropriate at this stage."

Felisha Peel is suing Palco under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for unpaid overtime and failure to
pay minimum wage. She seeks conditional certification of a class of
similarly situated individuals.

Peel worked for Palco as a home health worker from 2017 until 2019.
She alleges that she and at least 100 other home health workers
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay
and that Palco failed to pay them a minimum
wage for all hours worked.

Palco was founded in 1961. The Company's line of business includes
the retail sale of a range of canned foods and dry goods.[CC]

PATRICK TA: Monegro Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patrick Ta Beauty,
LLC. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Patrick Ta Beauty, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-06825 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2020).

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

Patrick Ta Beauty LLC is a makeup cosmetics brand by Patrick
Ta.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PINNACLE: Lockett Suit Seek to Certify FLSA / Rule 23 Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL LOCKETT, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00358-GAF
(W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying the following classes:

      Fair Labor Standards Act Unlawful Tip Pool Collective
      defined as:

      "all persons employed as a table games dealer and included
      within a tip pooling arrangement at a relevant Pinnacle
      casino during the relevant time period";

      FLSA Gaming License Policy Collective defined as:

      "all persons employed and paid a direct cash wage of the
      applicable federal minimum wage or less per hour during
      the relevant time period at Pinnacle casinos Ameristar
      Council Bluffs (Iowa), Ameristar East Chicago (Indiana),
      Ameristar Vicksburg (Mississippi), Boomtown Bossier City
      (Louisiana), Boomtown New Orleans (Louisiana), L'Auberge
      Baton Rouge (Louisiana), L'Auberge Lake Charles
      (Louisiana), and River City (Missouri), and for whom a
      deduction was taken from their wages for any amount
      associated with initially obtaining or thereafter renewing
      a state-issued gaming license";

      Missouri Minimum Wage Law – Minimum Wage Rule 23 Class
      defined as:

      "all persons employed and paid a direct cash wage of the
      applicable Missouri minimum wage or less per hour at
      Pinnacle casino River City (Missouri), and for whom a
      deduction was taken from their wages for any amount
      associated with initially obtaining or thereafter renewing
      a state-issued gaming license";

      Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law – Minimum Wage Rule 23
      Class  defined as:

      "all persons employed and paid a direct cash wage of then
      applicable Iowa minimum wage or less per hour at Pinnacle
      casino Ameristar Council Bluffs (Iowa), and for whom a
      deduction was taken from their wages for any amount
      associated with initially obtaining or thereafter renewing
      a state-issued gaming license.

      Iowa Wage Payment Law – Unlawful Deduction Rule 23 Class
      defined as:

      "all persons employed during the relevant time period at
      Pinnacle casino Ameristar Council Bluffs (Iowa) in an
      hourly, non-exempt position, and for whom a deduction was
      taken from their wages for any amount associated with
      initially obtaining or thereafter renewing a state-issued
      gaming license";

   2. directing the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs for
      each casino at issue an electronic spreadsheet containing
      the full name, employee ID, position(s), dates of
      employment, and all available contact information
      (including last known address, telephone number(s) and
      email address) of each member of the certified collectives
      / classes;

   3. directing the parties to confer and agree on a proper
      notice, FLSA consent-to-join / Rule 23 opt-out forms, and
      email/text message to collective / class members that are
      consistent with the Court's Order;

   4. directing the parties, no later than 14 days from the
      Court's Order, to submit such agreed forms to the Court
      for approval; and

   5. directing the Plaintiffs to file a motion no later than 21
      days from the Court's Order, to seek approval of the
      proposed forms, and Defendants shall respond within 7
      days.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Todd M. McGuire, Esq.
          Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  ricke@stuevesiegel.com
                  mcguire@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
          Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
          McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          The Flagship Building
          200 Westwoods Drive
          Liberty, MO 64068-1170
          Telephone: (816) 781-0002
          Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
          E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
                  mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
          Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq
          OSMAN & SMAY LLP
          8500 W. 110th St., Suite 330
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 667-9243
          Facsimile: (866) 470-9243
          E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com
                  krickley@workerwagerights.com

PONCE & PONCE: Walworth Alleges Abusive Telemarketing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case FRANK WALWORTH, individually on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PONCE & PONCE REALTY, INC., a
California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01609 (C.D.
Cal., August 11, 2020) arises from a disturbing trend whereby real
estate companies such as Defendant direct their real estate agents
to cold call consumers without consent using autodialers and
pre-recorded voice messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant advertises that they
provide "Marketing Support" to their agents including "target
audience marketing telemarketing" in an effort to attract new
agents.

An essential part of Defendant's marketing plan involves cold
calling consumers to generate leads for their real estate services
with a special emphasis on placing calls to consumers with expired
property listings. Realtors target consumers with expired property
listings -- which are listings that expire on the Multiple Listing
Service (MLS) -- since these consumers previously had a property
for sale with another real estate agent, but the property did not
sell.

On May 12, 2020, Plaintiff received a pre-recorded voicemail
message on his cell phone from a Defendant agent, asking Plaintiff
to call 909-434-4059 regarding his expired property listing.
Plaintiff has never provided his cellular phone number, or any
phone number to Defendant, or otherwise consented to any Defendant
realtor placing solicitation telephone calls to his cell phone
number.

Ponce & Ponce Realty, Inc. is a real estate brokerage mainly in
Southern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PUBLIC REPUTATION: Marrero Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT AUSTIN AND JESANIEL
MARRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PUBLIC REPUTATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC D/B/A
PR.BUSINESS, a Florida limited liability company, Case No.
9:20-cv-80161-RS (S.D. Fla.), Marrero ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "thousands of consumers whose cellular telephone numbers
      Pr.Business purchased from ListGIANT and then called
      using a prerecorded voice on November 1, 2019, November
      18, 2019 and/or January 9, 2020, the dates that
      Pr.Business made such calls to Mr. Marrero";

   2. appointing himself to serve as the class representative;

   3. appointing Kaufman P.A. to serve as class counsel; and

   4. directing himself to submit a proposed notice plan and
      form of notice within a reasonable time.

Pr.Business is an internet marketing company with over 100
employees, including approximately 35 call center, sales agents.
The complaint says to generate new customers, Pr.Business relies on
telemarketing. Starting in September 2019, Pr.Business implemented
a uniform practice of leaving pre-recorded voice messages when
calls to potential customers were picked up by an answering machine
as opposed to a person.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the putative Classes are:

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

RALLYE MOTORS: Stile Sues Over Deceptive Collision Repair Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
SALVATORE J. STILE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, -against- RALLYE MOTORS LLC, RALLYE MOTORS
HOLDING LLC, JULIANA TERIAN, any other related entities,
Defendants, Case No. 608131/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.,
August 10, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers for damages,
interest, attorney's fees, costs, penalties, as well as injunctive
and declaratory relief to prevent Defendants from continuing to
engage in unlawful, deceptive, unfair, and unsafe practices and to
require Defendants to correct the repairs on Plaintiffs'
automobiles, including by offering free inspections and oversight
of its Collision Center by an independent examiner for a period of
time after the conclusion of this lawsuit.

The Defendants represent that its Collision Center is the
"preferred destination for collision repair on Long Island." As
part of its promotions and marketing for its collision repair shop,
Defendants represent the superior quality of its services and the
methodologies that the Collision Center utilizes.

Plaintiff and other members of the putative Class did not receive
the high-quality service and parts and in fact failed to receive
all material information about the repairs performed by Rallye, the
nature of those transaction, and Defendants' improper financial
relationships with insurance adjusters.

According to the complaint, Defendants engaged in a pervasive
deceptive scheme, whereby Rallye (1) induced customers into
utilizing Defendants' services based on deceptive and inaccurate
documents, (2) provided documents to its customers that reflected
work and labor that was not actually provided, (3) provided
documents to its customers that reflected parts that were not
actually going to be replaced, and (4) improperly made payments
directly to auto-insurance adjusters in exchange for those
adjusters submitting false or deceptive documents in relation to
the mentioned schemes.

Defendants have intentionally failed to disclose to their customers
that certain parts were not actually going to be replaced or
repaired, that certain parts accounted for in the Estimate would
not be replaced, that certain labor charged in the Invoice was
never actually performed, and that Rallye paid insurance adjusters
to increase the amount of the repair in the Estimate.

Plaintiff brought his vehicle to Rallye's Collision center
believing that all of the replacement parts sold at Rallye's
Collision Center were new. However, Plaintiff has since discovered
that he purchased labor that was not performed and parts that were
not replaced.

Rallye Motors Holding LLC is a Nassau County, New
York-headquartered company that provides automotive services. The
Company offers new and used automobiles, as well as provides auto
parts and services. Rallye Motors serves customers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Aaron Ferri, Esq.
          Leeds Brown Law, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  aferri@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com

RANDSTAD INHOUSE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Moseley Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MOSELEY, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. RANDSTAD INHOUSE SERVICES, LLC; FN LOGISTICS
INC. dba FASHION NOVA; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV29116 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 3, 2020), arises
from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages and overtime
compensation, to authorize and permit meal and rest periods, to
provide accurate wage statements, and to reimburse necessary
business expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as warehouse worker.

Randstad Inhouse Services operates as a recruitment firm. The
Company offers employment, integration, management, training, human
resources solutions, temporary placement, and other services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Lirit A. King, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  lking@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Hubbard Seeks to Certify Hourly Employees Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA HUBBARD, an individual
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. RCM
TECHNOLOGIES (USA), INC.; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No.
4:19-cv-06363-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on
September 22, 2020, for an order:

   1. certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
      Rules of Civil Procedure:

      "all non-exempt hourly employees employed by RCM
      Technologies (USA), Inc. in California who, at any time
      within four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit
      through the date of class certification, worked one or
      more workweeks in which they were paid overtime and
      received a weekly per diem or stipend";

   2. appointing Rhonda Hubbard as representative of the class;

   3. appointing Matthew B. Hayes and Kye D. Pawlenko of Hayes
      Pawlenko LLP as class counsel; and

   4. approving dissemination of the notice to members of the
      class.

RCM provides information technology services.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
          Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
          HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
          595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 808-4357
          Facsimile: (626) 921-4932
          E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
                  kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com

RD FUNDING: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RD FUNDING AND INVESTMENTS LLC, d/b/a GLOBAL
FUNDING, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-07057 (C.D. Cal., August 6, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff's cellular telephone numbers
ending in -9210 and -9244 were contacted by Defendant beginning in
or around June 2018 in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase
Defendant's services. Defendants allegedly used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" (ATDS) when placing multiple calls even
without "prior express consent" from Plaintiff to receive such
calls.

Plaintiff asserts that she was harmed by the unlawful conduct of
Defendant which caused her to incur certain charges or reduced
telephone time for which she previously paid, and invaded her
privacy.

RD Funding and Investments LLC is a loan company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: 323-306-4234
          Fax: 866-633-0228
          Emails: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


REALOGY GROUP: Whitlach Class Action Underway in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative
class action suit entitled, Whitlach v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a
Century 21 M&M and Century 21 Real Estate LLC (Superior Court of
California, Stanislaus County).

This was filed as a putative class action complaint on December 20,
2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a
Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing
business as Century 21 M&M ("Century 21 M&M").

The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real
Estate ("Century 21"), as an alleged joint employer of the
franchisee’s independent sales agents and seeks to certify a
class that could potentially include all agents of both Century 21
M&M and Century 21 in California.

The plaintiff alleges that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its
independent real estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals,
broker associates and other similar positions as independent
contractors, failed to pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal
and rest breaks, failed to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper
records, failed to provide appropriate wage statements, made
unlawful deductions from wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff
and the putative class for business related expenses, resulting in
violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint also asserts
an unfair business practice claim based on the alleged violations
described above.

On February 15, 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert
claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"). The PAGA claims included in the amended complaint are
substantively similar to those asserted in the original complaint.
Under California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to
arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional
penalties.

In April 2019, the defendants filed motions to compel arbitration
of the non-PAGA claims and to stay the PAGA claims pending
resolution of the arbitrable claims.

On June 5, 2019, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's non-PAGA
claims without prejudice and withdrew the defendants' motion to
compel arbitration by stipulation of the parties. The plaintiff
continues to pursue his PAGA claims as a representative of
purported "aggrieved employees" as defined by PAGA.

The plaintiff currently seeks, as the representative of all
purported aggrieved employees, all non-individualized relief
available to the purported aggrieved employees under PAGA, as well
as attorneys’ fees. In November 2019, Century 21 M&M filed a
demurrer to the complaint, seeking to dismiss the remaining claim
in the action, to which Century 21 filed a joinder.

The demurrer was granted by the Court in June 2020, however, the
Court permitted the plaintiff to replead the complaint. The amended
complaint, filed in June 2020 by the plaintiff, asserts one cause
of action for alleged civil penalties under PAGA. Century 21 M&M
filed its demurrer to the amended complaint, to which Century 21
filed a joinder (and, in the alternative, a motion to strike
certain portions of the amended complaint), on August 3, 2020.

This case raises various previously unlitigated claims and the PAGA
claim adds additional litigation, financial and operating
uncertainties.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN: Schacht Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SCHACHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN, LLC; ANDERSEN CORPORATION; and
DOES 1-50, Case No. 20STCV31928 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Aug. 21, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violate the Private
Attorneys General Act by failing to pay minimum wages and overtime
wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants also failed to provide meal and rest periods, to
provide complete and accurate wage statements, to timely pay wages
during employment, to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting
employees, and to reimburse business expenses.

Renewal by Andersen, LLC, provides window installation services,
with a principal place of business located in Cottage Grove,
Minnesota. The Company is also doing business in Los Angeles
County, California.

Andersen Corporation, LLC, is an international window and door
manufacturing company, headquartered in Bayport, Minnesota.
Andersen is also doing business in Los Angeles County,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         Justin Lo, Esq.
         WORK LAWYERS PC
         22939 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 202
         Torrance, CA 90505
         Telephone: (855) 670-1267
         Facsimile: (424) 355-8535
         E-mail: Justin@WorkLawyers.com


RETAILMENOT INC: Powell TCPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as KRISTEN POWELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RETAILMENOT, INC., Case No.
CACE20011777, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on August 21, 2020.

The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:20-cv-61702 to the proceeding.

The case alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending text messages to the Plaintiff's
telephone number in an attempt to promote its goods and services
without prior express written consent.

Headquartered in Austin, Texas, RetailMeNot, Inc., is an American
multinational company that maintains a collection of coupon Web
sites.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:       
      
         Yaniv Adar, Esq.
         MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN BRICKELL CITY TOWER
         80 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999
         Miami, FL 33130
         Telephone: (305) 374-6623
         E-mail: yaniv@markmigdal.com

                - and –

         John W. McGuinness, Esq.
         MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
         1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Ste. 600
         Washington, DC 20036
         Telephone: (202) 585-6500
         E-mail: jmcguinness@manatt.com

                - and –

         A. Paul Heeringa, Esq.
         MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
         151 North Franklin Street, Ste. 2600
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 529-6300
         E-mail: pheeringa@manatt.com


RITE AID: Lemons Suit Transferred From N.D. to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled MARION LEMONS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RITE AID CORPORATION, THRIFTY PAYLESS,
INC. and DOES 1-10, Case No. Case No. 4:20-cv-03124, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on August 21, 2020.

The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-07617-PSG-PVC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and Class members appropriate minimum wages and overtime
pay, failure to provide meal periods, failure to furnish accurate
wage statements, and failure to pay all wages due on scheduled
paydays, in violations of California Labor Code and California
Business and Professions Code.

Rite Aid Corporation operates retail stores throughout the United
States, including California. Thrifty Payless, Inc., operates Rite
Aid stores in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
          Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
          Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
          Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
          Carey A. James, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
          7677 Oakport St. Suite 1150
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 817-2711
          Facsimile: (510) 562-6830
          E-mail: ras@asmlawyers.com
                  rwlm@asmlawyers.com
                  hvr@asmlawyers.com
                  caj@asmlawyers.com


RUBIO REAL: Walworth Balks at Abusive Telemarketing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case FRANK WALWORTH, individually on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RUBIO REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC.,
a California corporation (Brokerage) Defendant, Case No.
8:20-cv-01486 (C.D. Cal., August 11, 2020) arises from a trend
whereby real estate companies such as Defendant direct their real
estate agents to cold call consumers without consent using
autodialers and pre-recorded voice messages in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Christopher Rubio, in his capacity as
agent for Defendant places unsolicited calls to consumers using a
pre-recorded voice message without obtaining the necessary express
prior written consent to place such calls. The purpose of the call
was to solicit Plaintiff to use Defendant's real estate services.

Plaintiff never consented to receiving a pre-recorded voice message
call from Defendant. Plaintiff serves as the trustee for his late
mother's property, which he had listed with a real estate agent
with a different company.

The unauthorized telephone call made by Defendant, as alleged
herein, has harmed Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance,
and invasion of privacy, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of his
phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the phones' hardware and
the consumption of memory on the phone.

Rubio Real Estate Services is a Fullerton, California-based real
estate brokerage company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

RUSSELL P. GOLDMAN: Final Settlement Approval Sought
----------------------------------------------------
In two class action lawsuits against Russell P. Goldman, P.C, the
plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying their case to proceed as a class action for
      settlement purposes; and

   2. granting final approval of the Parties' class settlement
      agreement.

The lawsuits are captioned as:

   "KENNY D. MANCHENO on behalf of himself and all others
   similarly situated, v. RUSSELL P. GOLDMAN, P.C.; and RUSSELL
   P. GOLDMAN, individually; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No.  3:19-
   cv-06646 ZNQ (D.N.J.)";

                     - and -

   "EDWARD M. DIPETRILLO, JR., on behalf of himself and all
   others similarly situated,  v. RUSSELL P. GOLDMAN, P.C.; and
   RUSSELL P. GOLDMAN, individually; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case
   No. 3:19-cv-10554 ZNQ (D.N.J.)."

The Defendants operate a law firm.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs KENNY D. MANCHENO and EDWARD M.
DIPETRILLO, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: 973.227.5900
          Facsimile: 973.244.0019
          E-mail: : jkj@legaljones.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Colleen M. Ready, Esq.
          MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
          100 Century Parkway, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 5084
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: 856-727-6000
          Facsimile: 856-727-6010
          E-mail: cready@margolisedelstein.com

SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: DeMartini Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MARIE DEMARTINI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC. and
DOES 1-10, Case No. CIV2001475, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Marin to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on August
24, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-05952 to the
proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay lawful wages,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to timely pay
wages upon separation, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements in violation of California Labor Code.

Safelite Fulfillment, Inc., provides automobile glass fulfillment
services and installation, with its principal place of business
located in Columbus, Ohio.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:       
      
         M. Leah Cameron, Esq.
         CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP
         600 Montgomery Street, Suite 440
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 981-3233
         E-mail: lcameron@cdflaborlaw.com


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Washington Seeks to Recover Pay-to-Pay Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inez Clara Washington, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Case No.
5:20-cv-01711 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2020), is brought to recover
unlawfully charged Pay-to-Pay Fees and to enjoin SPS from
continuing to charge these unlawful fees.

The Plaintiff alleges breach of contract, violations of the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and violations of the
Unfair Competition Law against the Defendant.

According to the complaint, SPS impermissibly profits from the
homeowners it purports to service by charging and collecting
illegal payment processing fees when borrowers make their monthly
mortgage payments by telephone or online ("Pay-to-Pay
Transactions"). SPS routinely violates state debt collection law
and breaches the uniform terms of borrowers' mortgages ("Uniform
Mortgages") by charging and collecting these illegal processing
fees ("Pay-to-Pay Fees"). SPS charges a Pay-to-Pay Fee of up to $15
each time a customer makes a payment online or over the phone.

As a servicer, SPS is supposed to be compensated out of the
interest paid on each borrower's monthly payment--not via
additional "service" fees that do not reflect the cost to SPS of
providing such services. Under California law, SPS cannot mark-up
the amounts it pays third parties to provide borrowers' services
and impose unauthorized charges not explicitly included in the deed
of trust to create a profit center for itself. None of the
Pay-to-Pay Fees are permitted by the deed of trust, and, therefore,
SPS violates California law by charging those fees. And, by
charging these unauthorized Pay-to-Pay Fees, SPS violates its
contractual obligations to its borrowers.

Despite its uniform contractual obligations to charge only fees
explicitly allowed under the mortgage, applicable law, and only
those amounts actually disbursed, SPS leverages its position of
power over homeowners and demands exorbitant Pay-to-Pay Fees, the
Plaintiff contends. The actual cost for SPS to process online
mortgage payment transactions is very low--well below the Pay-
to-Pay Fees that SPS charges mortgagers. SPS pockets the difference
as pure profit, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Ms. Washington makes loan payments over the phone, and
each time she does so, SPS charges her a Pay-to-Pay Fee of $15.

SPS is a servicer of residential mortgages, servicing residential
mortgages nationwide and throughout the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Mark A. Clifford, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                 mclifford@tzlegal.com

               - and –

          Arthur H. Bryant, Esq.
          Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (304) 345-6555
          Fax: (304) 342-1110
          Email: abryant@baileyglasser.com
                 twalburg@baileyglasser.com


SERVISFIRST BANK: Sued for Refusing to Pay Accounts for PPP Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Robinson, writing for Pensacola News Journal, reports that a
Pace accounting firm is suing several banks that are allegedly
profiting off the work of financial professionals during the
COVID-19 pandemic but refusing to pay them for it.

The lawsuit, filed by the firm Sport & Wheat, argues that "agents"
such as certified public accountants, bookkeepers and attorneys
have spent countless hours helping small business owners apply for
Paycheck Protection Program loans -- a federal stimulus program
offering $659 billion in forgivable, low-interest loans meant to
keep workers and entrepreneurs afloat during the COVID-19 crisis.

While agents aren't permitted to collect compensation from business
owners or loan proceeds, they can collect payment out of
"origination" fees the government pays to banks. However, four
lenders -- ServisFirst Bank, Synovus Bank, The First Bank, and
Truist Bank -- have taken the stance that they aren't obligated to
pay agents anything, which Sport & Wheat's attorneys argue is
against the letter and intent of the Paycheck Protection Program.

"The Defendant banks benefited from Sport & Wheat's advance work,
and they were aware of it," the firm's complaint said. "But they
did not pay a dime for it, despite federal law requiring them to."

John Wirt, a Destin attorney who is representing the accounting
firm alongside co-counsel from the Levin Papantonio law firm, said
his client was herself a small business owner, and she and others
dropped everything to come to the aid of folks who were in danger
of going under when COVID-19 hit.

"This was a brand new program, there wasn't a lot of guidance and
people were trying to figure out how to do it," Wirt said. "The
banks were talking about the CPAs and the CPAs were talking to the
banks and they were all trying to figure it out together. ... The
point was to get this money in the hands of American small
businesses so they could keep their employees employed during this
pandemic."

Wirt said Sport & Wheat put normal business on hold to learn the
ins-and-outs of PPP, to help put together loan application packages
for clients and to work with banks to ensure everything was filed
properly and processed smoothly.

Banks are entitled to a 1%, 3% or 5% origination fee from the
government depending on the size of the loan they issue. Similarly,
PPP legislation said agents could receive fees of 1%, 0.5% or 0.25%
from the bank's origination fees.

Wirt noted with roughly $660 billion in play, even at a 1% rate,
banks nationwide stood to make at minimum $6 billion, with no real
risk because the loans were funded by the federal government.

"They're getting paid very handsomely, and my understanding is
these processing fees are higher than what they would normally get
under the Small Business Administration because Congress wanted to
incentivize banks to do this," Wirt said. "They basically said, 'If
you guys do these loans, get this money out on the street to keep
Americans employed, we're gonna give you kind of a little windfall
here. You get money, too.' But now the banks are trying to keep it
all for themselves, and we don't think it's fair."

Jill Sport, president and shareholder at Sport & Wheat, said that
smaller, community banks were happy to work with agents, but she
said "the bigger the bank, the less likely they were to pay us."

The banks named in the lawsuit have respectively disputed the
claims and filed motions to dismiss the case. The prevailing
argument was that the legislation around PPP doesn't give agents
"private right of action," or the right to sue. They also argued
that although PPP legislation outlines how agents are to be
compensated; it doesn't mandate that agents have to be
compensated.

Synovus wrote in its motion, "There is no authority for Sport &
Wheat's proposition that someone who claims to have been an agent
must be compensated by a lender, even when the lender never agreed
to do so and the lender has not certified that the services were
reasonable and satisfactory."

The lawsuit contends all four banks were aware that their borrowers
utilized Sport & Wheat as agents in their PPP applications. It also
alleges that some banks had refused to list Sport & Wheat as a PPP
agent, ordered borrowers to remove the firm's name from loan
applications or even removed the firm's name and signature from
submitted documents.

Wirt said although Sport & Wheat's suit was the first ligation of
this kind, he said 50 to 60 class action suits around the country
have been filed since. A federal magistrate judge in Pensacola is
weighing whether the banks' motion to dismiss the case should be
granted or denied.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, restitution, costs
and an injunction barring the banks from refusing agents' PPP
fees.

In the case of Sport & Wheat, the disputed fees listed in the
complaint range from potential maximums of $75 to around $1,800.
Wirt said for his client, the lawsuit was about standing up for
small business owners and asking the banks to do the right thing.

"(The businesses applying for PPP) are the mom and pops, small
businesses with three or four employees," Wirt said. "They don't
really have an accountant or controller even an office manager
handling the books. They really rely on their CPAs to do their
taxes and their accounting and financials and everything, so when
this PPP program became available, all these small businesses ran
to accountants like Jill for help."

He said if agents stop working on PPP loans because banks won't pay
them for their work, the ones who ultimately suffer the most are
smallest of small businesses.

Jill Sport noted that she ran a small business with seven
employees, and that during the COVID-19 crisis she was faced with
having to pay her employees out of her personal savings account.

"We just want them to do the right thing so we can survive," Sport
said of the defendants. "We're in this pandemic as well." [GN]


SI-BONE INC: Settlement Paid in Fromer Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
SI-BONE, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company has made the final settlement
payment in the class action suit initiated by Eric B. Fromer
Chiropractic, Inc.

On February 6, 2019, a putative class action captioned Eric B.
Fromer Chiropractic, Inc. v. SI-BONE, Inc. (Civil Action No.
5:19-cv-633-SVK), was filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California.

The complaint alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (the "TCPA") on behalf of an individual and a
putative class of persons alleged to be similarly situated. The
complaint alleges that the Company sent invitations to an
educational dinner event to health care providers by way of
facsimile transmission.

The TCPA prohibits using a fax machine to send unsolicited
advertisements not including proper opt-out instructions or to send
unsolicited advertisements to persons with whom the sender did not
have an established business relationship.

The plaintiff sought various forms of relief, including statutory
damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the
alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and
willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction
prohibiting the Company from sending or having sent advertisements
by way of facsimile transmission.

Subsequently on December 20, 2019, Plaintiff then filed a putative
class action captioned Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc. v.
SI-BONE, Inc. (Case No. 1922-CC12323), in the Circuit Court of the
City of St. Louis, State of Missouri. The Missouri Action alleges
the same TCPA violations as the California Action.

On December 23, 2019 the parties filed a joint stipulation of
dismissal of the California Action and on January 14, 2020, the
parties executed a definitive settlement agreement (the "Settlement
Agreement") pursuant to which, the Company agreed to settle all
disputes regarding the advertising faxes to the settlement class.

The Company accrued litigation expense of $3.2 million during the
year ended December 31, 2019 within general and administrative
expenses in the condensed consolidated financial statements, which
was the Company's estimated cost to resolve the matter pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement and based on the estimated class members'
claim submission rate.

Following the notice and claims submission process, on June 22,
2020, the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of
Missouri, approved a final order to pay the approved claims
submitted by class members, fees, expenses and incentive awards
totaling $2.6 million as final settlement. Accordingly, the Company
recorded a reversal of accrued litigation expense of $0.6 million
in the three and six months ended June 30, 2020 within general and
administrative expenses in the condensed consolidated financial
statements.

The Company made the final settlement payment on July 1, 2020.

SI-BONE, Inc., a medical device company, develops and
commercializes a proprietary minimally invasive surgical implant
system in the United States and Internationally. It offers iFuse,
an implant system to fuse the sacroiliac joint to treat sacroiliac
joint dysfunction that causes lower back pain. The company was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California.


SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Feldkamp Suit Moved From Ill. to W.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KYLE FELDKAMP, JOSH LESKO, NORMAN FOHNE, STEVE
BURGDORF, ELLEN ALLICKS, ALLICKS EXCAVATING, and TWIN MILLS TIMBER
& TIE, CO., INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SMITTY'S SUPPLY, INC.; RURAL KING
ADMINISTRATION, INC.; RURAL KING HOLDING CO.; TRACTOR SUPPLY
COMPANY; and CAM2 INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., Case No. 2:20-cv-02177,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri on August 21, 2020.

The clerk of court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-00674-SRB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the false and deceptive advertising and
labeling of the Defendants' tractor hydraulic fluid (THF) products
with 303 designations.

Allicks Excavating is a sole proprietorship business owned by Ellen
Allicks and located in Princeton, Illinois. Twin Mills Timber & Tie
Co., Inc., is a manufacturer of mats and industrial trucks and
tractors located in West Frankfurt, Illinois.

Smitty's Supply, Inc., is a manufacturer and distributor of
lubricants and related products, with its principal place of
business located at 63399 Highway, 51 North, in Roseland,
Louisiana. Rural King Administration, Inc., is a company that
offers farm supplies and housewares, with a principal place of
business located at 4216 DeWitt Avenue, in Mattoon, Illinois.

Rural King Holding Co. offers farm supplies and housewares, with a
principal place of business located at 4216 DeWitt Avenue, in
Mattoon, Illinois. Tractor Supply Company has retail chain of
stores that offers products for home improvement, agriculture, lawn
and garden maintenance, livestock, equine and pet care, with its
principal place of business in Brentwood, Tennessee.

Cam2 International, L.L.C., offers lubricants and related products,
with its principal place of business in Roseland, Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Jon D. Robinson, Esq.
         Zachary T. Anderson, Esq.
         BOLEN ROBINSON & ELLIS, LLP
         202 S. Franklin St., 2nd Floor
         Decatur, IL 62523
         Telephone: (217) 429-4296
         Facsimile: (217) 329-0034
         E-mail: jrobinson@brelaw.com
                 zanderson@brelaw.com

                - and –

         Dirk Hubbard, Esq.
         Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
         HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
         2600 Grand, Ste. 1100
         Kansas City, MO 64108
         Telephone: (816) 421-0700
         Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
         E-mail: dhubbard@hab-law.com
                 tbender@hab-law.com

                - and –

         Bryan T. White, Esq.
         Gene P. Graham, Jr., Esq.
         William Carr, Esq.
         WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY, & CARR, L.L.C
         19049 East Valley View Parkway
         Independence, MO 64055
         Telephone: (816) 373-9080
         Facsimile: (816) 373-9319
         E-mail: ggraham@wagblaw.com
                 bwhite@wagblaw.com


ST. BASIL'S HOME: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Response
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Sinanidis, writing for Neos Kosmos, reports that missing
files, dishevelled areas, incomplete drug registers is what
director Konstantin Kontis found on his return to St Basil's Home
for Aged Care.

Banned from the facility he managed since July 22, Kontis returned
to a residential home "turned upside down" after being emptied of
residents. Deep cleaned, but "despite the fact that the premises
are declared safe for occupation they are far from "the home' that
we left on Wednesday, July 22," he said on as a gradual return of
80 patients scattered around Melbourne's hospitals were expected in
collaboration with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission
(AQSC).

AQSC Commissioner Janet Anderson said new residents would only be
admitted once risks have been adequately addressed, but the "chaos"
is the least of Mr Kontis' worries following dozens of deaths at
the facility, where the second largest outbreak in Victoria took
place. Confusion reigns supreme following a coronial investigation
into what went wrong, specifically in the case of five deaths
though there have been dozens. Mr Kontis told Neos Kosmos that the
inquiry has to do with the management which took over from the
regular staff under the aegis of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of
Australia.

Judge John Cain has asked Victoria Police to compile evidence about
the deaths at St Basil's Home for the Aged.

Families of residents who died at St Basil's aged care home have
welcomed the investigation into what went wrong at the Melbourne
facility, even though its scope is currently limited to just five
deaths.

The coroner says the focus of the investigation will be determined
once evidence is provided to the court, though Saint Basil's
management told Neos Kosmos that it did nothing wrong.

Angry relatives disagree. Lawyer John Karantzis of Carbone Lawyers
is representing more than 100 relatives of residents in a class
action suit set to be filed. They accuse both St Basil's and Epping
Gardens Aged Care, owned by multimillionaire aged-care moguls Tony
Antonopoulos and Peter Arvanitis, of negligence which resulted in
damage and injuries to the residents entrusted to them.

"We want to send a message to nursing home operators that this
can't happen again," Mr Karantzis states, demanding an admission of
fault and negligence.

He says that the coronial inquiry is relevant to the class action
as industrial manslaughter laws which went into effect on 1 July
2020 may be relevant to the claims of his clients. "Operators may
have breached manslaughter laws," he said. "They are paid to take
care of these vulnerable people, and our clients allege they did
not do so."

Mr Kontis, however, states that almost all the complaints lodged
with the Complaints Resolution Group of the ACQSC related to the
period after 9 am on July 22 when regular staff had been replaced.
Neos Kosmos has seen the report of the first positive case of one
staff member to the government authorities on the day it was
discovered by St Basil's on July 9, and relatives were informed on
July 10.

"We feel that the leaking of the proposed coronial investigation
has been strategic in origin, with the sole aim to damage St
Basil's reputation and cast doubts on our level of care which we
defend fully," Mr. Kontis said, adding that he would cooperate with
any investigation.

Mr. Kontis states that a State of Disaster has been declared for
all of Victoria, and there are more than 100 homes battling with
the virus. Back in charge, the regular management is trying to make
sense of what happened in their absence as files are allegedly
missing. There are allegations that the care of residents wasn't
properly documented during the fortnight Australian healthcare
company Aspen Medical took over the management of St Basil's under
federal government contracts worth $1.2 billion since March.

Relatives speak of loved ones left soiled and unfed when federal
agencies took over, but speak of negligence of regular staff
members in following COVID-19 safety procedures.

After a national cabinet on Aug. 7, the commonwealth and the states
agreed to codify a response to aged care so that they'll have a
plan in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak in an aged care home.
[GN]


STERIGENICS US: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Vallejo Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER VALLEJO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. STERIGENICS U.S., LLC; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00027438-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San
Diego Cty., Aug. 5, 2020), asserts claims against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation, to
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, to provide accurate
wage statements, and to reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Vallejo was employed by the Defendants as machine
operator.

Sterigenics U.S., LLC, provides bio-technological services. The
Company offers medical and pharmaceutical sterilization, laboratory
testing, food safety, gamma irradiation, contract sterilization,
and consultancy services. Sterigenics U.S. serves pharmaceutical,
food and commercial product, packaging, and medical device
industries worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather Davis, Esq.
          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290-3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264-7880
          E-mail: heather@protectionlawgroup.com
                  amir@protectionlawgroup.com


STRATTON MEDICAL: Olsen Sues in E.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stratton Medical
Supply LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Stratton
Medical Supply LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03905-NGG-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Aug.
24, 2020).

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

Stratton Medical Supply LLC provides Medical Supplies in
Sacramento, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY: Foti Seeks Tuition Refund Over Campus Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY ANN FOTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-11581-WGY (D.
Mass., Aug. 24, 2020), seeks refund of the tuition and fees paid
for the Spring 2020 academic semester at the University, which
moved to remote learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has denied refund of
pro-rated portion of tuition and fees that students, including the
Plaintiff's daughter, paid for the Spring 2020 academic semester at
Suffolk University despite the closure of the campus on March 24,
2020.

As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the
Plaintiff and Class members cannot use and access the educational
services that they contracted and paid for. The Defendant has not
delivered the services and/or opportunities that the students
anticipated to experience, such as collaborative learning and
in-person education. The remote learning options being offered by
the Defendant are subpar and are in no way equivalent of in-person
education, the Plaintiff contends. Nonetheless, the Defendant has
stated that no refunds will be provided to students.

Suffolk University is a private university with its principal place
of business located at 8 Ashburton Place, in Boston,
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         David Pastor, Esq.
         PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
         63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 742-9700
         Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
         E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com


SUPERSONIC OF FLORIDA: Rodriguez et al. Sue Over Unpaid OT, Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EYERIS RODRIGUEZ and YORDANY MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUPERSONIC OF
FLORIDA, INC.; JUAN C. GONZALEZ; and AMED CARRETERO, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-23459 (S.D. Fla., August 19, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated workers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, failing to keep and maintain accurate records of their
total worked hours, failing to pay wages on the date due, and
withholding wages.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as local delivery
drivers and/or warehousemen in Miami, Florida since 2015.

Supersonic of Florida, Inc. is a transportation service company
that operates and conducts business in numerous locations around
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
         ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
         6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
         Miami, FL 33143
         Telephone: (305) 665-9211
         Facsimile: (305) 328-4842
         E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com

TIKTOK: Privacy Suits Consolidated Into Single Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Raschby, writing for Security Boulevard, reports that
President Donald Trump threatened to ban the popular social media
platform TikTok, whose corporate owner is a Chinese company with
alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Trump's stated grounds
for seeking to ban the popular application was that the app
threatens U.S. national security. But exactly how?

I must confess I'm not a regular user of TikTok, but my adult
children are. TikTok, which has several billion subscribers, allows
users to create and share short videos -- people impersonating
president Trump, dog and cat videos, etc. -- ranging from the
benign to the puerile. So how is it that the application threatens
national security?

The short answer is data -- or more significantly, data privacy.
Or, even more significantly, the unenforceability of data privacy
policies.

Tik Tok, like almost every other social media and internet
application, collects data on massive numbers of subscribers. It
"knows" who they are, what they like, what they dislike, what they
post and what they view. It also knows where they are when they are
using the app (and often when they are not), what their IP address
is, what kind of browser or phone they are using and a host of
other details. Its customers are its product.

Like every other social media platform, TikTok has a privacy policy
that purports to set out what data the company may collect, with
whom it may share the data and how it can use the data. Nothing in
the Tik Tok privacy policy says it can share, give or analyze
subscribers' data for the benefit of the Chinese Communist Party.
It doesn't say, "We may give any and all of your information to our
Chinese Army overlords, who may use this to target you and your
family as an American imperialist pig-dog . . ." It doesn't say,
"By using TikTok you agree that the Chinese Communist Party can
know your sexual orientation and may use this and other knowledge
to blackmail you should you ever pose a threat to the great leader
. . ." But then again, nothing in the privacy policy says that
TikTok can't. At least not explicitly.

As a result, a number of privacy class action lawsuits alleging
that TikTok violates the federal Children's Online Privacy
Protection Act (COPPA) have been recently consolidated into one
single class action suit in the Northern District of California.
The lawsuits allege that TikTok sends users' data (including those
of minors) to China. TikTok says that its servers are in the U.S.,
but also notes that the company can transfer data to Beijing, if it
so chooses, without breaking any laws. As TikTok's responsive
pleading in the class action case noted, "[t]he App's privacy
policy also fully discloses that user data will be shared with
TikTok's corporate affiliates and third-party business partners and
service providers, as is standard with free social networking apps
that have a business model based on advertising."

In fact, TikTok's privacy policy is similar to those of Facebook,
Twitter, WeChat and other social media outlets or short content
providers. It provides general platitudes about only sharing data
with "business partners" and only to "help provide services and
enhancements . . ." and to "customize content" and "to infer
information about you . . ." Like other providers, TikTok says, "We
may disclose your information to respond to subpoenas, court
orders, legal process, law enforcement requests, legal claims, or
government inquiries, and to protect and defend the rights,
interests, safety, and security of TikTok Inc., the Platform, our
affiliates, users, or the public. We may also share your
information to enforce any terms applicable to the Platform, to
exercise or defend any legal claims, and comply with any applicable
law."

Again, on the surface, it's pretty anodyne stuff. So why the
"national security" tag? I mean, does information about dogs in
pajamas really threaten to bring down the world's longest-lasting
democracy?

Knowledge Is Power

The short answer has little to do with the fact that TikTok's
parent company is Chinese-owned and has more to do with the power
of information -- particularly personal information. Information
about people's likes and dislikes, members of their family, facial
recognition, travel, location, politics, finances, sexual
orientation, friends, education, employment, search history and
intimate connections are the kinds of things that used to take
months or years for spies to collect and cultivate. Now it's a few
mouse clicks away. It is rife with potential for misuse and abuse.
In fact, it's often impossible to tell the difference between
"appropriate" and "inappropriate" use of such data. Let's face it,
you are being surveilled -- maybe by Facebook, maybe by Proctor &
Gamble, maybe by the Coca-Cola Co., maybe by the Chinese Communist
Party. And you are making it very easy to be surveilled. You post
on Facebook, you share on LinkedIn and you tweet. And, if you are
below a certain age, you use TikTok.

What distinguishes TikTok, at least in the opinion of the U.S.
government, is not the information the company collects, stores,
processes or shares. It's not the aggregation, analysis and
"slicing and dicing" of that information. It's not the intimate
profiling and use of the analyzed data or even the sharing of that
data. And, it's not that there is not something called a "privacy
policy" that governs the collection and use of that data.

It's that because TikTok's parent corporation is Chinese, we don't
believe the company will adhere to its privacy policy, and, if it
doesn't, we have no effective remedy. Therefore, we have to assume
(well, we say we have to assume) that everything collected and
shared by TikTok is simultaneously shared with the Chinese Ministry
of State Security (MSS). Just as Europeans may assume that
everything collected or stored by U.S. companies or cloud providers
is simultaneously shared with the NSA. It doesn't matter whether it
is true or not; it is perceived to be true, and that makes it a
national security concern. Same for Huawei and ZTE -- the U.S.
government assumes that these entities are agents of the Chinese
Communist Party acting on behalf of their government overlords. In
fact, it was a perception that the NSA can compel U.S. companies to
produce data -- particularly mass data about non-US persons -- that
lead an EU court in July to rule that the U.S./EU commercial
data-sharing agreement known as Privacy Shield was unenforceable.

Using data as a weapon is nothing new. Scraping and analyzing data
can help intelligence agencies profile and target people for
recruitment or intimidation. LinkedIn and Indeed can be used to
gather information about people with high-level security
clearances. Facebook and Twitter and other social media can be the
source for massive facial recognition programs such as Clearview
AI. Under current U.S. law, most of this data is entitled to little
if any legal protection, provided that the anodyne and amorphous
privacy policies can be said to provide some modicum of notice to
the data subjects that their data is being collected and that it
might be used. It is that issue that needs to be addressed: a firm
and unshakable commitment to protect the privacy of social media
information. With openness and completeness.

Frankly, reading TikTok's privacy policy, I have NO CLUE whatsoever
what it does with subscribers' information, with whom it shares
that information and for what purpose, and I read privacy policies
for a living. The best I can say is the company collects a lot of
data and shares it with anyone that helps with TikTok's business
model. And at least that part is true whether it is owned by
ByteDance or Microsoft. [GN]


TRANSDIGM GROUP: Appeal in Securities Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
TransDigm Group Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the appeal the consolidated class
action suit entitled, In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-01677-DCN (N.D. Ohio), has been
dismissed pursuant to stipulation by the parties.

The company and certain of its current or former officers and
directors were defendants in a consolidated securities class action
captioned In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01677-DCN (N.D. Ohio).

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false or misleading
statements with respect to, or failed to disclose, the impact of
certain alleged business practices in connection with sales to the
U.S. government on the Company's growth and profitability.

The plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

On February 19, 2020, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and the case was dismissed.

Although plaintiffs originally appealed the dismissal, on May 8,
2020, the appeal was also dismissed pursuant to stipulation by the
parties.

TransDigm Group Incorporated designs, produces, and supplies
aircraft components in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in three segments: Power & Control, Airframe, and
Non-aviation. TransDigm Group Incorporated was founded in 1993 and
is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


TWITTER INC: Class Suit Over User Setting Ongoing in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative
class action suit related to its announcements that it had
discovered and taken steps to remediate issues related to certain
user settings.  

Beginning in October 2019, putative class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against
the Company and certain of the Company's officers alleging
violations of securities laws in connection with the Company's
announcements that it had discovered and taken steps to remediate
issues related to certain user settings designed to target
advertising that were not working as expected and seeking
unspecified damages.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

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

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


TWITTER INC: Jury Trial Postponed Sine Die Due to COVID-19
----------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that a scheduled jury trial has been postponed due
to the COVID-19 pandemic and there is currently no trial date
scheduled.

Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States against the Company and the Company's directors
and/or certain former officers alleging that false and misleading
statements, made in 2015, are in violation of securities laws and
breached fiduciary duty.

The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On October 16, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2018, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
consolidated securities action.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on September 13,
2019, which was denied on April 17, 2020.

The scheduled jury trial has been postponed due to the COVID-19
pandemic and there is currently no trial date scheduled.

The outcome of this litigation is, and any potential losses
therewith are, inherently uncertain, and the Company is, therefore,
not able to estimate a reasonable range of possible loss, if any.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to continue to defend
the lawsuits vigorously.

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


UNION INSURANCE: Deer Mountain Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEER MOUNTAIN INN LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:20-cv-00984-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's breach of contract relating to its denial of the
Plaintiff's loss claims due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to comply with its
contractual obligations to the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated policyholders by denying their claims under Business
Income Coverage, Extra Expense Coverage, and Civil Authority
Coverage of the Defendant'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 the state government's closure orders in response to
the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Defendant's insurance policy is an all risk commercial property
policy, which should cover these direct physical losses of and/or
damages to the Plaintiff and Class members' insured premises,
according to the complaint. The interruption of their businesses
was not caused by any of the exclusions set forth in the
Defendant's policies. The Plaintiff and Class members have complied
with their contractual obligations to pay premiums and they are
entitled to payment for these losses and expenses.

Deer Mountain Inn LLC is a company that operates the Deer Mountain
Inn, a country inn and restaurant in Tannersville, New York, with
its principal place of business in Greenwich, Connecticut.

Union Insurance Company is an insurance provider with its principal
place of business in Des Moines, Iowa.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:    
   
         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         Mark S. Reich, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Telephone: (631) 367-7100
         Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
         E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                 mreich@rgrdlaw.com

                - and –

         Paul J. Geller, Esq.
         Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Telephone: (561) 750-3000

                - and –

         James E. Cecchi, Esq.
         CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
         5 Becker Farm Road
         Roseland, NJ 07068
         Telephone: (973) 994-1700

                - and –

         Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
         Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
         SEEGER WEISS
         77 Water Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 584-0700


UNITED PARCEL: Appeal in Hughes Wage-and-Hour Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs' appeal from the
court-granted motion for judgment in the case styled, Hughes v. UPS
Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc.,
remains pending.

The company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state
and federal courts containing various class action allegations
under state wage-and-hour laws.

At this time, the company do not believe that any loss associated
with any such matter will have a material impact on the company's
operations or financial condition.

One of these matters, Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.
and United Parcel Service, Inc. had previously been certified as a
class action in Kentucky state court.

In the second quarter of 2019, the court granted the company's
motion for judgment on the pleadings related to the wage-and-hour
claims.

The plaintiffs have appealed this decision.

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

United Parcel Service, Inc. provides letter and package delivery,
specialized transportation, logistics, and financial services. It
operates through three segments: U.S. Domestic Package,
International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. United Parcel
Service, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


UNITED STATES: Kluge, et al. File Motion for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as KLUGE, et al., v. UNITED
STATES, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02618-DLF (D.C.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting a motion for class certification; and

   2. appointing their counsel as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs contend that they will meet requirements of
'numerosity' of class members. A conservative estimate is that
there are thousands, potentially tens of thousands, of claims that
have accumulated over the last 11 years identical them in which
civilian federal employees were deprived of their entitlement to
the differential payments under 5 U.S.C. section 5538.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class

          James Renne, Esq.
          THE MILITARY LAW PROJECT
          4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 110521
          Arlington, VA 22203

UNITED STATES: Samma Class Certification Bid Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ANGE SAMMA, et al., v. UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01104-ESH
(D.C.), the Hon. Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motions for
Summary Judgment and Class Certification.

The Court certifies a Class consisting of all individuals who:

   (a) are non-citizens serving in the U.S. military;

   (b) are subject to Section I of the October 13, 2017 N-426
       Policy (AR 6-9) ("N-426 Policy"), as updated by DOD's
       April 24, 2020 Memorandum (AR 1);

   (c) have not received a certified N-426 2 ; and

   (d) are not Selected Reserve MAVNIs in the class certified in
       Kirwa v. U.S. Dep't of Defense, No. 17-cv-1793 (D.D.C.
       Dec. 1, 2017).

The Class shall be divided into two subclasses: Active Subclass and
Reservist Subclass.

The Active Subclass shall include all individuals in the Class who
are non-citizens serving in an Active Component of the U.S.
military who have not satisfied the Minimum Service Requirements in
Section I.3.a of the N-426 Policy. Plaintiffs Timotius Gunawan and
Rafael Leal Machado are appointed as Class Representatives for the
Active Subclass. This Subclass is certified to bring claims under
the APA that challenge the requirement in Section I.3.a of the
N-426 Policy that in order to obtain a Certification of Honorable
Service (USCIS Form N-426), "Service Members in an Active
Component" must have "successfully completed the basic training
requirements of the armed force of which he/she is a member" and
"[c]ompleted at least 180 consecutive days of active duty service,
inclusive of the successful completion of basic training."

The Reservist Subclass shall include all individuals in the Class
who are lawful permanent residents (LPRs) serving in the Selected
Reserve of the Ready Reserve who have not satisfied the Minimum
Service Requirements in Section I.3.b of the N-426 Policy,
excluding the plaintiff in Kotab v. U.S. Dep't of the Air Force,
No. 2:18-cv-2031, 2019 WL 4677020 (D. Nev. Sept. 25, 2019).
Plaintiff Ahmad Isiaka is appointed as Class Representative for the
Reservist Subclass. This Subclass is certified to bring claims
under the APA that challenge the requirement in Section I.3.b of
the N-426 Policy that in order to obtain a Certification of
Honorable Service (USCIS Form N-426), "Service Members in the
Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve" must have "successfully
completed the basic training requirements of the armed force of
which he/she is a member" and "[c]ompleted at least one year of
satisfactory service towards non-regular retirement in accordance
with Department of Defense Instruction 1215.07, "Service Credit for
Non-Regular Retirement," as a member of the Selected Reserve,
inclusive of the member's successful completion of basic training."
(AR 8.)  Both Subclasses are certified to bring claims challenging
the applicable Minimum Service Requirements as arbitrary and
capricious, see 5 U.S.C. section 706(2)(A); not in accordance with
law, see 5 U.S.C. section 706(2)(A); in excess of statutory
jurisdiction, see 5 U.S.C. section 706(2)(C); resulting in
unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed agency action, 5
U.S.C. section 706(1); and having been enacted without notice and
comment, see 5 U.S.C. section 553; 5 U.S.C. section 706(2)(D).

The court said no class is certified to challenge the O-6
requirement in the N-426 Policy because none of proposed class
representatives has standing to challenge the O-6 requirement as
updated by the April 24, 2020 policy update.

The plaintiffs' counsel are appointed to represent the Class and
Subclasses.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Scholl Seeks to Certify Incarcerated Persons Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as COLIN SCHOLL and LISA STRAWN,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Treasury; CHARLES RETTIG, in his official
capacity as U.S. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE TREASURY; the U.S. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; and, the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:20-cv-05309-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on Sept. 11, 2020, for an order:

   1. certifying a class of incarcerated persons under FRCP
      23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3); and

   2. granting a class-wide preliminary injunction declaring the
      Defendants' policy unlawful and requiring them to issue
      Economic Incentive Payments (EIP) benefits to eligible
      Class Members; and

   3. appointing a co-lead class counsel.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' exclusion of
incarcerated people from the EIP program is unlawful and that
further delay will cause irreparable harm to themselves, the
proposed Class, and their friends and family members, particularly
given that the CARES Act’s express purpose is to provide relief
"as rapidly as possible."

The Department of the Treasury is the national treasury of the
federal government of the United States where it serves as an
executive department. The Internal Revenue Service is the revenue
service of the United States federal government. The government
agency is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury, and is under
the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
who is appointed to a five-year term by the President of the United
States.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          Yaman Salahi, Esq.
          Jalle Dafa, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: 415-956-1000
          Facsimile: 415-956-1008
          E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com
                  ysalahi@lchb.com
                  jdafa@lchb.com

               - and -

          Eva Paterson, Esq.
          Mona Tawatao, Esq.
          Christina Alvernaz, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY
          1939 Harrison St., Suite 818
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: 415-288-8703
          Facsimile: 510-338-3030
          E-mail: epaterson@equaljusticesociety.org
                  mtawatao@equaljusticesociety.org
                  calvernaz@equaljusticesociety.org

               - and -

          Lisa Holder, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY
          P.O. Box 65694
          Los Angeles, CA 90065
          Telephone: 323-683-6610
          E-mail: lisaholder@yahoo.com

UNITED STATES: Washington Federal Appeals Rulings to Fed. Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs WASHINGTON FEDERAL, MICHAEL McCREDY BAKER, and CITY OF
AUSTIN POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM filed an appeal from a Court
Judgment dated July 9, 2020, and Opinion and Order dated July 16,
2020, entered in the lawsuit styled WASHINGTON FEDERAL, MICHAEL
McCREDY BAKER, and CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:13-cv-00385-MMS, in the United
States Court of Federal Claims.

The Plaintiffs in this case challenge the imposition by the United
States of conservatorships on the Federal National Mortgage
Association ("Fannie") and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation ("Freddie"). The Plaintiffs also take issue with the
conditions of the conservatorships for Fannie and Freddie, such as
the initial and amended funding agreements between the Enterprises
and the United States Department of the Treasury. The Plaintiffs
seek the return of money illegally exacted and just compensation
for their takings claim pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.

The appellate case is captioned as WASHINGTON FEDERAL, MICHAEL
MCCREDY BAKER, CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 2020-2190, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants WASHINGTON FEDERAL, MICHAEL MCCREDY BAKER,
and CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by:

          Kenneth Michael Dintzer, Esq.
          U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - CIVIL DIV.
          Post Office Box 480 Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 616-0385
          Facsimile: (202) 514-8624
          E-mail: kenneth.dintzer@usdoj.gov


UNLOCKED BIZ: Certification of Autodialed Cellphone Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING,
INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. UNLOCKED BUSINESS STRATEGIES, INC., a New York corporation,
THOMAS R. COSTA, an individual, and MERCHANT INDUSTRY, LLC d/b/a
SWIPE4FREE, a New York limited liability company, Case No.
4:19-cv-07966-JST (N.D. Cal., Filed December 4, 2019), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying an autodialed
cellphone class:

   "all persons in the United States who (1) on or after
   December 4, 2015 through the date notice is sent to the
   Class; (2) the Defendants caused to be called; (3) on the
   person's cellphone; (4) for the same purpose as the
   Defendants called the Plaintiff, including for the potential
   purpose of selling the Defendants' products; (5) from the
   telephone number (888) 824-6643; (6) using the same equipment
   that was used to call the the Plaintiff, and (7) for whom
   the Defendants claims they obtained prior express consent
   in the same manner as Defendants claims they obtained any
   prior express consent to call the Plaintiff."

The case challenges the Defendants serial violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act -- specifically, its bar against
making unsolicited autodialed calls to cellular telephones.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Steven L. Weinstein, Esq.
         P.O. Box 27414
         Oakland, CA 94602
         Telephone: (510) 336-2181
         E-mail: steveattorney@comcast.net

              - and -

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

US HEALTH: Rangel Sues Over Wrongful Termination and Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTNEY RANGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. US HEALTH FAIRS-ORG and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
20STCV31883 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 21, 2020), accuses
the Defendants of wrongful termination, violating the California
Labor Code, and unfair business practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants terminated the
Plaintiff's employment on May 21, 2020, following her complaints
about unsafe and unlawful working conditions relating to the
handling, storing and processing of COVID-19 samples. The Plaintiff
was informed that her position had been eliminated and was not
given her final paycheck and all wages due at the time and place of
termination.

As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff says she
has suffered and continues to suffer harm, including loss of
employment, lost earnings, and other employment benefits.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a site supervisor
from May 18, 2020, through May 21, 2020.

US Health Fairs-Org provides various COVID-19 testing to the
general public in the United States, including in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:             
  
         Brian I. Vogel, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN I. VOGEL
         572 E. Green Street, Suite 305
         Pasadena, CA 91101
         Telephone: (626) 796-7470


VAXART INC: COVID-19 Vaccine Reports Misleading, Himmelberg Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIRK HIMMELBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VAXART, INC., CEZAR ANDREI FLOROIU, WOUTER W. LATOUR,
M.D., STEVEN J. BOYD, KEITH MAHER, M.D., and ARMISTICE CAPITAL LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-05949 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 24, 2020), alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about Vaxart's business and operations to
artificially inflate Vaxart's stock price from June 25, 2020, to
July 25, 2020. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors, including the Plaintiff, that Vaxart exaggerated the
prospects of its oral COVID-19 vaccine candidate, including its
purported role or involvement in Operation Warp Speed (OWS), a
program which commits the federal government to massive funding for
the development of COVID-19 vaccines.

Contrary to Defendants' statements, Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine
candidate had no reasonable prospect for mass production and
marketing and was not among the companies selected to receive
significant financial support from OWS to produce hundreds of
millions of vaccine doses. Instead, Vaxart's vaccine candidate was
merely selected to participate in preliminary U.S. government
studies to determine potential areas for possible OWS partnership
and support.

When the truth about the Company's COVID-19 vaccine candidate was
disclosed, Vaxart's stock fell from $12.29 to $11.16. As this news
has been digested by the market, Vaxart's stock has fallen to as
low as $8.90 on August 4, 2020. As a result of the Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's common stock, the Plaintiff and other
Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.

Vaxart, Inc., is a clinical-stage company purportedly engaged in
the discovery and development of vaccines for a variety of
diseases. The Company is headquartered at 385 Oyster Point
Boulevard, Suite 9A, in South San Francisco, California.

Armistice Capital LLC is a hedge fund incorporated in Delaware.
Armistice conducts and has conducted business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:             
  
         Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
         Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
         Berkeley, CA 94710
         Telephone: (510) 725-3000
         Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
         E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
                 lucasg@hbsslaw.com

                - and –

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


VIVINT SOLAR: Wolf Securities Suit Balks at Sale to Sunrun Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Wolf, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., DAVID BYWATER, DAVID F.
D'ALESSANDRO, BRUCE MCEVOY, JAY D. PAULEY, TODD R. PEDERSEN, ELLEN
S. SMITH, JOSEPH S. TIBBETTS, JR., PETER F. WALLACE, ALEX J. DUNN,
SUNRUN INC., and VIKING MERGER SUB, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-01111-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 24, 2020), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Vivint will be acquired by Sunrun
Inc. and Viking Merger Sub, Inc.

On July 6, 2020, Vivint's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Sunrun. Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Vivint's stockholders will
receive 0.55 shares of Parent common stock for each share of Vivint
common stock they own. On August 14, 2020, the Defendants filed a
Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Registration Statement. Among other things, the Registration
Statement omits material information regarding the Company's and
Sunrun's financial projections, and the analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisors, Morgan Stanley and BofA Securities,
Inc.

The omissions and false and misleading statements in the
Registration Statement are material in that a reasonable
stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on
the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff asserts. The Registration
Statement is an essential link in causing the Plaintiff and the
Company's stockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction. Because
of the false and misleading statements in the Registration
Statement, the Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with
irreparable harm, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is the owner of Vivint common stock.

Vivint is a full-service residential solar provider in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          Email: rm@maniskas.com


VOLKSWAGEN: Ingolstadt Court Tosses Audi Exhaust Gas Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Indo & NY reports that one of the largest class actions in the VW
diesel scandal has been rejected on Aug. 7 by the regional court of
Ingolstadt. The right service provider Myright had the claims of
2,800 Audi buyers out of the VW subsidiary, to 77 million euros
sued. The court explained the assignment, but null and void,
because the contract with the buyer at a disadvantage. (Az: 41 O
1745/18).

Should one of the buyers call a comparison, not more, would be for
him, the entire legal persecution, free of charge, stated the
court. This results in an impermissible economic pressure for the
respective buyer, as well as a conflict of interest between the
buyer and the plaintiff in consequence.

MyRight wants to appeal Myright insert the written judgment' going
to wait for justification, but "likely to appeal" to insert, a
spokesman said. Volkswagen and Audi have seen their opinion
confirmed that out-of-court debt collection service providers that
are offered and of the external process Finance the funded class
action in this Form is inadmissible.

Myright is a trademark of the collection service provider, the
financial right, and describes itself as "the inventor of the VW
class action lawsuit in the exhaust gas scandal". The biggest
lawsuits the company filed in Braunschweig and Ingolstadt; in
addition, about 1,500 other cases are still pending, a spokesman
said. The cattle man, The company MyRight wants to ride in damages
for VW customers only.

In the process in Ingolstadt, it went to cars of the Audi brand in
the VW four-cylinder diesel engines of the type EA189 with cheat
soft goods were installed. Thus, the exhaust gas cleaning has been
enabled only on the test bench full-time on the road but the
engines sounded more nitrogen oxide than allowed.

Myright advertises, the assignment of the claims to spare the car
buyers of all process risks and costs. The company reserves in case
of success, 35 percent of the compensation funds. Audi should
refund the purchase price, plus interest, minus a compensation for
Use. Diesel scandal: The truth behind

The exhaust gas scandal is the biggest scandal in the German
automotive history. It cost Volkswagen, and other companies billion
and revealed, especially in the VW group's dramatic developments.
However, the scandal is also used politically for the achievement
of goals such as driving bans to push through. How came it ever to
the Diesel Drama? What is actually behind the "German environmental
aid"? And why only in Germany, Diesel-driving bans for not even
four years old cars that are justified by local Exceedances of
measured values? FOCUS Online is looking for 2015 behind the
Scenes.

   * the secret of the "Golden Cars": As authorities in the control
of the car maker failed

   * diesel gate and AdBlue-collusion - "A Diesel SUV that does not
consume two liters": the developer of the missing Puzzle-piece in
the exhaust-scandal

   * New suspicion of fraud also in the case of Euro 6 diesel
engines?

   * pollutant measurements: What have you told the authorities

   * nitrogen oxides and particulate matter: Academy of science
recommendations

   * Secret funding, support from the policy: What's really behind
the "Deutsche umwelthilfe" is

   * "This is like Cash for Rares": Behind the court Scenes of the
VW scandal assignment agreements, not inconsistent with the law
said The regional court of Ingolstadt, after a decision of the
Federal court of justice of November was "the way of an action
assertion of assigned claims by legal service providers such as the
applicant, in principle, permissible".

But in the present case "null and void, because they were due to
the buyer at a disadvantage, regulation of the debt collection
services authority to the applicant after the legal services act
covered".

Against the Volkswagen group are currently around 60,000 individual
lawsuits are pending, such as an Audi spokesman said. The principle
of judgment of the Federal court of justice of 25. May (Az. VI ZR
252/19) have created clarity for the majority of the pending cases.
Therein, the Supreme court had determined in the last instance,
that complaining buyer can return your car and get the money for
that claim. The purchase price you must but the mileage credit.
"Volkswagen is still seeking to end around 50 000 with the
principle of judgment comparable to that of procedure in agreement
with the plaintiffs in a timely manner," said the Audi spokesman.
[GN]


VOLKSWAGEN: March 2022 Trial Set for Emissions Scandal Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Hull, writing for thisismoney.co.uk, reports that Volkswagen's
appeal against a High Court ruling that it fitted unlawful "defeat
devices" in thousands of UK diesel cars has been rejected.

The German car maker failed in its attempt to fight the decision
via the Court of Appeal, which has been described as a "landmark"
ruling in what looks set to become the UK's largest group action in
history.

Around 90,000 motorists who bought or leased one of the 1.2 million
affected VW, Audi, Seat and Skoda diesel models in the UK have
taken legal action for compensation in the aftermath of the
"dieselgate" scandal.

Earlier this year, Mr Justice Waksman ruled in the High Court that
"the software function in issue in this case is indeed a defeat
device".

The judge said that a "software function which enables a vehicle to
pass the test because (artificially) it operates the vehicle in a
way which is bound to pass the test and in which it does not
operate on the road is a fundamental subversion of the test and the
objective behind it".

He added: "In other words, it destroys the utility of the test
because it makes it impossible for performance under it to be the
approximation of normal driving conditions and performance which it
is intended to be."

Having had its application to appeal against Mr Justice Waksman's
High Court ruling refused, Volkswagen's defence was again thrown
out of the Court of Appeal by Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Males.

He ruled that "the Judge's 'defeat device' issue was clearly
correct".

A spokesman for the car giant told This is Money: "Volkswagen Group
is disappointed in the Court of Appeal's decision but, of course,
respects it.

"This decision relates to the technical points of law that formed
the Preliminary Issues Hearing in 2019. It does not determine the
points of loss, liability and causation, which will be decided at a
trial not before March 2022.

"Volkswagen maintains that because customers have not suffered any
loss, it does not owe them compensation. Nevertheless, this is a
matter for the main trial in due course.

"Volkswagen has openly acknowledged that, in relation to the
emissions issue, we did not live up to our own standards. We are
committed to maintaining the trust of the public through programmes
such as our €33 billion investment into e-mobility, bringing 75
fully electric car models to market by 2029."

The English litigation against Volkswagen was filed back in 2016
and headed by law firms Slater & Gordon and Leigh Day.

It reached what the claimants' lawyers described as "a decisive
court battle" at the preliminary hearing last December when the
High Court was asked to decide whether software installed in VW
cars was a 'defeat device' under EU regulations.

Had Volkswagen's appeal been successful, the outcome for the
dieselgate scandal would have been delayed, with a retrial likely
to have denied owners of affected vehicles compensation for longer.


Instead, the proceedings will continue with a selection of lead
claimants, full disclosure, and witness evidence exchanges to take
place before the trial.  

Consumer action law firm Your Lawyers -- which is not representing
owners of VW vehicles in this case -- said the "landmark" decision
could now allow what looks set to become the UK's largest ever
group action to continue and open the door for similar cases
against other car firms.

Last month, it was revealed that affected US consumers had been
awarded $9.8 billion in settlements so far.

The Federal Trade Commission announced that Volkswagen agreed to
buy back or repair more than half a million of the affected
vehicles, with claimants awarded between $5,100 and $10,000 in
compensation in addition to the estimated value of the vehicle.  

Aman Johal, director of Your Lawyers, said: "This latest ruling is
a victory for all UK victims of the Volkswagen emissions scandal.

"We look forward to the case reaching its conclusion and hope for a
favourable ruling for all affected claimants, with the US
settlement hopefully setting the standard for compensation.

"Volkswagen must be held to account for its reprehensible actions
that have caused physical, environmental and financial damage both
nationwide and globally.

"Should justice be served in the UK courts, the total cost of
Volkswagen's transgression could place it as the largest ever group
consumer action -- a strong signal to other car manufacturers,
including Mercedes, Nissan and Renault, who have also been accused
of similar behaviour."

A final court ruling on this litigation is expected before the end
of 2022.  

Your Lawyers added that the latest ruling could also have
"significant ramifications" for emissions cases involving other car
manufacturers that it is currently involved in, such as
Mercedes-Benz, Nissan and Renault.

In the UK alone, some 500,000 drivers have been affected by the
Mercedes-Benz "dieselgate" scandal and could also be eligible to
claim back the value of their vehicle.

This would be in addition to a GBP776 million fine the car
manufacturer has already faced in Germany, with 774,000 vehicles
recalled across the country throughout 2018. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN: Must Face UK Group Action Over Dieselgate Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Allan, writing for Autocar, reports that Volkswagen has
been dealt another blow in the UK group action lawsuit over the
Dieselgate emissions scandal as its appeal was rejected by the
courts.

The landmark ruling means that the compensation case lodged by
owners can continue. It also likely means that almost 90,000
affected owners of Audi, Seat, Skoda and Volkswagen cars could now
receive compensation by 2022.

The verdict, delivered by Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Males, ruled that
"the Judge's "defeat device" issue was clearly correct". If VW had
won the appeal, it is likely that the outcome would've been longer
and more protracted.  Preliminary motions including witness
evidence exhanges, a selection of lead claimants and full
disclosure will now take place before the trial actually begins.

A spokesperson for VW has issued statement saying the firm is
"disappointed" in the Court of Appeal's decision, but "respects
it."

"This decision relates to the technical points of law that formed
the Preliminary Issues Hearing in 2019", the statement continues.
"It does not determine the points of loss, liability and causation,
which will be decided at a trial, not before March 2022. Volkswagen
maintains that because customers have not suffered any loss, it
does not owe them compensation. Nevertheless, this is a matter for
the main trial in due course.

"Volkswagen has openly acknowledged that, in relation to the
emissions issue, we did not live up to our own standards. We are
committed to maintaining the trust of the public through programmes
such as our €33bn investment into e-mobility, bringing 75 fully
electric car models to market by 2029."

The class action lawsuit, which could be the largest consumer
action in English legal history, involves almost 90,000 owners of
Audi, Seat, Skoda and Volkswagen cars. They're claiming for
compensation over the installation of illegal 'defeat devices' to
cheat European Union emissions standards.

Lawyers for the owners say Volkswagen knowingly "cheated" rules put
in place to "save lives" by installing an unlawful device designed
to detect a rolling road test and alter the combustion process to
reduce nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions by up to 40 times.  

The judge in the case earlier this year, Mr Justice Waksman, ruled
that "the software function in issue in this case is indeed a
defeat device" under the classification defined by the EU. The
judge claimed he was "far from alone in this conclusion", noting
various courts and industry bodies that agree with the verdict.

He called Volkswagen's defence "highly flawed" and "absurd",
adding: "A software function which enables a vehicle to pass the
test because it operates the vehicle in a way which is bound to
past the test and in which it does not operate own the road is a
fundamental subversion of the test and the objective behind it."

The first hearing began in December 2019, looking at whether the
company's EA189 diesel engine (sold in 1.2-litre, 1.6-litre and
2.0-litre capacities) featured such a device.

Volkswagen then lost its first ruling in April this year. It said
that it was "disappointed" by the verdict despite it only relating
to preliminary discussions.

Despite the lost appeal an early ruling, there are still further
phases of the case, including determining 'causation', ie. whether
or not the defeat device caused damage. These are due to play out
at the end of this year or early 2021. If the verdict goes against
Volkswagen, it could be ordered to pay hundreds of millions of
pounds in compensation.

Volkswagen hasn't paid compensation to any UK owners, claiming the
cars weren't fitted with a 'defeat device' under UK law. Previous
rulings to the contrary in other countries, such as the US, carry
no weight in the UK, hence the need for the class action
proceedings.

In July, it was revealed that a similar consumer case in the US had
been won by the claimants, resulting in Volkswagen having to pay
between $5100 (£3915) and $10,000 (£7675) per customer. That
added up to $9.8bn (£7.52bn) [GN]


WIDEOPENWEST INC: Appeal in Kirkland Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
WideOpenWest, Inc. (WOW) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the appeal by the company on the claims
not dismissed in Kirkland. et al. v. WideOpenWest, Inc., et al.,
653248/2018, is pending.

Beginning in June 2018, four different plaintiffs' firms filed five
separate class-action lawsuits against WOW, certain individual
defendants, and the private equity sponsors and underwriters of the
May 2017 initial public offering (IPO).  

The actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
1933 Securities Act.  

The three actions filed in New York have been consolidated as
Kirkland. et al. v. WideOpenWest, Inc., et al., 653248/2018 in the
federal court in the Southern District of New York.  

The other two actions, which were filed in Colorado state court,
have been stayed by agreement until final resolution of the
Kirkland action.  

The Plaintiffs in Kirkland allege that Defendants made or caused
misstatements to be made in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus ("Offering Materials") issued in connection with the
IPO.  

On January 17, 2019, Defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
all claims for failure to state causes of action which the court
denied in part and granted in part on May 18, 2020, with the
Company thereafter appealing those claims not dismissed.

WideOpenWest said, "The court is considering a litigation schedule
that anticipates trial in 2022 or 2023. The Company believes
plaintiffs claims to be without merit and is vigorously defending
against them."

WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high speed data, cable television, and
digital telephony services to residential and business services
customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as
WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc.
in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in
Englewood, Colorado.


WISE FOODS: Wallace Sues Over False Marketing of Potato Chips
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darlene Wallace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wise Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06831-JPO (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 24, 2020), seeks damages and an injunction to stop the
Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with regards
to its cheddar and sour cream potato chips purporting to be
flavored without artificial flavor contributing to the
characterizing flavor under the Wise brand.

The relevant front label representations include the brand,
"Cheddar & Sour Cream," "Flavored," and an orange-yellowish color
pattern. The front label also contains the term "Flavored" which
tells consumers that the Product's flavor does not only come from
the characterizing food ingredients of cheddar cheese and sour
cream. However, the Plaintiff contends, the front label fails to
inform consumers that the Product contains artificial flavor which
"simulates, resembles or reinforces the characterizing flavor." The
front label does not disclose the presence of artificial flavor
because Defendant likely believes "that butter flavor complements
processed and cheddar cheese profiles by rounding out the named
profile and adding a more fatty taste.

According to the complaint, the Defendant knows consumers will pay
more for the Product because the label does not state "artificially
flavored." The Defendant's branding and packaging of the Product is
designed to--and does--deceive, mislead, and defraud consumers. The
Defendant has sold more of the Product and at higher prices per
unit than it would have in the absence of this misconduct,
resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers.

Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not
have bought the Products or would have paid less for it. The
Plaintiff adds that the Product contains other representations,
which are misleading and deceptive. As a result of the false and
misleading labeling, the Product is sold at a premium price,
approximately no less than $2.79 per 8.75 OZ, excluding tax,
compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading
way, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product within her district and/or
State for personal consumption.

Wise Foods, Inc., manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells cheddar and sour cream potato chips purporting to be flavored
without artificial flavor contributing to the characterizing flavor
under the Wise brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


XCEL ENERGY: Final Approval of Arandell Deal Took Effect Aug. 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin has entered an Order on the effectivity date
of the final approval of the class action settlement agreement in
the cases, ARANDELL CORPORATION et al., Plaintiffs, v. XCEL ENERGY,
INC., et al., Defendants; and NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. CMS ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 07-cv-76-wmc, 09-cv-240-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

These two consolidated class actions -- alleging price fixing in
natural gas sold to industrial and commercial users between 2000
and 2002 -- were part of an MDL action for years and remanded in
late 2019.  While in the MDL court, six of the 11 Defendant groups
settled.  Before the Court is another Defendant group -- the
so-called "CMS Defendants" -- who have now also reached a
settlement with the Plaintiffs.

On April 16, 2020, the Court certified a class for settlement
purposes and preliminarily approved the settlement.  The
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval and for an award of fees and
incentive awards for the named Plaintiffs was heard on Aug. 6,
2020, by telephone.

The key terms of the settlement include:

  a. A $15 million settlement, which is represented by the  
     Plaintiffs' counsel to be the largest such settlement at
     least in gross dollars to date, with approximately $10
     million to be disbursed to the class members.

  b. Notice was sent to the 1,250 class members, all of whom are
     corporations and relatively sophisticated parties as
     industrial or commercial purchasers of natural gas in
     Wisconsin between Jan. 1, 2000 and Oct. 31, 2002.  Moreover,
     the class administrator received 156 calls, 87 email
     inquiries and 95,000 hits on the class action website,
     producing no opt-outs or objections.

  c. The class members will need to complete claim forms to
     receive payments pro rata on the amount or estimates of
     amounts of natural gas purchased during the class period.  
     The Plaintiffs suggest a 90-day claims submission period,
     which seems fair and reasonable.

  d. There will likely be no cy pres fund since the full amount of

     approximately $10 million will be disbursed to responding
     class members.  If all the 1,250 class members complete the
     claims, the average payment will be $8,000.  The number of
     the class members who complete claims may be significantly
     less than that, but given the interest shown, likely there
     will be a number of claims submitted. Regardless, all of the
     settlement proceeds will be distributed.  Any funds from
     uncashed checks will go to a cy pres fund, which is to be
     held for possible distribution to the now-settling
     Plaintiffs.

  e. The Class counsel seeks a total award of fees and costs of
     35% of the settlement fund, which equates to $5.2 million in
     attorney fees and $124,129 in expenses.  After accounting for

     expenses, the attorney fee percentage would be 33.5%, which
     is represented to be consistent with what they've received in

     the other settlements by the Plaintiffs' counsel, as well as
     that earned in similar cases.  The percentage seems
     reasonable in light of the long history of the case,
     uncertainty of antitrust claims, both as to liability and
     damages, and the tremendous amount of work the class counsel
     has completed to date (estimated to be about 55,000 hours on
     these cases to date).

  f. Finally, the Plaintiffs request $75,000 incentive awards for
     each of the seven named Plaintiffs, which seems high in light

     of the average award of $8,000 if all the class members
     complete the claims, but justified given the significant
     investment of time, judgment and responsibility taken on by
     the class representatives.

Accordingly, Judge Conley signed the proposed orders on Aug. 6,
2020: one for final approval of the settlement; and the other for
the fee award and incentive awards.  However, Briggs & Stratton has
sought approval from the bankruptcy court of its continued
participation in the settlement.  Because that order approving
compromise and settlement of claims against Cantera Gas Co., LLC,
CMS Energy Corp. and SMC Energy Resource Management Co. was only
entered on Aug. 5, 2020, triggering a 14-day appeal period, Judge
Conley's signed orders are not to be docketed nor take effect until
Aug. 20, 2020.

As for the remaining Defendants, trial remains set for June 14,
2021, as do all the related deadlines.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxqbyp98 from Leagle.com.


YGRENE ENERGY: Woolley Appeals Ruling in Fraud Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs George W. Woolley, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled George Woolley, et al. v. Ygrene
Energy Fund, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01258-LB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, on behalf of a national class and California and
Florida subclasses, sue Ygrene Energy for fraud relating to
home-improvement loans.

The appellate case is captioned as George Woolley, et al. v. Ygrene
Energy Fund, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-16608, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by September 22, 2020;

   -- Transcript is due on October 21, 2020;

   -- Appellants Anthony Look Jr., Kimberly Look, Alejandro
      Marcey, Felicia Marcey, George W. Woolley and Tammy S.
      Woolley's opening brief is due on November 30, 2020;

   -- Appellees Ygrene Energy Fund Florida, LLC and Ygrene Energy
      Fund, Inc.'s answering brief is due on December 30, 2020;
      and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants GEORGE W. WOOLLEY, TAMMY S. WOOLLEY, ANTHONY
LOOK, Jr., KIMBERLY LOOK, ALEJANDRO MARCEY, and FELICIA MARCEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Jaclyn L. Anderson, Esq.
          Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
          KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
          360 East 2nd Street, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 254-4800
          E-mail: janderson@klwtlaw.com
                  glippsmith@klwtlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Ave NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 615-3948
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

Defendants-Appellees YGRENE ENERGY FUND, INC. and YGRENE ENERGY
FUND FLORIDA, LLC are represented by:

          Ali Abugheida, Esq.
          Fredrick S. Levin, Esq.
          Michael Rome, Esq.
          BUCKLEY LLP
          100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 424-3900
          E-mail: aabugheida@buckleyfirm.com
                  flevin@buckleyfirm.com
                  mrome@buckleyfirm.com


YRC WORLDWIDE: Notice of Appeal Filed in Lewis Suit
---------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the co-lead plaintiffs in the case, Christina
Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00001, filed
a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

In January 2019, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Christina Lewis v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00001, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York against the Company and certain
of our current and former officers. The complaint was filed on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded securities between March 10, 2014 and December 14,
2018.

The complaint generally alleged that the defendants had violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false and misleading statements relating to the Company's
freight billing practices as alleged in the Department of Defense
complaint described above.

The action included claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. The co-lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 14, 2019, and the
defendants moved to dismiss it on July 15, 2019.

On March 27, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
in its entirety and entered judgment closing the case.

The co-lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 27, 2020.

YRC Worldwide Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a range of
transportation services primarily in North America. The company
operates in two segments, YRC Freight and Regional Transportation.
The company was formerly known as Yellow Roadway Corporation and
changed its name to YRC Worldwide Inc. in January 2006. YRC
Worldwide Inc. was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in Overland
Park, Kansas.


[*] New Securities Law to Promote Dev't of Arbitration Business
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Xie, writing for China Business Law Journal, reports that the
first Securities Law of the People's Republic of China (PRC) come
into effect on July 1, 1999, and has since undergone five
amendments. The latest revision came into effect on March 1, 2020.
It is more striking than all previous revisions, with many
highlights. For instance, the new version officially launches a
registration-based IPO system, lowers the prerequisite for issuing
shares from "sustained profitability" to "sustainable operation
ability", strengthens information disclosure and investor
protection, implements the presumed fault liability, introduces a
representative litigation system, and adopts heftier fines for rule
breakers.

The introduction of a registration-based IPO system, and the
scrapping of the requirement of "sustained profitability" for new
listings will attract more companies to finance through the capital
market, and it is foreseeable that the number of China's A-share
listed companies will surge.

The registration system is also applicable to the public issuance
of securities by listed companies during M&A transactions. This not
only saves time and simplifies procedures, but also encourages
listed companies to use M&A to achieve resource integration more
often. With the implementation of the latest Securities Law
revisions, it is expected that more M&A transactions will take
place in the A-share market.

Inevitably, disputes will be triggered, due to insufficient
information disclosure or failure to fulfill performance
commitments, etc., and some may run into hundreds of millions, or
even billions. For these huge M&A disputes, arbitration is
undoubtedly needed for a fair and efficient settlement.

Meanwhile, since such M&A disputes involve listed companies, the
progress of the cases will undoubtedly affect stock transactions.
How to properly co-ordinate the information disclosure requirements
for listed companies and the confidentiality requirements of
arbitration is an issue that arbitration colleagues need to
consider.

Article 95 of the Securities Law introduces a representative
litigation system, which is similar to "class action". It is
beneficial for investors to monitor listed companies, improve the
efficiency of judicial resources, and better protect small and
medium investors.

The first paragraph of article 54 of the Civil Procedure Law
stipulates that where there are multiple persons comprising one
party to a lawsuit, but the number of persons is not confirmed at
the time of filing the lawsuit, the court may issue a public
announcement and notify the rights holders to register with the
court within a stipulated period.

Article 95 of the Securities Law introduces the above-mentioned
litigation system into securities civil compensation proceedings.
Although the representative litigation system was already
stipulated by the Civil Procedure Law in 2007, it was not until 13
March 2020 that the representative litigation system was first
applied, by Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court in a series of
disputes on liability for false statements of securities between
bond investors of "15 Wuyang Bonds" "15 Wuyang 02" and Wuyang
Construction Group. This is the first representative lawsuit for
securities civil compensation since the implementation of the Civil
Procedure Law and the newly revised Securities Law.

Class action in the securities market is a powerful weapon for
investor protection. However, just as every coin has two sides, it
may also destroy some listed companies that are operating normally.
For example, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Pomerantz initiated a
class action lawsuit against Alibaba, in which the law firms
accused Alibaba of publishing false and misleading information
about the company's business operations, financial outlook, and
investigations by regulatory authorities. In the end, Alibaba paid
US$250 million as a condition for settlement. However, Alibaba
responded that it believed that it had nothing to do with the
accuracy of information disclosure and management transparency.

The author believes that in order to respond to representative
litigation, and reduce the risk of malicious litigation, general
counsels should gradually include arbitration more broadly in their
vision. Taking the US as an example, when class action prevailed,
many in-house lawyers began to combine arbitration clauses with
class action injunctions to avoid class action.

According to a survey by The New York Times, Verizon has 125
million registered users. Nevertheless, from 2010 to 2014, Verizon
faced only 65 consumer arbitration cases in total. Similarly, Time
Warner Cable, with 15 million users, has only 7 arbitration cases.
It shows that choosing arbitration will greatly reduce the risk of
class action.

For China, as early as 2004, the Legislative Affairs Office of the
State Council and the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC)
jointly issued the Notice on Doing Well the Arbitration of
Securities and Futures Contract Disputes, encouraging securities
issuers, securities companies, securities investment consulting
agencies, fund issuers, fund management companies, fund custodian
institutions, listed companies and other entities to choose
arbitration to resolve their securities disputes with each other,
and with their clients.

However, because of the diversity, complexity and extensive nature
of securities disputes, arbitration has not yet become the
mainstream choice for resolving securities disputes in practice.
The author understands that with the implementation of the
representative litigation system, more and more listed companies
and fund companies will include arbitration clauses in their
contracts with investors. As far as Chinese arbitration is
concerned, whether to introduce a representative litigation system
into the arbitration rules is also a question worth studying.

The latest Securities Law upholds deregulation, strengthens
supervision, facilitates financing, and strengthens information
disclosure. For this purpose, a new chapter was added to the law
with provisions on information disclosure. Almost every enterprise
that is about to launch an IPO has several PE investment
institutions behind it. For investment at the pre-IPO stage, PE
investment institutions generally sign a VAM (valuation adjustment
mechanism) agreement with the target company. In the past, in order
to maintain the stability of the equity and control of listed
companies, the CSRC required companies to be listed, to clean up
the VAM agreement before reporting. In response to regulatory
requirements, PE investment institutions and companies often do not
terminate the VAM agreement, but sign a non-disclosure "drawer
agreement" to stipulate that the VAM agreement continues to be
valid.

On May 14, 2020, Sihui Fuji Electronics Technology, which signed a
VAM agreement with its investors, successfully passed the CSRC
review. This landmark case suggests that market practice has begun
to be officially recognized by regulatory agencies. In the past, in
an arbitration case where the PE investment agency required the
actual controller of the company to repurchase its investment based
on the VAM agreement, the arbitrators always had different opinions
on how to determine the validity of the termination agreement of
the VAM agreement and the "drawer agreement" between the parties.

Some arbitrators even thought that the "drawer agreement" should be
invalid due to the parties' intention to maliciously evade
supervision. In the past few years, the author has represented many
PE investment institutions in handling arbitration cases concerning
investment exits.

In almost every case, the target companies defend on the grounds
that the "drawer agreement" is invalid, and request the arbitral
tribunal to apply the publicly disclosed termination agreement to
hear the case. It is believed that with the promulgation of the
latest Securities Law and the implementation of new review
standards, the arbitral tribunal will have a more consistent point
of view when hearing PE investment exit arbitration cases.

Overall, the implementation of the new Securities Law will promote
the further development of China's arbitration business. However,
how China's arbitration institutions adjust the arbitration rules
to adapt to the opportunities and challenges brought about by the
revised Securities Law, such as the representative litigation
system, is worthy of in-depth exploration by arbitration
colleagues. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $191.4MM Liability Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has US$191,412,000 reserve at June 30,
2020, for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos
Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2052,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "In 2006, the Corporation retained a nationally
recognized expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities to
assist it in estimating the potential liability for pending and
unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability.  Based on this
analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos Liability
claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 as of
December 31, 2006.  This analysis has been periodically updated
since that time.  In 2018, the Corporation engaged Nathan
Associates Inc. ("Nathan") to update the liability valuation, and
additional reserves were established by the Corporation as of
December 31, 2018, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or
projected to be asserted through 2052.

"Nathan estimated in 2018 the number of future claims for Asbestos
Liability that would be filed through the year 2052, as well as the
settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve
both pending and future unasserted claims through 2052.  This
methodology has been accepted by numerous courts.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liability.  In developing the estimate,
the Corporation considered Nathan's projection for settlement or
indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and management's projection
of associated defense costs (based on the current defense to
indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors included the Settlement Agreements in
effect, policy exclusions, policy limits, policy provisions
regarding coverage for defense costs, attachment points, prior
impairment of policies and gaps in the coverage, policy
exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the insurance carriers,
and the nature of the underlying claims for Asbestos Liability
asserted against the subsidiaries and the Corporation as reflected
in the Corporation's asbestos claims database, as well as estimated
erosion of insurance limits on account of claims against Howden
arising out of the Products.  In addition to consulting with the
Corporation's outside legal counsel on these insurance matters, the
Corporation consulted with a nationally recognized insurance
consulting firm it retained to assist the Corporation with certain
policy allocation matters that also are among the several factors
considered by the Corporation when analyzing potential recoveries
from relevant historical insurance for Asbestos Liability.  Based
upon all of the factors considered by the Corporation, and taking
into account the Corporation's analysis of publicly available
information regarding the credit-worthiness of various insurers,
the Corporation estimated the probable insurance recoveries for
Asbestos Liability and defense costs through 2052.

"The Corporation's reserve at December 31, 2018, for the total
costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2052, was US$227,922
thousand.  The reserve at June 30, 2020, was US$191,412 thousand.
Defense costs are estimated at 80% of settlement costs.  The
Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2018, for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2018, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and
defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability
claims, was US$152,508 thousand (US$125,109 thousand at June 30,
2020)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/c0CQUE


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 139 Pending Talc Suits at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were 139 individual cases pending against Avon Products,
Inc., as of June 30, 2020, related to allegations that certain talc
products the Company sold in the past were contaminated with
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.

Avon Products states, "The Company has been named a defendant in
numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging
that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos.  Many of these actions involve a number
of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products
that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain
asbestos.  As of June 30, 2020, there were 139 individual cases
pending against the Company.  During the three months ended June
30, 2020, 11 new cases were filed and three cases were dismissed,
settled or otherwise resolved.  The value of our settlements in
this area thus far has not been material, either individually or in
the aggregate.  Additional similar cases arising out of the use of
the Company's talc products are reasonably anticipated.

"We believe that the claims asserted against us in these cases are
without merit.  We are defending vigorously against these claims
and will continue to do so.  To date, the Company has not proceeded
to trial in any case filed against it and there have been no
findings of liability enforceable against the Company.  However,
nationwide trial results in similar cases filed against other
manufacturers of cosmetic talc products have ranged from outright
dismissals to very large jury awards of both compensatory and
punitive damages.  Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
we cannot predict the outcome of all individual cases pending
against the Company, and we are only able to make a reasonable
estimate for a small number of individual cases that have advanced
to the later stages of legal proceedings.  For the remaining cases,
we provide an estimate of exposure on an aggregated and ongoing
basis, which takes into account the historical outcomes of all
cases we have resolved to date.  Any accruals currently recorded on
the Company's balance sheet with respect to these cases are not
material.  Other than these accruals, we are at this time unable to
estimate our reasonably possible or probable losses.  However, any
adverse outcomes, either in an individual case or in the aggregate,
could be material.  Future costs to litigate these cases, which we
expense as incurred, are not known but may be significant, though
some costs will be covered by insurance."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/twe4Gq


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $272MM for PI Matters at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC ("BNSF") has accrued US$272
million at June 30, 2020, for personal injury matters, including
asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020.  The current portion of this amount is
US$70 million.

The Company states, "BNSF's personal injury liability includes the
cost of claims for employee work-related injuries, third-party
claims, and asbestos claims.  BNSF records a liability for asserted
and unasserted claims when the expected loss is both probable and
reasonably estimable.  Because of the uncertainty of the timing of
future payments, the liability is undiscounted.  Defense and
processing costs, which are recorded on an as-reported basis, are
not included in the recorded liability.  Expense accruals and
adjustments are classified as materials and other in the
Consolidated Statements of Income.

"Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are subject to
the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
rather than state workers' compensation laws.  Resolution of these
cases under the FELA's fault-based system requires either a finding
of fault by a jury or an out of court settlement.  Third-party
claims include claims by non-employees for compensatory damages and
may, from time to time, include requests for punitive damages or
treatment of the claim as a class action.

"BNSF estimates its personal injury liability claims and expense
using standard actuarial methodologies based on the covered
population, activity levels and trends in frequency, and the costs
of covered injuries.  The Company monitors actual experience
against the forecasted number of claims to be received, the
forecasted number of claims closing with payment, and expected
claim payments and records adjustments as new events or changes in
estimates develop.

"BNSF is party to asbestos claims by employees and non-employees
who may have been exposed to asbestos.  Because of the relatively
finite exposed population, the Company has recorded an estimate for
the full amount of probable exposure.  This is determined through
an actuarial analysis based on estimates of the exposed population,
the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that
will likely require payment, and the cost per claim.  Estimated
filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are
determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.

"The amount recorded by the Company for the personal injury
liability is based upon the best information currently available.
Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of
personal injury claims, it is reasonably possible that future costs
to resolve these claims may be different from the recorded amounts.
The Company estimates that costs to resolve the liability may
range from approximately US$230 million to US$330 million.

"Although the final outcome of these personal injury matters cannot
be predicted with certainty, it is the opinion of BNSF that none of
these items, when finally resolved, will have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position or liquidity.  However,
the occurrence of a number of these items in the same period could
have a material adverse effect on the results of operations in a
particular quarter or fiscal year."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/REZq1R


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Fined $950K on Asbestos Claim Reporting
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heller, writing for CFO, reports that BorgWarner has been
charged with failing to report more than $700 million in future
asbestos liabilities, resulting in misstatements of its financial
results from 2012 to 2016.

Th disclosed that losses from future asbestos claims were probable
but concluded that it could not reasonably estimate its "incurred
but not reported" (IBNR) liability for those claims.

CFO also reports that according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, BorgWarner came to that conclusion "without conducting
sufficient analysis, including any substantive quantitative
inquiry, despite possessing nearly 40 years of historical raw
claims data."

After an actuarial firm with asbestos claims expertise determined
the IBNR asbestos liability was reasonably estimable, BorgWarner
took a charge of $703.6 million to its earnings and announced in
June 2018 that it would restate its financial results.

To settle the SEC's administrative complaint, the company agreed to
pay a $950,000 fine.

"Companies cannot claim an inability to reasonably estimate
liabilities when the data they need to do so is available," Carolyn
Welshhans, an associate director in the Division of Enforcement,
said in a news release, CFO notes.  "BorgWarner relied on untested
assumptions surrounding its asbestos-related liabilities, which
ultimately led to its materially misstated financial statements."

After its primary insurance policies were exhausted, BorgWarner
became responsible in 2004 for managing its asbestos-related
claims.

CFO notes that according to internal memos cited by the SEC, the
company concluded its IBNR asbestos liability was not reasonably
estimable because there was no way to accurately estimate how many
people had been exposed to BorgWarner products, the incidence of
illness, or the life expectancies of exposed individuals.

"BorgWarner also concluded that because its asbestos-containing
clutch pads were normally sealed inside a clutch housing,
BorgWarner's position was unique among asbestos defendants,
rendering industry benchmarks inapplicable for estimating
BorgWarner's IBNR asbestos liability," the SEC said.

"These conclusions were based on high-level assumptions that were
not subject to substantive quantitative analysis, actuarial
assessment, or other testing," the commission added.

As a result of Borg Warner's financial restatements, pre-tax
earnings were reduced by 6% in both 2014 and 2015 and
asbestos-related liabilities increased more than 200% for each
year.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Has $21MM Reserves for Respirator Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that it has a reserve of US$21 million as of June
30, 2020, for its expected share of liabilities for existing and
future respirator liability claims.

The Company states, "Cabot has exposure in connection with a safety
respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from
American Optical Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset purchase
transaction.  The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO
brand and disposed of that business in July 1995.  In connection
with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in
certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities,
including costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in
settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products
used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary.  In
exchange for the subsidiary's assumption of certain of AO's
respirator liabilities, AO agreed to provide to the subsidiary the
benefits of: (i) AO's insurance coverage for the period prior to
the 1990 acquisition and (ii) a former owner's indemnity of AO
holding it harmless from any liability allocable to AO respiratory
products used prior to May 1982.

"The respirator liabilities generally involve claims for personal
injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's
pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators
that are alleged to have been negligently designed and/or labeled.
Neither Cabot, nor its past or present subsidiaries, at any time
manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing products.  At no time
did this respiratory product line represent a significant portion
of the respirator market.  In addition to Cabot's subsidiary, other
parties are responsible for significant portions of the costs of
these respirator liabilities (as defined in the 2019 10-K, the
"Payor Group").

"On February 28, 2020, Cabot, with certain members of the Payor
Group, entered into a settlement agreement resolving a large group
of claims, including claims alleging serious injury, brought by
coal workers in Kentucky and West Virginia represented by common
legal counsel.  The Company's share of this liability is US$65.2
million, and during the second quarter of fiscal 2020, Cabot
recorded a charge of US$50 million for this settlement, which was
included in Selling and administrative expenses in the Consolidated
Statements of Operations.  The Company paid US$32.6 million of the
settlement during the third quarter of fiscal 2020 and the
remaining US$32.6 million, which is included in Accounts payable
and accrued liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of
June 30, 2020, will be paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2021.

"In addition to the February 2020 settlement, Cabot has a reserve
to cover its expected share of liabilities for existing and future
respirator liability claims, which is included in Other liabilities
and Accounts payable and accrued liabilities on the Consolidated
Balance Sheets.  The Company expects these liabilities to be
incurred over a number of years.  The reserve was US$21 million and
US$35 million as of June 30, 2020 and September 30, 2019,
respectively.

"The Company's current estimate of the cost of its share of
existing and future respirator liability claims is based on facts
and circumstances existing at this time, including the nature of
the remaining claims.  Because reserves are limited to amounts that
are probable and estimable as of a relevant measurement date, and
there is inherent difficulty in projecting the impact of potential
developments on Cabot's share of liability for these existing and
future claims, the actual amount of liabilities related to these
claims could be different from Cabot's reserve.

"Developments that could affect the Company's estimate include, but
are not limited to, (i) significant changes in the number of future
claims, (ii) changes in the rate of dismissals without payment of
pending claims, (iii) significant changes in the average cost of
resolving claims, including potential settlements of groups of
claims, (iv) significant changes in the legal costs of defending
these claims, (v) changes in the nature of claims received, (vi)
trial and appellate outcomes, (vii) changes in the law and
procedure applicable to these claims, (viii) the financial
viability of the parties that contribute to the settlement of
respirator claims, (ix) exhaustion of the insurance coverage
maintained by certain of the parties that contribute to the
settlement of respirator claims, or a change in the availability of
the indemnity provided by a former owner of the business, (x)
changes in the allocation of costs among the various parties paying
legal and settlement costs, and (xi) a determination that the
assumptions that were used to estimate Cabot's share of liability
are no longer reasonable."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had 16,858 Unresolved Claims at July 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 16,858 unresolved claims related to asbestos
matters as of July 3, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended July 3, 2020.

The Company also disclosed that in the six months ended July 3,
2020, there were 1,869 asbestos claims filed and 1,310 claims
resolved.

The Company states, "Claims filed include all asbestos claims for
which notification has been received or a file has been opened.

"Claims resolved include all asbestos claims that have been
settled, dismissed or that are in the process of being settled or
dismissed based upon agreements or understandings in place with
counsel for the claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/K5kH0f


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. had accrued liability of US$8 million for
asbestos suits at June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.  The Company also
deferred US$8 million as regulatory assets for asbestos-related
suits at June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State and
federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the
Utilities.  The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have
been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not, in the aggregate, material to them.  The amounts
specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of
dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are
greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.

"At June 30, 2020, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their
estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years as shown in the following table.  These estimates were based
upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk
factor assessment.  Courts have begun, and unless otherwise
determined on appeal may continue, to apply different standards for
determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that
applied historically.  As a result, the Companies currently believe
that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in
excess of the liability accrued for the suits.  The Companies are
unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss.

"In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or
are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.  CECONY is permitted to defer
as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs
incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation
claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/j14nb4


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Awards AU$1M to Cancer Patient v. James Hardie
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ramsey, writing for St. George & Sutherland Shire Leader,
reports that a Perth woman suffering from terminal cancer caused by
her exposure to asbestos on a home building site has been awarded
more than AU$1 million in damages.

Christine Parkin, 63, was exposed in the 1970s and 80s while
helping her father build an extension to their home using cement
sheets made by James Hardie Industries.

Previously fit and healthy, she was diagnosed with mesothelioma
last year after experiencing pain in her chest and fatigue.

Doctors estimate Ms. Parkin, who is cared for her by sister and
requires constant supervision, has just four months to live.

Her lawyers sought damages from Jamies Hardie - now known as Amaca
- in the West Australian Supreme Court.

Justice Rene Le Miere awarded Ms. Parkin just over AU$1 million in
damages, noting the significant deterioration in her quality of
life arising from her illness.

"Ms. Parkin has lost her life as it was," Justice Le Miere said,
according to Leader.  "She was fit and healthy, worked, socialised
and travelled.  Now she is in constant pain and fatigued.  She
spends most of her time resting at home and rarely leaves the
house.  All she can do is sit and watch TV and look at the view.
Even watching TV is difficult because she cannot concentrate and
becomes distracted thinking and worrying about her future."

Prior to becoming sick, Ms. Parkin had worked at a zoo, exercised
daily and led a full live in every respect, the court was told.

Justice Le Miere awarded her compensation for past and future
medical and treatment expenses, economic loss and general damages.

Amaca accepted liability for the damage suffered by Ms. Parkin as a
result of her illness.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $590MM Reserves in June
------------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, has recognized asbestos-related
reserves of US$590 million at June 30, 2020, according to Duke
Energy Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized
asbestos-related reserves of US$590 million at June 30, 2020, and
US$604 million at December 31, 2019.  These reserves are classified
in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within
Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
These reserves are based upon Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate
for current and future asbestos claims through 2039 and are
recorded on an undiscounted basis.  In light of the uncertainties
inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe
they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that
might be incurred after 2039 related to such potential claims.  It
is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in
excess of the recorded reserves.

"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention.  Duke Energy Carolinas'
cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insured retention in
2008.  Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by
the third-party insurance carrier.  The insurance policy limit for
potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical
cost claim payments is US$747 million in excess of the self-insured
retention.  Receivables for insurance recoveries were US$742
million at June 30, 2020, and December 31, 2019.  These amounts are
classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables
within Current Assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding
the legal sufficiency of insurance claims.  Duke Energy Carolinas
believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as
the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength
rating."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Lbub46



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Had $1.05BB Liability at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited recorded Defendant Asbestos Liabilities of
US$1,050,279,000 as of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "We acquired DCo LLC ("DCo") on December 30,
2016, and Morse TEC on October 30, 2019.  DCo and Morse TEC hold
liabilities associated with personal injury asbestos claims and
environmental claims arising from their legacy manufacturing
operations.  These companies continue to process asbestos personal
injury claims in the normal course of business.  Defendant asbestos
liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets include amounts for
loss payments and defense costs for pending and future
asbestos-related claims, determined using standard actuarial
techniques for asbestos exposures.  Defendant environmental
liabilities include estimated clean-up costs associated with the
acquired companies' former operations based on engineering
reports.

"Insurance balances recoverable on our consolidated balance sheets
include estimated insurance recoveries relating to these
liabilities.  The recorded asset represents our assessment of the
capacity of the insurance agreements to indemnify our subsidiaries
for the anticipated defense and loss payments for pending claims
and projected future claims.  The recognition of these recoveries
is based on an assessment of the right to recover under the
respective contracts and on the financial strength of the insurers.
The recorded asset does not represent the limits of our insurance
coverage, but rather the amount we would expect to recover if the
accrued and projected loss and defense costs were paid in full."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/J8GGGn


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia-Pacific Pledges $1B to Bestwall Trust Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak at Asbestos.com reports that Georgia-Pacific has pledged
$1 billion to fund an asbestos trust for bankrupt affiliate
Bestwall LLC, clearing the path to a settlement of longstanding
liability claims involving mesothelioma cancer.

Bloomberg Law has reported earlier that Georgia-Pacific made the
financial commitment to advance a consensual resolution in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

Bestwall is a wallboard and joint compound product manufacturer
that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2017 with more than 62,000
pending claims involving asbestos.

It was known earlier as Bestwall Gypsum Company, and was purchased
by Georgia-Pacific in 1965.  It became Bestwall LLC just before the
bankruptcy filing as part of Georgia-Pacific's reorganization to
absorb future legal disputes.

Georgia-Pacific had paid almost $2.9 billion to settle more than
400,000 claims prior to the reorganization in 2017.

Koch Industries Inc. acquired Georgia-Pacific and its affiliates in
2005.

The $1 billion trust fund will be under the direction of an
independent trustee and will be used to pay past and future claims
against the company.  Only a court ruling could send it back to
Georgia-Pacific.

Bestwall's original asbestos trust, funded by Georgia-Pacific, was
worth just $175 million, far short of what is considered adequate
to settle the claims.

As part of the $1 billion commitment, Bestwall urged the court to
approve the "qualified settlement fund" as part of an adequate
asbestos trust.

The claimants and the company have been at odds in bankruptcy court
over the size and adequacy of a funding agreement that would cover
past and future claims involving asbestos toxicity.

In 2019, a group of asbestos plaintiffs filed a motion in court
asking a judge to dismiss the bankruptcy proceedings and accusing
Bestwall of stalling to avoid paying for its liabilities.

"Establishing and funding the QSF Trust [qualified settlement fund]
at this time should address concerns expressed by the claimant
representatives that [Georgia-Pacific's] payment obligations under
the Funding Agreement are not secured or guaranteed," the court
filing said.

Asbestos trusts are created typically by asbestos manufacturers
that have gone into bankruptcy proceedings.  They are designed to
compensate victims of negligence that put them at risk of health
issues such as mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma is a rare but aggressive cancer caused by asbestos
exposure that is diagnosed in an estimated 3,000 people annually in
the United States.

There are approximately 60 asbestos trusts today worth an estimated
$30 billion.

The avalanche of claims against Bestwall stems from the company's
use of asbestos-containing products, including its gypsum
wallboard, acoustical plaster, joint compounds and drywall
adhesives.

Asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral, was once used ubiquitously
in myriad products to strengthen them and promote heat resistance.
Its versatility and affordability made it popular with many
industries.

Unfortunately, asbestos is toxic, and the inhalation or ingestion
of its microscopic fibers causes serious medical problems,
including mesothelioma cancer, asbestos-related lung cancer and
asbestosis.

Both employees making the products and the consumers using the
products encountered asbestos regularly.

Under mounting pressure as the danger of asbestos became more well
known, Bestwall Gypsum stopped using it in the late 1970s.  Health
problems from long-ago exposure, however, continued to mount.

This stems from the long latency period of many diseases.
Mesothelioma, for example, can take from 20 to 50 years to develop
after an exposure to asbestos.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Lawsuits at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC and its former subsidiary D/C Distribution
Corporation ("D/C") continue to face personal injury suits related
to asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C have been named as defendants in personal
injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos.  While
there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were
a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the
U.S. mainland (primarily in California).

"Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos
cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in
Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of
asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business
operations primarily in California.  Each entity defending these
cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
these cases.  The defense of these cases has had a material adverse
effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to
file a voluntary petition for liquidation.

"Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or
indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases.  Kaanapali Land
does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will
result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there
can be no assurance in that regard."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/i3z8EI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 1,121 New Claims in 1H 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that it received approximately 1,121
new asbestos-related claims for the six months ended June 30,
2020.

The Company states, "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has
been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed
primarily in state courts.  These suits principally allege that the
plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company issued liability or workers' compensation
insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the
period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other
things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health
risks.  Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases.  The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.  Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies to
manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of
pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or
groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.

"Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the
health risks associated with asbestos.  Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations)
include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty
to the plaintiffs — it had no special relationship with the
plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the
asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii)
plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has
expired.  During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts
have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions.  There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future.  While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

"As reported in the 2019 Annual Report, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company received approximately 3,187 asbestos-related claims in
2019.  For the six months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 1,121
and 1,705 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. The number of
asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any
liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company may incur, and
the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are
uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/qSM6Kx


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 118 Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. continues to be a co-defendant in
approximately 118 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately
220 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
US$3.0 million compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive damages;
one count at US$1.0 million.  In the third case, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.  We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against
one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual
defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts
claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of
our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear
no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/93qll6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Still Defends Suits at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that it is involved in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts,
including certain cases involving multiple defendants.

The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or
indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing premises.  While we dispute the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to vigorously defend these claims, the
ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this
time.  These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and we are unable to reasonably
estimate a range of possible losses.  However, unfavorable rulings,
judgments or settlement terms could materially impact our
Consolidated Financial Statements.  Hearings for certain of these
matters are scheduled to occur in the next twelve months."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/aii32e


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners Unit Has 30 Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. had approximately 30 pending
asbestos claims as of June 30, 2020, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.

The Company states, "A subsidiary of BNS Holdings Liquidating Trust
("BNS Sub") has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged
asbestos-related toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in
1994 through June 30, 2020.  In many cases these claims involved
more than 100 defendants.  There remained approximately 30 pending
asbestos claims as of June 30, 2020.

"BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for
toxic-tort claims on the merits.  None of these toxic-tort claims
has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that
these defenses will prevail.  BNS Sub has insurance policies
covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through
1988.  BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits
from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims
accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates
of the ultimate settlement costs for the then-existing claims are
revised.  As of both June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, BNS Sub
has accrued US$1,349 thousand relating to the open and active
claims against BNS Sub.  This accrual includes the amount of unpaid
retroactive billings submitted to the Company by the insurance
carriers and also the Company's best estimate of the likely costs
for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the amounts funded by
insurance.

"There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the
related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be
consistent with the experience to-date of existing claims and that
BNS Sub will not need to significantly increase its estimated
liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that
could have a material effect on the consolidated financial
statements."

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



                            *********

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 ***