/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200925.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, September 25, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 193

                            Headlines

60TH ST. FLEISH: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
A&B RESTAURANT: Resto Staff Slam Tip Credit, Denied Overtime Pay
ALEX ANTZOULATOS: Atsas Seeks Unpaid Wages for Admin. Assistants
ALLERGAN PLC: Rogers Sues Over Defective BIOCELL Breast Implants
ALTERYX INC: Smith Hits Share Drop from Decline in Revenue

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Gimello Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to N.D. Texas
AMERICAN SERVICES: Morin Sues Over Security Officers' OT Wages
AUTOZONE INC: Faces Cota Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
BANK OF NEW YORK: Evergreen Suit Removed to C.D. California
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action

BELAMI INC: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Graciano Claims
BLACKBAUD INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Martin Suit Claims
BLADE URBAN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Tenzer-Fuchs Says
BOISE SD 1: Certification in Zeyen Students Suit Partly Granted
BRAHAMPUTRA LLC: Lamb Seeks Overtime Pay for Hrs. Worked Over 40

BUSINESS LAW: Faces Mulligan Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
CABOT OIL: Klein Law Firm Announces October 13 Deadline
CAMPANIA FELIX: Barone Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Waiters
CASSARIANO NY: Soviero Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHAMPION FAMILY: Underpays Home Health Workers, Holt Suit Claims

CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Gottlieb Class Suit Pending
CIGNA HEALTH: Avila Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
COTY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 3 Deadline
COTY INC: Claimsfiler Reminds of November 3 Deadline
DELOITTE TOUCHE: Knight Suit Asserts Family and Medical Act Breach

DOLGENCORP LLC: Levy Sues Over Deceptive Labels on Acetaminophen
DOMINION ENTERPRISES: Pierucci TCPA Suit Moved to E.D. Virginia
DOUG CONNOR INC: Improperly Pays Overtime Wages, Reguena Alleges
EASTMAN KODAK: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
EASTMAN KODAK: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 13 Deadline

EFINANCIAL LLC: Johansen Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
EL NUEVO: Marte Sues Over Denied OT Premium, Spread-of-Hours Pay
ELETROBRAS: Distribution of Net Deal Fund in Securities Suit Okayed
ENVOLVE COMMUNITY: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Taylor Claims
ERNIE'S AUTO: Rosario Suit Seeks Proper Wages

FEDEX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated SDNY Class Suit
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Claimsfiler Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
FRANKE KITCHEN: Angeles Seeks Access to Web Site for Blind Users

FUNDING MERCHANT: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
G2 SECURE STAFF: Rodriguez Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
GENERAL MOTORS: Pilgrim Appeals C.D. California Order to 9th Cir.
GENERALI US: Young Sues Over Denial of Travel Insurance Claims
GENIUS BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 19 Deadline

GENIUS BRANDS: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
GOL LINHAS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
GOL LINHAS: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
GRANITE SERVICES: Rodriguez Seeks OT Wages for Technical Advisors
HAYNES INVESTMENTS: Brice Bankruptcy Appeal Moved to E.D. Va.

HQ RESOURCES: Misclassifies Employees to Deny OT Pay, Erdman Says
INNERWORKINGS INC: Defends HH Global Merger Related Suits
INSPERITY INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Class Action
INTEL CORP: Plumbers Pension Trust Sues Over Drop in Share Price
INTER CONNECTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Mota Suit Claims

KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Spack and Roper Suit
KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Suit Over Magazine Subscriptions Ongoing
LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit
LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action
LITHIA MOTORS: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Texts, Munns Alleges

LOWE'S COMPANIES: Bowens PMWA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
MAJESTIC AUTO: Car Wash Attendants Seek Reimbursements, OT Pay
MEI PHARMA: Defends Gold & Drazba Putative Class Suit
MICHIGAN: Court Denies Bid to Stay Ackerman MDOC Prisoners Suit
MV TRANSPORTATION: Bailey BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

NESTLE USA: Court Denies Special Bid to Strike in Walker Suit
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 10 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
NEW YORK: Reardon Sues Over Denial of Overtime Pay and Promotion
NIKOLA CORPORATION: Portnoy Law Investigates for Securities Fraud
ONESPAN INC: Almendariz Suit Balks at 40% Drop in Share Price

ONESPAN INC: Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit
OPLA INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Urena-Taswell Claims
ORACLE CORP: Motion to Dismiss Stockholder Suit Underway
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Purdy Sues Over FCRA Breach
PHYSICIANS FOR HEALTHY: Calderon Suit Removed to C.D. California

PORTLAND GENERAL: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action
PROGENITY INC: Faces Brickman Suit Over Drop in IPO Share Price
PROSHARES ULTRA: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit
RCN TELECOM: Reid Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
RELIABLE TRUCKING: Cosby Class Suit Removed to N.D. California

SELECT MEDICAL: Arends Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
SKY LAND: Faces Pinguil Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
STAAR SURGICAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
THINK FINANCE: Banks Bankruptcy Appeal Moved to E.D. Virginia
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL: Cockrell Suit Challenges Unlawful Pay System

TRANSDEV BUS: Richards Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
TUFIN SOFTWARE: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
TYSON RANCH: Bishop Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Bronstein,Gewirtz Announces Class Action

ULTRA PETROLEUM: Vincent Wong Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
UNITED COMMUNITY: Emerson Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Oct. 30
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Chester County Court
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action

VI-JON INC: Macormic Balks at Deceptive Labels of Hand Sanitizers
WESTERN REFINING: Ahmed Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
WESTERN REFINING: Ramirez Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
WILAN CORP: Willis Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Minimum Wages
XPO PORT: Class Certification Bid in Alvarez Suit Granted in Part


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF to Keep Safety Measures on OU6 Rails in Libby
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Files Chapter 11 amidst Honeywell Disputes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WPI Construction Faces $150K Fine for Violations


                            *********

60TH ST. FLEISH: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO RAMIREZ and EUSTASIO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. 60TH ST. FLEISH GESHEFT INC. (D/B/A
SHAULY'S MEAL MART), JOSEPH GOLDBERGER, and JOEL GOLDBERGER, Case
No. 1:20-cv-04308 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium.

Plaintiffs Ramirez and Gonzalez were employed by the Defendants at
Shauly's Meal Mart as butchers from April 2016 until July 14, 2020,
and from 2009 until April 2020, respectively.

60th St. Fleish Gesheft Inc. is a company that owns a meat market
in Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Shauly's Meal Mart."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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: michael@faillacelaw.com


A&B RESTAURANT: Resto Staff Slam Tip Credit, Denied Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gent Hajdaraj and Endri Hoxha, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. A&B Restaurant Group LLC, SSAP
LLC, B and B Restaurant Group LLC, AP & SS Restaurant Group LLC,
Benjamin Restaurant Group LLC, Alban Prelvukaj And Abneshe Sinanaj,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06628, (E.D. N.Y. August 19, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid wages due to time-shaving, unpaid wages due
to invalid tip credit, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants collectively own and operate a group of bars in New York
namely, "Benjamin Steakhouse" and "The Seafire Grill" where
Hajdaraj and Hoxha worked as server and busser. They claim to have
generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime for
hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours
premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. Defendants claimed tip
credit for all hours worked despite requiring Hajdaraj and Hoxha to
work non-tipped duties for hours exceeding 20% of the total hours
worked each workweek. Both also claim to have never received wage
statements. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


ALEX ANTZOULATOS: Atsas Seeks Unpaid Wages for Admin. Assistants
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ATSAS; and ADAMANTIA MARI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LAW OFFICE OF ALEX ANTZOULATOS; and
ALEXANDER G. ANTZOULATOS a/k/a ALEX ANTZOULATOS, Case No.
1:20-cv-03838 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020), seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as administrative
assistants.

Law Office of Alex Antzoulatos is a law firm in Astoria, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul A. Bartels, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 280-3008
          Facsimile: (212) 656-1845
          E-mail: lr@belllg.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Rogers Sues Over Defective BIOCELL Breast Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
CINDY ROGERS, PAUL ROGERS, CONSTANCE PERNA, DARREN PERNA, VALERIE
ISAACS-JOHNSON, APRIL DAHLGREN, and PAULINE STRAUSS-JOSSAN v.
ALLERGAN PLC, now known as ABBVIE, INC.; ALLERGAN, INC., and
ALLERGAN USA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-12609 (D.N.J., Sept. 11,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for strict product
liability, negligence, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of express warranty, and loss of
consortium.

The case arises from the Defendants' business misconduct including:
(a) failure to manufacture the BIOCELL line of textured breast
implants and tissue expanders in accordance with intended and
approved design specifications and processes, thereby rendering the
product defective, (b) failure to warn physicians, and as a result
patients, about serious health risks, (c) deliberate concealment,
misrepresentation and obstruction of public and regulatory
awareness of serious health risks, (d) failure to complete
mandatory studies necessary to determine the safety, reliability
and effectiveness of its products and to otherwise comply with
current good manufacturing practices and qualify system regulation;
and (f) failure to utilize reasonable care.

As a result of the Defendants' conscious and deliberate disregard
for the rights and safety of consumers, including the Plaintiffs,
the Plaintiffs suffered severe and permanent physical injuries.

Allergan plc, now known as AbbVie, Inc., is a pharmaceutical
company with its principal place of business located in Illinois.
Allergan, Inc. was formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allergan
plc, with its principal place of business in California. Allergan
USA, Inc. was formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allergan plc,
with its principal place of business in New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:       
            
         Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
         Katrina R. Ashley, Esq.
         Emily J. Beeson, Esq.
         HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
         719 S. Shoreline Blvd.
         Corpus Christi, TX 78401
         Telephone: (361) 882-1612
         Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
         E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com
                 kashley@hmglawfirm.com
                 ebeeson@hmglawfirm.com

                - and –

         R. Allan Pixton, Esq.
         HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
         444 West Lake Street Suite 1700
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 238-0295
         Facsimile: (312) 238-0309
         E-mail: apixton@hmglawfirm.com


ALTERYX INC: Smith Hits Share Drop from Decline in Revenue
----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Alteryx, Inc., Dean A. Stoecker and Kevin
Rubin, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01540 (C.D. Cal., August 19
2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of
the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Alteryx is a data analytics company that offers a
subscription-based platform for customers to access, prepare, and
analyze data from a multitude of sources, then deploy and share
analytics at scale to make data-driven decisions.

Alteryx allegedly failed to disclose to investors that it was
unable to close large deals within the quarter and deals were
pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized and that it
increasingly relied on adoption licenses to attract new customers
which, as a result and due to the nature of adoption licenses,
resulted in the decline in its revenue. On this news, Alteryx share
price fell $47.62, or over 28%, to close at $121.38 per share on
August 7, 2020. The stock price continued to decline over the next
trading session by $12.15, or 10%, to close at $109.23 per share on
August 10, 2020, representing a cumulative decline of $59.77, or
35%.

Smith purchased Alteryx securities and lost and as a result of the
federal securities law violations. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      Email: info@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
      1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 914-5007
      Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Gimello Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled PAULA GIMELLO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02834, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on August 20,
2020.

The Northern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:20-cv-00948-0 to the proceeding.

American Airlines Group Inc. operates an airline that provides
scheduled passenger, freight, and mail service throughout North
America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe, and the Pacific. The
Company also provides connecting service throughout the United
States, Canada, and the Caribbean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin F Johns, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Craig Douglas Mills, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          50 S 16th Street, Suite 3200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 665-3863
          E-mail: craig.mills@bipc.com


AMERICAN SERVICES: Morin Sues Over Security Officers' OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
GUY MORIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERICAN SERVICES, INC. and AMERICAN SECURITY OF
GREENVILLE, LLC, Case No. 6:20-cv-03271-TMC (D.S.C., Sept. 14,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated security officers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek due to improper rounding of work hours and pre-shift and
post-shift work duties.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a security officer
in Greenville County, South Carolina from 2017.

American Services, Inc., provides security, staffing and janitorial
services with its principal place of business in Greenville, South
Carolina. American Security of Greenville, LLC is a provider of
security, staffing and janitorial services based in Greenville,
South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Ben Whaley Le Clercq, Esq.
         LE CLERCQ LAW FIRM, P.C.
         708 S. Shelmore, Suite 202
         Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
         Telephone: (843) 722-3523
         E-mail: Ben@leclercqlaw.com

                - and –

         C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
         Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
         P.O. Box 4979
         Orlando, FL 32802-4979
         Telephone: (407) 420-1414
         Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
         E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
                 jpavlos@forthepeople.com


AUTOZONE INC: Faces Cota Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
JULISSA COTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01797-AJB-AGS (S.D. Cal., Sept. 11,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the visually-impaired Plaintiff
encountered multiple access barriers, during her numerous visits to
Defendant's website, https://www.autozone.com/, which denied her
full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services
offered to the public and made available to the public on the
Defendant's website and its prior iterations. The Defendants
allegedly failed to comply with Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0/WCAG 2.1 because it failed to provide the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated visually-impaired consumers
with equal access to the website, thereby, engaging in acts of
intentional discrimination.

The Plaintiff, who is dependent of screen-reading software to read
website content using his computer, is a visually-impaired and
legally blind person.

Autozone, Inc., is an automotive parts company that owns and
operates the website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF NEW YORK: Evergreen Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EVERGREEN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR PACIFIC COAST OIL TRUST;
and PACIFIC COAST ENERGY COMPANY, L.P., Case No. 20STCV26290, 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 20, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-07561 to the proceeding.

The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., NA, is a full-service bank.
The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans and provides other services
for the public.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          William W. Oxley, Esq.
          Zoe M. Steinberg, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
          E-mail: woxley@bakerlaw.com
                  zsteinberg@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Sashe D. Dimitroff, Esq.
          Alexandra Trujillo, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          811 Main Street, Suite 1100
          Houston, TX 77002-6111
          Telephone: (713) 751-1600
          Facsimile: (713) 751-1717
          E-mail: sdimitroff@bakerlaw.com
                  atrujillo@bakerlaw.com


BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have only until September 14, 2020 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft - (OTC: BAYRY), if they purchased the Company's
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between May 23, 2016 and
March 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased ADRs of Bayer and would like to discuss your legal
rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover
for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you,
contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850
or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-bayry/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action by
overseeing lead counsel with the goal of obtaining a fair and just
resolution, you must request this position by application to the
Court by September 14, 2020.

                          About the Lawsuit

Bayer and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On June 7, 2018, the Company completed its acquisition of Monsanto,
known for its flagship weed killer product, Roundup, despite broad
and protracted litigation pending against it in state and federal
courts alleging cancerous conditions caused by exposure to the
product and its failure to warn of the toxic effects. On March 19,
2019, in the first federal case filed against Monsanto to proceed
to trial, the jury found that the plaintiff's "exposure to Roundup
was a substantial factor in causing his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma."

On this news, the price of Bayer's shares declined.

The case is City of Grand Rapids General Retirement System and City
of Grand Rapids Police & Fire Retirement System v. Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft, 20-cv-04737.

                     About Kahn Swick

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

         Lewis Kahn
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         Managing Partner
         Tel No: 1-877-515-1850
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]

BELAMI INC: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind Users, Graciano Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDY GRACIANO, on behalf of himself and all other person similarly
situated v. BELAMI, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07359-AJN (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 9, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged
unlawful practices in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff contends that because of the multiple
accessibility barriers he encountered when he visited the
Defendant's website, https://www.baileystreethome.com/, in an
attempt to purchase a product from the Defendant, the Plaintiff was
denied access and a shopping experience similar to that of a
sighted person as well as the full enjoyment of the goods and
services of the Website.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, thereby, depriving them of full and equal
access to the facilities, goods, and services that the Defendant
makes available to the non-disabled public. Moreover, the
Defendant's actions constitute willful intentional discrimination
against the Plaintiff and other similarly situated blind or
visually-impaired people, the Plaintiff alleges.

Belami, Inc. operates the Bailey Street Home online retail store
across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Tel: 212-228-9795
          Fax: 212-982-6284
          Email: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                 danagottlieb@aol.com


BLACKBAUD INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Martin Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
COTY MARTIN, on behalf of Minor Child and all others similarly
situated v. BLACKBAUD, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03286-RMG (D.S.C.,
Sept. 15, 2020), arises from the May 2020 ransomware attack and
data breach incident involving several schools, healthcare,
non-profit companies, and other organizations whose data and
servers were managed, maintained, and secured by the Defendant.

The complaint alleges that the sensitive personal information of
the Plaintiff and thousands of other class member users was
compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach, making
them exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and class members also suffered
ascertainable losses in the form of out-of-pocket expenses and the
value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the
effects of the data breach.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated, in order to, (1) address the Defendant's
inadequate safeguarding of class members' private information,
which the Defendant managed, maintained, and secured; (2) for
failing to provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and
other class members that their information had been subject to the
unauthorized access of an unknown third-party; (3) for failing to
identify all information that was accessed; and (4) for failing to
provide Plaintiff and class members with any redress for the data
breach.

The Plaintiff is acting as the parent and guardian of minor child.
Private Information of the minor child was allegedly compromised as
a direct and proximate result of the data breach.

Blackbaud, Inc. is a software company based in Charleston County,
South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
          Temitope O. Leyimu, Esq.
          Andrew P. Arnold, Esq.
          C. Ross Heyl, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843)216-9000
          Facsimile: (843)216-9027
          E-mail: jflowers@motleyrice.com
                  aarnold@motleyrice.com
                  tleyimu@motleyrice.com
                  rheyl@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
          PO Box 1483
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: harper@whitfieldbryson.com

               - and -

          Alex Straus, Esq.
          Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
          Erin J. Ruben, Esq.
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: alex@whitfieldbryson.com
                  arper@whitfieldbryson.com
                  matt@whitfieldbryson.com
                  erin@whitfieldbryson.com


BLADE URBAN: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Tenzer-Fuchs Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE TENZER-FUCHS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. BLADE URBAN AIR MOBILITY, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-03823-JMA-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 20, 2020), alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, http://www.blade.flyblade.com/,is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff.

Blade Urban Air Mobility, Inc., is a virtual airline based in New
York City, which offers air taxi services in the New York, Los
Angeles, and San Francisco metropolitan areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (718) 971-9474
          E-mail: Jonathan@ShalomLawNY.com


BOISE SD 1: Certification in Zeyen Students Suit Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIKE ZEYEN, et al, Plaintiffs, v. BOISE SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-207-BLW (d.
Idaho), Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho:

  (1) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for

      immediate entry of order certifying class or, in the
      alternative, to set a hearing date;

  (2) denied the Defendants' motion for extension of time to file a

      response brief to the motion to certify class;

  (3) denied the Defendants' motion for protective order; and

  (4) denied the motions for joinder in the Defendants' motions.

The case has been stayed pending resolution of an appeal in the
Idaho Supreme Court that has now been resolved.  The class action
challenges fees allegedly charged in contravention of the Idaho
Constitution.  The Plaintiffs, who have students attending schools
in the Pocatello and Bonneville School Districts, seek to proceed
as class representatives of all patrons -- that is, students and
parents -- in the 115 school districts and charter schools in the
state of Idaho.  They allege that the fees charged by these school
districts violate article IX, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution
and constitute a due process violation.  They seek declaratory
relief, reimbursement of fees charged for the past six years, and
certification of a class of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.

The action was preceded by lengthy litigation in the Idaho state
courts.  Between 1993 and 2005, a series of five appeals were
decided by the Idaho Supreme Court challenging the level and method
of funding for Idaho's public schools.  In the midst of those
appeals, the Idaho Supreme Court remanded the case to the district
court to determine the narrow issue of whether the Legislature had
provided a means to fund facilities that provide a safe environment
conducive to learning, pursuant to the thoroughness requirement of
the Idaho Constitution, Article IX, Seciton 1.  That constitutional
provision imposes a duty on the Legislature of Idaho, to establish
and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free
common schools.

Following a trial, the district court concluded that the state
funding system is not adequate to meet the constitutional mandate
to establish and maintain a general, uniform, and thorough system
of public, free common schools in a safe environment conducive to
learning for Idaho's poorest school districts.

On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed that decision but
declined to impose any remedy.  

In the appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, the State defendants
argued that the claims against them fell squarely within the terms
of the Constitutionally Based Educational Claims Act ("CBECA"),
Idaho Code Sections 6-2201-2216.  The CBECA authorizes a patron to
sue a local school district for failing to provide constitutionally
required educational services, but also states that before a patron
can sue the State, the patron must first obtain a ruling from the
district court that the local school district is not providing the
required educational services and is either unwilling or unable to
comply.

The plaintiffs in Joki v Idaho sued the State without first
obtaining this ruling from the district court, and the State
defendants argued that the CBECA required that they be dismissed.
The Idaho Supreme Court agreed, finding that (1) the CBECA did
apply and (2) the CBECA did not violate provisions of the Idaho
Constitution.

In a separate action filed in state court captioned Zeyen v
Pocatello/Chubbuck School District, the plaintiff sued a single
school district seeking to represent a class of all patrons of that
single school district, alleging that the fees charged by the
district were unconstitutional under Idaho's constitution.  The
district court held that the CBECA barred recovery for fees
improperly paid. When plaintiff tried to amend his complaint to add
a claim for a Due Process violation, the district court denied the
amendment on the ground that it came too late in the litigation.

On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed those decisions finding
that (1) the district court properly denied the Plaintiffs' motion
to amend their complaint to add a due process claim; and (2) the
CBECA does not provide relief for past conduct.  That failure,
Zeyen argued to the court, constituted an unconstitutional taking
under the Due Process Clause, but the Idaho Supreme Court refused
to address the argument because it was not properly raised.

Another action, captioned Wood v Bonneville School District, also
challenges fees charged by a single school district.  The
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all patrons of
that single school district, and have challenged the fees as
violating both the Idaho Constitution and the U.S. Constitution
(5th and 14th Amendments).  That case was filed in November of 2017
and was stayed pending Zeyen.

The lead plaintiff in that Zeyen case then filed the present action
in the Court on May 9, 2018.  It is a class action challenging fees
allegedly charged in contravention of the Idaho Constitution.  The
Plaintiffs, who have students attending schools in the Pocatello
and Bonneville School Districts, seek to proceed as representatives
of all students and patrons in the 115 school districts and charter
schools in the state of Idaho.  

The plaintiffs assert a Takings Clause and due process claim
against the defendants under Section 1983, and a declaration that
the fees charged by these local school districts are
unconstitutional under article IX, Section 1 of the Idaho
Constitution.  That constitutional provision requires the
legislature to establish and maintain a general, uniform and
thorough system of public, free common schools.  The plaintiffs
seek declaratory relief, reimbursement of fees charged for the past
six years and certification for both a plaintiff and defendant
class.

The defendants divided into two groups, each represented by
separate counsel.  Each group filed a motion to dismiss the due
process claims.  The Court denied the motions and stayed the case
pending resolution of Zeyen in the Idaho courts.  It reasoned that
the due process issues would be avoided if Zeyen ultimately held
that the CBECA provides a remedy to the plaintiffs to recover fees
paid in violation of Idaho's Constitution.

Instead, Zeyen held that the CBECA does not provide a remedy to
recover those fees paid in the past.  So interpreted, the question
is whether the CBECA runs afoul of the Due Process Clause.  That is
the central issue in the case and it fits squarely within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Court.

The Defendants argue, however, that further proceedings in another
Idaho case warrant an extension of the stay.  In Gifford v. West
Ada School District (CV01-19-13029) -- a case still at the district
court level -- the plaintiffs have filed a class action challenging
fees charged for second-session kindergarten.  There are pending
motions in that case challenging their due process claims and their
right to a class action.  Because those issues are identical to the
issues faced in the instant case, the Defendants argue that the
stay -- and briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class --
should be extended until Gifford is resolved for the same reasons
that the Court stayed the case pending a decision in Zeyen.

Judge Winmill disagrees.  The issues are federal in nature: The
Plaintiffs claim a violation of the Due Process Clause and seek to
certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  Unlike
Zeyen, that involved a crucial interpretation of an Idaho statute,
Gifford faces issues that are peculiarly within the expertise of
the Court.  There is therefore no reason to halt progress of the
case to await a resolution of Gifford.

Judge Winwill therefore denied the Defendants' motion for extension
to await a decision in Gifford.  The Court had previously issued a
stay of this case until Zeyen was resolved in the Idaho Supreme
Court, and given that it is now resolved, Judge Winwill will
formally lift the stay.  The Judge will schedule a hearing on the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, and notes that the Defendants
filed a response brief to the motion to certify, and the Court's
Local Rules will dictate the deadline for the Plaintiffs' response
brief.

The Defendants have also filed a motion for protective order
seeking to limit the discovery requests submitted to the 115 school
districts.  The Plaintiffs responded that they are no longer
seeking discovery until the class is certified.  The Judge
therefore denied the motion for protective order, without prejudice
to the Defendants' right to refile the motion if the class is
certified and without reaching the merits of the motion.

The Plaintiffs also seek an immediate order certifying the class on
the ground that the Defendants have waived their objections by
failing to file response briefs.  However, the Defendants properly
filed a motion to extend the time for a response, which has not
been denied until now.  Moreover, the case has been stayed until
this point.  Under these circumstances the Defendants have not
waived any rights, and that portion of the Plaintiffs' motion is
denied, the Court rules.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Memorandum
Decision & Order is available at https://is.gd/fNZ4IN from
Leagle.com.


BRAHAMPUTRA LLC: Lamb Seeks Overtime Pay for Hrs. Worked Over 40
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Lamb, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BrahamPutra, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-12145 (D. N.J., August 31, 2020), seeks to recover minimum
wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages and costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

BrahamPutra provides staffing services in the IT and
telecommunications industries where Lamb worked as an integrator
working at cell sites in St. Louis, Missouri from approximately
December 2018 to April 2019. Lamb claims to be classified as a
"contract employee." He was misclassified as an independent
contractor and was not paid overtime wages when he worked more than
40 hours in a week, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      Email: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com

             - and -

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com


BUSINESS LAW: Faces Mulligan Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT MULLIGAN, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
v. BUSINESS LAW GROUP, P.A., Case No, CACE-20-015095 (Fla. Cir.,
Broward Cty., Sept. 14, 2020), is brought under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act for the benefit of Florida consumers, who
have been the subject of debt collection efforts by the Defendant.

The lawsuit arises after the Defendant failed to effectively
provide the Plaintiff disclosures required by the FDCPA in its
initial written communication, or within five days thereafter, in
connection with the collection of the Plaintiff's debt related to
his residential property allegedly owed to Georgetown Community
Association, Inc. The initial communication, which happened on
September 20, 2019, allegedly threatened the Plaintiff that
Georgetown Community would record a claim of lien on his property
if he did not pay the debt within 45 days after his receipt of the
communication.

The Plaintiff contends that he suffered harm as the violative
initial debt collection letter at issue was sent to him personally,
regarded his personal alleged debt, and failed to effectively
provide him statutorily mandated disclosures to which he was
entitled.

Business Law Group, P.A. is a Hillsborough County, Florida-based
law firm that represents community associations to collect past due
assessments, fees, and costs from foreclosing mortgagees,
investors, and defunct developers at the trial and appellate court
levels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: davidson@gdrlawfum.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfmn.com

               - and -

          Matisyahu H. Abarbanel, Esq.
          LOAN LAWYERS
          3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Telephone: (954) 523-4357
          E-mail: matis@fight13.com


CABOT OIL: Klein Law Firm Announces October 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation
(NYSE: COG) alleging that the Company violated federal securities
laws.

Class Period: October 23, 2015 and June 12, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 13, 2020

Learn more about your recoverable losses in COG:

The filed complaint alleges that Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Cabot had inadequate environmental controls and
procedures and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related
to those controls and procedures; (ii) as a result, Cabot, among
other issues, failed to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting
Pennsylvania's water supplies through stray gas migration; (iii)
the foregoing was foreseeably likely to subject Cabot to increased
governmental scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased
reputational and financial harm; (iv) Cabot continually downplayed
its potential civil and/or criminal liabilities with respect to
such environmental matters; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Shareholders have until October 13, 2020 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

For additional information about the COG lawsuit, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above.

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

CAMPANIA FELIX: Barone Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Waiters
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO BARONE; and AGOSTINO CANGIANO, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. CAMPANIA FELIX LLC (D/B/A SAN MATTEO
PIZZERIA E CUCINA); SANMATTEO TAKEAWAY CORP. (D/B/A SAN MATTEO
TAKEAWAY); SALERNITANI LTD. (D/B/A SAN MATTEO PIZZA ESPRESSO BAR);
FABIO CASELLA; and RAFAEL DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-06709 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 20, 2020), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as waiters.

Campania Felix LLC owned, operated, or controlled pizzerias in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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


CASSARIANO NY: Soviero Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
CLEMENT M. SOVIERO, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated employees v. CASSARIANO NY, LLC d/b/a CASSARIANO ITALIAN
EATERY, DOMENIC VIGLIOTI, LUCA CASSANI, ANTONIO PARIANO, DANIEL
BAEZ, and GIANCARLO DIMAGGIO, Case No. 2:20-cv-04298 (E.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 14, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to
the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees worked over 40 hours per week, but failed to
receive compensation for overtime that they were entitled to. The
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were also told on
occasion to not clock in when they reported to work to lower their
weekly hours and prevent them from receiving overtime pay, and on
occasion were forced to clock out and perform non-tipped work for
which they were not compensated. The suit further asserts that the
Plaintiff was discharged by the Defendants in retaliation for his
complaints relating to the Defendants' failure to pay overtime.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a waiter at
Cassariano Italian Eatery.

Cassariano NY, LLC d/b/a Cassariano Italian Eatery is an Italian
restaurant located in Mineola, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Debra L. Wabnik, Esq.
          David R. Ehrlich, Esq.
          STAGG WABNIK LAW GROUP LLP
          401 Franklin Avenue, Ste. 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 812-4550
          E-mail: dwabnik@staggwabnik.com
                  dehrlich@staggwabnik.com


CHAMPION FAMILY: Underpays Home Health Workers, Holt Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
THERIC HOLT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CHAMPION FAMILY HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-00841 (M.D.N.C., Sept. 11, 2020), is brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a home
healthcare worker, alleges that the Defendant failed to pay her and
other similarly situated employees an overtime premium for all
hours they worked over 40 in a workweek despite regularly scheduled
to and did work more than 40 hours in a workweek. Instead, the
Defendant paid them straight time for all hours worked.

Champion Family Healthcare Services, LLC operates a home healthcare
agency in Wake County, North Carolina, providing home healthcare
services to clients in Forsyth County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Tel: 336-333-9899
          Fax: 336-333-9894
          Email: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com

                - and –

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Tel: (225) 925-5297
          Fax: (225) 231-7000
          Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                 scott@bohrerbrady.com


CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Gottlieb Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher & Banks Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 14, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2020, that the parties in
the purported class action suit initiated by Mark Gottlieb have
submitted further briefing on the issue whether the claim is a
derivative or direct, i.e. whether it belongs to the Company and
cannot be brought by the Plaintiff or whether he may bring it
directly and are awaiting the Court's decision.

On August 14, 2019, Mark Gottlieb, a Company stockholder, filed a
purported class action lawsuit against Jonathan Duskin; Seth
Johnson; Keri Jones; Kent Kleeberger; William Sharpe, III; Joel
Waller and Laura Weil (the "Named Directors"), B. Riley FBR, Inc.
and B. Riley Financial Inc., in the Court of Chancery in the State
of Delaware, on behalf of himself and all stockholders who held
shares as of December 20, 2018.

The lawsuit alleges that the Named Directors breached their duty of
loyalty in connection with the Company's rejection in December of
2018, of an unsolicited bid to acquire the Company and seeks
unspecified damages for shareholders' lost opportunity.

The lawsuit further alleges that the B. Riley firms aided and
abetted the asserted breach of the duty of loyalty by the Named
Directors. The Company believes the Complaint is without merit.

The Named Directors, and the Company on their behalf, together with
the B. Riley firms, intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On September 18, 2019, the Director Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

The motion was briefed by Plaintiff and the Defendants and oral
argument on the motion were held before the Court of Chancery in
February 2020.

On May 27, 2020, the court announced a partial decision on the
pending motions but asked for further briefing on the potentially
dispositive issue of whether the claim is a derivative or direct,
i.e. whether it belongs to the Company and cannot be brought by the
Plaintiff or whether he may bring it directly.

The parties have submitted further briefing on that issue and are
awaiting the Court's decision.

Christopher & Banks Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
as a specialty retailer of private-brand women's apparel and
accessories in the United States. It was formerly known as Braun's
Fashions Corporation and changed its name to Christopher & Banks
Corporation in July 2000. The Company was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.


CIGNA HEALTH: Avila Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ADRIAN AVILA, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. CIGNA
HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 283609, was removed from the Superior Court in the State
of California for the County of Tulare to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California on September 11, 2020.

The Clerk Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-01304-NONE-BAM to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code
including unfair competition, failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages, failure to provide required meal and rest periods, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse
business-related expenses, failure to timely pay wages, and for
wrongful termination.

Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company is a health insurance
company based in Bloomfield, Connecticut.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                           
      
         Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
         Linda Bollinger, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 443-4300
         Facsimile: (213) 443-4299


COTY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 3 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Coty Inc.
("Coty" or the "Company") (NYSE: COTY) between October 3, 2016 and
May 28, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse facts about Coty's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or
failed to disclose: (1) that despite being no stranger to beauty
brand acquisitions, Coty did not have adequate processes and
procedures in place to assess and properly value the P&G Specialty
Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions; (2) that as a
result, Coty had overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and
Kylie Cosmetics; (3) that Coty did not have adequate infrastructure
to smoothly integrate and support the beauty brands that it
acquired from P&G, including an adequate supply chain; (4) that, as
a result of its inadequate infrastructure, Coty was not
successfully integrating the beauty brands it acquired from P&G and
not delivering synergies from the acquisition; (5) and that, as a
result of the foregoing, Coty's financial statements and
Defendants' statements about Coty's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

The truth about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
began to emerge. On May 29, 2020, Forbes reported that Kylie Jenner
had been "inflating the size and success of her [Kylie Cosmetics]
business. For years." -- revealing that Defendants had overvalued
yet another acquisition.

On this news, Coty stock prices fell $0.56, or over 13%, from a
close of $4.19 on May 28, 2020 to a close of $3.63 per share on May
29, 2020 on heavy volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 3, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Coty securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/cotyinc-coty-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-304/apply
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C)2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP.

The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein
Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212)
779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the
State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not
guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future
matter.

         Matthew E. Guarnero
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Tel No: (877) 779-1414
         E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]

COTY INC: Claimsfiler Reminds of November 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of the pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Coty, Inc. (COTY)
Class Period: 10/3/2016 - 5/28/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 3, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-coty-inc-securities-litigation-2
    

                     About ClaimsFiler

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

DELOITTE TOUCHE: Knight Suit Asserts Family and Medical Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Saxon Knight, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu Limited and Deloitte & Touche LLP, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-07114, (S.D. N.Y., September 1, 2020), seeks all non-monetary
and/or compensatory damages, liquidated and punitive damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all amounts due and such
other and further relief for violation of the Family and Medical
Leave Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human
Rights Law and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited -- www2.deloitte.com -- is a
multinational professional services network with headquarters in
London, United Kingdom. Knight joined Deloitte in the U.K. in
August 2016 and in February 2018, Knight joined their U.S. location
as a Senior Manager. Knight claims that Deloitte no longer took her
back after she took 16 weeks of parental leave after giving birth
on May 30, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Willemin, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      Email: dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
             trahman@wigdorlaw.com


DOLGENCORP LLC: Levy Sues Over Deceptive Labels on Acetaminophen
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID LEVY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DOLGENCORP, LLC, DOLLAR GENERAL CORP., and DG RETAIL,
LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01037-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla., Sept. 15, 2020), is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, Dollar General's marketing
representations of its Infants' Pain & Fever Acetaminophen and the
Children's Pain & Fever Acetaminophen in its brick-and-mortar
stores are misleading and likely to deceive reasonable consumers.
Dollar General attempts to mislead consumers into believing that
the active ingredient, acetaminophen, in the similar product Infant
Tylenol is specifically formulated for infants and is different
than the active ingredient in Children's Tylenol, when it knows
that the active ingredient is the same.

The Defendant has been engaging in the fraudulent practice of
manufacturing and selling the same product as if it were two unique
medicines, such that parents and caregivers mistakenly believe that
infants cannot safely take the Children's Products, according to
the complaint. Despite the fact that the products contain the same
exact amount of acetaminophen in the same dosage amounts, the
Defendant markets and sells Infants' Products to consumers, such as
the Plaintiff, at a substantially higher price or three times as
much per ounce than Children's Products.

Dollar General Corporation is an American chain of variety stores
headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. As of January 2020,
Dollar General operates 16,278 stores in the continental United
States. Dolgencorp, LLC and DG Retail, LLC are wholly owned
subsidiaries of Dollar General Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          300 S. Biscayne Blvd., #2704
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 610-5223
          E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
          E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com


DOMINION ENTERPRISES: Pierucci TCPA Suit Moved to E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LISA PIERUCCI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DOMINION ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-08048, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on September 11, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Virginia assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-00455-RAJ-RJK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text
messages to consumers, including the Plaintiff, using an automatic
telephone dialing system.

Dominion Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Homes.com, is a media and
information services company for the automotive, real estate, and
travel industries, with its principal place of business in Norfolk,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:             
  
         Nathan Brown, Esq.
         BROWN PATENT LAW
         1500 N 7th Way Suite 203
         Scottsdale, AZ 85260
         Telephone: (602) 529-3474
         E-mail: Nathan.Brown@BrownPatentLaw.com

                - and –

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

                - and –

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


DOUG CONNOR INC: Improperly Pays Overtime Wages, Reguena Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXY REGUENA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. DOUG CONNOR, INC., a Florida For Profit Corporation,
and DANA CONNOR, individually, Case No. 6:20-cv-01670-RBD-EJK (M.D.
Fla., Sept. 11, 2020), challenges the Defendants' alleged unlawful
method of paying overtime wages to their employees, which violates
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a hourly rate
paid and non-exempt Grapple Truck Driver/Operator, claims that,
despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours during workweek as
required by the Defendants, he and other similarly situated
employees were not paid one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per work week
during their employment with the Defendants.

Doug Connor, Inc. offers land clearing, demolition, excavation,
grinding, grading, import fill, storm drainage, sanitary sewer,
water distribution, concrete work and road construction services to
its customers. Dana Connor owns and operates Doug Connor, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Henson, Esq.
          Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Tel: (407) 428-6241
          Fax: (407) 245-3342
          Email: jjhenson@forthepeople.com
                 mgunter@forthepeople.com
                 ssiagel@forthepeople.com


EASTMAN KODAK: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Eastman Kodak
Company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during
the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.

Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE:KODK)

Investors Affected : July 27, 2020 - August 11, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Eastman Kodak Company. According to a filed complaint, defendants
failed to disclose that the Company had granted its Executive
Chairman, James Continenza, and several other Company insiders
millions of dollars' worth of stock options immediately prior to
the Company publicly disclosing that it had received the $765
million loan, which Defendants knew would cause Kodak's stock to
immediately increase in value once the deal was announced. In
addition, while in possession of this material non-public
information, Continenza and other Company insiders purchased tens
of thousands of the Company's shares immediately prior to the
announcement, again at prices that they knew would increase
exponentially once news of the loan became public.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/eastman-kodak-company-loss-submission-form/?id=9203&from=1

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

CONTACT:

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

EASTMAN KODAK: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak") (NYSE: KODK) between
July 27, 2020 and August 11, 2020. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. To get
more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/eastman-kodak-company-information-request-form-2?prid=9197&wire=5

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

According to a filed complaint, defendants failed to disclose that
the Company had granted its Executive Chairman, James Continenza,
and several other Company insiders millions of dollars' worth of
stock options immediately prior to the Company publicly disclosing
that it had received the $765 million loan, which Defendants knew
would cause Kodak's stock to immediately increase in value once the
deal was announced. In addition, while in possession of this
material non-public information, Continenza and other Company
insiders purchased tens of thousands of the Company's shares
immediately prior to the announcement, again at prices that they
knew would increase exponentially once news of the loan became
public.

If you suffered a loss in Kodak you have until October 13, 2020 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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

EFINANCIAL LLC: Johansen Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH JOHANSEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EFINANCIAL LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01351 (W.D. Wash.,
Sept. 11, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff's
residential telephone number ending in -1037, which was registered
to the Do Not Call Registry, without obtaining his prior express
consent to receive such calls. Despite being told to no longer
making telemarketing calls to him, the Defendant still continued
solicitation calls to the Plaintiff's telephone number on April 6
and April 7, 2020.

The Plaintiff contends that he has suffered actual damages because
of the Defendant's unlawful conduct.

EFinancial LLC offers life insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          936 North 34th St., Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Tel: (608) 237-1775
          Fax: (608) 509-4423
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com


EL NUEVO: Marte Sues Over Denied OT Premium, Spread-of-Hours Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agustin Marte, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. El Nuevo Jorge's Restaurant Corp., Jorge's
Restaurant Corp., Agustin Baez and Maria D. Baez, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-04070, (E.D. N.Y., September 1, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid "spread of hours"
pay and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the New York Wage
Theft Prevention Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate a restaurant doing business as "El Nuevo
Jorge's Restaurant," located in Ridgewood, New York where Marte
worked as a non-exempt food preparer/kitchen helper, porter, and
handyman from December 19, 2014 to March 6, 2020. He generally
works over 40 hours per week without the appropriate overtime
premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELETROBRAS: Distribution of Net Deal Fund in Securities Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John G. Koetl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the motion of Lead Plaintiffs
Dominique Lavoie and the City of Providence, Rhode Island to
approve the administrative determinations, and authorize the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund in the class action in the
case, IN RE ELETROBRAS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.: 15-cv-5754
(JGK) (S.D. N.Y.).

Judge Koetl approved the distribution plan proposed by claims
administrator Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions Inc., after
considering all of the materials and arguments submitted in support
of the motion, including the Declaration of Jaime Firenze Regarding
Distribution Plan submitted on behalf of Epiq, and the Lead
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law In Support of their Motion for
Approval of Administrative Determinations and Authorization to
Distribute the Net Settlement Fund.

The administrative determinations of the Claims Administrator to
accept the timely submitted Proofs of Claim set forth in Exhibit
C-1 to the Firenze Declaration, and to accept the late but
otherwise valid Proofs of Claim submitted after the Jan. 4, 2019
deadline but by Jan. 31, 2020, are adopted.

The administrative determinations of the Claims Administrator to
reject the Proofs of Claim set forth in Exhibit C-3 to the Firenze
Declaration are also approved, and those claims are rejected.

The administrative determination of the Claims Administrator to
reject the Proof of Claim for Disputed Claim Number 1, as set forth
in the Firenze Declaration paragraphs 24-25 and Exhibit B, is
approved, and that claim is rejected.

No new Proofs of Claim may be accepted after Jan. 31, 2020, and no
further adjustments to Proofs of Claim that would result in an
increased Recognized Loss may be made for any reason after Jan. 31,
2020.

Pursuant to the Distribution Plan for the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, Epiq will distribute the Net Settlement Fund as
follows:

  (1) Epiq will distribute 100% of the available balance of the Net

      Settlement Fund, after deducting any Notice and
      Administration Costs, Taxes, and Tax Expenses, to the
      Authorized Claimants set forth in Exhibits C-1 and C-2 to the

      Firenze Declaration who would receive at least $10 based on
      their Recognized Loss in comparison to the total Recognized
      Losses of all Authorized Claimants.

  (2) In order to encourage Authorized Claimants to promptly
      deposit their payments, all distribution checks will bear a
      notation "DEPOSIT PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-
      DISTRIBUTION IF NOT NEGOTIATED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF
      DISTRIBUTION."  Epic is authorized to take appropriate action

      to locate and/or contact any Authorized Claimant who has not

      cashed his, her, or its check within said time as detailed in

      footnote 2 of the Firenze Declaration.

  (3) Authorized Claimants who do not negotiate their distribution

      checks within the time allotted or on the conditions set
      forth in footnote 2 of the Firenze Declaration will
      irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the Settlement.  The
      funds allocated to all such stale-dated checks will be
      available to be distributed to other Authorized Claimants if

      the Lead Counsel determines that it is cost-effective to
      conduct a second distribution.  Similarly, the Authorized
      Claimants who do not negotiate their second or subsequent
      distributions (should such distributions occur) within the
      time allotted or on the conditions set forth in footnote 2 of

      the Firenze Declaration will irrevocably forfeit any further

      recovery from the Net Settlement Fund.

  (4) Consistent with the Plan of Allocation, after Epiq has made
      reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized Claimants

      negotiate their distribution checks, which efforts will
      consist of the follow-up efforts described in footnote 2 but

      no earlier than six (6) months after the initial
      distribution, the Lead Counsel, in consultation with Epiq,
      will determine whether it is cost-effective to conduct a
      second distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.  Additional
      re-distributions may occur thereafter in six (6) month
      intervals until the Lead Counsel, in consultation with Epiq,

      determines that further re-distribution is not cost-
      effective.

  (5) If further re-distribution of the funds remaining in the Net

      Settlement Fund is not cost-effective, the Lead Counsel will

      seek an order from the Court approving the donation of any
      remaining funds after all claims administration fees and
      expenses, escrow fees, taxes, and tax return preparation fees

      have been paid, to one or more non-sectarian, not-for-profit

      charitable organization(s) serving the public interest, to be

      identified at that time.

All persons involved in the review, verification, calculation,
tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of the Proofs of
Claim submitted herein, or otherwise involved in the administration
or taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund, are
released and discharged from any and all claims arising out of such
involvement, and all members of the Settlement Class, whether or
not they receive payment from the Net Settlement Fund, are hereby
barred from making any further claims against the Net Settlement
Fund, the Lead Plaintiffs, the Lead Counsel, the Claims
Administrator, the Escrow Agent, or any other agent retained by
Lead Plaintiffs or Lead Counsel in connection with the
administration or taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net
Settlement Fund beyond the amount allocated to them as Authorized
Claimants.

The Claims Administrator is authorized to destroy all paper and
electronic copies of Proofs of Claim and supporting documentation
one year after all funds have been distributed.

The fees and expenses in the amount of $454,305.94 that have been
incurred or are expected to be incurred by Epiq in connection with
the administration of the Settlement and the initial distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund as set forth in paragraph 36 and Exhibit
D of the Firenze Declaration, are approved.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2z3kvcz from Leagle.com.


ENVOLVE COMMUNITY: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Taylor Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLIE TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ENVOLVE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No.
4:20-cv-01091-BRW (E.D. Ark., Sept. 11, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act by improperly paying overtime wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt Maintenance Technician from October 2017 to August
2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated Maintenance Technicians worked over 40 hours during weeks.
Because the Defendant failed to include the value of bonuses when
calculating the overtime rate, the Defendants failed to accurately
pay the lawfully earned overtime of the Plaintiff and other
Maintenance Technicians.

Envolve Community Management, LLC is a property management
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney Lowery, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, LLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Rd., Ste. 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Email: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


ERNIE'S AUTO: Rosario Suit Seeks Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------
Robert Gutierrez Rosario, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ernie's Auto Detailing Inc.,
Ernesto Decena, Roman Doe, Jerry Doe, Leo Doe, Kelvin Doe and Leo
Doe, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03762 (E.D. N.Y., August 18, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for
failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a car service company, located
at 404 Clifton Ave, Clifton, NJ 07011, with service centers in New
Rochelle, Goldens Bridge and Brooklyn, New York where Rosario was
employed as an auto detailing worker. He claims to have worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping
of the hours worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FEDEX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated SDNY Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 15, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 26, 2019 and July 2, 2019, FedEx and certain present and
former officers were named as defendants in two putative class
action securities lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaints, which have been consolidated, allege violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to alleged
misstatements or omissions in FedEx's public filings with the SEC
and other public statements during the period from September 19,
2017 to December 18, 2018.

The company is not currently able to estimate the probability of
loss or the amount or range of potential loss, if any, at this
stage of the litigation.

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

FedEx Corporation (FedEx) provides a portfolio of transportation,
e-commerce and business services under the FedEx brand. The
Company's primary operating companies include FedEx Express, the
world's largest express transportation company; FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"), a leading North American
provider of small-package ground delivery services; and FedEx
Freight, Inc. ("FedEx Freight"), a leading U.S. provider of
less-than-truckload ("LTL") freight services. The company is based
in Memphis, Tennessee.


FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Fennec
Pharmaceuticals Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
company during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm
regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.

Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:FENC)

Investors Affected : February 11, 2020 - August 10, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the manufacturing facilities
for PEDMARK, the Company's sole product candidate, did not comply
with current good manufacturing practices; (2) as a result,
regulatory approval for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be
delayed; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/fennec-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9203&from=1

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

CONTACT:

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

FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Fennec
Pharmaceuticals Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:FENC)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/fennec-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=9193&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020
Class Period: February 11, 2020 - August 10, 2020

Allegations against FENC include that: (1) the manufacturing
facilities for PEDMARK, the Company's sole product candidate, did
not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) as a
result, regulatory approval for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be
delayed; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Claimsfiler Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of the pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

FirstEnergy Corp. (FE)
Class Period: 2/21/2017 - 7/21/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 28, 2020

SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-firstenergy-corp-securities-litigation
    

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.

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

                          About ClaimsFiler

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

FRANKE KITCHEN: Angeles Seeks Access to Web Site for Blind Users
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FRANKE KITCHEN SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07093-AT
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant discriminates against the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated blind and visually
impaired consumers by denying them full and equal access to its
website. The Defendant's website, http://www.franke.com/,contains
access barriers that hindered blind and visually impaired persons
to browse and purchase its online products and services the same
way sighted individuals do. These access barriers include: (1) lack
of alternative text, which is the invisible code embedded beneath a
graphical image; (2) lack of label element or title attribute for
each field; and (3) presence of broken links, which is a hyperlink
to a non-existent or empty webpage.

As a result of the Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access
barriers to its website, the Plaintiff and Class members have been
and are still being denied equal access to the website.

Franke Kitchen Systems, LLC is a kitchen appliances company that
owns and operates the website. The Company conducts business in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
      
         David P. Force, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         285 Passaic Street
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 282-6500
         Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
         E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


FUNDING MERCHANT: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FUNDING MERCHANT SOURCE LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-08365 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 11, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant contacted her multiple
times by using an "automatic telephone dialing system" to her
cellular telephone number ending in -1083 in an attempt to solicit
her to purchase its services beginning in November 2017. As a
result of the Defendant's unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff was
harmed by causing her to incur certain charges or reduced telephone
time for which she had previously paid, and by invading her
privacy.

Funding Merchant Source LLC is a lender providing business loans,
lines of credit and other financial products.[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
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


G2 SECURE STAFF: Rodriguez Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRYAN A. RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. G2 SECURE STAFF, L.L.C.; and DOES
1 through 100, Case No. 20STCV28354, 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 20, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-07589 to the
proceeding.

G2 Secure Staff, L.L.C. provides human resource services. The
Company offers aviation staffing and security solutions including
terminal, security, aircraft appearance, ramp, passenger service,
cargo and maintenance services. G2 Secure Staff serves its clients
in the State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq.
          Kathy H. Gao, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: rj.hendricks@morganlewis.com
                  kathy.gao@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Linda Z. Shen, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 907-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 907-1001
          E-mail: linda.shen@morganlewis.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Pilgrim Appeals C.D. California Order to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William D. Pilgrim, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Minute Order dated September 1, 2020, entered in
the lawsuit entitled Estate of William D. Pilgrim, et al. v.
General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-08047-JFW-E, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The statement of issue presented is: Did the district court abuse
its discretion in striking plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and the class allegations in plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint after adhering to the now-abrogated former
Central District Civil Local Rule 23-3 requiring that a motion for
class certification be filed within 90 days of the service of a
complaint?

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages for the Defendant's violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The complaint concerns
purchasers or lessees of Corvette vehicles equipped with the LS7
7.0LV8 engine concerning model years 2006 to 2013. The vehicles
exhibited excessive valve guide wear which led to engine failures
and inspections and repairs.

The Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in this matter on
October 14, 2015.

On March 16, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation to
continue the court's October 15, 2019 Scheduling Order in order to
permit mediation. The court issued an order modifying the schedule
on March 18, 2020, issuing new dates including a motion hearing
cut-off date of November 23, 2020, but not mentioning Civil Local
Rule 23-3, or any separate date for a class certification motion.

The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on August
27, 2020. Thereafter, on August 27, 2020, the Defendant filed its
Ex Parte application to strike Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and Plaintiffs' class allegations or, in the
alternative, to extend the Defendant's deadline to respond. Despite
the fact that the parties had previously requested that the
district court set a date certain for the filing of the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and the lack of clarity as to the
status of the 90-day requirement of Civil Local Rule 23-3, the
District Court issued a minute order on September 1, 2020, striking
the Plaintiffs' class allegations and motion for class
certification as being untimely.

The appellate case is captioned as WILLIAM D. PILGRIM, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs
and Petitioners v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant and Respondent,
Case No. 20-80129, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners WILLIAM D. PILGRIM, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com


GENERALI US: Young Sues Over Denial of Travel Insurance Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JO ELLEN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENERALI U.S. BRANCH, GENERALI GLOBAL ASSISTANCE, INC.,
AND CUSTOMIZED SERVICES ADMINISTRATORS, INC., D/B/A CSA TRAVEL
PROTECTION, Case No. 3:20-cv-01804-LAB-AHG (S.D. Cal., Sept. 14,
2020), arises from the Defendants' breach of contractual duty by
refusing to issue reimbursement for trip cancellations under the
terms of travel insurance policies the Defendants issued to the
Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have essentially
implemented a uniform approach categorically issuing denials to all
insureds who submit claims for losses due to trip cancellations
brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants have refused to
pay such claims under the policy, regardless of whether said
claimants submitted claims requesting indemnity for: (i) the
Maximum Limit(s) Per Person or Plan for Trip Cancellation per their
policies' Schedules of Benefits; (b) actual damages incurred due to
trip cancellations; or (c) the price of the premiums initially paid
by the insureds for Policies. Rather, the Defendants are pushing
insureds to accept, in lieu of any monetary reimbursement for their
claims, vouchers equal to the amounts paid by insureds for their
respective premiums.

The Plaintiff purchased a policy from the Defendants to insure
against complications, including cancellation, of a trip that she
and her husband planned to take to Ashland, Oregon, from June 10,
2020, to June 15, 2020, so that they could attend the Oregon
Shakespeare Festival.

Generali U.S. Branch is a Maryland corporation engages in the
business of issuing insurance policies that are underwritten by
Generali Group. Generali Global Assistance, Inc. does business
under the name Europ Assitance USA, Inc. in Idaho and Michigan.

Customized Services Administrators, Inc., operates as an insurance
broker with principal place of business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Law, Esq.
          COOPER & SCULLY, P.C.
          505 Sansome Street, Suite 1550
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-9700
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0274
          E-mail: alan.law@cooperscully.com


GENIUS BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Genius Brands International, Inc ("Genius Brands")
(NASDAQ: GNUS) between March 17, 2020 and July 5, 2020. You are
hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/genius-brands-international-inc-information-request-form?prid=9198&wire=5

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

According to the Genius Brands lawsuit defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding: (i) Nickelodeon's purported broadcast
expansion of Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; (ii) subscription
fees for the Kartoon Channel!; and (iii) the Company's growth
potential and overall prospects as a company.

If you suffered a loss in Genius Brands you have until October 19,
2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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

GENIUS BRANDS: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of the Genius Brands International,
Inc. (NASDAQ: GNUS) between March 17, 2020, and July 5, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 19, 2020,
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Genius Brands investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Genius Brands class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1929.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements regarding: (1) the Kartoon
Channel app; (2) Nickelodeon's claimed broadcast expansion of
Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; and (3) the Company's growth
potential and overall prospects as a company. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1929.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]

GOL LINHAS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of GOL Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A. (NYSE: GOL)
between March 14, 2019 and July 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for GOL investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the GOL class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1912.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) GOL had material weaknesses in its internal controls; (2)
there was substantial doubt as to the Company's ability to continue
to exist as a going concern because of negative net working capital
and net capital deficiency; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant time.. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
10, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1912.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200911005324/en/

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

GOL LINHAS: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Gol Linhas
Aereas Inteligentes S.A. ("Gol" or "the Company") (NYSE: GOL) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 14,
2019 and July 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 10, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Gol suffered from material weaknesses in
its internal controls. The Company's negative net working capital
and net capital deficiency created doubt over its ability to exist
as a going concern. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Gol,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

GRANITE SERVICES: Rodriguez Seeks OT Wages for Technical Advisors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Rodriguez, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
FIELDCORE SERVICES SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-02129-VMC-JSS
(M.D. Fla., Sept. 10, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor
Code, including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other
technical advisors overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 in a workweek.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have also failed to
provide meal and rest periods or provide compensation in lieu
thereof, to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements, and to pay all wages owed in a timely fashion at the
end of employment.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a technical advisor
in Arizona, California, Texas, and Argentina from April 2016 until
August 2019.

Granite Services International, Inc. is a provider of professional
engineering services located in Tampa, Florida. FieldCore Services
Solutions, LLC is a company that provides industrial field services
based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                   
   
         C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
         P.O. Box 4979
         Orlando, FL 32802-4979
         Telephone: (407) 420-1414
         Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
         E-mail: Rmorgan@forthepeople.com

                - and –

         Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
         Plantation, FL 33324
         Telephone: (954) 318-0268
         Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
         E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


HAYNES INVESTMENTS: Brice Bankruptcy Appeal Moved to E.D. Va.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The bankruptcy appeal styled Kimetra Brice, Earl Browne, and Jill
Novorot, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly
situated v. Kenneth Rees, L. Stephen Haynes, and Haynes
Investments, LLC, Adversary Case No. 1803313hdh, was transferred
from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
September 15, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Virginia assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-00732-JAG to the proceeding.

The case involves a rent-a-tribe enterprise that was established
with the intent of evading state usury laws, according to the
complaint. Prior to establishing the rent-a-tribe enterprise at
issue, Defendant Kenneth Rees and his company, Think Finance, LLC,
made millions of dollars through a rent-a-bank relationship with
First Bank of Delaware. After federal regulators shut down the
rent-a-bank arrangement, Think Finance, under the direction of
Rees, established a rent-a-tribe lending scheme with the Chippewa
Cree Tribe and Otoe-Missouria Tribe.

Mr. Rees is sued in his official capacity as the president and
chief executive officer of Think Finance, LLC and its subsidiaries.
The Company, along with six affiliates, sought Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 17-33964) on Oct. 23,
2017.

Haynes Investments, LLC, is a limited liability company with a
principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. Haynes Investment is
a private equity company focused on investments related to Native
American tribes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Silver, Esq.
          Anna Claire Haac, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVEREEI, LLP
          1828 L. Street, NW Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: asilver@tzlegal.com
                  ahaac@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Theodore Ohmstede Bartholow , III, Esq.
          KELLETT & BARTHOLOW
          11300 N. Central Expressway, Suite 301
          Dallas, TX 75243
          Telephone: (972) 739-5255
          E-mail: thad@kblawtx.com

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7576
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                  kkelly@kellyguzzo.com

               - and -

          Annick Marie Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVEREEI, LLP
          483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 254-6807
          Facsimile: (510) 210-0571
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Thad Bartholow, Esq.
          BARTHOLOW & BARTHOLOW PLLC
          11300 N. Central Expressway, Suite 301
          Dallas, TX 75243
          Telephone: (972) 739-5255
          E-mail: thad@kblawtx.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel R. Fong, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RITCHER AND HAMPTON, LLC
          4 Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 774-2923
          E-mail: dfong@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          David F. Herman, Esq.
          Richard L. Scheff, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP
          123 S. Broad Street, Avenue of the Arts
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 772-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 772-7620
          E-mail: dherman@mmwr.com
                  rscheff@mmwr.com

               - and -

          J. Joseph Acosta, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
          300 Crescent Court, Suite 400
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 981-9959
          Facsimile: (214) 853-5887
          E-mail: acosta.joseph@dorsey.com

               - and -

          John Mark Chevallier, Esq.
          MCGUIRE CRADDOCK & STROTHER
          500 N. Akard, Suite 2200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 954-6800
          Facsimile: (214) 954-6868
          E-mail: mchevallier@mcslaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Peter Boughrum, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          123 South Broad Street, Avenue of the Arts
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 772-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 772-7620
          E-mail: jboughrum@mmwr.com

               - and -

          Richard W. Engle , Jr.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 621-5070
          E-mail: reangel@armstrongteasdale.com


HQ RESOURCES: Misclassifies Employees to Deny OT Pay, Erdman Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRUDY ERDMAN, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. HQ RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01366-WSH (W.D.
Pa., Sept. 11, 2020), alleges that in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Defendant improperly misclassified the Plaintiff
and other employees as exempt from overtime pay.

As a result, despite routinely working in excess of 40 hours per
week as part of their regular job duties, the Plaintiff and those
similarly situated to her were denied overtime compensation at a
rate of time and a half of their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Software Trainer
from February 2018 to March 2018.

HQ Resources, Inc., is an IT staffing and consulting firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Tel: (954) 318-0268
          Fax: (954) 327-3016
          Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com

                - and –

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Tel: (407) 420-1414
          Fax: (407) 867-4791
          Emails: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
                  jpavlos@forthepeople.com


INNERWORKINGS INC: Defends HH Global Merger Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
InnerWorkings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on September 11, 2020,
that the company continues to defend putative class action suits
related to its merger with HH Global Group Limited.

On July 15, 2020, InnerWorkings, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and among HH
Global Group Limited, a company registered in England and Wales
("Parent"), HH Global Finance Limited, a company registered in
England and Wales ("HH Finance") and Project Idaho Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent
("Sub"), and the Company (as amended from time to time, the "Merger
Agreement"). The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things,
Sub to merge with and into the Company, causing the Company to
become a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger").

Lawsuits relating to the merger were filed on August 14, 2020 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, August 17, 2020 in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, August 20, 2020 in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, August 25, 2020 in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, August 26, 2020
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York and September 4, 2020 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuits, filed by
purported stockholders of the Company, are captioned Bollur v.
InnerWorkings, Inc., et. al., No. 1:20-cv-06452, filed as an
individual action (the "Bollur Lawsuit"), Khan v. InnerWorkings,
Inc., et. al., No. 653867/2020, filed as a putative class action on
behalf of the stockholders of the Company (the "Khan Lawsuit"), Lee
v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et. al., No. 1:20-cv-03812, filed as an
individual action (the "Lee Lawsuit"), Stein v. InnerWorkings,
Inc., et. al., No. 1:20-cv-01095-UNA, filed as an individual action
(the "Stein Lawsuit"), Franchi v. InnerWorkings, Inc., et. al., No.
1:20-cv-01114-UNA, filed as a putative class action on behalf of
the stockholders of the Company (the "Franchi Lawsuit"), Hinden v.
InnerWorkings, Inc., et. al., No. 1:20-cv-06892, filed as an
individual action (the "Hinden Lawsuit") and Altamirano v.
InnerWorkings, Inc., et. al., No. 1:20-cv-07268, filed as an
individual action (the "Altamirano Lawsuit").

The Bollur, Lee, Stein, Franchi, Hinden and Altamirano Lawsuits
allege that the preliminary proxy statement filed on August 10,
2020 (or, in the case of the Franchi, Hinden and Altamirano
Lawsuits, the definitive proxy statement filed on August 21, 2020),
relating to the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement,
omitted material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and certain rules promulgated thereunder.


The Khan Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger.

The lawsuits name as defendants the Company and its directors and
seek, among other relief, injunctive relief.

There can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these
lawsuits.

The Company believes that the claims asserted by the plaintiffs are
without merit. However, in order to moot the plaintiffs'
unmeritorious disclosure claims, alleviate the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide additional
information to its stockholders, the Company has determined to
voluntarily supplement the definitive proxy statement filed on
August 21, 2020 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement"); plaintiffs
agree that the supplemental disclosures moot their claims and have
agreed to withdraw their complaints and demands.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/2FCfCIU.

InnerWorkings, Inc. provides marketing execution solutions in the
United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, continental Europe, the
Middle East, Africa, Asia, Mexico, Central America, and South
America. The company was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.


INSPERITY INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 21, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of Insperity, Inc.
("Insperity" or the "Company") (NYSE: NSP) common stock between
February 11, 2019, and February 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

On February 11, 2020, after the market closed, Insperity issued a
press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2019
financial results. Therein, Insperity disclosed that "[t]he average
profit per [worksite employee] per month declined from $272 in 2018
to $259 in 2019 on a higher than expected benefits cost trend due
to elevated large healthcare claim activity." Additionally, the
Company reported that it had "recently added a new feature" in its
health plan so that, beginning in 2020, Insperity will not have
financial responsibility for any amount of a participant's annual
claim costs that exceed $1 million.

On this news, Insperity's share price fell $17.44 per share, or
over 19%, to close at $71.64 per share on February 12, 2020, at
unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that 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; (2)
that Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical
claims; (3) that 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 (4)
that the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would,
materially impact Insperity's financial results.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Insperity common stock
during the class period, you may move the Court no later than
September 21, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]

INTEL CORP: Plumbers Pension Trust Sues Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 60 PENSION TRUST, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. INTEL CORPORATION,
ROBERT H. SWAN and GEORGE S. DAVIS, Case No. 5:20-cv-06467 (N.D.
Cal., Sept. 15, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.

The lawsuit is a securities fraud class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded stock of Intel between January 24,
2020, and July 23, 2020, inclusive.

According to the complaint, the Defendants misrepresented the
Company's business and financial condition by issuing false and
misleading statements, which began on January 24, 2020, regarding
the Company's financial performance, and particularly the
performance and production status of its 10nm products and new
generation 7nm products. On June 11, 2020, the Company announced
the abrupt resignation of Jim Keller as senior vice president to
lead the Company's Silicon Engineering Group. Notwithstanding, the
Defendants Davis and Swan continued to reassure the market that 7
nanometer development remained on track to debut in 2021.

However, on July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel issued a
press release announcing its second quarter 2020 financial results.
Despite impressive revenue and earnings results, the Company
shocked investors by announcing in its subsequent earnings call
that it had "identified a defect mode in our seven-nanometer
process that resulted in yield degradation," and that, as a result,
the production and development of its 7nm chips was 12 months
behind schedule, the suit says. The release also noted that the
Company was further accelerating its transition to 10nm products.

On this news, the Company's share price declined approximately 16%
to close at $50.59 per share on July 24, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume of over 182 million shares. And on July 27, 2020,
the Company announced the abrupt departure of Dr. Murthy
Renduchintala, its chief engineering officer, and Intel's stock
price declined from a close of $50.59 per share on July 24, 2020 to
a close of $49.57 per share on July 27, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume of 107 million shares.

Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and
technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in
Silicon Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
          A. Chowning Poppler, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermantabacco.com
                  nlavallee@bermantabacco.com
                  cpoppler@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

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


INTER CONNECTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Mota Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN MOTA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. INTER CONNECTION ELECTRIC, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07530
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated electricians overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, to
pay them the proper prevailing wage and supplemental benefits rate
for all hours worked, failing to provide annual wage notices, and
to provide them accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a construction
worker from February to October 2019. He performed electrical work
at a long-term public project located at the Brooklyn Navy Yard in
New York City.

Inter Connection Electric, Inc. is an electrical contractor with
its primary office located at 209 Granite Avenue, in Staten Island,
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       

         Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
         BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP
         80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (212) 509-1616


KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Spack and Roper Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaspien Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 15, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2020, that a settlement has been
reached in the consolidated "Spack" and "Roper" class action suit.

The company said that there are two pending class actions.  The
first, Spack v. Trans World Entertainment Corp. was originally
filed in the District of New Jersey, April 2017 (the "Spack
Action").  

The Spack Action alleges that the Company misclassified Store
Managers ("SMs") as exempt nationwide. It also alleges that Trans
World improperly calculated overtime for Senior Assistant Managers
("SAMs") nationwide, and that both SMs and SAMs worked
"off-the-clock."

It also alleges violations of New Jersey and Pennsylvania State Law
with respect to calculating overtime for SAMs.  

The second, Roper v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., was filed in
the Northern District of New York, August 2017 (the "Roper
Action").  

The Roper Action also asserts a nationwide misclassification claim
on behalf of SMs.  Both actions were consolidated into the Northern
District of New York, with the Spack Action being the lead case.

The Company has reached a settlement with the plaintiffs for both
store manager class actions.  

The Company reserved $425,000 for the settlement as of August 1,
2020.

Kaspien Holdings Inc. provides marketing solutions. The Company
offers digital marketing, review generation, paid social campaigns,
inventory management, supply chain support, brand control, and
creative services. Kaspien Holdings serves customers worldwide.


KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Suit Over Magazine Subscriptions Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaspien Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 15, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a punitive class action suit in Massachusetts state court
related to VIP Backstage Pass Memberships and/or magazine
subscriptions.  

On November 14, 2018, three consumers filed a punitive class action
complaint against the Company and Synapse Group, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston
Division (Case No.1:18-cv-12377-DPW) concerning enrollment in the
Company's Backstage Pass VIP loyalty program and associated
magazine subscriptions.  

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's
"negative option marketing" misled consumers into enrolling for
membership and subscriptions without obtaining the consumers'
consent.

The complaint sought to represent a nationwide class of "all
persons in the United States" who were enrolled in and/or charged
for Backstage Pass VIP memberships and/or magazine subscriptions,
and to obtain statutory and actual damages on their behalf.

On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
lawsuit.  

On May 8, 2019, two of the plaintiffs from the dismissed lawsuit
filed a similar punitive class action in Massachusetts state court
(Civ. Act. No. 197CV00331, Mass. Super. Ct. Hampden Cty.), based on
the same allegations, but this time seeking to represent only a
class of "FYE customers in Massachusetts" who were charged for VIP
Backstage Pass Memberships and/or magazine subscriptions.  

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs'
claims and, if the new case is not dismissed in full, the Company
intends to vigorously defend the action.

Kaspien Holdings Inc. provides marketing solutions. The Company
offers digital marketing, review generation, paid social campaigns,
inventory management, supply chain support, brand control, and
creative services. Kaspien Holdings serves customers worldwide.


LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Oregon on behalf of investors that purchased LexinFintech Holdings,
Ltd. ( LX) securities between April 30, 2019 and August 4, 2020
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 9, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

On August 25, 2020, Grizzly Research published a report describing,
among other things, how the Company: (i) reports artificially low
delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make
payments; (ii) has a business model that exposes shareholders to
enormous losses; (iii) was still conducting direct peer to peer
lending despite claiming otherwise, (iv) lacked internal controls;
and (v) conducted undisclosed related party transactions.

On this news, shares of LexinFintech stock fell $0.47 per share or
5.52% to close at $8.04 per share on August 25, 2020

The complaint, filed on September 9, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) LexinFintech reported
artificially low delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default
new funds to make payments; (2) the Company's business model
exposes shareholders to enormous losses by prioritizing Chinese
lenders for off-balance sheet loans; (3) the Company exaggerated
its user base; (4) the Company was facilitating direct peer to peer
lending contrary to Chinese law; (5) the Company engaged in
undisclosed related party transactions; (6) the Company lacked
adequate internal controls; and (7) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

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

              About Bragar Eagel

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

LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against LexinFintech
Holdings Ltd. ("LexinFintech" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: LX) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 30,
2019 and August 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 9, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. LexinFintech engaged in a scheme to
report an artificially low delinquency rate by giving borrowers in
danger of default funds to make payments. The Company prioritized
Chinese lenders for certain transactions, exposing shareholders to
huge risk. The Company exaggerated its user base and helped its
actual users to engage in peer to peer lending contrary to local
laws. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were
false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When
the market learned the truth about LexinFintech, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

LITHIA MOTORS: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Texts, Munns Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
AJIA MUNNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LITHIA MOTORS, INC., DBA MERCEDES-BENZ OF LOS ANGELES,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-08413 (D.S.C.,
Sept. 14, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent text messages on the
cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and Class members in an effort
to sell or solicit its services using an automatic telephone
dialing system without prior express consent.

As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members were harmed in at least the following ways: (1) incurred
certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they had
previously paid by having to retrieve or administer messages left
by the Defendant and (2) invasion of their privacy.

Lithia Motors, Inc., d/b/a Mercedes-Benz of Los Angeles, is an
automotive retailer based in Medford, Oregon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:       
            
         Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
         Meghan E. George, 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
                 mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Bowens PMWA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as DARRYL BOWENS and JASON MARTIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOWE'S COMPANIES,
INC. and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 200401292, was removed
from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on September 1, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-00136 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated managers overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Lowe's Companies, Inc., owns and operates home improvement retail
stores in Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business
located at 1000 Lowe's Boulevard, in Mooresville, North Carolina.
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, owns and operates home improvement retail
stores in Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business
located in Mooresville.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:             
  
         Christopher J. Moran, Esq.
         TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
         3000 Two Logan Square
         Eighteenth and Arch Streets
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
         Telephone: (215) 981-4169

                - and –

         Jason C. Schwartz, Esq.
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
         1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
         Washington, DC 20036
         Telephone: (202) 955-8500


MAJESTIC AUTO: Car Wash Attendants Seek Reimbursements, OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Martinez and Jose R. Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. E&D Ultimate Car
Wash and Detail Ce, Diana Long and Ed Long, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-04063 (E.D. N.Y. Sup., September 1, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours
compensation, reimbursement for business expenses and damages
arising from breach of contract, plus interest, attorneys' fees and
costs under New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate as "Majestic Auto Spa," a car wash located in
Nassau County, New York. Luis Martinez and Jose R. Ruiz worked as
car wash attendants and car detailers for E&D from 2012 to August
13, 2020 and from June 2014 to June 7, 2020, respectively. Both
worked more than 40 hours per week during their employment but were
not paid the overtime premium. They claim that they were not
reimbursed for costs of uniforms and uniform laundering and
maintenance.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      LIPSKY LOWE LLP
      630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
      New York, NY 10017-6705
      Tel: (212) 392-4772
      Fax: (212) 444-1030
      Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
             milana@lipskylowe.com


MEI PHARMA: Defends Gold & Drazba Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
MEI Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that the company is a named
defendant in a putative class action suit initiated by Daniel P.
Gold, and Brian G. Drazba.

On August 10, 2020, an individual who allegedly purchased 50 shares
of the company's common stock filed a putative securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company, Daniel P. Gold, and
Brian G. Drazba, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The plaintiff seeks to sue on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's securities from August 2, 2017 through July 1, 2020 and
alleges, among other things, that the company made false and
misleading statements relating to pracinostat during the proposed
class period.

MEI said, "We believe that the claims are without merit, as to both
the facts and the law, and intend to vigorously defend the case. At
this stage, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this
case or whether it will result in any loss. Accordingly, the
Company has not accrued an amount for any potential loss associated
with this action."

MEI Pharma, Inc. is an oncology company focused on the clinical
development of novel therapeutics targeting cancer metabolism. The
Company's lead drug candidates have been shown in laboratory
studies to interact with specific enzyme targets resulting in
inhibition of tumor cell metabolism, a function critical for cancer
cell survival. The company is based in San Diego, California.


MICHIGAN: Court Denies Bid to Stay Ackerman MDOC Prisoners Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD ACKERMAN and MARK SHAYKIN, Plaintiffs, v. HEIDI
WASHINGTON, Defendant, Civil Case No. 13-14137 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, Southern Division, denied the Defendant's Motion to
Stay Pending Appeal or, in the Alternative, for a Sixty-Day Stay;
and denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike.

The Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit on Sept. 27, 2013,
asserting that the vegan diet they receive as Michigan Department
of Corrections ("MDOC") prisoners approved for a religious (kosher)
diet violates their First Amendment rights and their rights under
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
("RLUIPA").  The Plaintiffs claim that their sincere religious
beliefs require them to consume kosher meat and dairy on the
Sabbath and four Jewish holidays, and that the vegan diet is not
kosher due to cross-contamination.

The parties settled the Plaintiffs' "cross-contamination claim" and
the Court entered a final order approving the settlement on Jan.
29, 2020.  The Plaintiffs' "meat and dairy claim" proceeded to a
trial before the Court.  On Jan. 30, 2020, the Court entered a
decision finding in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the
Defendant on that claim.  A Judgment was entered Feb. 27, 2020.

The Defendant thereafter filed a notice of appeal, and now seeks an
order staying the Court's decision on the meat and dairy claim
pending appeal.  If the Court declines to issue a stay pending
appeal, the Defendant alternatively requests a 60-day stay in light
of the global novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.  In support of
the latter request, the Defendant offers the affidavit of the
director of MDOC's Food Service Management and Support Team, Kevin
J. Weissenborn.

The Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the Defendant's motion,
as well as a motion to strike Mr. Weissenborn's affidavit.  The
Defendant subsequently filed a notice withdrawing its request for a
60-day stay, rendering Mr. Weissenborn's affidavit immaterial and
therefore mooting the Plaintiffs' motion to strike it.

Judge Parker finds little need to address the Defendant's repeated
argument that the decision on the Plaintiffs' meat and dairy claim
opens the door for requests from inmates of other religious faiths.
The Judge is not persuaded by the decisions from outside the
Circuit that the Defendant cites when arguing that the denial of
religious meals is consistent with the compelling governmental
interest in expending limited resources prudently.  Such a blanket
statement is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's and Sixth
Circuit's case-by-case analysis of RLUIPA claims, weighing the
specific burden on the Plaintiff(s) against the demonstrated impact
on the government's interest(s).  For these reasons, the Defendant
fails to show more than the mere possibility' of success on the
merits on appeal.

The Defendant acknowledges that costs alone cannot constitute
irreparable harm.  It therefore argues that MDOC will also have to
roll out new guidelines for implementing the meals, allocate
separate spaces for storing kosher meat, and new training on how to
serve the foods.  These simply describe injuries in terms of money,
time and energy, however.  In any event, while the appeal is
pending, MDOC can avoid these injuries by obtaining prepackaged
kosher meat entrees from an outside vendor.  The Defendant also
relies again on the flood gates that will open if it provides
specific meal requests.  As already indicated, however, the
asserted harm is unpersuasive.

The Defendant maintains that the Plaintiffs will not be
substantially injured by a stay as they are receiving kosher vegan
meals that comply with their religious and nutritional requirements
on a daily basis.  First, the Court already has found that MDOC's
kosher vegan meals do not satisfy the Plaintiffs' religious
requirements, as they do not allow them to consume meat and dairy
on the Sabbath and four religious holidays.  Second, the Court also
has already found that even if Class members could afford the
kosher meat and dairy items from the commissary, that would not
satisfy their religious beliefs because the items do not constitute
a "meal" and cannot be consumed in the chow hall.  Thus, the harm a
stay poses to the Plaintiffs and the Class is that they will
continue to be precluded from exercising their sincerely held
religious beliefs.  The Judge cannot find this harm to be
"slight."

Finally, the Defendant maintains that any time taxpayer's dollars
are allocated, the public interest favors avoiding unnecessary
expenditures.  The Judge holds that the Defendant's argument is too
vague, however, to evaluate whether the injury is substantial,
likely, or avoidable.  In any event, there is the opposing argument
that it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation
of a party's constitutional rights.  The Sixth Circuit has
repeatedly found that the public as a whole has a significant
interest in protection of First Amendment liberties.

In short, Judge Parker finds that the relevant factors weigh in
favor of denying the Defendant's request for a stay pending appeal.
Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendant's Motion to Stay
Pending Appeal or, in the Alternative, for a Sixty-Day Stay; and
denied as moo the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://bit.ly/330fkEy from Leagle.com.


MV TRANSPORTATION: Bailey BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as RENITA L. BAILEY, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated individuals v. MV
TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 2020CH05336, was removed from the
Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on September 11, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-05375 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to inform the
Plaintiff and Class members in writing that their biometrics were
being collected and stored, prior to such collection or storage;
failing to inform them in writing the specific purpose and length
of term for which their biometrics were being captured, collected,
stored, and used; and selling, leasing, trading, or otherwise
profiting from their biometric information.

MV Transportation, Inc., is a privately-owned passenger
transportation contracting services firm based in Dallas,
Texas.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                           
      
         Patricia J. Martin, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: (314) 659-2000
         E-mail: pmartin@littler.com

                - and –

         Jennifer L. Jones, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         321 North Clark Street, Suite 1000
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 372-5520
         E-mail: jeljones@littler.com


NESTLE USA: Court Denies Special Bid to Strike in Walker Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RENEE WALKER, Plaintiff, v. NESTLE USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-723-L-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James
Loranz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied the Defendant's special motion to strike.

The putative consumer class action alleges deceptive product
labeling.  According to the operative complaint, the Defendant is
one of the largest food and beverage companies in the world and
purchases approximately 414,000 tons of cocoa annually.  The
Plaintiff claims that the statements on the Defendant's chocolate
product packaging are deceptive because they falsely lead consumers
to believe that the products were produced in accordance with
environmentally and socially responsible standards, when they were
not.  This includes references to the "Nestle Cocoa Plan," "UTZ
Certified" and "Sustainably Sourced," and representations that
Defendant "Supports farmers" and "helps improve the lives of cocoa
farmers."

The Plaintiff alleges she purchased the Defendant's chocolate
products in reliance on the social and environmental benefits
prominently featured on the packaging and would not have purchased
them had she known they were false.  According to her, the labels
are deceptive because the Defendant sources its cocoa from West
African cocoa plantations which rely on child labor and child slave
labor, and which contribute to deforestation and use other
practices harmful to the environment.

The Plaintiff alleges violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law, on her own behalf as
well as on behalf of a putative nationwide class.  Plaintiff seeks
damages and injunctive relief.  On behalf of the putative class she
also seeks monetary relief in the form of restitution and
disgorgement, as well as injunctive relief.

The Defendant moves for dismissal pursuant to California Civil
Procedure Code Secion 425.16 ("Anti-SLAPP Law").  The Defendant
contends that the statements on its Nestle Cocoa Plan website
regarding efforts to combat child and slave labor in West Africa
and reduce the negative effect of cocoa farming on the environment
bring it into the scope of the Anti-SLAPP statute, because they
concern an issue of public interest.  It further claims that the
statements on product labels are "inextricably intertwined" with
the website content because they reference the website.

The Plaintiff counters that the Defendant cannot make the threshold
showing under the Anti-SLAPP Law because the operative complaint is
not challenging the content of its website but only the deceptive
statements on product labels.  In addition, she contends that the
statements are expressly exempt from the Anti-SLAPP Law by the
commercial speech exemption.

Judge Loranz finds that it is undisputed that the Defendant is
engaged primarily in the business of selling goods.  The statements
on its chocolate product labels include factual representations
regarding the products and the Defendant's business operations as
they relate to cocoa farming and its effect on the environment.
The prominent placement of the statements on the product labels
shows that the statements were made for the purpose of promoting or
securing sales of the products to potential buyers.  Accordingly,
Plaintiff's deceptive advertising claims fall within the commercial
speech exemption.

The Defendant nevertheless contends that the reference to the
Nestle Cocoa Plan website on the product labels makes the content
of the website inextricably intertwined with the product labels.
The statement is presented below the "Nestle Cocoa Plan" logo.

Judge Loranz holds that the Defendant's argument that the content
of its website is inextricably intertwined with the statements on
the product label is unpersuasive for three reasons.  First, the
gravamen of the Plaintiff's false advertising claims is the
contention that the product labels display deceptive statements.
Second, the discussion of the Defendant's website in the complaint
provides extensive context and evidentiary support to the
Plaintiff's claims.  Finally, the reference to the website is
included on the product label solely as a web address and
immediately following statements intended to promote sales, thus
demonstrating that the purpose of the website reference was the
same -- to promote sales, as required by Section 425.17(c).

The Defendant's reliance on Kronemyer v. Internet Movie Database,
Inc., is unavailing.  Kronemyer is distinguishable because the
Court found that the defendant's speech was not directed at sales,
but was informative in nature, and was therefore not commercial
speech at all.

Similarly, the Defendant's reliance on DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical
Co. v. Super. Ct. (Newman), is unpersuasive.  DuPont predates the
commercial speech exemption, which was enacted in 2003, as well as
Kasky v. Nike, Inc., which defined the legal standard for
commercial speech in the context of false advertising.

The Defendant's inclusion of a web address on its product label
therefore does not entitle its advertising statements to
constitutional protection under the Anti-SLAPP Law.

Judge Loranz finds Section 425.16 does not apply to the Plaintiffs'
claims because they are exempt by Section 425.17(c).  Accordingly,
the judge need not consider the issues whether the Plaintiff's
claims are also exempt by Section 425.17(b), and whether the
parties met their respective burdens under Section 425.16(b)(1).
The Judge denied the Defendant's motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 16, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/363ICEf from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK: Educ. Board Files 10 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed 10 appeals from the District Court's rulings
in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-800;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-803;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-807;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-808;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-809;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-810;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-811;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-813;

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-814; and

   -- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al.,
      Case No. 20-816.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Carlos Becerril, Celeste Alvarez, Georgina
Feliz, Luretha Lassiter, Karen Mensah, Lydia Roman, Millicent Eke,
Cynthia Alvarado, Mercedes Done and Clarence McNatt are represented
by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500

               - or -

          Claude S. Platton, Esq.
          ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500
          E-mail: cplatton@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Reardon Sues Over Denial of Overtime Pay and Promotion
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD REARDON v. NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT and CITY OF NEW
YORK, Case No. 1:20-cv-04290 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2020), is brought
on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
arising from the Defendants' violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was subjected to the
Defendants' unlawful labor policies when the Defendants restricted
his ability to earn overtime pay and to get promoted from fire
lieutenant to fire captain after he was deemed disabled and was put
on a light duty status due to his thyroid cancer. The Plaintiff was
forced to retire as a result of the discrimination and retaliation
he faced.

The Plaintiff seeks to be compensated for the Defendants' unlawful
actions, and to protect all disabled firefighters currently working
in a light duty or modified duty status, to ensure that they are
afforded overtime pay and promotions by the Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Bartels, Esq.
          Jonathan Bell, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 280-3008
          Facsimile: (516) 706-4692
          E-mail: paul@belllg.com
                  jb@belllg.com


NIKOLA CORPORATION: Portnoy Law Investigates for Securities Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA) investors that the firm has initiated an
investigation into possible securities fraud, and may file a class
action on behalf of investors.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 310-692-8883 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, or join the case via www.portnoylaw.com. The
Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and
discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their
losses.

On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research, an investment analyst,
issued a report on Nikola Corporation entitled "Nikola: How to
Parlay An Ocean of Lies Into a Partnership With the Largest Auto
OEM in America[.]" It is alleged in the Hindenburg report that
Nikola "is an intricate fraud built on dozens of lies . . ." It is
also alleged in this report, among other things, that Nikola claims
to "design[] all key components in house, but they appear to simply
be buying or licensing them from third-parties . . . [W]e found
that Nikola actually buys inverters from a company called Cascadia.
In a video showing off its 'in-house' inverters, Nikola concealed
the Cascadia label with a piece of masking tape." It is further
asserted by Hindenburg that investors were misled by Nikola with
regard to its battery and hydrogen fuel cell claims, as well as its
purported "multi-billion-dollar order book," which Hindenburg
asserts is "filled with fluff."

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

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

         Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
         Admitted CA and NY Bar
         E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com [GN]

ONESPAN INC: Almendariz Suit Balks at 40% Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH ALMENDARIZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ONESPAN INC.; SCOTT CLEMENTS; and MARK S.
HOYT, Case No. 1:20-cv-04906 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 20, 2020), seeks to
recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as a result of the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities.

The putative class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and those who acquired OneSpan securities between May 9,
2018, and August 11, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) OneSpan
had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal
control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, OneSpan
overstated its revenue relating to certain contracts with customers
involving software licenses in its financial statements spread out
over the quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the first
quarter of 2020; (iii) as a result, it was foreseeably likely that
the Company would eventually have to delay one or more scheduled
earnings releases, conference calls, and/or financial filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission; (iv) OneSpan downplayed the
negative impacts of errors in its financial statements; (v) all the
foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Company's financial results and reputation;
and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 4, 2020, during pre-market hours, OneSpan postponed its
second quarter 2020 earnings release and conference call by one
week, attributing the delay to prior period revenue recognition
problems relating to certain software license contracts spread out
over the quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the first
quarter of 2020. OneSpan further stated that "[t]he net contract
assets that originated from a portion of these contracts in prior
periods were not properly accounted for in subsequent periods,
which caused overstatements of revenue."

On this news, OneSpan's common share price fell $0.46 per share, or
1.40%, to close at $32.50 per share on August 4, 2020.

On August 11, 2020, during after-market hours, OneSpan disclosed
that it would not timely file its quarterly report for the quarter
ended June 30, 2020, with the SEC; reported that same quarter
year-over-year revenues had declined; and withdrew its full year
2020 earnings guidance, which the Company had affirmed one quarter
earlier.

On this news, OneSpan's common share price fell $12.36 per share,
or 39.62%, to close at $18.84 per share on August 12, 2020.

OneSpan Inc. provides software services. The Company designs and
develops security software and e-signature solutions that protect
devices and financial transactions from fraud and misuse. OneSpan
delivers risk analytics, mobile security, and authentication
services. OneSpan serves clients worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          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
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


ONESPAN INC: Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of OneSpan Inc. (NASDAQ: OSPN) between May 9, 2018 and
August 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for OneSpan investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the OneSpan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1937.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) OneSpan had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures
and internal control over financial reporting; (2) as a result,
OneSpan overstated its revenue relating to certain contracts with
customers involving software licenses in its financial statements
spread out over the quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the
first quarter of 2020; (3) as a result, it was foreseeably likely
that the Company would eventually have to delay one or more
scheduled earnings releases, conference calls, and/or financial
filings with the SEC; (4) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts
of errors in its financial statements; (5) all the foregoing, once
revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact
on the Company's financial results and reputation; and (6) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1937.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]

OPLA INC: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Urena-Taswell Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR URENA-TASWELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. OPLA, INC. D/B/A OLIVE & PIQUE; OLIVE &
PIQUE, INC.; CHARLES KIM; PRISCILLA LEE; ANN LEE; and JOHN LEE,
Case No. 20STCV31735 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 20,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest
periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary
business expenses.

Plaintiff Urena-Taswell was employed by the Defendants as sales
associate.

Opla, Inc., d/b/a Olive & Pique, distributes caps, cowboy hats,
headwraps, beanies and fedoras.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Charles L. Fanning IV, Esq.
            THE FANNING LAW FIRM APC
            501 W. Broadway, Suite 800
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 400-4887
            E-mail: cfanning@fanning.law


ORACLE CORP: Motion to Dismiss Stockholder Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion to dismiss a stockholder class action remains
pending, Oracle Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended August 31, 2020.  The defendants' motion to dismiss was
scheduled to be heard on September 24, 2020.

On August 10, 2018, a putative class action, brought by an alleged
stockholder of Oracle, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company, its Chief
Technology Officer, its then-two Chief Executive Officers, two
other Oracle executives, and one former Oracle executive.

Mr. Mark Hurd, one of the company's then-two Chief Executive
Officers, passed away on October 18, 2019. On March 8, 2019,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants made or are responsible for
false and misleading statements regarding Oracle's cloud business.
Plaintiff further alleges that the former Oracle executive engaged
in insider trading.

Plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class
action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
unspecified declaratory/injunctive relief. On April 19, 2019,
defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint.

On December 17, 2019, the court granted this motion, giving
plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint, which
plaintiff filed on February 17, 2020.

On April 23, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is
scheduled for hearing on September 24, 2020.

Oracle said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses against
this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it."

Oracle Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts,
and supports application, platform, and infrastructure solutions
for information technology (IT) environments worldwide. The company
provides services in three layers of the cloud: Software as a
Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service.
The company was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Redwood
City, California.


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Purdy Sues Over FCRA Breach
---------------------------------------------
Sandra Purdy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01077, (D. Del., August 18, 2020), seeks
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Defendant is a law firm in Wilmington, Delware who attempted to
collect an alleged debt owed by Purdy to Capital One N.A. via
collection letter. Purdy alleges that Phillips & Cohen confused and
misled her by stating that notification of a dispute must be in
writing and failed to provide her with the statutory information
she was entitled to--the statutory right to dispute a debt orally.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Antranig Garibian, Esq.
      GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
      Philadelphia PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 326-9179
      Email: ag@garibianlaw.com

             - and -

      Ari Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
      701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
      Asbury Park, NJ 07712
      Tel: (732) 695-3282
      Fax: (732) 298-6256
      Email: Ari@marcuszelman.com


PHYSICIANS FOR HEALTHY: Calderon Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JUAN CALDERON, on behalf of all others
similarly aggrieved v. PHYSICIANS FOR HEALTHY HOSPITALS, INC.;
PETER BARONOFF; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. MCC2001482, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on September 11, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-01875 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Private Attorneys General Act, including failure to
provide required meal and rest periods or provide premiums in lieu
thereof, failure to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek, failure to provide itemized wage
statements, failure to provide accurate and complete payroll
records, and failure to pay all wages earned at the time of
discharge.

Physicians for Healthy Hospitals, Inc., is a healthcare services
company that operates and owns hospitals, with its principal place
of business located in Riverside County, California.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                           
      
         David E. Amaya, Esq.
         Jason A. Fischbein, Esq.
         Brittany M. Wunderlich, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
         San Diego, CA 92121
         Telephone: (858)597-9600
         Facsimile: (858)597-9601
         E-mail: damaya@fisherphillips.com
                 jfischbein@fisherphillips.com
                 bwunderlich@fisherphillips.com


PORTLAND GENERAL: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Portland General Electric Company ("PGE" or the "Company") (NYSE:
POR) between April 24, 2020 and August 24, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Oregon alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose:(1) that PGE lacked effective internal controls over its
energy trading practices; (2) that PGE personnel had entered energy
trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the
second quarter and into the third quarter, that created significant
negative financial exposure for PGE; (3) that, as a result, the
Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 24, 2020, after the market closed, PGE announced that it
had incurred losses of $127 million as of August 24, 2020. PGE
further stated that personnel entered into a number of energy
trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the
second quarter and into the third quarter, resulting in significant
exposure to the Company. In addition, the Company announced that it
had formed a special committee to review the energy trading that
led to the losses and the Company's procedures and controls related
to the trading.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.51, or nearly 8%,
to close at $38.45 per share on August 24, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 2, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Portland General Electric Company securities,
and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please
visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/portlandgeneralelectriccompany-por-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-303/apply/
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C)2020

Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New
York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for
this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin.
Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with
respect to any future matter.


       Matthew E. Guarnero
       Bernstein Liebhard LLP
       Tel No: (877) 779-1414
       E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]

PROGENITY INC: Faces Brickman Suit Over Drop in IPO Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BRICKMAN INVESTMENTS INC., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PROGENITY, INC., HARRY STYLLI,
ERIC D'ESPARBES, JEFFREY ALTER, JOHN BIGALKE, JEFFREY FERRELL,
BRIAN L. KOTZIN, SAMUEL NUSSBAUM, LYNNE POWELL, PIPER SANDLER &
CO., WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO.
INCORPORATED, RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC. and BTIG, LLC, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01795 (S.D. Cal., Sept. 11, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Plaintiff, who has purchased Progenity common stock, alleges
that the Progenity's Registration Statement issued by its certain
officers and directors, and underwriters on June 22, 2020, in
connection with its initial public offering (IPO), contained untrue
and misleading statements, as well as omitted material facts, which
resulted to the Progenity's common stock price decline within two
months of the IPO.

The Defendants allegedly failed to disclose in its registration
statement the following material facts: Progenity has overbilled
government payors by $10.3 millon in 2019 and early 2020 resulting
in materially overstated revenues, earnings and cash flows from
operations; Progenity would need to refund this overpayment in the
second quarter of 2020, adversely impacting its quarterly results;
and Progenity was suffering from accelerating negative trends in
the second quarter of 2020 with respect to Progenity's testing
volumes, revenues, and product pricing.

Progenity is a biotechnology company that specializes in developing
and commercializing molecular testing products and precision
medicine applications. Harry Stylli served as Progenity's Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) and Chairman of the Progenity Board of
Directors. Eric d'Esparbes served as Progenity Chief Financial
Officer (CFO). Jeffrey D. Alter, John T. Bigalke, Jeffrey A.
Ferrel, Brian L. Kotzin, Samuel R. Nussbaum, and Lynne Powell
served as members of the Board Piper Sandler & Co. Piper Sandler &
Co. and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC served as joint book-running
managers and underwriters of Progenity. Robert W. Baird & Co.
Incorporated, Raymond James & Associates, Inc. and BTIG, LLC served
as underwriters of Progenity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian D. Berg, Esq.
          Takeo A. Kellar, Esq.
          ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Tel: (858) 764-2580
          Fax: (858) 764-2582
          Email: IBerg@aftlaw.com
                 TKellar@aftlaw.com


PROSHARES ULTRA: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against ProShares
Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil ("UCO" or "the Fund") (NYSE Arca:UCO) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 6,
2020 and April 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 28, 2020.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. UCO experienced huge market volatility
caused by dampened demand for oil due to the coronavirus pandemic
and both increased supply and decreased prices caused by the
Russia/Saudi oil price war. A massive influx of investor funds
heightened a number of problems for the Fund, causing it to
approach positional and regulatory limits. Combined with other
issues, this meant UCO could no longer pursue its passive
investment strategy as represented in the Fund's Registration
Statement. Based on these facts, the Fund's public statements were
false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth
about UCO, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

RCN TELECOM: Reid Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as CHRISTIAN REID, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RCN TELECOM SERVICES, LLC; PATRIOT
MEDIA CONSULTING, LLC; RCN ISP, LLC; RCN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION;
RCN CAPITAL CORP.; RCN TELECOM SERVICES (LEHIGH), LLC; RCN TELECOM
SERVICES OF NEW YORK, L.P.; RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF PHILADELPHIA,
LLC; RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF ILLINOIS, LLC; and RCN TELECOM
SERVICES OF MASSACHUSETTS, LLC, Case No. MERL-1432-20, was removed
from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on September 11,
2020.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-12571 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer
Contract by improperly charging their Internet customers a late fee
of $15 on their bill.

RCN Telecom Services, LLC, is a telecommunication services company
based in Princeton, New Jersey. Patriot Media Consulting, LLC is a
telecommunication services company with its principal place of
business in Princeton, New Jersey. RCN ISP, LLC is an Internet
service provider with its principal place of business in Princeton,
New Jersey.

RCN Management Corporation is a telecommunication services firm
with its principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey. RCN
Capital Corp. is a telecommunication services provider with its
principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey. RCN Telecom
Services (Lehigh), LLC is a telecommunication services company with
its principal place of business in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. RCN
Telecom Services of New York, L.P. is a telecommunication services
company with its principal place of business in New York, New
York.

RCN Telecom Services of Philadelphia, LLC is a telecommunication
services company with its principal place of business in Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania. RCN Telecom Services of Illinois, LLC is a
telecommunication services company with its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois. RCN Telecom Services of
Massachusetts, LLC is a telecommunication services company with its
principal place of business in Arlington, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                        
   
         Philip R. Sellinger, Esq.
         David E. Sellinger, Esq.
         Todd L. Schleifstein, Esq.
         GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
         500 Campus Drive, Suite 400
         Florham Park, NJ 07932
         Telephone: (973) 360-7900
         Facsimile: (973) 301-8410


RELIABLE TRUCKING: Cosby Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled JOHN COSBY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RELIABLE TRUCKING, INC.; THE CONCO
COMPANIES; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20062139,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on August 20, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-05877 to the proceeding.

Reliable Trucking, Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping
and trucking company running freight hauling business from Concord,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
          Chad D. Greeson, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 932-2468
          Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
          E-mail: giskander@littler.com
                  cgreeson@littler.com


SELECT MEDICAL: Arends Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JILL ARENDS and ALEXANDRA ARMSTRONG, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals
v. SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION; SELECT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG19047456, was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
September 14, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-06448 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code,
including unfair business practices, failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages, failure to provide required meal and rest periods,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to timely
pay all wages due and owing.

Select Medical Corporation is a healthcare company with its
principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Select Employment
Services, Inc. is a company that provides employment services with
its principal place of business in Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                        
            
         Ndubisi A. Ezeolu, Esq.
         Juan Aragon, Esq.
         TUCKER ELLIS LLP
         515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 430-3400
         Facsimile: (213) 430-3409
         E-mail: ndubisi.ezeolu@tuckerellis.com
                 juan.aragon@tuckerellis.com


SKY LAND: Faces Pinguil Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL PINGUIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SKY LAND TEMPERING GLASS CORP and RICKY ZHENG, Case No.
1:20-cv-04302 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 14, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers appropriate
minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, to post notices of the minimum wage and
overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at their
workplace, and to keep accurate payroll records.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from January 2017
until June 2020. His primary duties were cutting glass, installing
glass, and performing other miscellaneous duties.

Sky Land Tempering Glass Corp is a glass and mirror shop located at
41-22 Vernon Boulevard, in Long Island City, New York.[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


STAAR SURGICAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Staar Surgical
Company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during
the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.

Staar Surgical Company (NASDAQ:STAA)
Investors Affected : February 26, 2020 - August 10, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Staar Surgical Company. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: the Company was overstating and/or
mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2) its
marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and
that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants’ public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/staar-surgical-company-loss-submission-form/?id=9213&from=1

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

CONTACT:

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

THINK FINANCE: Banks Bankruptcy Appeal Moved to E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The bankruptcy appeal styled India Banks, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated v. Kenneth Rees, Adversary Case No.
1803064hdh, was transferred from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on September 15, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Virginia assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-00716-JAG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, the usury laws of the state of
Florida, for declaratory judgment, and for unjust enrichment.

Mr. Rees is sued in his official capacity as the president and
chief executive officer of Think Finance, LLC and its subsidiaries.
The Company, along with six affiliates, sought Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 17-33964) on Oct. 23,
2017.

Think Finance provides technology, analytics, and marketing
services to financial businesses in the consumer lending
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7576
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                  casey@kellyguzzo.com
                  kkelly@kellyguzzo.com


TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL: Cockrell Suit Challenges Unlawful Pay System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN KEITH COCKRELL, JEREMY REESE, and WILLIAM MULLEN, on behalf
of themselves and similarly situated persons v. TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCEPTS, INC., served on CSC-LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE
COMPANY, TODD PATTERSON, and MARY ANN FAUDALE, Case No.
1:20-cv-02621-SAG (D. Md., Sept. 11, 2020), challenges the
Defendants' alleged breach of contract and unlawful pay system that
violates the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants designed and implemented
an unlawful pay system wherein the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees were paid as exempt employees for work done over
40 hours per week and were paid on an hourly basis for work done
less than 40 hours in the workweek. The Defendants also:
misclassified the Plaintiffs and other employees as exempt from
overtime pay; breach its contract with the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated by failing to pay them according to the agreed
salary; and advised the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees to not record their hours worked over 40 hours in a
workweek because they were not entitled to overtime.

Total Environmental Concepts, Inc. offers professional and field
services in petroleum systems, environmental consulting and
remediation/abatement, as well as landfill construction and repair.
Todd Patterson is the Chief Financial Officer of the Company. Mary
Ann Faudale is the President and Director of Operation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Patrick McDermott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF E. PATRICK MCDERMOTT LLC
          510 Penguin Drive, Suite 105B
          Ocean City, MD 21842
          Tel: 410-990-0792
          Fax: 410-741-3979


TRANSDEV BUS: Richards Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as JENNIFER RICHARDS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. TRANSDEV BUS ON DEMAND, LLC and
DOES 1 through 100, Case No. SCV-266108, was removed from the
Superior Court in the State of California for the County of Sonoma
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on September 11, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-06425 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code,
including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, split shift
premiums/reporting time, inaccurate wage statements, and waiting
time wages.

Transdev Bus On Demand, LLC, is an operator of multiple modes of
transit in North America, with its principal place of business in
Illinois.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                              
         
         Paul M. Gleason, Esq.
         Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq.
         Jing Tong, Esq.
         GLEASON & FA V AROTE, LLP
         4014 Long Beach Blvd., Ste. 300
         Long Beach, CA 90807
         Telephone: (213) 452-0510
         Facsimile: (213) 452-0514
         E-mail: pgleason@gleasonfavarote.com
                 tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com
                 jtong@gleasonfavarote.com


TUFIN SOFTWARE: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Tufin Software
Technologies Ltd. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company
during the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.

Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. (NYSE:TUFN)

Affected investors purchased TUFN securities pursuant and/or
traceable to documents issued in connection with the Company's
April 2019 initial public offering and/or its December 2019
secondary public offering.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tufin’s customer
relationships and growth metrics were overstated, particularly with
respect to North America; (ii) Tufin’s business was
deteriorating, primarily in North America; (iii) as a result,
Tufin’s representations regarding its sustainable financial
prospects were overly optimistic; and (iv) as a result, the
documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/tufin-software-technologies-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=9213&from=1

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

CONTACT:

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

TUFIN SOFTWARE: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Tufin Software
Technologies Ltd. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. (NYSE:TUFN)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/tufin-software-technologies-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=9193&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020
Affected investors purchased TUFN securities pursuant and/or
traceable to documents issued in connection with the Company's
April 2019 initial public offering and/or its December 2019
secondary public offering.

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

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

TYSON RANCH: Bishop Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMY BISHOP, T'KEYHA COFFEY, ANGELICA MALDONADO, SHANTE MCNAIRY, and
ALEXANDRIA REED, individually and on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. TYSON RANCH
PROCESSING, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, TYSON
HOLISTIC HOLDINGS, INC., a California Corporation, and ROBERT A.
HICKMAN, an individual, Case No. 3:20-cv-00781 (M.D. Tenn., Sept.
11, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged
unlawful pay policies, including failure to pay overtime wages, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Line Tech and
Shift Lead within the 3 year period preceding the filing of this
complaint.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiffs
and Class Members to work on average at least 60 hours per week
without compensating their overtime hours worked at the appropriate
rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek as
required by the FLSA. As a matter of fact, the Plaintiffs were told
by the Defendants' management members that overtime pay was not
paid to employees regardless of how many hours they worked per
week.

Tyson Ranch Processing, LLC and Tyson Holistic Holdings, Inc.
process cannabidiol (CBD) from raw biomass for retail sale in
various products across the U.S. Robert A. Hickman is the Chief
Executive Officer of both companies and ultimately in charge of the
Plaintiffs' schedule and time records.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 759-1745
          Emails: rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

                - and –

          Nina Parsley, Esq.
          PONCE LAW
          400 Professional Park Drive
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Tel: 615-919-9660
          Email: nina@poncelaw.com


ULTRA PETROLEUM: Bronstein,Gewirtz Announces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Ultra Petroleum Corp. ("Ultra
Petroleum" or the "Company") (OTC PINK:UPLCQ) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Ultra Petroleum securities between April 13, 2017 and
August 8, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/uplcq.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Ultra's proved reserves were materially overstated and,
therefore, worth hundreds of millions of dollars less than
represented; (2) Ultra's proved undeveloped reserves were of de
minimis value because they contained low quality deposits that
lacked a commercially viable path to development; (3) Ultra was
unable to meet the production and development estimates provided to
investors and such estimates lacked a reasonable basis; (4) Ultra
was unable to withstand even a modest downturn in the price of
natural gas because, inter alia, Ultra's business had less
financial and production flexibility than claimed; (5) Ultra did
not have the technical or financial capabilities or available asset
base to sustainably grow its oil and natural gas production by any
meaningful amount; and (6) Ultra lacked the production capabilities
or asset base necessary to meaningfully grow production through
horizontal well drilling, and initial test wells were not
representative of the Company's actual horizontal well prospects.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/uplcq or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Ultra
Petroleum you have until November 2, 2020 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

ULTRA PETROLEUM: Vincent Wong Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Ultra Petroleum
Corp. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Ultra Petroleum Corp. (OTC PINK:UPLCQ)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ultra-petroleum-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=9193&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020
Class Period: April 3, 2017 - August 8, 2019

Allegations against UPLCQ include that: (a) Ultra's proved reserves
were materially overstated and, therefore, worth hundreds of
millions of dollars less than represented; (b) Ultra's proved
undeveloped reserves were of de minimis value because they
contained low quality deposits that lacked a commercially viable
path to development; (c) Ultra was unable to meet the production
and development estimates provided to investors and such estimates
lacked a reasonable basis; (d) Ultra was unable to withstand even a
modest downturn in the price of natural gas because, inter alia,
Ultra's business had less financial and production flexibility than
claimed; and (e) Ultra did not have the technical or financial
capabilities or available asset base to sustainably grow its oil
and natural gas production by any meaningful amount.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

UNITED COMMUNITY: Emerson Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ERIC EMERSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. GIDEON T. HAYMAKER, CHARLES E. BAILES,
III, JOHN D. COCHRAN, BRIAN P. GOLSON, THOMAS J. O'SHANE, RICHARD
J. WALSH, and UNITED COMMUNITY BANKS, INC., Case No.
2020-CA-008108-O, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court, Ninth
Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on September 11, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 6:20-cv-01675 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary
duties.

United Community Banks, Inc., is a regional bank providing retail
and corporate banking services with its headquarters and principal
place of business located in Blairsville, Georgia.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                      
      
         Daniel Newman, Esq.
         NELSON MULLINS BROAD & CASSEL
         2 South Biscayne Blvd., 21st Floor
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 373-9400
         Facsimile: (305) 373-9443
         E-mail: dan.newman@nelsonmullins.com

                - and –

         Cory E. Manning, Esq.
         1320 Main Street, 17th Floor
         Post Office Box 11070 (29211-1070)
         Columbia, SC 29201
         Telephone: (803) 799-2000
         Facsimile: (803) 256-7500


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Oct. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
USA Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that the court has scheduled
the hearing to consider final approval of a class action settlement
for October 30, 2020.

On September 11, 2018, Stephane Gouet filed a putative class action
complaint against the Company, Stephen P. Herbert, the Chief
Executive Officer, and Priyanka Singh, the former Chief Financial
Officer, in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

The class is defined as purchasers of the Company's securities from
November 9, 2017 through September 11, 2018. The complaint alleges
that the Company disclosed on September 11, 2018 that it was unable
to timely file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2018 (the "2018 Form 10-K"), and that the Audit
Committee of the Company's Board of Directors was in the process of
conducting an internal investigation of current and prior period
matters relating to certain of the Company's contractual
arrangements, including the accounting treatment, financial
reporting and internal controls related to such arrangements.

The complaint alleges that the defendants disseminated false
statements and failed to disclose material facts and engaged in
practices that operated as a fraud or deceit upon Gouet and others
similarly situated in connection with their purchases of the
Company's securities during the proposed class period.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

Two additional class action complaints, containing substantially
the same factual allegations and legal claims, were filed against
the Company, Herbert and Singh in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

On September 13, 2018, David Gray filed a putative class action
complaint, and on October 3, 2018, Anthony E. Phillips filed a
putative class action complaint.

Subsequently, multiple shareholders moved to be appointed lead
plaintiff, and on December 19, 2018, the Court consolidated the
three actions, appointed a lead plaintiff (the "Lead Plaintiff"),
and appointed lead counsel for the consolidated actions (the
"Consolidated Action").

On February 28, 2019, the Court approved a Stipulation agreed to by
the parties in the Consolidated Action for the filing of an amended
complaint within fourteen days after the Company filed its 2018
Form 10-K.

On January 22, 2019, the Company and Herbert filed a motion to
transfer the Consolidated Action to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 5,
2019, the Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion to
Transfer.  

On August 12, 2019, the University of Puerto Rico Retirement System
("UPR") filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company, Herbert, Singh, the Company's Directors at the relevant
time (Steven D. Barnhart, Joel Books, Robert L. Metzger, Albin F.
Moschner, William J. Reilly and William J. Schoch) ("the
Independent Directors"), and the investment banking firms who acted
as underwriters for the May 2018 follow-on public offering of the
Company (the "Public Offering"): William Blair & Company; LLC;
Craig-Hallum Capital Group, LLC; Northland Securities, Inc.; and
Barrington Research Associates, Inc. ("the Underwriters").

The class is defined as purchasers of the Company's shares pursuant
to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the Public Offering.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' alleged
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (as amended, the "1933
Act"), and specifically Sections 11, 12 and 15 thereof.

The complaint generally seeks compensatory damages, rescissory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The UPR complaint was
consolidated into the Consolidated Action and the UPR docket was
closed.

On September 30, 2019, the Court granted the motion to transfer and
transferred the Consolidated Action to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket No.
19-cv-04565.

On November 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
asserted claims under both the 1933 Act and the 1934 Act.  

Defendants filed motions to dismiss on February 3, 2020. Before
briefing on the motions was completed, the parties participated in
a private mediation on February 27, 2020, which resulted in a
settlement.

On May 29, 2020, the plaintiffs filed documents with the Court
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement, with the defendants
supporting approval of the settlement. On June 9, 2020, the Court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement and issued a
scheduling order for further action on the settlement.

The settlement provides for a payment of $15.3 million which
includes all administrative costs and plaintiff’s attorneys' fees
and expenses.

The Company's insurance carriers paid $12.7 million towards the
settlement and the Company paid $2.6 million towards the
settlement, which was made in July 2020 and was recorded as a
liability in the consolidated financial statements as of June 30,
2020.

Payments will not be distributed pursuant to the settlement (except
for administrative costs of up to $150,000) until and unless the
Court grants final approval of the settlement.

The Court scheduled the hearing for final settlement approval for
October 30, 2020.

USA Technologies said, "The Company expects, but cannot assure,
that the settlement approval will occur later in the 2020 calendar
year. Should the settlement not be approved or be terminated for
any reason, the parties will resume litigation of the claims."

USA Technologies, Inc. provides wireless networking, cashless
transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services in
the United States and internationally. USA Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.

USA TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Chester County Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
USA Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2020, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a shareholder class action suit in the Court of Common
Pleas, Chester County, Pennsylvania, Docket No. 2019-04821-MJ.

A putative shareholder class action complaint was filed against the
Company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer at
the relevant time, its directors at the relevant time, and the
Underwriters, in the Court of Common Pleas, Chester County,
Pennsylvania, Docket No. 2019-04821-MJ.

The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

As also previously reported, on September 20, 2019 the Court
granted the defendants' Petition for Stay and stayed the Chester
County action until the Consolidated Action reaches a final
disposition.

On October 18, 2019, plaintiff filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania
Superior Court from the Order granting defendants' Petition for
Stay, Docket No. 3100 EDA 2019.

On December 6, 2019, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an
Order stating that the Stay Order does not appear to be final or
otherwise appealable and directed plaintiff to show cause as to the
basis of the Pennsylvania Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The plaintiff filed a Response to the Order to Show Cause on
December 16, 2019, and the defendants filed an Application to Quash
Appeal on December 26, 2019.

On February 20, 2020, the Pennsylvania Superior Court quashed the
appeal.

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

USA Technologies, Inc. provides wireless networking, cashless
transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services in
the United States and internationally. USA Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.


VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Velocity Financial,
Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the
date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible
Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE:VEL)

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.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Velocity Financial, Inc. 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9213&from=1

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

CONTACT:

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

VI-JON INC: Macormic Balks at Deceptive Labels of Hand Sanitizers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MACORMIC, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. VI-JON, INC., a Missouri Corporation, Case No.
4:20-cv-01267 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 15, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's false and misleading representation of its hand
sanitizing products in violation of the Missouri's Merchandising
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff asserts claims based on the Defendant's misleading
representation that its hand sanitizing products, sold under store
brand names, including under the equate brand, "kill" "99.99% of
germs," and the Defendant's failure to disclose the limitations of
the products to denature certain microbes that cause disease,
including poliovirus, polyomavirus, hand foot and mouth disease
virus, human papillomavirus, hepatitis A and cryptosporidium.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has not conducted
efficacy studies, or scientifically valid and accurate studies, on
all germs in order to substantiate its representation that the
products kill 99.99% of germs. The products are also generally
ineffective at killing norovirus which, according to the Center for
Disease Control, accounts for approximately 50% of all outbreaks of
food-related illness in the United States.

Von-Jon, Inc., is a Saint Louis, Missouri-based company that
manufactures private brand products such as mouthwash, nail polish
remover, and hand soap and sanitizer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David L. Steelman, Esq.
          Stephen F. Gaunt, Esq.
          STEELMAN & GAUNT
          901 N. Pine Street, Ste. 110
          P.O. Box 1257
          Rolla, MO 65402
          Telephone: (573) 341-8336
          Facsimile: (573) 341-8548
          E-mail: dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com
                  sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com


WESTERN REFINING: Ahmed Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as RIAZ AHMED, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC; WESTERN
REFINING SOUTHWEST, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 20STCV28486, 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 September 11,
2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-08342 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Private Attorneys General Act, including failure to
provide required meal and rest periods, failure to pay all regular
wages, failure to pay all wages due at end of employment, failure
to provide itemized wage statements, and for unfair competition in
violation of California Business and Professions Code.

Western Refining Retail, LLC, is a producer of petroleum products
with its principal place of business in Ohio. Western Refining
Southwest, Inc. is a petroleum refining company based in Tempe,
Arizona.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                        
            
         Jesus J. Torres, Esq.
         SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P
         2049 Century Park East, Suite 3000
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (424) 285-8330
         Facsimile: (424) 204-9093
         E-mail: jjtorres@shb.com

                - and –

         William C. Martucci, Esq.
         Kristen A. Page, Esq.
         SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P
         2555 Grand Blvd.
         Kansas City, MO 64108
         Telephone: (816) 474-6550
         Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
         E-mail: wmartucci@shb.com
                 kpage@shb.com


WESTERN REFINING: Ramirez Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOANNA RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0005994, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Joaquin to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on August 20, 2020.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-01671-KJM-CKD to the proceeding.

Western Refining, Inc. refines crude oil and markets petroleum
products. The Company produces gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesus J. Torres, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 3000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 424.285.8330
          Facsimile:  424.204.9093
          E-mail: jjtorres@shb.com

               - and -

          William C. Martucci, Esq.
          Kristen A. Page, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P
          2555 Grand Blvd.
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: 816.474.6550
          Facsimile:  816.421.5547
          E-mail: wmartucci@shb.com
                  kpage@shb.com


WILAN CORP: Willis Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FAMAYIA WILLIS, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals v. WILAN CORPORATION d/b/a STARS WORLD CLASS
MEN'S CLUB d/b/a STARS MEN'S CLUB, a Florida Profit Corporation,
Case No. 6:20-cv-01682-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla., Sept. 14, 2020), arises
from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and all other members of the class and collective as
"independent contractors." As a result, the Defendant failed to pay
the Plaintiff and all other members of the class and collective
minimum wage compensation they were entitled to under the FLSA and
the FMWA.

The Plaintiff was employed as an exotic dancer by the Defendant at
its Stars Men's Club strip club in Orlando, Florida, during the
period from April 2019 through March 2020.

Wilan Corporation is an Orlando, Florida-based company that
operates as a strip club featuring female exotic dancers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          Bruce A. Mount, Jr., Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 574-4999
          Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
          E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com
                  bmount@theleachfirm.com


XPO PORT: Class Certification Bid in Alvarez Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL OMAR ALVAREZ et al. v.
XPO PORT SERVICE INC., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03736-RGK-E (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order granting in
part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The Court concurs with Defendants that the Plaintiffs have not met
their burden to demonstrate that class-wide adjudication is
superior -- or even manageable -- for this aspect of their
reimbursement claim, and therefore declines to certify the
Plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of maintenance expenses.
Insofar as Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for fuel and insurance,
however, the Court finds no similar issues to adjudication on a
class-wide basis, and certifies the claim as to those expenses.

On December 10, 2019, Angel Omar Alvarez, Alberto Rivera, Fernando
Ramirez, Juan Romero, and Jose Paz filed a fourth amended class
action complaint on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
individuals against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs' FAC alleges
various violations of the California Labor Code, including
misclassification of employees; unlawful deductions and
reimbursable expenses; unpaid minimum wages; waiting time
penalties; and failure to pay all wages owed every pay period.

The Plaintiffs are drivers who contend that they were improperly
classified as independent contractors rather than employees, and
were therefore denied numerous benefits and protections to which
they were entitled under California law.

The Defendants provide drivers with a company-owned truck and
remain responsible for the truck with insurance, permits, licenses,
place cards and use. XPO is a major transnational transportation
and logistics company that provides various shipping services
throughout California.

A copy of the Civil Minutes partly granting Plaintiff's motion to
certify class dated Sept. 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cpTzBd at no extra charge.[CC]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF to Keep Safety Measures on OU6 Rails in Libby
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tristan Scott, writing for Flathead Beacon, reports that state and
federal environmental regulators have struck an agreement with BNSF
Railway they say holds the company responsible for maintaining
health and safety measures along a 42-mile segment of
asbestos-contaminated track near Libby, Montana, where a
now-shuttered vermiculite mine once spewed multi-ton clouds of
asbestos-laden dust over the community every day and freighted the
toxic material across the country.

The extent of the town's industrial contamination was so widespread
that federal officials in 2002 designated the area for cleanup
under the National Priorities List, which is more commonly known as
Superfund.

On Sept. 1, federal and state officials announced the proposed
agreement with BNSF, calling it "a significant achievement" in the
decades-long effort to deliver justice to the community of Libby,
where hundreds have died and thousands have been sickened as a
result of the asbestos exposure from the W.R. Grace and Co.
vermiculite mine, once the lifeblood of Libby.

According to federal officials, handing the area known as Operable
Unit (OU) 6 over to company officials with BNSF helps ensure that
future safety protocols remain in an area where disturbances could
lead to new exposure pathways.

"This proposed agreement... will ensure that BNSF maintains the
long-term protectiveness of the remedy already in place for OU6 and
reflects the progress made to protect community members and workers
from exposure to Libby Amphibole asbestos," according to a
statement from the U.S. Environmental Agency's Region 8
Administrator Gregory Sopkin, The Beacon notes.

The EPA, along with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
[DEQ] and BNSF proposed that the company take over 42 miles (68
kilometers) of rail yards in Northwest Montana.  Cleanup efforts
have been deemed complete in the locations, EPA officials said, and
the company would be charged with maintaining them.

Under the proposed agreement, BNSF will develop "institutional
controls" for the area to ensure the remedy remains protective and
will implement "best practices" to reduce the potential for
exposure.  Protective measures include securing properties,
limiting unauthorized entry and minimizing the potential for the
disturbance of soils in the approximately 42 miles of BNSF
right-of-way in OU6.

OU6 is made up of railroad rail line, right-of-way, and rail yards
located in Libby and Troy, all property owned by BNSF.  EPA does
not anticipate any further cleanup requirements within OU6,
officials said.

Earlier this year, in a unanimous decision, the Montana Supreme
Court determined that BNSF Railway is not shielded from liability
for its role in spreading asbestos-laden dust Libby.

Facing hundreds of asbestos-related damage claims stemming from the
W.R. Grace operations of a now-shuttered vermiculite mine and the
company's alleged role in shipping contaminated materials across
the country, BNSF appealed a January 2019 ruling by Montana
Asbestos Claims Court Judge Amy Eddy, of Kalispell, who concluded
the plaintiffs' claims against BNSF are not preempted by federal
law, as BNSF argued, and that the company is not exempt from
liability.

BNSF appealed Eddy's decision and asked the state Supreme Court to
overturn it, with both parties delivering oral arguments last
October.

According to Justice Jim Rice, who delivered the March 11 opinion,
"BNSF is subject to strict liability because its actions in
handling the asbestos constitute an abnormally dangerous
activity."

Two decades ago, the scope of asbestos exposure in Libby came to
light when news reports detailed a link between the deadly fibers
unearthed at a vermiculite mine operated by W.R. Grace and Co.
between 1963 and 1990 and the hundreds of people who were sick and
dying because of exposure to asbestos-laden dust.

Two of the diseases most commonly associated with asbestos —
asbestosis and mesothelioma — have latency periods of up to 40
years, and people who were exposed to the asbestos dust continue to
develop illnesses today.

The U.S. Department of Justice has published a formal notice in its
federal register and will accept public comment on the proposed
Consent Decree for a period of 30 days.  To comment on the Consent
Decree, email pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Files Chapter 11 amidst Honeywell Disputes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Automotive News reports that Auto supplier Garrett Motion Inc. said
it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as it struggled with
heavy debt amid the COVID-19 pandemic and a dispute with former
parent Honeywell International Inc. over asbestos liabilities.

Garrett Motion said it entered into a "stalking horse" purchase
agreement with private equity firm KPS Capital Partners for US$2.1
billion.

The stalking horse agreement would imply that any other bids that
come in must be higher than the offer made by KPS.  The agreement
is subject to court approval.

Garrett Motion, which makes automotive turbochargers, said it's
seeking court's approval for a US$250 million debtor-in-possession
financing facility.  Throughout the reorganization process, Garrett
Motion expects to operate without interruption.

The company listed both assets and liabilities in the range of US$1
billion and US$10 billion, according to a filing with the U.S
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

Garrett Motion's largest customer is Ford Motor Co., which
accounted for 12 percent of 2019 sales, according to its annual
report.

Automakers and suppliers have been hit by the coronavirus outbreak,
which led to shuttered vehicle factories and disrupted supply
chains.

"...the financial strains of the heavy debt load and liabilities we
inherited in the spin-off from Honeywell -- all exacerbated by
COVID-19 -- have created a significant long-term burden on our
business," CEO Olivier Rabiller said in a statement.

The company has accused Honeywell of devising the spinoff of
Garrett Motion, its transportation systems business, in late 2018
to offload Honeywell's liabilities related to asbestos-exposure
claims.

Honeywell said Garrett was pursuing a bankruptcy "to avoid the
legitimate and reasonable financial commitments" the company
assumed as part of its spinoff in 2018.

"Garrett always has been capable of fulfilling those obligations
with the assets it received in the spinoff," Honeywell said in a
statement, adding that it was committed to engaging in a dialogue
with the firm.

Garrett Motion said expects to emerge from the Chapter 11 and
complete the sale process in early 2021.

Morgan Stanley and Perella Weinberg Partners served as financial
advisers to Garrett Motion.

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
were legal advisers.  AlixPartners served as Garret Motion's
restructuring adviser.

Garrett Motion, of Rolle, Switzerland, ranks No. 67 on the
Automotive News list of top 100 global suppliers with 2019 sales to
automakers of US$3.25 billion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WPI Construction Faces $150K Fine for Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Lee, writing for The Telegram & Gazette, reports that a
Webster roofing contractor will pay a $150,000 penalty to the state
to settle allegations of illegal asbestos handling on a
construction project in Essex County, Attorney General Maura Healey
said.

Employees of WPI Construction Inc. illegally handled, stored and
transported asbestos while working at a public housing complex for
low-income seniors in Haverhill, Healey alleged.

The judgment, entered in Suffolk Superior Court, settled a
complaint by the attorney general's office alleging WPI
Construction violated the state's clean air law and its regulations
governing asbestos work by failing to properly handle, transport,
and store asbestos-containing material and waste during a roof
replacement and painting project at the Kennedy Circle public
housing complex.

The office alleged that WPI Construction's illegal asbestos work
caused air pollution and posed a threat to the health of the
seniors who lived at the development and others in the area.

"Contractors who work with asbestos must carefully comply with our
important environmental and safety regulations, especially when
they are working in places where vulnerable residents live," Healey
said in a statement, the T&G notes.  "Today's settlement requires
this contractor to properly train its employees on how to handle
this dangerous material so that they do not risk public health in
the future."

The complaint alleges that WPI Construction was aware that the
buildings contained asbestos when it began the construction project
and conducted the work without notifying the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection ahead of time.

According to the complaint, WPI Construction employees left
asbestos-contaminated debris on the ground around the buildings and
sent debris to facilities not equipped to handle asbestos waste.
The employees also allegedly transported asbestos-containing waste
from Haverhill to the contractor's Webster facility and back in an
open trailer without wetting and containing it to prevent
emissions.

The company also left an unsecured and open Dumpster of dry
asbestos waste at the housing complex, the complaint alleged.

In addition to the penalty, WPI's owner and any other employee who
supervises asbestos abatement will also attend regular training on
how to properly handle, contain, and store asbestos.



                            *********

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 ***