/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201007.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, October 7, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 201

                            Headlines

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
CABOT OIL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 9 Deadline
CASSA GROVE: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
CENTURYLINK INC: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in Oregon Securities Suit
CHAPEI LLC: Wang Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to Third Circuit

CLAXTON-HEPBURN MEDICAL: Kilbourn Seeks Proper Minimum and OT Pay
COLONY CREDIT: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit
CONNECTICUT CLOSET: Faces Mendoza Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
COTY INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of November 3 Deadline
EASTMAN KODAK: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 13 Deadline

EASTMAN KODAK: Robbins LLP Reminds of Oct. 13 Deadline
EXBGG INC: Faces Monegro Suit Over ADA Violation in S.D. New York
FACEBOOK INC: Users In Illinois Could Get Payment in Lawsuit
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
FUSION SIGN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moran Labor Suit Claims

GEICO INDEMNITY: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss Moe Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Piston Ring Suit Fails Class Action Certification
GOL LINHAS: Timotheo Sues Over Drop in Market Value of Securities
GOLAR LNG: Glancy Prongay Corrects Sept. 24 Release
GOOGLE INC: Canadian Law Firms to File Proposed Class Action

GRINDR: Privacy Breach Class Action May Head to Arbitration
HARBORSIDE INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline
HDFC BANK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 2 Deadline
HDFC BANK: Rosen Law, Schall Law Firms File Class Action Suits
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Filings on Sale to Gilead Lack Info, Kent Says

KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Venkataraman Securities Suit in Calif.
KROGER CO: K. Pope Sought Voluntary Dismissal of Class Suit
LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline
LEXINGTON, KY: Petition for Placement of Home Confinement Denied
MASONITE CORP: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Grubb Lumber Antitrust Suit

MAXIM INTEGRATED: Schaffer Suit Challenges Sale to Analog Devices
MEI PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of October 9 Deadline
MONTAGE RESOURCES: Faces Wolf Suit Over Sale to Southwestern
MT BAKER VAPOR: Angeles Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
MUTUAL SECURITIES: Alzado-Lotz Sues Over Retirement Savings' Loss

NAGLE & ZALLER: Faces Bland FDCPA Suit in District of Columbia
NANO-X IMAGING: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
NANOX IMAGING: Hit With Class Action Lawsuit
NCAA: Ignores Concussion Effects to Footballers, McClintock Says
NEW YORK: Grasmere Fit Files Class Action

NEXTCURE INC: Robbins LLP Announces Securities Class Action
NEXTCURE INC: Schall Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
NIKOLA CORPORATION: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action
NS8 INC: Faces Storms Class Suit Alleging Violations of WARN Act
PIZZA COTTAGE: Emory Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

PIZZA PALACE: Calle Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
PORTLAND GENERAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
PORTLAND GENERAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of November 2 Deadline
PROGENITY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 27 Deadline
PROSHARES ULTRA: Schall Law Announces Securities Class Action

QUTOUTIAO INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
QUTOUTIAO INC: Schall Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Faces Chinitz Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
ROSNER'S GROCERY: Osorio Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Grocery Workers
RUSHMORE LOAN: Campbell Seeks to Stop Wrongful Debt Collection

SCALE PAYMENTS: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
SEMGROUP CORPORATION: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in Ferrell FLSA Suit
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Settles Class Action Over Union Dues Deductions
SIMPLY SOUTHERN: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Monegro Alleges
SPECIAL CARE HOSPITAL: Hale Suit Transferred to N. D. Oklahoma

STAAR SURGICAL: Schall Law Firm Announces Oct. 19 Deadline
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Faces Mart Suit Over 11.69% Drop in Share Price
TIM JUNGBLUT: Akers Appeals Ruling in Drivers Suit to 7th Circuit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Tordjman Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
TRANSURBAN: 15,000 People Join Toll Fee Class Action

TRINET HR III: Huang Sues Over Breaches of Duties Under ERISA
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 2 Deadline
ULTRA PETROLEUM: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Rytych Balks at Vending Machine Credit Card Fees
VAXART INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Announces Class Action

VAXART INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Oct. 23 Deadline
WONDERFUL CITRUS: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Holzer & Holzer Announces Class Action
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Kehoe Law Continues Probe for Securities Fraud
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Announces Class Action Lawsuit

YAYYO INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline
YK ENTERPRISE: Durham Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages for Dancers
ZEETOGROUP: Faces Scavo TCPA Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads
[*] 11 Circuit Panel Finds Class Action Incentive Payment Improper
[*] Phi Finney McDonald Attorney Discusses Litigation Funding


                            *********

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of the
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

American Electric Power, Inc. (AEP)
Class Period: 11/2/2016 - 7/24/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 19, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-aep/

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

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

                             About

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

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

         Lewis Kahn
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Tel No: 1-877-515-1850
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]

CABOT OIL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 9 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
company. You can review a copy of the Complaint by visiting the
link below 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, you can
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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG)
Class Period: October 23, 2015 - June 12, 2020
Deadline: October 9, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/cog

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Cabot had inadequate environmental controls and
procedures and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related
to those controls and procedures; (2) as a result, Cabot, among
other issues, failed to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting
Pennsylvania's water supplies through stray gas migration; (3) the
foregoing was foreseeably likely to subject Cabot to increased
governmental scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased
reputational and financial harm; (4) Cabot continually downplayed
its potential civil and/or criminal liabilities with respect to
such environmental matters; and (5) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. [GN]

CASSA GROVE: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Turizo, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CASSA GROVE 28, LLC d/b/a ZOI HOUSE APARTMENTS, Case
No. 0:20-cv-61982-AHS (S.D. Fla., Sept. 30, 2020), seeks redress
for the illegal practices of the Defendant in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To gain an advantage over its competitors and increase its revenue,
the Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing with no regard
for the privacy rights of consumers to, among other things, promote
the products and services Defendant holds open to the public for
purchase, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the illegal conduct
of the Defendant, as the Defendant's unsolicited marketing
practices, among other things, invades the privacy, harasses,
aggravates, and disrupts the daily life of thousands of
individuals, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County,
Florida.

The Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business
activities throughout the State of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-628-5793
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                 tom@jibraellaw.com


CENTURYLINK INC: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in Oregon Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants CenturyLink, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled In re: CenturyLink Sales
Practices and Securities Litigation, Case No. 0:17-md-02795-MJD, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The appellate case is captioned as State of Oregon v. CenturyLink,
Inc., et al., Case No. 20-8011, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, CenturyLink,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020,
that subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, the
company had agreed to settle the consumer putative class actions
for payments of $15.5 million to compensate class members and of up
to $3.5 million for administrative costs.

In June 2017, a former employee filed an employment lawsuit against
the company claiming that she was wrongfully terminated for
alleging that the company charged some of its retail customers for
products and services they did not authorize. Starting shortly
thereafter and continuing since then and based in part on the
allegations made by the former employee, several legal proceedings
have been filed.

In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class
action, was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California alleging that the company
charged some of its retail customers for products and services they
did not authorize.

Other complaints asserting similar claims were filed in other
federal and state courts. The lawsuits assert claims including
fraud, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Also in June
2017, Craig v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative securities
investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging that we failed to disclose
material information regarding improper sales practices, and
asserting federal securities law claims. A number of other cases
asserting similar claims have also been filed.

Beginning June 2017, the company also received several shareholder
derivative demands addressing related topics. In August 2017, the
Board of Directors formed a special litigation committee of outside
directors to address the allegations of impropriety contained in
the shareholder derivative demands.

In April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its
review of the derivative demands and declined to take further
action. Since then, derivative cases were filed in Louisiana state
court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Ouachita and in federal court in Louisiana and Minnesota. These
cases have been brought on behalf of CenturyLink against certain
current and former officers and directors of the Company and seek
damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The consumer putative class actions, the securities investor
putative class actions, and the federal derivative actions have
been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as
In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation.

Subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, the company
had agreed to settle the consumer putative class actions for
payments of $15.5 million to compensate class members and of up to
$3.5 million for administrative costs.

In the second quarter of 2019, the company accrued for these
obligations, and a portion of the administrative costs has been
expended in 2020. Certain class members may elect to opt out of the
class settlement and pursue the resolution of their individual
claims against us on these issues through various dispute
resolution processes, including individual arbitration. One law
firm claims to represent more than 22,000 potential class
members.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent State of Oregon, by and through the Oregon
State Treasurer and the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Board, on
Behalf of the Oregon Public Employee Retirement Fund and Fernando
Alberto Vildosola, as trustee for the AUFV Trust U/A/D 02/19/2009,
Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons
and Entities, is represented by:

          Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq.
          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN & REED
          1100 IDS Center, 80 S. Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Lydia Anderson-Dana, Esq.
          STOLL & STOLL
          209 S.W. Oak Street, Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          E-mail: landersondana@stollberne.com

               - and -

          Adam Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY
          1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4859
          E-mail: aapton@zlk.com  
        
               - and -

          Andrew P. Arnold, Esq.
          Gregg S. Levin, Esq.
          MOTLEY & RICE
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          E-mail: aarnold@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Francois M. Blaudeau, Esq.
          SOUTHERN MED LAW
          2224 First Avenue, N.
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 547-5525
          E-mail: info@southernmedlaw.com

               - and -

          Amanda Michelle Boitano, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN & LITOWITZ
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-0000
          Telephone: (212) 554-1460
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: Amanda.Boitano@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Jason W. Burge, Esq.
          FISHMAN & HAYGOOD
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4600
          New Orleans, LA 70170-4600
          Telephone: (504) 586-5241
          E-mail: JBurge@fishmanhaygood.com
    
               - and -

          Roxanne Barton Conlin, Esq.
          ROXANNE BARTON CONLIN & ASSOCIATES
          319 Seventh Street, Suite 600
          Des Moines, IA 50309-0000
          Telephone: (515) 283-1111
          E-mail: efile@roxanneconlinlaw.co

               - and -

          Lawrence Paul Eagel, Esq.
          BRAGAR & EAGEL
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5888
          E-mail: eagel@bespc.com

               - and -

          Stuart William Emmons, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120-0000
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560

               - and -

          Mark John Geragos, Esq.
          Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          644 S. Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          E-mail: mark@geragos.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON
          8050 W. 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941-4005
          E-mail: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON & GLUEK
          120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Charles J. Hodge, Esq.
          Timothy R. Langley, Esq.
          HODGE & LANGLEY
          229 Magnolia Street
          Spartanburg, SC 29306
          Telephone: (864) 585-3873
          E-mail: CHodge@hodgelawfirm.com
                  rlangley@hodgelawfirm.com    

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER
          200 Ashford Center, N., Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029

               - and -

          Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM
          15058 River Road
          Hahnville, LA 70057
          Telephone: (985) 783-6789
          Facsimile: (985) 783-1333           
        
               - and -

          Richard Allen Lockridge, Esq.        
          LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL
          100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: ralockridge@locklaw.com

               - and -

          James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
          HENINGER & GARRISON
          3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 996-0869
          E-mail: JMcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          MOTLEY & RICE
          One Corporate Center, 17th Floor
          20 Church Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882-1676
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Mark M. O'Mara, Esq.
          O'MARA LAW GROUP
          221 N.E. Ivanhoe Boulevard, Suite 200
          Orlando, FL 32804
          Telephone: (407) 898-5151

               - and -

          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY
          10th Floor, 55 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com

               - and -

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN & REED
          14646 N. Kierland Boulevard, Suite 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          James Parkerson Roy, Esq.
          DOMENGEAUX & WRIGHT
          556 Jefferson Street, Suite 500
          Lafayette, LA 70501
          Telephone: (337) 233-3033
          E-mail: jimr@wrightroy.com  

               - and -

          Fred W. Sartor, Jr., Esq.
          ZENTNER & SARTOR
          1507 Royal Avenue
          Monroe, LA 71207
          Telephone: (318) 388-4454

Defendants-Petitioners Century Link, Inc., Glen F. Post, III, R.
Stewart Ewing, Jr., David D. Cole, Karen Puckett, Dean J. Douglas,
G. Clay Bailey are represented by:

          David M. Aafedt, Esq.
          Thomas Henry Boyd, Esq.
          William McNab, Esq.
          Joseph Michael Windler, Esq.
          WINTHROP & WEINSTINE
          225 S. Sixth Street, Suite 3500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 604-6400
          E-mail: daafedt@winthrop.com
                  tboyd@winthrop.com
                  wmcnab@winthrop.com
                  jwindler@winthrop.com

               - and -

          Jerry Blackwell, Esq.
          BLACKWELL & BURKE
          431 S. Seventh Street, Suite 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 343-3232
          E-mail: blackwell@blackwellburke.com

               - and -

          Ryan Edward Blair, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          E-mail: rblair@cooley.com

               - and -

          Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          3175 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 843-5000
          E-mail: pgibbs@cooley.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Michael Gutkin, Esq.
          COOLEY, LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          E-mail: jgutkin@cooley.com

               - and -

          Sarah Lightdale, Esq.
          COOLEY, LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 479-6000
          E-mail: slightdale@cooley.com

               - and -

          Douglas P. Lobel, Esq.
          David Anthony Vogel, Esq.
          COOLEY, LLP
          Reston Town Center, 14th Floor
          11951 Freedom Drive
          Reston, VA 20190-5656
          Telephone: (703) 456-8000
          E-mail: dlobel@cooley.com
                  dvogel@cooley.com

               - and -

          Dana J. Moss, Esq.
          Elizabeth Prelogar, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20004-2400
          Telephone: (202) 842-7800
          E-mail: dmoss@cooley.com
                  eprelogar@cooley.com


CHAPEI LLC: Wang Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to Third Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Weigang Wang, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Weigang Wang, et al. v.
Chapei LLC, et al., Case No. 3-15-cv-02950, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Weigang Wang, et al. v. Chapei
LLC, et al., Case No. 20-2975, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants WEIGANG WANG, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, and HAILONG YU, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
          TROY LAW
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

Defendants-Appellees CHAPEI LLC, doing business as WOK EMPIRE, and
CHA LEE LO are represented by:

          Heng Wang, Esq.
          WANG GAO & ASSOCIATES
          36 Bridge Street
          Metuchen, NJ 08840
          Telephone: (732) 767-3020


CLAXTON-HEPBURN MEDICAL: Kilbourn Seeks Proper Minimum and OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDY KILBOURN, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by CLAXTON-HEPBURN MEDICAL
CENTER; NORTH STAR HEALTH ALLIANCE, INC.; and RIVER HOSPITAL, INC.,
and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by
CLAXTON-HEPBURN MEDICAL CENTER; NORTH STAR HEALTH ALLIANCE, INC.;
and RIVER HOSPITAL, INC. v. CLAXTON-HEPBURN MEDICAL CENTER; NORTH
STAR HEALTH ALLIANCE, INC.; and RIVER HOSPITAL, INC., and any
related entities, Case No. 8:20-cv-01128-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Sept.
17, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and related damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, beginning in 2014 and continuing
through the present, the Defendants have engaged in a policy and
practice of depriving its employees of the applicable straight time
wage and overtime wages for work they performed as mandated by
federal and state law. Rather than pay the Plaintiff overtime
compensation at the rate of time and one-half for all hours worked
past 40 in a given week, the Defendants instead assigned the
Plaintiff fewer hours the following week, and would not pay
overtime unless the work performed as reflected on the time entries
constituted more than 80 hours in a two-week pay period.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at the Ogdensburg, New
York location as a nurse's assistant from approximately 2006 until
June 2020.

The Defendants are health care services providers in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
          GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
          The White House
          7030 E. Genesee Street
          Fayetteville, NY 13066
          Telephone: (315) 314-8000
          E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com


COLONY CREDIT: 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 Colony
Credit Real Estate, Inc. ("Colony Credit" or "the Company") (NYSE:
CLNC) violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the combination of Colony
NorthStar, Inc. ("Colony NorthStar") and NorthStar Real Estate
Income Trust, Inc. ("NorthStar I") and NorthStar Real Estate Income
II, Inc. ("NorthStar II") on or about February 1, 2018 (the
"Merger"), 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. Colony Credit's assets suffered from
deteriorating credit quality in advance of the Merger. Four of the
Company's loans, totaling $261 million and related to a New York
Hotel, were not only impaired, but also suffered from insufficient
collateral and were unlikely to be repaid. As a result, assets that
were part of the Merger were materially overstated. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements and Registration Statement
were false and materially misleading throughout the Merger period.
When the market learned the truth about Colony Credit, 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]

CONNECTICUT CLOSET: Faces Mendoza Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO MENDOZA v. CONNECTICUT CLOSET AND SHELF, L.L.C., CT HOME
IMPROVEMENT SERVICES LLC, and CINDY BERNIER, Case No. 3:20-cv-01449
(D. Conn., Sept. 24, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated against the Defendants for their
alleged unlawful deprivation of their employees' rights to overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked over 40
hours in a workweek, but he was not compensated for hours worked
before the start of his scheduled shift and after the end of his
scheduled shift which were recorded in the Defendants' timekeeping
system. The Defendants only paid the Plaintiff for 40 hours
regardless of the number of total hours per week recorded on the
"Extra Accumulated Hours" sheet, the Plaintiff alleges. As a
result, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff's overtime at
one and one half times of his regular rate of pay for all the hours
he worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to perform labor,
including building and installing shelving and closet systems from
approximately 1981 until his termination on October 28, 2018.

Connecticut Closet and Shelf, L.L.C., was dissolved as a corporate
entity on January 3, 2018, upon sale. CT Home Improvement Services
is the successor in interest. Cindy Bernier is the owner and
President of Connecticut Closet and Shelf. Both Corporate
Defendants provide home improvement services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara J. Collins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BARBARA J. COLLINS
          557 Prospect Avenue, 1st Floor
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Tel: (860) 570-4627
          E-mail: bcollins@barbarajcollins.com

                - and –

          Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
          Sarah M. Block, Esq.
          McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Tel: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: slf@mselaborlaw.com
                  smb@mselaborlaw.com


COTY INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of November 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind 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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-coty/

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

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

                              About

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

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

         Lewis Kahn
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Tel No: 1-877-515-1850
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]

EASTMAN KODAK: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
company. You can review a copy of the Complaint by visiting the
link below 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, you can
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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE: KODK)
Class Period: July 27, 2020 - August 11, 2020
Deadline: October 13, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/kodk

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading and/or failed to disclose that
material adverse facts. Specifically, the defendants failed to
disclose that the Company had granted several insiders millions of
dollars' worth of stock options, immediately prior to the Company
publicly disclosing that it had received a $765 million loan from
the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation to produce
drugs to treat COVID-19, 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, Company insiders purchased tens of thousands of the
Company's shares immediately prior to the announcement, again at
prices that they knew would increase once news of the loan became
public. As a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about
Kodak's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis when made. As a result
of this fraudulent scheme, defendants artificially inflated the
Company's stock price throughout the Class Period and made
investment decisions based on material, nonpublic information
derived from their positions at Kodak. [GN]

EASTMAN KODAK: Robbins LLP Reminds of Oct. 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors of the
October 13, 2020, deadline to move for lead plaintiff in the class
action against Eastman Kodak Co. (NYSE:KODK) for alleged violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between July 27, 2020 and
August 7, 2020. Eastman Kodak is a technology company that provides
hardware, software, and services to customers in commercial print,
packaging, publishing, manufacturing, and entertainment.

If you suffered a loss in excess of $1 million due to Kodak's
misconduct, we encourage you to contact us.

Eastman Kodak Co. (KODK) is Accused of Misleading Shareholders

According to the complaint, on July 27, 2020, Kodak granted its CEO
and Executive Chairman 1.75 million stock options, and 45,000
options each to its CFO, VP, and General Counsel. That same day,
Kodak issued a statement to media outlets based in Rochester, NY,
regarding "a new manufacturing initiative that could change the
course of history for Rochester and the American People." Media
reports noted there would be a press conference the next day with
Pentagon officials and that the initiative involved the U.S.
International Development Finance Corporation ("DFC") and the
response to COVID-19. On this news, Kodak's trading volume surged
and the stock price increased.

On July 28, before the stock market opened, RochesterFirst.com
published an article revealing that Kodak and Washington D.C.
leaders announced an agreement for a $765 million federal loan to
support the launch of Kodak Pharmaceuticals. Kodak executives spent
the next several days touting this agreement and watching Kodak's
stock price increase over 1,000%, from $2.65 on July 27, to $33.20
on July 29. Simultaneously, the insiders who received options saw
their personal worth skyrocket.

On August 1, 2020, questions started to arise regarding Kodak's
selection for the federal loan, the way Kodak handled the
"inadvertent" disclosure on July 27, and Kodak's failure to
disclose the deal to investors. Revelations surrounding these
questions caused Kodak's stock to plummet over $29 per share over
four trading days. Finally, on August 7, the DFC announced it will
not proceed with the loan process until allegations against Kodak
are cleared up, causing the stock to drop another 28% to close at
$10.73 on August 10, 2020. Kodak is currently under investigation
by several House Congressional committees and the SEC.

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

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

EXBGG INC: Faces Monegro Suit Over ADA Violation in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EXBGG, Inc. The case
is captioned as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. EXBGG, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07679-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Valerie E. Caproni. An
initial pretrial conference is set for January 22, 2021, before
Judge Caproni.

EXBGG, Inc., retails home and allergy relief products. The
Company's products include hypoallergenic comforters, vapor steam
cleaners, air purifiers, vacuum cleaners, dehumidifiers,
humidifiers, water purifiers, furnace filters, and commercial
appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Users In Illinois Could Get Payment in Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
cbslocal.com reports that if you live in Illinois, Facebook could
be sending you some money to settle a class action lawsuit.

In Illinois, you can't collect or store biometric data without
permission. The lawsuit says Facebook did that with its photo
tagging suggestions.

To be eligible for compensation, you need to have lived in Illinois
for six months since June of 2011. You could receive up to $400.

When you log into Facebook there could be a court action notice
under notifications. You may also see a notice at the top of your
Facebook feed.

Click on the three dots to be taken to the online form.

You have until Nov. 23 to file a claim. [GN]

FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Fennec Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(FENC). Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the
case can be found at the link provided.

Fennec Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ( FENC)
Class Period: February 11, 2020 to August 10, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020

Fennec is a biopharmaceutical company that purportedly focuses on
the development of PEDMARK, a sodium thiosulfate anhydrous
injection, for the prevention of platinum-induced ototoxicity in
pediatric cancer patients.

On August 11, 2020, Fennec disclosed that it had received a
Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") regarding the Company's New Drug Application
for PEDMARK. According to the CRL, "after recent completion of a
pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility of [Fennec's]
drug product manufacturer, the FDA identified deficiencies
resulting in a Form 483, which is a list of conditions or practices
that are required to be resolved prior to the approval of
PEDMARK."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.51, or 34%, to
close at $6.66 per share on August 11, 2020.

The complaint, filed on September 3, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the manufacturing facilities for PEDMARK, the Company's sole
product candidate, did not comply with current good manufacturing
practices; (2) that, as a result, regulatory approval for PEDMARK
was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (3) 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.

For more information on the Fennec class action go to:
https://bespc.com/FENC

                         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]

FUSION SIGN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moran Labor Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAENA SEGURA MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FUSION SIGN & DESIGN, INC.; AVITUS, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-7441 (Cal.
Super., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 8, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Fusion Sign & Design, Inc., was founded in 2006. The Company's line
of business includes manufacturing signs and advertising
specialties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Diego Aviles, Esq.
          Sara Ehsani-Nia, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                  diego@tomorrowlaw.com
                  sara@tomorrowlaw.com


GEICO INDEMNITY: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss Moe Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDON L. MOE, individually and on behalf of all
individuals of the class similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GEICO
INDEMNITY CO., GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN
DOES I-XX, Defendants, Case No. CV-19-23-BU-BMM (D. Mont.), Judge
Brian Morris of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana, Butte Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.

Plaintiff Brandon Moe, acting individually and on behalf of all
individuals of the class similarly situated, suffered injuries in
an automobile accident on March 14, 2015.  Another car, whose
driver was insured by Defendant GEICO, struck Moe's car from
behind.  Moe incurred medical bills and lost wages.

Moe brought four claims against GEICO in Montana state court: (1)
request for declaratory and injunctive relief; (2) violations of
Montana's Unfair Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and common law bad
faith; (3) class action; and (4) common fund.  Moe alleges that
GEICO failed to make prompt advance payment of his medical bills
and lost wages as required under Ridley v. Guaranty Nat'l Ins. Co.,
and Dubray v. Farmers Ins. Exch.  GEICO removed the case to federal
court and filed a motion to dismiss.

The Court adopted findings and recommendations entered by
Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch.  Judge Lynch determined that
Moe's claim for declaratory and injunctive relief in Count I failed
for lack of standing.  Judge Lynch rejected Moe's effort to seek a
declaratory judgment that GEICO violated Montana law and noted the
claim duplicated his statutory and common law bad faith claims and
thus proved wholly superfluous.  Therefore, the declaratory relief
sought would serve no practical purpose beyond the remedies
available under the UTPA, which means the claim is subject to
dismissal

Judge Lynch continued that to the extent Moe also seeks a
declaration that GEICO continues to violate the law in its handling
of Ridley payments and asks for prospective injunctive relief
prohibiting it from doing so in the future, his claim fails for
lack of standing.  Moe lacked standing to maintain his claim for
prospective declaratory and injunctive relief because he had
settled his underlying claim with GEICO and was not a GEICO insured
and had not alleged facts showing a likelihood of harm in the
future.

Judge Lynch recommended that GEICO's motion to dismiss be granted
with respect to Moe's UTPA claims under Mont. Code Ann. Section
33-18-201(1) (misrepresenting facts or policy provisions) and (3)
(failing to implement reasonable standards for investigation of
claims), but denied with respect to claims under Mont. Code Ann.
Section 33-18-201(4) (refusal to pay claims without conducting
reasonable investigation) and (6) and (13) (together requiring
prompt settlement of claims if liability is reasonably clear).
Magistrate Judge Lynch recommended that GEICO's motion be denied as
premature with respect Moe's claims for a class action (Count III)
and creation of a common fund (Count IV).  The Court adopted in
full Judge Lynch's findings and recommendations.

Moe filed a First Amended Complaint on Oct. 18, 2019, that asserted
the same four causes of action against Defendant Government
Employees Insurance Co.  Government Employees adjusts insurance
claims for GEICO.  GEICO and Government Employees filed a motion to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint, and Magistrate Judge DeSoto
issued Findings and Recommendations that largely mirrored the
analysis regarding Moe's first complaint.  Moe filed objections on
March 27, 2020.  GEICO filed a response.  The Court held a hearing
on the objections to the Findings and Recommendations on May 26,
2020.

Moe's objection focuses on the aspect of the Findings and
Recommendation that concludes that Moe lacks standing to pursue
retrospective injunctive relief on behalf of the class.  Moe
asserts that under the Erie doctrine, federal courts apply the
substantive state law of damages.  He argues that in state court he
would have the ability under state substantive law to pursue
retrospective injunctive relief on behalf of the class.  Moe seeks
a single class trial for injunctive relief to determine the
legality of Defendants' claims handling practices.  If liability
follows, the class members would be notified of their rights and a
relief phase would ensue allowing individualized claim specific
proceedings.

Judge Morris must assess whether Moe has standing to pursue
declaratory and injunctive relief under the UTPA.  The Judge finds
that Moe is not an insured of GEICO and the Court already has
determined that Moe lacks standing to assert his claim for
prospective declaratory and injunctive relief because Moe failed to
allege facts demonstrating a likelihood of future harm resulting
from GEICO's practices.  The Judge agrees with Judge DeSoto that
any surviving aspect of Moe's claim for declaratory and injunctive
relief would fail because the plain language of the UTPA precludes
that type of relief.

Marshall v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., presents a more difficult
analysis.  Marshall supports the use of a declaratory judgment
action to determine the parties' rights and interest under the UTPA
after a settlement of the underlying claims.  The plaintiff in
Marshall pursued claims only on his behalf rather than as
representative of a class action.  The Court recognizes that
sitting in diversity jurisdiction it must anticipate how the
Montana Supreme Court would decide the question of Montana law.
The Montana Supreme Court ultimately will have the last word on
whether a party may pursue a class action under Montana law when
the party lacks standing to pursue an individual claim and whether
the UTPA allows an individual to seek declaratory and injunctive
relief.

Until the Montana Supreme Court resolves the issue, the Judge
concludes based on Byorth v. USAA Casualty Insurance, that Moe
lacks the ability to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief under
the UTPA.  It is noted in Byorth, the UTPA neither creates a right
of action for declaratory judgment, nor does it allow for
declaratory or injunctive relief.  Moe's lack of individual
standing and inability to bring a claim for declaratory and
injunctive relief precludes him from bringing a claim on behalf of
the class.  The Judge agrees that Count I of the Amended Complaint
fails to state a claim for relief due to Moe's lack of standing
under the UTPA to seek individual or class-based declaratory and
injunctive relief and should be dismissed in its entirety.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Morris finds no clear error in the
remaining portions to which neither party objected in the Findings
and Recommendations.  Accordingly, Judge Morris adopted in full
Judge DeSoto's Feb. 26, 2020 Findings and Recommendations.  Judge
Morris granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 19, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3ll6rsu from Leagle.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Piston Ring Suit Fails Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a GM piston ring lawsuit failed
class action certification and was mostly dismissed after a federal
judge ruled the plaintiff didn't adequately plead that multiple
Chevrolet and GMC vehicles suffer oil consumption problems.

General Motors made the subject 5.3L Vortec 5300 engines available
in these vehicles which are allegedly affected by piston ring
problems.

2010–2014 Chevrolet Avalanche
2010–2013 Chevrolet Silverado
2010–2014 Chevrolet Suburban
2010–2014 Chevrolet Tahoe
2010–2013 GMC Sierra
2010–2014 GMC Yukon
2010–2014 GMC Yukon XL

Plaintiff Kelly Harris owned a used 2012 Chevrolet Silverado he
received in 2012 from his former employer as part of a separation
agreement. The Silverado was equipped with a 5.3 liter V8 Vortec
5300 LC9 engine, but the engine allegedly soon had fouled spark
plugs which caused the engine to misfire.

Harris says the spark plugs had to be replaced in 2014.

In 2015 the plaintiff noticed alleged oil consumption problems
caused by the spark plug issues. A dealership allegedly said the
truck was low on oil and had fouled spark plugs caused by excessive
oil consumption due to a problem with the piston rings.

The plaintiff claims he was told the piston rings in the engines do
not maintain sufficient tension to prevent oil from being consumed
in the combustion chamber. This fouls the spark plugs and creates
carbon buildup in the pistons and cylinders.

Harris argues GM knew about the piston ring and oil consumption
problems because the Vortec engines were redesigned due to
complaints about the vehicles. The automaker also issued technical
service bulletins (TSBs) to dealerships about excessive oil
consumption.

According to the lawsuit, piston ring problems and excessive oil
consumption creates a safety risk because the engine may catch fire
or strand occupants on the roads.

Harris claims he would not have purchased his truck or would have
paid less for it had the alleged oil consumption defect and piston
ring problems been disclosed.

General Motors filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and the judge
agreed with the automaker and dismissed most of the claims made by
the plaintiff.

Harris alleges GM breached its express warranty that it would cover
repairs to correct any vehicle defect "related to materials or
workmanship during the warranty period."

But the judge ruled courts find that similar warranties only cover
manufacturing warranties, not design defects. In addition, the
express warranty claim was dismissed because the plaintiff didn't
allege his problems with the Silverado engine occurred during the
limited warranty period.

According to the judge, Harris' Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim is
also automatically dismissed because his express warranty claim was
dismissed.

A Washington Consumer Protection Act claim against GM also failed
because the plaintiff was required to allege "deceptive
advertising, causation, and injury with specificity."

The judge ruled Harris failed to allege "he relied on any
particular GM statement or advertisement when he obtained his GM
vehicle for consideration in his separation agreement with his
former employer."

And according to the judge, the claim of unjust enrichment does no
better because a "party seeking to recover under a theory of unjust
enrichment must show that the plaintiff conferred a benefit upon
the defendant."

The plaintiff doesn't dispute he didn't purchase or lease his
vehicle, and doesn't allege he "conferred a benefit upon GM."
Instead, the plaintiff argues courts in Washington have no such
requirement.

But the judge ruled the plaintiff is wrong because Washington law
does require a showing of "a benefit conferred upon the defendant
by the plaintiff."

Judge Thomas S. Zilly ruled the plaintiff may replead a few of the
claims, but most were dismissed with prejudice, including the claim
concerning a nationwide class action lawsuit.

The GM piston ring lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington at Seattle: Harris, et al., v.
General Motors LLC.

The plaintiff is represented by Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC,
DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis &
Miles, P.C.

CarComplaints.com has complaints about the vehicles named in the GM
piston ring lawsuit.

Chevrolet Avalanche Complaints - 2010 / 2011 / 2012 / 2013
Chevrolet Silverado Complaints - 2010 / 2011 / 2012  / 2013
Chevrolet Suburban Complaints - 2010 / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / 2014
Chevrolet Tahoe Complaints - 2010 / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / 2014
GMC Sierra Complaints - 2010 / 2011 / 2012 / 2013
GMC Yukon Complaints - 2010 / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / 2014 [GN]

GOL LINHAS: Timotheo Sues Over Drop in Market Value of Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Artur Timotheo, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOL LINHAS AEREAS INTELIGENTES S.A., PAULO SERGIO
KAKINOFF, and RICHARD F. LARK, JR., Case No. 1:20-cv-04644 (C.D.
Cal., Sept. 30, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired GOL securities between March 14,
2019, and July 22, 2020.

The Class Period begins on March 14, 2019, when GOL filed its
annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2018,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 2018 20-F was
signed by the Individual Defendants. The 2018 20-F contained signed
certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by the
Individual Defendants attesting to the accuracy of financial
reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's
internal controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of
all fraud.

The Plaintiff alleges that the statements were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations and prospects, which were known to the
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) GOL had material weaknesses in its internal
controls; (ii) 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 (iii) as a
result, the Defendants' statements about GOL's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On June 16, 2020, GOL filed a Notification of Late Filing on Form
12b-25 with the SEC, stating that it could not timely file its
annual report for fiscal year 2019. On this news, GOL's American
Depository Share price fell $0.27 per share, or 3.57%, to close at
$7.30 per share on June 16, 2020.

On June 29, 2020, after the market closed, GOL filed its annual
report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019, on Form 20-F
with the SEC. On this news, GOL's ADS price fell $0.14 per share,
or 2.02%, to close at $6.78 per share on June 30, 2020.

On July 23, 2020, GOL announced that it had dismissed KPMG
Auditores Independentes as the Company's registered auditing firm.
On this news, GOL's ADS price fell $0.55 per share, or 7.05%, to
close at $7.25 per share on July 23, 2020.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired GOL securities during
the Class Period.

GOL purports to provide air passenger transportation services in
Brazil, the rest of South America, the Caribbean, and the U.S.[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
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


GOLAR LNG: Glancy Prongay Corrects Sept. 24 Release
---------------------------------------------------
In the first sentence of the release issued on September 24, 2020,
the Class Period dates should read "April 30, 2020 and September
24, 2020, inclusive" (instead of "April 24, 2020 and September 24,
2020, inclusive").

The updated release reads:

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Zarabi v. Golar LNG
Limited, et al., (Case No. 20-cv-07926) on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Golar LNG Limited
("Golar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GLNG) securities between April
30, 2020 and September 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from September
24, 2020 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your Golar 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/golar-lng-limited/.
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 September 24, 2020, media reported that the Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO") of Golar's joint venture, Hygo Energy Transition
Ltd. ("Hygo"), was involved in a bribery network investigated in
Brazil's Operation Car Wash.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.28, or 32%, to
close at $6.86 per share on September 24, 2020, thereby damaging
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that certain employees, including Hygo's CEO, had
bribed third parties, thereby violating anti-bribery policies; (2)
that, as a result, the Company was likely to face regulatory
scrutiny and possible penalties; (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing reputational harm, Hygo's valuation ahead of its IPO
would be significantly impaired; 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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Golar securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
September 24, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class 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. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles H. 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]

GOOGLE INC: Canadian Law Firms to File Proposed Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
David Challis, writing for Android Headlines, reports that a group
of Canadian law firms have teamed up to propose a class action
lawsuit against Google. As reported by IT World Canada, this
actually takes the form of three lawsuits across Canada. All of
which claim that Google unlawfully collects and profits from
personal information without their consent.

It will not surprise anyone to read that this is not the first time
Google has found itself in such a dispute. Back in June it was
reported the company faced legal action over unlawfully tracking
users in incognito mode. More recently, Google has faced challenges
over its 30% transaction fee in the Google Play store.

Like any of these court cases, this will have a long way to run
before any concrete action can be taken. However, the bad press
alone can be significantly damaging to Google.

The Canadian lawsuit against Google claims that the company "turns
Canadians' electronics into tracking devices". This means that the
company can "build profiles on almost every Internet user in
Canada". All of which occurs without their consent according to
these law firms.

The claim boils down to the idea that Google misrepresents its
privacy and data practices. One lawyer pointed out that a key point
in the case is likely to be whether Google tells online users about
personal information its collects.

Most worryingly Google can collect information even if it does not
have a relationship with you. Even if a user does not use Chrome or
Gmail sites can collect information through Google Ads or
Analytics.

It is as yet unclear as to whether the three suits lodged across
Canada will be merged into one. They are very similar in nature so
Google may well move for this to happen.

The three law firms have and continue to work together on some
aspects of the cases. There are some legal differences in different
provinces of Canada which may make it difficult to merge the
cases.

Google has been approached for comment on this matter but as yet
they have not made a response to the allegations. The lawsuit is
seeking both exemplary and punitive damages against Google but a
number has not been determined.

In terms of what happens next, there are quite a few stages before
we get to a trial and a decision. First, a class action lawsuit has
to be approved by a judge. No date has been set for a hearing of
this nature just yet.

This is unlikely to be the last time Google finds itself embroiled
in a privacy scandal over the way it uses its users' data. There
does appear to be more pushback to the way in which Google handles
individuals data.

Perhaps as time goes on the pressure will become too great and big
changes will be made. However, right now that appears somewhat
unlikely as Google seems happy to fight these suits for now. [GN]


GRINDR: Privacy Breach Class Action May Head to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ebar News reports that a class action complaint against Grindr for
alleged privacy violations may not be able to proceed in
traditional court, an attorney for the complainant told the Bay
Area Reporter September 17.

Spencer Sheehan, a New York-based attorney who brought a suit
against the most popular gay dating app worldwide in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York January
31, said that the case will likely have to go through individual
arbitration instead.

"Unfortunately, many courts usually go in the direction of
arbitration," Sheehan said. "It has permeated so many aspects of
society. Arbitration is a particularly awful thing because it has
eliminated the courts having a role in protecting people. Whether
it's a phone contract or a job, it puts the process behind closed
doors."

Sheehan represents Robert Bergeron, who sued Grindr after
allegations it shared personal user data with third parties.

"Defendant has abused trust by selling their users' information to
the highest bidder without obtaining consent of users or telling
them who those entities are," the initial federal court complaint
states.

"Plaintiff's personal and sensitive information was disclosed and
auctioned to third parties without consent," the complaint reads.
"This data included 'chat message text, chat message images, e-mail
address, display name,' 'About Me', age, height, weight, body type,
position, ethnicity, relationship status, 'My Tribes,' 'I'm Looking
For,' gender, pronouns, HIV status, last-tested date, profile
picture, linked Facebook data, linked Twitter data, linked
Instagram data, location data, IP address, and device ID, such as
Google Advertising ID.  . . . Testing showed that in addition to
this data, Grindr also shared device information, app name, and
keywords."

The complaint states that "the aggregate amount in controversy" is
over $5 million, which if the case went forward as a class action
lawsuit would be spread among the members of the class.

Grindr did not respond to a request for comment.

For the last four years, Grindr had been owned by a Chinese company
but it sold its 98% stake in March to U.S.-based San Vicente
Acquisition Partners.

"It's terrible," Sheehan said. "It's offensive that [Grindr would]
disclose people's most personal and private information,
particularly a group subjected to unfair and discriminatory
treatment. There should have been a higher level of care."

But on July 29, Grindr filed a motion to compel arbitration in the
case.

"In keeping with the Federal Arbitration Act's liberal policy in
favor of arbitration, Plaintiff Robert Bergeron individually should
be required to arbitrate his grievances against Defendant Grindr,"
Grindr stated in a federal court filing. "Plaintiff indicated his
assent, by clicking a button to affirmatively accept Grindr's Terms
of Service while creating a new Grindr account, to a broad
arbitration provision wherein Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any
claims on an individual basis."

Max Kornblith of the Oakland-based consumer protection service
FairShake told the B.A.R. that what represents an actionable class
action has changed in recent years, making the success of such a
case against Grindr — and similar companies accused of such
behavior — much more of a long shot.

Kornblith said FairShake advises people trying to follow through
with alleged breaches of contract.

"The reason we exist is the contract you sign with most big
corporations you do business with — terms forbidding you from
filing a class action and demanding it be dealt with through a
parallel procedural system of consumer arbitration," Kornblith
said. "Most people don't realize the class action system has been
gutted by a Supreme Court decision. ... People have an expectation
of how the system will work because until recently, that was how."

The U.S. Supreme Court decision Kornblith was referring to is AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. In the 2011 case, AT&T was sued for
overcharging about $15 per cellphone. Its contract with customers
demanded that claims against the company be dealt with through
consumer arbitration.

A lower court ruled against AT&T, holding that the contract was
"unconscionable." In a 5-4 decision, the nation's high court ruled
in favor of AT&T. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion,
allowed contracts that prohibited class actions to be enforceable.
The intent of the decision was to assert contracts with companies
as primarily the responsibility of the individual consumer.

But as Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent: "What rational
lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions in
litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22
claim?"

Kornblith and Sheehan agree that the changes in law and practice
that have made class actions more difficult make justice less
likely when companies are found to have committed wrongdoing.

"They don't allow class arbitration. Most cases are not viable that
way," Sheehan said. "I'll check with the individual the case is
based on but if you go forward and have to spend $5,000, what do
you get, $1?"

Kornblith said that the case should nonetheless be kept in the
public courts. At issue, he said, "is the question of whether a
person signing up for Grindr actually knew that they were signing
away their right to join a lawsuit against the company, including
over the behavior of any of its 160+ advertising partners.

"Instead of public claims for justice, Grindr is basically telling
everyone to find a lawyer to go up against Grindr's lawyers," he
added. "What's likely to happen is that the court is going to
accept [Grindr's motion] and compel arbitration. It may be a
violation of privacy, but tough luck."[GN]

HARBORSIDE INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon on behalf of those who acquired Harborside, Inc.
("Harborside" or the "Company") (Other OTC: HSDEF) securities
during the period from July 2, 2019 through August 12, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until November 9, 2020 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

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) Harborside had undisclosed
material weaknesses and insufficient financial controls; (2)
Harborside's previously issued financial statements were false and
unreliable; (3) Harborside's earlier reported financial statements
would need restatement; (4) as a result of the foregoing and
subsequent reporting delays, Harborside's Canadian stock trading
would be suspended; (5) Harborside downplayed the negative impacts
of errors and delays regarding its financial statements; and (6) 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.

On May 29, 2020, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Harborside Inc. Announces Intent to Restate Certain Historical
Financial Statements and Delay in Filing Annual Financial
Statements and MD&A" regarding the newly announced needed financial
restatements and the suspension of trading of its Canadian shares.
On this news, shares of Harborside fell 2% per share over the next
two trading days to close at $0.45 per share on June 2, 2020.

On June 22, 2020, Harborside issued a press release entitled
"Harborside Inc. Provides Update to Management Cease Trade Order
and Cease Trade Order" regarding its delayed restatements and the
continued suspension of trading of its Canadian shares. On this
news, shares of Harborside fell l2% per share over the rest of the
trading day and the next full trading day to close at $0.45 per
share on June 23, 2020.

On June 30, 2020, Harborside issued a press release entitled
"Harborside Inc. Provides Update on MCTO and Financial Statement
Filings" regarding its delayed restatements and the continued
suspension of trading of its Canadian shares. On this news, shares
of Harborside fell 7% per share to close at $0.49 per share on July
1, 2020.

On July 10, 2020, Harborside issued a press release entitled
"Harborside Inc. Provides Update on Financial Statement Filings"
regarding its delayed restatements and the continued suspension of
trading of its Canadian shares. On this news, shares of Harborside
fell l3% per share to close at $0.46 per share on July 13, 2020.

On August 12, 2020, Harborside filed with the Canadian securities
regulatory authorities its Unaudited Restated Condensed Interim
Consolidated Financial Statements for the Three and Six Months
Ended June 30, 2019 and 2018. On this news, shares of Harborside
fell over 5% to close at $0.67 per share on August 13, 2020.

If you acquired Harborside securities, have information, or would
like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W.
Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com. [GN]

HDFC BANK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of HDFC Bank Limited (: HDB).
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.

HDFC Bank Limited (: HDB)
Class Period: July 31, 2019 to July 10, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020

HDFC Bank was founded in 1994 and is based in Mumbai, India. The
Bank provides various banking and financial services to individuals
and businesses in India, Bahrain, Hong Kong, and Dubai.

HDFC Bank operates in Treasury, Retail Banking, Wholesale Banking,
Other Banking Business, and Unallocated segments, offering, among
other services, various types of loans to millions of its retail
borrowers, including personal and vehicle financing loans.

Revenues generated from HDFC Bank's auto and commercial vehicle
loans are reported as part of the Bank's Retail Banking segment.

On July 13, 2020, The Economic Times published an article titled
"HDFC Bank probes lending practices at vehicle unit." That article
reported that HDFC Bank had "conducted a probe into allegations of
improper lending practices and conflicts of interests in its
vehicle-financing operations involving the unit's former head."

On this news, HDFC Bank's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price
fell $1.37 per share, or 2.83%, to close at $47.02 per share on
July 13, 2020

The complaint, filed on September 3, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Bank's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) HDFC Bank
had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal
control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Bank
maintained improper lending practices in its vehicle-financing
operations; (iii) accordingly, earnings generated from the Bank's
vehicle-financing operations were unsustainable; (iv) all the
foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Bank's financial condition and reputation;
and (v) as a result, the Bank's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the HDFC Bank class action go to:
https://bespc.com/HDB

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

HDFC BANK: Rosen Law, Schall Law Firms File Class Action Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
cnbctv18.com reports that US-based Rosen Law Firm and Schall Law
Firm have filed class action lawsuits against HDFC Bank Ltd
alleging the company of making false and misleading statements and
for failing to maintain appropriate disclosure controls and
internal controls on financial reporting.

The complaint names HDFC Bank, outgoing managing director Aditya
Puri, CEO-designate Sashidhar Jagdishan and Company Secretary
Santosh Haldankar as defendants.

According to the Rosen lawsuit, defendants throughout the class
period made false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose to investors that HDFC Bank had inadequate disclosure
controls and procedures and internal control over financial
reporting. As a result, the bank maintained improper lending
practices in its vehicle-financing operations, accordingly,
earnings generated from the Bank's vehicle-financing operations
were unsustainable.

"All the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a
material negative impact on the bank's financial condition and
reputation and as a result, the bank's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times," the
complaint said.

When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

According to the Schall Lawsuit, the company made false and
misleading statements to the market. HDFC Bank failed to maintain
appropriate disclosure controls and internal controls on financial
reporting. The Company engaged in improper lending practices in its
vehicle financing business. 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 HDFC
Bank, investors suffered damages, it said.

The lawsuits are filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
HDFC Bank between July 31, 2019 and July 10, 2020, inclusive (the
Class Period). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for HDFC
investors under the federal securities laws.

When contacted, HDFC Bank denied any further comment on this
development. The bank reiterated the statement made on August 17
statement when the investigation into the lawsuits was started
saying, "Prima facie it does look frivolous as we believe we have
been transparent in our disclosures." [GN]

IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Filings on Sale to Gilead Lack Info, Kent Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. IMMUNOMEDICS, INC., BEHZAD AGHAZADEH, BARBARA DUNCAN,
ROBERT AZELBY, PETER BARTON HUTT, CHARLES BAUM, KHALID ISLAM, SCOTT
CANUTE, GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., and MAUI MERGER SUB, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-01312-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 29, 2020), is brought on behalf
of the public shareholders of Immunomedics arising from the
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Immunomedics by
Gilead.

On September 13, 2020, Immunomedics' Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Gilead,
pursuant to which Merger Sub, Maui Merger Sub, Inc., commenced a
tender offer to purchase all of Immunomedics' outstanding common
stock for $88 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is set to expire
on October 22, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially
misleading Recommendation Statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 24, 2020, wherein the statement
omits material information concerning the proposed transaction. The
failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need
such information to make a fully informed decision whether to
tender their shares in support of the proposed transaction or seek
appraisal, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Recommendation Statement fails to
disclose the Immunomedics' financial projections and fails to
provide financial analyses performed by the Immunomedics' financial
advisors in connection with the proposed transaction, namely
Centerview Partners LLC and BofA Securities, Inc.

Immunomedics, Inc., develops, manufactures, and sells diagnostic
imaging and therapeutic products.

Gilead Sciences, Inc., is an American biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Foster City, California, that researches, develops
and commercializes drugs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

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


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Venkataraman Securities Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Srinivasan Venkataraman, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., XIAOMING HU,
CHENG WANG, BING MEI, LIMING CHEN, JERRY LEWIN, and HENRY YU, Case
No. 1:20-cv-08082-LGS (C.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2020), seeks to pursue
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 as a result of their wrongful acts and omissions resulting to
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Kandi securities between June 10,
2015, and March 13, 2017, inclusive.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) certain areas in the Company's previously issued
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and
2014, and the first three quarters for the year ended December 31,
2016 required adjustment; (2) in turn, the Company lacked effective
controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, the
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On November 14, 2016, the Company announced the abrupt resignation
of Defendant Wang as the chief financial officer. On this news,
shares of Kandi fell $0.40 per share, or more than 10% from their
previous closing price, to close at $3.50 per share on November 14,
2016, damaging investors.

On March 13, 2017, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the Securities
and Exchange Commission revealing that its previously issued
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and
2014, and the first three quarters for the year ended December 31,
2016, will need to be restated. On this news, shares of Kandi fell
$0.30 per share, or approximately 6%, from its previous closing
price to close at $4.05 per share on March 14, 2017, further
damaging investors.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Kandi securities during the Class Period.

Kandi, through its subsidiaries, designs, produces, manufactures,
and distributes electric vehicles (EVs) products, EV parts, and
off-road vehicles in the People's Republic of China and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
          Email: info@glancylaw.com


KROGER CO: K. Pope Sought Voluntary Dismissal of Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Pope has sought and obtained a Court order for the
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of her lawsuit, KATHLEEN
POPE, Plaintiff, v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-817
(S.D. Ohio).  The Aug. 26, 2020 dismissal order is available at
https://bit.ly/3npgykT from PacerMonitor.com.

Kroger is a national grocery store chain that operates under the
names Kroger and Mariano's.  Through these stores, it sells food
products bearing others' brands (e.g., Kellogg's), and in addition
sells at least two types of privately-branded goods: Private
Selection and Simple Truth.  

Pope's lawsuit stems from two products that Kroger sells in its
privately-branded lines: Kroger's Private Selection Raw and
Unfiltered Wildflower Honey ("Private Selection Raw Honey") and
Kroger's Simple Truth Organic Raw and Unfiltered Honey ("Simple
Truth Raw Honey"). More specifically, Pope claims she purchased a
bottle of Private Selection Raw Honey from her local Mariano's
store in Illinois (Mariano's is a name under which Kroger operates
some grocery stores), but that the "raw" honey inside was anything
but. Pope claims Kroger knew that its labeling of the Raw Honey
Products as Raw and Unfiltered Honey was inaccurate, incorrect,
deceptive, and misleading, and despite the knowledge, continued to
sell the Raw Honey Products at a premium to the price of non-raw
honey.

Pope filed the class-action complaint on Sept. 25, 2019.  In it,
she brought six claims against Kroger: (1) violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA"), (2) fraudulent
misrepresentation, (3) fraudulent concealment, (4) unjust
enrichment, (5) declaratory relief, and (6) injunctive relief.
Pope also claims that she has alleged enough facts to meet Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23's requirements to bring a class action.
She defines the putative class as all persons and entities in
Illinois who made retail purchases of Kroger's Raw Honey products
during the applicable limitations period.

Kroger responded to the Complaint with a Motion to Dismiss seeking
to dismiss the case in its entirety.  In support of that motion,
Kroger argued that Pope failed to state a plausible claim because
her Complaint relies entirely on speculation and guesswork.

In a June 19, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at
https://is.gd/jAQ6IR from Leagle.com, the Court granted Kroger's
Motion to Dismiss but granted Pope leave to file an amended
complaint.

Pope filed an amended Complaint on July 16, 2020.

However, by August 2020, Pope filed a request for voluntary
dismissal of her Complaint.  The Court has granted such request.


LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ:
LX): (i) pursuant and/or traceable to LexinFintech's initial public
offering ("IPO") conducted on or about December 21, 2017; and/or
(ii) between December 21, 2017 and August 24, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period") of the important November 9, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for LexinFintech investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the LexinFintech class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1936.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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
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)
LexinFintech's business model exposes shareholders to enormous
losses by prioritizing Chinese lenders for off-balance sheet loans;
(3) LexinFintech exaggerated its user base; (4) LexinFintech was
facilitating direct peer to peer lending contrary to Chinese law;
(5) LexinFintech engaged in undisclosed related party transactions;
(6) LexinFintech 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.

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
9, 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-1936.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.

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.

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.[GN]

LEXINGTON, KY: Petition for Placement of Home Confinement Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACKLYN J. PRICE and SHEREA DARNELL, Petitioners, v.
FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, Respondent, Civil No. 5:20-246-JMH (E.D.
Ky.), Judge Joseph M. Hood of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington,
dismissed without prejudice the Petitioners' Class Action Petition
Seeking Placement of Home Confinement.  

Petitioners Price and Darnell are federal prisoners currently
incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center ("FMC")-Lexington in
Lexington, Kentucky.  Together, they have filed a pleading with the
Clerk of the Court styled as a "Class Action Petition Seeking
Placement of Home Confinement."  For administrative purposes, the
Petitioners' petition has been docketed as a civil rights action
against prison officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  They
have neither paid the filing fee nor filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.

The Petitioners' "petition" purports to be brought on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated detained inmates in
the custody of FMC-Lexington.  They allege that FMC-Lexington's
delayed and patently inadequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic
has resulted in 243 inmates and 7 staff members testing positive
for the virus and 4 inmate deaths.  They claim that FMC-Lexington
has failed to exercise the degree of care expected of a person of
ordinary prudence in like circumstances in protecting others from a
foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm in a particular situation
such as the Coronavirus pandemic.  It is ordinary negligence.

The Petitioners further claim that FMC-Lexington's response to the
spread of COVID-19 has been a mixture of ineptitude and
indifference that threatens the safety or inmates, staff, their
families, and the community, particularly the lack of mass testing
and failure to adequately implement measures to reduce the spread
of the virus, including proper social distancing, sanitation of the
facility, and access to soap and effective cleaning agents.

Based on these allegations, the Petitioners claim that Respondent
Warden Francisco Quintana has acted with deliberate indifference
towards the Petitioners and the class members by knowingly
subjecting them to conditions of confinement that increase their
risk of contracting COVID-19, a disease for which there is no known
vaccine or cure.  They state that the Respondent has done so
knowing that they suffer a substantial and unreasonable risk of
serious harm to their health and safety, and, accordingly, has
failed to adequately protect them from the risks of COVID-19.

As relief, the Petitioners seek orders granting the petition;
certifying the class; granting temporary, preliminary, and
permanent injunction, directing the Respondent to take all
incomplete.

As an initial matter, Judge Hood finds that it is not entirely
clear whether the Petitioners' pleading is meant to be a civil
rights lawsuit alleging constitutional violations and filed against
the Warden of FMC-Lexington pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Federal Narcotics Agents, a complaint alleging claims of negligence
against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act
("FTCA"), or a habeas petition challenging the manner or execution
of their respective sentences filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
2241, as it appears to have echoes of all three.  However, despite
the Petitioners' references to negligence and constitutional
violations, several factors lead the Judge to conclude that their
pleading is intended to be a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241.

A motion for immediate release to home confinement is, in essence,
a motion for modification of a sentence made pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 3582.  However, a Section 3582(c) motion for modification
of an imposed term of imprisonment must be made to the Court that
sentenced each Plaintiff, and may not be filed in the Court.
Indeed, although the BOP has the ability to recommend compassionate
release, only the sentencing court is authorized to reduce a term
of imprisonment.

Moreover, the Petitioners' desire for their claims to proceed as a
class action also falters on several procedural grounds.  The
would-be plaintiffs did not attempt to define the scope of the
class or the claims encompassed within it, allege or argue that
they satisfy the requirements for class certification set forth in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1)-(4), or identify the type
of class action appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1)-(3).  A complaint
that fails to satisfy any of these substantive criteria does not
warrant class certification.  More fundamentally, as pro se
litigants, Price and Darnell may each represent their own
respective interests pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

After conducting a preliminary review of the "class action
petition" filed by Petitioners, the Judge concludes that because
the pleading filed by the Petitioners suffers from numerous
defects, the wisest course is to dismiss the matter without
prejudice so that Price and/or Darnell may pursue their claims on
their own behalf in separate lawsuits should they choose to do so.
He will decline to assess a filing fee at this time.

The Judge will dismiss the case without prejudice to the rights of
Price and Darnell to either seek modification of their terms of
imprisonment by filing a motion in the courts that sentenced them
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c) or file complaints asserting
their negligence and/or Eighth Amendment claims in new, separate
lawsuits.  However, to be clear, should either Price or Darnell
choose to institute a new action asserting their negligence and/or
Eighth Amendment claims without the assistance of an attorney, they
may not assert claims on behalf of other individuals.

If either Price or Darnell wish to pursue their negligence or
constitutional claims in a civil rights lawsuit in the Court, they
must first file a formal complaint on the form approved for use by
the Court.  A plaintiff's complaint should describe the facts of
the case, specifically identifying the people, dates, places, and
actions which are relevant to her claims, and explain what she
wants the Court to do.  In addition, when filing a complaint, a
plaintiff must also pay the $350 filing fee and the $50
administrative fee.  If a plaintiff cannot afford to pay the entire
filing fee, she may file a motion to pay it in installments under
28 U.S.C. Section 1915.  

Price and Darnell are further advised that before a plaintiff may
file suit in court to challenge an action or decision by jail
officials, she must complete, in its entirety, the inmate grievance
process and pursue all available appeals under the applicable
grievance procedures.  If an inmate files suit before the prison
grievance process is completed in its entirety, the Court will
dismiss the case without prejudice.  In such case, the plaintiff
will still be responsible for payment of the entire filing fee,
even if he she is granted permission to pay the fee in installments
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915.

The Judge will direct the Clerk of the Court to forward blank
copies of the appropriate forms used to file a civil rights lawsuit
to Price and Darnell that they may use if they wish to pursue their
claims in a new case.  However, again, if either of them wishes to
file a lawsuit without a lawyer, she may do so only on her own
behalf.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Hood waived the payment of the filing
fees in the case.  He dismissed without prejudice the Petitioners'
Class Action Petition Seeking Placement of Home Confinement.  Any
pending requests for relief are denied as moot.  The matter is
dismissed and stricken from the Court's docket.  The Judge will
enter an appropriate Judgment.

The Clerk of the Court will send Price and Darnell the following
blank forms so that either of them may individually file a new
action regarding the matter if she chooses to do so: (a) Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, (b)
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs, and (c) Certificate of Inmate Account.

If either Price or Darnell still wishes to pursue their claims,
they should carefully follow the instructions regarding the filing
fee described in the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5om6p2k from
Leagle.com.


MASONITE CORP: 4th Cir. Appeal Filed in Grubb Lumber Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Masonite Corporation filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled GRUBB LUMBER COMPANY, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
MASONITE CORPORATION, and JELD-WEN, INC., Case No.
3:18-cv-00718-JAG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia at Richmond.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
challenges the Defendants' collusive pricing and illegal scheme for
"interior molded doors" in violation of the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.

Interior molded doors are a type of interior door made by
sandwiching a wood frame and a hollow or solid core between two
doorskins composed of a high-density fibrous mat and formed into a
raised panel design. Interior molded doors attempt to simulate the
aesthetics of solid wood doors at lower prices.

Masonite is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with
a principal place of business in Tampa, Florida.  Masonite is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Masonite International Corporation.

Jeld-Wen is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with
a principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Jeld-Wen is a wholly owned subsidiary of JELD-WEN Holding, Inc.

The Defendants are vertically-integrated manufacturers, i.e., they
manufacture both molded doorskins as well as interior molded doors.
The Defendants control the majority (around 85%) of the market for
interior molded doors and are the only manufacturers for doorskins,
a necessary input for interior molded doors, in North America.

The appellate case is captioned as Grubb Lumber Company, Inc. v.
Masonite Corporation, Case No. 20-2043, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees GRUBB LUMBER COMPANY, INC., Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, and PHILADELPHIA
RESERVE SUPPLY CO. are represented by:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55105
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF P.C.
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com

               - and -

          Eric Leon Cramer, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
          1818 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3009
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net

               - and -

          Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin Jerome Funk, Esq.
          Christine Alicia Williams, Esq.
          DURRETTE, ARKEMA, GERSON & GILL, PC
          1111 East Main Street
          P. O. Box 1463
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-6809
          E-mail: wdurrette@dagglaw.com
                  kfunk@dagglaw.com
                  cwilliams@dagglaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: jgittleman@barrack.com

               - and -

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE, GRINDAL & NAUEN, PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue, South
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: erodette@locklaw.com

Defendant-Appellant MASONITE CORPORATION is represented by:

          Lynn Kanaga Brugh, IV, Esq.
          Calvin Wooding Fowler, Jr., Esq.
          Brendan David O'Toole, Esq.
          WILLIAMS MULLEN
          P. O. Box 1320
          Richmond, VA 23218-1320
          Telephone: (804) 643-1991
          E-mail: lbrugh@williamsmullen.com
                  wfowler@williamsmullen.com
                  botoole@williamsmullen.com

               - and -

          Nathan P. Eimer, Esq.
          Vanessa Greenwood Jacobsen, Esq.
          Benjamin Edward Waldin, Esq.
          Ryan J. Walsh, Esq.
          EIMER STAHL LLP
          224 South Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660-7600
          E-mail: neimer@eimerstahl.com
                  vjacobsen@eimerstahl.com
                  bwaldin@eimerstahl.com
                  rwalsh@eimerstahl.com


MAXIM INTEGRATED: Schaffer Suit Challenges Sale to Analog Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Schaffer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC., WILLIAM P. SULLIVAN,
TUNC DOLUCA, TRACY C. ACCARDI, JAMES R. BERGMAN, JOSEPH R. BRONSON,
ROBERT E. GRADY, MERCEDES JOHNSON, WILLIAM D. WATKINS, and MARYANN
WRIGHT, Case No. 5:20-cv-06816 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2020), is
brought against Maxim and its Board of Directors for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with the proposed acquisition of Maxim by Analog Devices, Inc.

The Plaintiff, a continuous stockholder of Maxim, seeks to enjoin
the vote on the Proposed Transaction, pursuant to which Maxim will
be acquired by Analog Devices, Inc. through its wholly owned
subsidiary Magneto Corp. ("Merger Sub").

On July 13, 2020, Maxim and Analog issued a joint press release
announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated July 12, 2020, to sell Maxim to Analog. Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, each holder of Maxim common stock
will receive 0.630 shares of Analog common stock for each share of
Maxim common stock they own. Based upon Analog's September 14, 2020
closing stock price of $114.62, the Merger Consideration has an
implied value of $72.21 per Maxim share.

On September 4, 2020, Maxim filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that Maxim stockholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (i) the
Company's financial projections, as well as the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC; (ii) the background of the Proposed
Transaction; and (iii) J.P. Morgan's and Company insiders'
potential conflicts of interest. The Defendants authorized the
issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation
of the Exchange Act, the Plaintiff contends.

Unless remedied, the Plaintiff asserts, Maxim's public stockholders
will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: 310/208-2800
          Facsimile: 310/209-2348

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 682-3025
          Fax: (212) 682-3010


MEI PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of October 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
company. You can review a copy of the Complaint by visiting the
link below 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, you can
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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP)
Class Period: August 2, 2017 - July 1, 2020
Deadline: October 9, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/meip   

The Complaint alleges that  throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements that:  (1) MEI
Pharma overstated Pracinostat's potential efficacy as an acute
myeloid leukemia ("AML"), treatment for the target population; (2)
consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial was unlikely to meet
its primary endpoint of overall survival; (3) all the foregoing,
once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative
impact on the Company's financial condition and prospects for
Pracinostat; and (4) 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. [GN]

MONTAGE RESOURCES: Faces Wolf Suit Over Sale to Southwestern
------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Wolf, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MONTAGE RESOURCES CORPORATION, RANDALL ALBERT, MARK
BURROUGHS, GENE DAVIS, DON DIMITRIEVICH, RICHARD PATERSON, D.
MARTIN PHILLIPS, JOHN REINHART, DOUGLAS SWANSON, ROBERT ZORICH, and
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01324-UNA (D. Del.,
Sept. 30, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to
which Montage will be acquired by Southwestern Energy Company.

On August 12, 2020, Montage's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Southwestern.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Montage's
stockholders will receive 1.8656 shares of Southwestern common
stock for each share of Montage common stock they own.

On September 16, 2020, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants violated of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
in connection with the Registration Statement.

The Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement omits, among
other things, material information regarding the Company's,
Southwestern's, and the combined company's financial projections.
The omissions and false and misleading statements in the
Registration Statement are material in that a reasonable
stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on
the Proposed Transaction. Because of the false and misleading
statements in the Registration Statement, the Plaintiff and the
Class are threatened with irreparable harm, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff owns Montage common stock.

Montage is an exploration and production company with approximately
195,000 net effective core undeveloped acres currently focused on
the Utica and Marcellus Shales of Southeast Ohio, West Virginia,
and North Central Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


MT BAKER VAPOR: Angeles Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MT Baker Vapor LLC.
The case is captioned as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. MT Baker Vapor LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-07685-PAE-KHP (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020).

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul A.
Engelmayer.

An initial pretrial conference is set for December 15, 2020.

MT Baker Vapor LLC sells vaporizer and electronic cigarette
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MUTUAL SECURITIES: Alzado-Lotz Sues Over Retirement Savings' Loss
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANICE ALZADO-LOTZ v. MUTUAL SECURITIES, INC.; AARON JASPER;
MITCHELL VOSS; RYAN SABOL; NICHOLAS DAMIANI; JULIE COHEN; THOMAS
BOCK; MARY EVANS, Case No. 1:20-cv-02928 (D. Colo., Sept. 28,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for breach of contract,
breach of duty, financial elder abuse, negligence, fraud by
misrepresentation and omission, failure to supervise and control,
and violations of federal and state securities laws, including the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their duty of
care and disregarded the written instructions of the Plaintiff by
failing to disclose material information about the investments they
were buying into her account. Specifically, the Defendants failed
to inform her that they invested her assets in high risk and wildly
speculative foreign mining over-the-counter (OTC) stocks, they
ignored her instructions to make her investment profile as capital
appreciation/moderate risk, they failed to employ a diversified
strategy at any time, and they did not make adjustments to her
portfolio to reflect current market conditions.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, Ms.
Alzado lost most of her retirement savings. When Ms. Alzado opened
her account, she had $232,330.57. When she closed it, the
Defendants left her with only $22,386.82. Had the Defendants
managed her account in accordance with her instructions and the
duty of care with which they are charged, her account would have
been worth over $500,000.

On July 21, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against Mutual
Securities, Inc. (MSI) in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, entitled Milliner v. Mutual Securities,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-03354. The class action was brought by
Plaintiffs Charlotte Milliner and Joanne Brem, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, who also suffered
massive losses to their portfolios due to the false written
promises and one size fits all investment approach implemented by
MSI and its registered representatives.

Mutual Securities, Inc., provides brokerage and financial advisory
services with its main office located in Camarillo,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
               
         David Sturgeon-Garcia, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID STURGEON-GARCIA
         1100 Moraga Way, Suite 208
         Moraga, CA 94556
         Telephone: (925) 235-7290


NAGLE & ZALLER: Faces Bland FDCPA Suit in District of Columbia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nagle & Zaller, P.C.,
et al. The case is captioned as Lakisha Bland, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nagle & Zaller, P.C. and
John Does 1 through 25, Case No. 1:20-cv-02628-JDB (D.D.C., Sept.
17, 2020).

The nature of the suit is stated as Consumer Credit. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge John D. Bates.

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

Nagle & Zaller, P.C., provides legal counsel in a variety of legal
matters, including civil litigation, personal injury, corporate
issues, such as utilities law and other issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@SteinSaksLegal.com


NANO-X IMAGING: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ:
NNOX) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: August 21, 2020 and September 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 16, 2020

Learn more about your recoverable losses in NNOX:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/nano-x-imaging-ltd-loss-submission-form?id=9417&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Nano-X Imaging Ltd. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Nano-X's commercial agreements and its customers
were fabricated; (2) Nano-X's statements regarding its "novel"
Nanox System were misleading as the Company never provided data
comparing its images with images from competitors' machines; (3)
Nano-X's submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
admitted the Nanox System was not original; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders have until November 16, 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 NNOX 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.

         J. Klein, Esq.
         Empire State Building
         350 Fifth Avenue
         59th Floor
         New York, NY 10118
         Telephone: (212) 616-4899
         Fax: (347) 558-9665
         E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

NANOX IMAGING: Hit With Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------
Radiology Business reports that Nanox Imaging has been hit with a
class action lawsuit amid recent criticism labeling the startup as
"Theranos 2.0," in reference to the spectacular failure of the
once-promising blood-testing company.

The news comes just weeks after the Israeli firm completed a
successful initial public offering that raised $190 million. Nanox
has inked a series of deals in several countries to provide its
novel imaging system, claiming to offer high-end medical imaging at
a fraction of the cost and footprint. But analysts at Citron
Research raised red flags Tuesday, Sept. 15, claiming the company
is merely a "stock promotion" amassing millions without any FDA
approvals or scientific evidence.

Citron’s analysis--titled "A Complete Farce on the Market:
Theranos 2.0"--drew widespread attention, with several law firms
soliciting investors looking to sue Nanox over its claims.
Plaintiff Matthew White and law firm Rosen Law are one of the first
to follow through, filing a proposed securities class action in New
York.

He claims the company made false statements to both the SEC and
investors to inflate its stock value, Bloomberg Law reported. White
and his attorneys also allege Nanox fabricated commercial
agreements and made misleading statements about its imaging
technology. Several other law firms also announced their own
lawsuits on behalf of investors.

Nanox did not respond to a Radiology Business request for comment.
However, the Neve Ilan, Israel-based company posted a statement to
its webpage Wednesday, Sept. 16, addressing the "unusual trading
activities" after investors dumped the stock en masse in response
to Citron’s concerns.

Officials said the report "contains factual errors and misleading
speculations," but they did not elaborate in the announcement.

"Nanox believes that the allegations in the report are completely
without merit and strongly condemns the publishing of the false and
misleading information contained in this report," the statement
read. "The company is carefully reviewing the report and will
provide additional information on the allegations as appropriate."

Meanwhile, others have criticized Citron and founder Andrew Left of
manipulating the market and misleading investors for their own
gains. A Change.org petition circulating urged the SEC’s Division
of Enforcement to investigate Citron’s actions. [GN]

NCAA: Ignores Concussion Effects to Footballers, McClintock Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT MCCLINTOCK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02501-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind., Sept. 29, 2020), seeks
to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result of the
Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of University of Michigan student-athletes.

According to the complaint, the Defendant knew about the
debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related
injuries, and sub-concussive injuries that resulted from playing
college football, but recklessly disregarded this information to
protect the very profitable business of "amateur" college football.
Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries like those
Plaintiff experienced, the Defendant allegedly failed to implement
adequate procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other Michigan
football players from the long-term dangers associated with them.

As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and countless former Michigan football players suffered
brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football,
the suit says.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located in Indianapolis, Indiana. The association is the governing
body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college
sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate
athletics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NEW YORK: Grasmere Fit Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against De Blasio. The case
is styled as Grasmere Fit, Inc. dba The Max Challenge of Grasmere,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Sean Egan
LLC dba North Star Yoga, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Mark Gjonaj in his capacity as Chair of the New
York City Council Small Business Committee, Plaintiff v. De Blasio,
Bill in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York,
David Chokshi in his official capacity as the City of New York
Health Commissioner, City of New York, Defendant, Case No.
151523/2020 (N.Y, Sept. 29, 2020).

The case type of lawsuit is stated as E-Other Tort.

The Defendants are government officials of New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James Mermigis, ESQ.
   85 Cold Spring Road
   Syosset, NY 11791
   Tel: (516) 353-0075





NEXTCURE INC: Robbins LLP Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP announces that an investor
of NextCure, Inc. (NASDAQ: NXTC) filed a class action against the
Company for: (i) alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 between November 5, 2019 and July 14, 2020; and (ii)
pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 for misstatements in
connection with its November 2019 secondary public offering
("SPO"). NextCure is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company
that develops immune-oncology therapies. Its leading treatment
candidate, NC318, targets a novel immunomodulatory receptor, called
Siglec-15, or S15, particularly in patients with advanced or
metastatic solid tumors.

NextCure, Inc. (NXTC) Accused of Misleading Shareholders

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
misled investors regarding the efficacy of and objective responses
observed in patients treated with NC318 from the Company's Phase 1
Clinical Trial. Specifically, on November 5, 2019, NextCure made
positive statements regarding its Phase 1 Clinical Trial in
connection with the 34th Annual Meeting of Society for
Immunotherapy of Cancer, reporting a disease control rate of 71%
while committing to present results for the 43 patients dosed with
NC318. According to the media and analysts, "expectations for
NextCure and NC 318 [] soar[ed] because . . . . NC318 could become
as popular as [Merck's blockbuster drug] Keytruda if clinical trial
results continue to impress." On this news, NextCure's stock closed
at $92.22 per share, up nearly 250% from the previous day's close.

On November 19, 2019, NextCure closed its SPO, raising $172.2
million in gross proceeds. The offering documents touted the
efficacy and effectiveness of NC318.

Then, on July 13, 2020, NextCure announced the departure of its
Chief Medical Officer and that it was no longer planning to
"advance the non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and ovarian cancer
cohorts in the stage 2 portion of the Simon 2-stage trial." On this
news, analysts slashed price targets from as high as $87 to as low
as $13. As a result, NextCure's shares dropped over 54% the next
trading day to close at $8.15 per share on July 13, 2020.

If you purchased shares of NextCure (NXTC) between November 5, 2019
and July 14, 2020, you have until November 20, 2020, to ask the
court to appoint you lead plaintiff.

          Lauren Levi
          Tel No: (800) 350-6003
          E-mail: llevi@robbinsllp.com

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

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

NEXTCURE INC: Schall Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against NextCure,
Inc. ("NextCure" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: NXTC) 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 November
5, 2019 and July 14, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 20, 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. NextCure made numerous misleading
statements about its treatment candidate, NC318. The Company misled
the market on NC318's effectiveness and patient responses to the
candidate, among other things. 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 NextCure,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

NIKOLA CORPORATION: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Nikola Corporation in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of those who purchased
or acquired the securities of Nikola between March 3, 2020 and
September 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Nikola investors under the federal
securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) VectoIQ did not
engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola;
(ii) Nikola overstated its "in-house" design, manufacturing, and
testing capabilities; (iii) Nikola overstated its hydrogen
production capabilities; (iv) as a result, Nikola overstated its
ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (v) Nikola founder and
Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a misleading "test"
video of the Company’s Nikola Two truck; (vi) the work experience
and background of key Nikola employees, including Mr. Milton, had
been overstated and obfuscated; (vii) Nikola did not have five Tre
trucks completed; and (viii) as a result, Defendants’ public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by
a market research firm.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Nikola
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
November 16, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]

NS8 INC: Faces Storms Class Suit Alleging Violations of WARN Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Storms, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NS8, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01328-UNA (D. Del., Sept.
30, 2020), is brought on behalf of the employees, who worked for
the Defendant and who were terminated without cause as part of, or
as the foreseeable result of, the mass layoff ordered by the
Defendant and who were not provided 60 days advance written notice
of their terminations as required by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.

On September 11, 2020, NS8 terminated the Plaintiff and most of its
workforce, resulting in over 200 full-time employees losing their
jobs across its facilities in California, Florida, and Nevada,
including at least 75 in its Las Vegas, Nevada facility. The
Plaintiff was not told the reason for the mass layoff when he was
terminated. Although NS8 provided a purported WARN notice to its
terminated employees, it did not explain why the layoff was ordered
other than to say "sudden and unforeseeable business
circumstances," the Plaintiff contends.

The Defendant's lack of notice and actions violated the WARN Act
through the abrupt mass layoff and closing of its facilities that
resulted in lost employment for at least 75 employees, thus,
fulfilling the WARN Act's threshold requirements of at least 50
employees and at least 33% of the Company's workforce at a single
facility being terminated, according to the complaint. The
Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees seek to recover 60
days wages and benefits from Defendant pursuant to the WARN Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a business development manager for the
Defendant as a remote employee reporting to its facility.

NS8 is a fraud detection technology company that employed
approximately 225 employees in its business of developing and
selling electronic tools to help online vendors assess the fraud
risks of customer transactions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 295-5310

               - and -

          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 545-4600
          Email: guiney@whafh.com
                 kcooper@whafh.com


PIZZA COTTAGE: Emory Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN EMORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE PIZZA COTTAGE LLC; and LARRY E. TIPTON, Defendants,
2:20-cv-04653-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 8, 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 Plaintiff Emory was employed by the Defendants as server.

The Pizza Cottage LLC owns and operates a restaurant located in
Zanesville, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PIZZA PALACE: Calle Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
HITLER CALLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PIZZA PALACE CAFE LLC (D/B/A PIZZA PALACE CAFE); SASHA
DOE; YURI DOE; VLAD DOE; and LEOY DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04178
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 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 Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as pizza maker.

Pizza Palace Cafe LLC owns, operates, or controls a pizzeria, in
Forest Hills, New York, under the name Pizza Palace Cafe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORTLAND GENERAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Portland General Electric
Company ("PGE") (: POR). Stockholders have until the deadline below
to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about the case can be found at the link provided.

Portland General Electric Company ("PGE") (: POR)
Class Period: April 24, 2020 to August 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020

PGE is an electric utility that engages in the generation,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The Company also participates in wholesale markets
by purchasing and selling electricity and natural gas to meet the
needs of its retail customers.

On August 24, 2020, PGE announced that it had incurred losses of
$127 million as of August 24, 2020. PGE further stated that "PGE
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, PGE 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.

The complaint, filed on September 3, 2020, alleges that throughout
the class period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
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.

For more information on the Portland General Electric class action,
go to: https://bespc.com/POR

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

PORTLAND GENERAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of November 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon on behalf of those who acquired Portland General
Electric Company ("PGE" or the "Company") (NYSE: POR) securities
during the period from April 24, 2020 through August 24, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until November 2, 2020 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

PGE is an electric utility that engages in the generation,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The Company also participates in wholesale markets
by purchasing and selling electricity and natural gas to meet the
needs of its retail customers.

On August 24, 2020, PGE announced that it had incurred losses of
$127 million as of August 24, 2020. PGE further stated that "PGE
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, PGE 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.

The complaint, filed on September 3, 2020, alleges that throughout
the class period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
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.

If you acquired PEG securities, have information, or would like to
learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com. [GN]

PROGENITY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 27 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
Progenity, Inc. ("Progenity" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PROG) in
the United States between June 19, 2020 and August 28, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California alleges violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.

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

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for
Progenity's IPO was negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material
facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not
misleading, and failed to make the necessary disclosures required
under the rules and regulations governing its preparation.
Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose, inter
alia, the following adverse facts that existed at the time of the
IPO, rendering numerous statements provided therein materially
false and misleading: (i) that Progenity had overbilled government
payors by $10.3 million in 2019 and early 2020 and, thus, had
materially overstated its revenues, earnings and cash flows from
operations for the historical financial periods provided in the
Registration Statement; (ii) that Progenity would need to refund
this overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same quarter in
which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting its quarterly
results; and (iii) that Progenity was suffering from accelerating
negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with respect to the
Company's testing volumes, revenues and product pricing.

Shortly after the IPO, the price of Progenity stock suffered
significant price declines. By August 14, 2020, Progenity stock
closed at just $7.71 per share - nearly 50% below the $15 per share
price investors paid for the stock in the IPO less than two months
previously.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 27, 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 PROG securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/progenityinc-prog-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-297/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. © 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. [GN]

PROSHARES ULTRA: Schall Law Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against ProShares
Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (NYSEArca: UCO) ("UCO" or "the Fund") 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.

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

QUTOUTIAO INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming October 19, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who acquired
Qutoutiao Inc. ("Qutoutiao" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: QTT): (a)
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's September 2018 initial public offering
("IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (b) securities between September
14, 2018 and July 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Qutoutiao 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/qutoutiao-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.

In September 2018, the Company completed its IPO, selling 13.8
million ADSs at $7.00 per share.

On December 10, 2019, Wolfpack Research published a report,
alleging among other things, that the Company had overstated its
revenues by recording non-existent advances from advertising
customers. Moreover, the report alleged that Qutoutiao replaced its
third-party advertising agent with a related party, thereby
bypassing the agent's oversight and allowing the Company to
"perpetrate the unmitigated ad fraud that [Wolfpack] observed in
[its] sample."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.12, nearly 4%, to
close at $2.86 per share on December 11, 2019, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

On July 15, 2020, hosts of a consumer rights gala stated that
Qutoutiao had allowed ads on its platform promoting exaggerated or
impossible claims from weight-loss products. For example, one such
ad offered free weight-loss products valued at $14,300 that would
help users lose more than 30 pounds a month.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.85, or 23%, to
close at $2.84 per share on July 16, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Qutoutiao replaced its
advertising agent with a related party, thereby bypassing
third-party oversight of the content and quality of the
advertisements; (2) that the Company placed advertisements on its
mobile app for products whose claims could not be substantiated and
thus were considered false advertisements under applicable
regulations; (3) that, as a result, the Company would face
increasing regulatory scrutiny and reputational harm; (4) that, as
a result, the Company's advertising revenue was reasonably likely
to decline; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Qutoutiao securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 19,
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]

QUTOUTIAO INC: Schall Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Qutoutiao
Inc. ("Qutoutiao" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:QTT) for violations of
the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant to and/or
traceable to the Company's September 2018 initial public offering
("IPO"); and/or (2) between September 14, 2018 and July 15, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period") are encouraged to contact the firm
before October 19, 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. Qutoutiao installed a related party as
its advertising agent, removing third-party oversight of the
quality and content of advertisements. The Company's mobile app ran
ads considered false advertisements under applicable regulations.
As a result of the regulatory scrutiny, the Company was likely to
face regarding such ads, revenues would decline. 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 Qutoutiao, 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]

REALOGY HOLDINGS: Faces Chinitz Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as RONALD CHINITZ, SARAH BUMPUS, and ROSEMARY
RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., REALOGY INTERMEDIATE
HOLDINGS LLC, REALOGY GROUP LLC, REALOGY SERVICES GROUP LLC,
REALOGY BROKERAGE GROUP LLC (f/k/a NRT LLC), and MOJO DIALING
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-mc-00984-RP (W.D. Tex., Sept. 24,
2020), the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Arch Telecom, Inc.,
to comply with a subpoena that was issued on June 24, 2020, and was
served on June 30, 2020, seeking records of calls made by the
Defendants using Arch's platforms by CB Agents nationwide.

The Corporate Defendants operate real estate business. Coldwell
Banker Real Estate LLC is an American real estate franchise owned
by Realogy, with headquarters in Madison, New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of engaging in a pervasive
practice of making unwanted telephone calls to generate real estate
business by calling persons, who were registered on the National Do
Not Call Registry and who previously requested not to be called by
Coldwell Banker; and by using prerecorded messages.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lance N. Stott, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          1004 West Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701
          Tel: (512) 472-0557
          E-mail: lance@austindefender.com
                  lstott@reesellp.com

                - and –

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

                - and –

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

                - and –

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, Northwest, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Tel: (202) 973-0900
          Fax: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: bzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  ksimplicio@tzlegal.com

                - and –

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          V Chai Oliver Prentice
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Tel: (510) 254-6808
          Fax: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
                  vprentice@tzlegal.com


ROSNER'S GROCERY: Osorio Seeks Unpaid OT Pay for Grocery Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ISIDORO OSORIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ROSNER'S GROCERY, d/b/a MAZONE GROCERY INC. and MOSHE
ROSNER, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-04530 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 24,
2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is one of the non-exempt grocery workers employed to
maintain the Defendants' store's inventory and ensure cleanliness
of the stores. He alleges that the Defendants willfully, regularly
and repeatedly failed and refused to pay him and other similarly
situated grocery workers their lawfully earned overtime at one and
one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for all the hours
they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Moreover, the
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to keep accurate
records and failed to provide accurate wage statements and wage
notices.

Rosner's Grocery, d/b/a Mazone Grocery Inc., operates a grocery
store, owned and operated by Moshe Rosner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel: (212) 323-6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


RUSHMORE LOAN: Campbell Seeks to Stop Wrongful Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
CECIL CAMPBELL; and DEANN CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
LLC; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 8:20-cv-01695 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 8,
2020), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC provides financial services.
The Company offers performing and non-performing residential
mortgage loans. Rushmore Loan Management Services primarily
operates in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCALE PAYMENTS: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SCALE PAYMENTS CORP., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-08772 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 24,
2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged negligent
and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff
on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1083
beginning in or around October 2017 in an attempt to solicit the
Plaintiff to purchase its services. The Defendant allegedly used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" in placing its marketing calls
without obtaining "prior express consent" from the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff contends that he was harmed by the unsolicited calls
of the Defendant causing him to incur certain charges or reduced
telephone time for which he had previously paid, and his privacy
has also been invaded.

Scale Payments Corp. is a merchant payment processing
corporation.[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
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


SEMGROUP CORPORATION: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in Ferrell FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants SemGroup Corporation, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Ferrell v. SemGroup
Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:19-CV-00610-GKF-JFJ, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Ferrell v. SemGroup Corporation,
et al., Case No. 20-5093, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
      appearance are due on October 13, 2020, for SemGroup
      Corporation; and

   -- Notice of appearance is also due on October 13, 2020, for
      Robert Ferrell.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee ROBERT FERRELL, individually and for others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael Burrage, Esq.
          WHITTEN BURRAGE
          512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 516-7800
          E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
          Taylor Ashley Jones, Esq.
          Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  cfitz@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com
                  mjosephson@mybackwages.com

Defendant-Appellant SEMGROUP CORPORATION is represented by:

          Annette A. Idalski, Esq.
          Kaitlin K. Lammers, Esq.
          CHAMBERLAIN HRDLICKA
          191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4600
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Telephone: (404) 659-1410
          E-mail: annette.idalski@chamberlainlaw.com  

               - and -

          Harrison Kosmider, Esq.
          Kathy R. Neal, Esq.
          William Kirk Turner, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT
          Williams Tower II, Suite 1100
          2 West 2nd Street
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 587-0000
          E-mail: harrison.kosmider@mcafeetaft.com
                  kathy.neal@mcafeetaft.com
                  kirk.turner@mcafeetaft.com

               - and -

          Brian A. Smith, Esq.
          CHAMBERLAIN HRDLICKA
          1200 Smith Street, Suite 1400
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 658-1818
          E-mail: brian.smith@chamberlainlaw.com

Defendant Intervenor-Appellant CYPRESS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT,
TIR, LLC, is represented by:

          Rachel Beth Cowen, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
          444 West Lake Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60606-0029
          Telephone: (312) 372-2000
          E-mail: rcowen@mwe.com

               - and -

          Paul DeMuro, Esq.
          FREDERIC DORWART, LAWYERS
          124 East Fourth Street, Suite 100
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 583-9922
          E-mail: pdemuro@fdlaw.com


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Settles Class Action Over Union Dues Deductions
------------------------------------------------------------------
news.ballotpedia.org reports that earlier this month, the Service
Employees International Union, Healthcare Illinois and Indiana
agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit over dues deduction
practices as applied to home healthcare workers.

Who were the parties to the suit?  

The plaintiff was Hydie Nance, a home-based healthcare provider in
Illinois. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
represented Nance. The group describes itself as a nonprofit whose
"mission is to eliminate coercive union power and compulsory
unionism abuses through strategic litigation, public information,
and education programs."

The defendant was the Service Employees International Union,
Healthcare Illinois and Indiana (SEIU-HCII). According to its most
recent federal report the union’s membership is 61,637. SEIU-HCII
represents healthcare, child-care, home-care, and nursing home
workers in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Kansas.

What was at issue?

Illinois' Home Services Plan "provides services to individuals with
severe disabilities so they can remain in their homes and be as
independent as possible." The Illinois Department of Human Services
administers the program, which uses Medicaid funds to pay for a
variety of services, including personal assistance, homemaker
services, and others.

Nance provides home-based healthcare under the Home Services Plan.
She alleged that the Illinois Department of Human Services
"deducted union dues from the subsidies of home healthcare
providers without informing them that 'that they have a First
Amendment right not to financially support SEIU-HCII.'"

Nance twice requested that SEIU-HCII stop deducting dues from her
subsidies. After her second request, SEIU-HCII officials told her
that a valid photo ID was needed in order to process these
requests. Nance subsequently filed suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging the dues deduction
system "impedes and burdens personal assistants' First Amendment
right to stop subsidizing SEIU-HCII and its speech." Nance also
argued that the photo ID requirement "impinges on personal
assistants’ right to privacy and exposes them to the threat of
identity theft."

Relevant precedents

Nance's attorneys cited two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Harris v.
Quinn and Janus v. AFSCME.

In Harris v. Quinn, decided in 2014, the court struck down an
Illinois statute compelling a specific class of home healthcare
workers to pay fees to the Service Employees International Union.

In Janus v. AFSCME, decided in 2018, the court ruled that
public-sector unions cannot compel non-member employees they
represent to pay fees to cover the costs of non-political union
activities. To do so, the court determined, would constitute a
violation of employees’ First Amendment rights

What were the terms of settlement?

Under the terms of the settlement, SEIU-HCII agreed to

Refund Nance $245 in dues deducted from her subsidies after she
requested the union stop deducting dues.
Accept requests to end dues deductions without requiring employees
to provide photo identification.
"Identify from its records providers whose requests to resign their
union membership" were rejected due to their failure to provide
photo identification and process those requests.
Accept dues deduction requests made on forms provided by
third-party organizations.

What were the reactions?

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said, "Though
this settlement puts an end to this blatantly unconstitutional
arrangement, it is outrageous that over two years after Janus was
decided and over eight years after Harris was decided, union bosses
still refuse to respect, and devise ways to circumvent, the
constitutional rights of those they claim to represent."

SEIU-HCII has not made a public statement on the settlement and
declined to respond to requests for comment from other media
outlets. [GN]

SIMPLY SOUTHERN: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Monegro Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SIMPLY SOUTHERN, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07675-ER
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 17, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to
design and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, on multiple occasions, the last
occurring in September 2020, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's
Web site, http://www.simplysoutherntees.com/,to make a purchase.
Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Web
site's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which
effectively barred the Plaintiff from being able to determine what
specific products were offered for sale.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Simply Southern, Inc., is a clothing company that owns and operates
the Web site, offering features which should allow all consumers to
access the goods and services and which the Company ensures the
delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New
York State.[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


SPECIAL CARE HOSPITAL: Hale Suit Transferred to N. D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Barbara Hiatt and Thomas Hale, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v.
Special Care Hospital Management Corporation, BayMark Health
Services, NewVision Withdrawal Management and John Does 1-10,
Defendants, was transferred from the Tulsa County District Court
with the assigned Case No. CJ-20-01440 to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa) on September 29,
2020, and assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00490-CVE-JFJ.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to Diversity-Breach of Contract.

Special Care Hospital Management Corporation provides services
including medical stabilization, rehabilitation, psychiatric care,
behavioral healthcare programs, and medical training.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   William Bernard Federman, Esq.
   Federman & Sherwood
   10205 N PENNSYLVANIA AVE
   Oklahoma City, OK 73120
   Tel: (405) 235-1560
   Fax: (405) 239-2112
   Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Lyndon Wayne Whitmire, Esq.
   Phillips Murrah PC
   101 N ROBINSON 13TH FLR
   OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
   Tel: (405) 235-4100
   Fax: (405) 235-4133
   Email: lwwhitmire@phillipsmurrah.com

     - and -

   Thomas Gilmer Wolfe, Esq.
   Phillips Murrah PC
   101 N ROBINSON 13TH FLR
   OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
   Tel: (405) 235-4100
   Fax: (405) 235-4133
   Email: ecf@phillipsmurrah.com


STAAR SURGICAL: Schall Law Firm Announces Oct. 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against STAAR
Surgical Company ("STAAR" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:STAA) for
violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
26, 2020 and August 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 19, 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. The investigation focuses on whether the
Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose information pertinent to investors. STAAR is the subject
of a report by investment analyst J Capital titled, "STARR
Surgical, Less Than Meets the Eye." The report alleges that the
Company has overstated its sales in China by at least one-third,
"meaning all of the Company's $14 mln in 2019 profit is fake." The
report, based on extensive interviews and research, states that the
Company reports fake sales numbers and then marks up marketing
costs in a scheme to hide "phantom" revenue. Based on this news,
shares of STAAR fell by 6% on August 11, 2020, damaging investors.

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]

TACTILE SYSTEMS: Faces Mart Suit Over 11.69% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN MART, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. TACTILE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC., GERALD R. MATTYS,
LYNN BLAKE, and BRENT A. MOEN, Case No. 0:20-cv-02074 (D. Minn.,
Sept. 29, 2020), seeks to recover damages under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false
and misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in
the market value of the Company's securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all investors, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tactile securities between May 7, 2018, and June
8, 2020, inclusive.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Tactile's business, operational and compliance
policies, and financial results. Specifically, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) while Tactile publicly touted a $4 plus billion or $5 plus
billion market opportunity, in truth, the total addressable market
for Tactile's pneumatic compression devices was materially smaller;
(2) to induce sales growth and share gains, Tactile and/or its
employees were engaged in illicit and illegal sales and marketing
activities in violation of applicable federal and state rules and
public payer regulations; (3) the foregoing illicit and illegal
sales and marketing activities increased the risk of a Medicare
audit of Tactile's claims and criminal and civil liability; (4)
Tactile's revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and
thus unsustainable; and that as a result of the foregoing, (5) the
Defendants' public statements, including Tactile's year-over-year
revenue growth, the purported growth drivers, and the effectiveness
of Tactile's internal controls over financial reporting were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 8, 2020, research firm OSS Research published a report
about Tactile entitled "Strong Sell on Tactile Systems: Bloated
Stock Needs Compression Therapy." In the report, OSS Research
accused Tactile of (1) overstating its total addressable market by
nearly $4.7 billion, (2) using a "'daisy-chaining kickback scheme'
that has resulted in rampant overprescribing and rapid market share
gains at the expense of patients, insurers and the public," and (3)
concealing Medicare audits resulting in denials, for failure to
establish medical necessity, of a whopping 71% of Tactile's
submitted claims.

On this news, Tactile's stock price fell $6.05, or 11.69%, from its
June 8, 2020 opening price of $51.72 per share to a June 9, 2020
close of $45.67, which inflicted significant losses and damages to
the Plaintiff and other Class members.

Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., incorporated in 1995, is a
medical technology company that develops and provides medical
devices for the treatment of chronic diseases at home. Tactile's
principal area of therapeutic focus is vascular disease, with a
goal of advancing the standard of care in treating lymphedema4 and
chronic venous insufficiency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Dennis Stewart, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          600 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA, 92101
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dstewart@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
                  lucasg@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com


TIM JUNGBLUT: Akers Appeals Ruling in Drivers Suit to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Charles Akers, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their lawsuit entitled Charles Akers, et al. v. Tim
Jungblut Trucking, Incorporated, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03316-JRS-MPB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as truck drivers.

The appellate case is captioned as Charles Akers, et al. v. Tim
Jungblut Trucking, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 20-2867, in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[BN]

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by October 13, 2020;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before November 9, 2020, for
      Charles Akers and Mark Zacharias.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CHARLES AKERS and MARK ZACHARIAS are
represented by:

          Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
          WELDY LAW
          8383 Craig Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46250-0000
          Telephone: (317) 842-6600
          Facsimile: (317) 288-4013
          E-mail: weldy@weldylegal.com

Defendants-Appellees TIM JUNGBLUT TRUCKING, INCORPORATED and
TIMOTHY JUNG-BLUT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Heather L. Wilson, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD, LLC
          201 N. Illinois Street
          P.O. Box 44961
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-4236
          Telephone: (317) 237-3800
          E-mail: hwilson@fbtlaw.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Tordjman Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Isaac Tordjman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Toyota Motor North
America Inc. and Toyota Motor Corporation, Defendants, was
transferred from the Florida Southern with the assigned Case No.
9:20-cv-80871 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Brooklyn) on September 29, 2020, and assigned Case No.
1:20-cv-04628-WFK-CLP.

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Motor Vehicle
Prod. Liability filed pursuant to Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product
Liability.

Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is a holding company of sales and
manufacturing subsidiaries of Toyota Motor Corporation in the
United States. Its services include government and regulatory
affairs, energy, economic research, philanthropy, corporate
advertising and corporate communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Rachel Wagner Furst, Esq.
   Grossman Roth Yaffa Cohen, P.A.
   2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1150
   Coral Gables, FL 33134
   Tel: (305) 442-8666
   Email: rwf@grossmanroth.com

     - and -

   Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq.
   Grossman, Roth, Yaffa, Cohen, PA
   2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1150
   Coral Gables, FL 33134
   Tel: (305) 442-8666
   Fax: 285-1668
   Email: szg@grossmanroth.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Leah Aaronson, Esq.
   King & Spalding
   1185 Avenue of the Americas
   New York, NY 10036
   Tel: (212) 556-2370
   Email: laaronson@kslaw.com


TRANSURBAN: 15,000 People Join Toll Fee Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Jenny Wiggins, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that almost 15,000 people have joined a class action lawsuit
against Transurban in Queensland that says the tollroad group has
unjustly made money by charging unreasonable and excessive
administration fees for the late payment of toll fares.

Hearing dates for the class action, filed in Queensland's Supreme
Court in August by Hilton Bradley Lawyers on behalf of security
group Adeva Home Solutions, are expected to be listed within this
month.

While Transurban charges fees for collecting tolls in all states it
operates tollroads, the legal action is limited to Queensland.

"Queensland has a unique provision in the Transport Infrastructure
Act 1994 and those provisions provide that the administrative costs
should be no more than their reasonable costs of administering and
collecting the debt," said Luke Whiffen, director at Hilton
Bradley.

Hilton Bradley had started investigating Transurban's fees after it
was approached by a NSW client been charged hundreds of thousands
of dollars in fees by Transurban's Queensland business, Mr Whiffen
said. "It doesn't take $200,000 to administer debt," he said.

The claim argues the administration fees charged by Transurban
exceed "the reasonable cost" of administering and collecting
payments of tolls, breaching Queensland laws.

It wants the court to allow class action members to claim back some
of the administration fees paid in the past six years as well as
being paid compensation, interests and costs.

Transurban declined to comment directly on the case but said it did
not profit from fees. "All fees and charges are regulated by
government and they cover the large costs involved with collecting
unpaid tolls," a spokeswoman said.

"We would prefer that nobody paid fees when they travel on a
Queensland tollroad, which is why we have fee-free products
available."

Transurban told a Queensland inquiry into tollroads in 2018 that
there had been a sharp drop in fees for customers with unpaid tolls
and that it estimated 1.7 million fewer demand notices would be
issued each year.

If motorists do not pay tolls immediately when travelling on one of
Transurban's tollroads via cash or electronic tags, they are sent a
toll collection notice that includes fees for issuing the notices
and for the taking of photos of cars to identify them.

The claim alleges a vehicle owned by Adeva that had been registered
in Western Australia and brought to Queensland, did not pay a toll
when it travelled on Transurban's Logan Motorway in April 2019
because the vehicle (which was being overseen by a fleet management
company) had not been added to the account Adeva has with
Transurban's toll collection service, Linkt.

Adeva was subsequently sent a notice demanding payment of $10.71,
of which only $1.72 was the toll fare with the remainder composed
of an administration charge ($8.50) and a "video matching fee"
(49¢.)

Adeva did not pay the first notice, and was subsequently sent a
second notice asking for $26.02, with the administration fee having
risen to $23.81. It paid the second notice.

The class action is being funded by Litigation Capital Management.
A facebook page for the class action is followed by more than 1700
people. [GN]


TRINET HR III: Huang Sues Over Breaches of Duties Under ERISA
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHIQIONG HUANG, CHRIS R. STOKOWSKI, EVERETT UHL, MARK J. HEARON and
MARY T. PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TRINET HR III, INC., TRINET HR IV, INC., THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TRINET HR III, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF TRINET HR IV, INC., THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF TRINET GROUP,
INC. and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 8:20-cv-02293 (M.D. Fla., Sept.
29, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, the
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plans, namely the TriNet 401(k)
Plan and the TriNet Select 401(k) Plan, breached the duties they
owed to the Plans, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants
of the Plans by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and
adequately review the Plans' investment portfolio with due care to
ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost;
and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plans despite the
availability of identical or materially similar investment options
with lower costs and/or better performance histories.

The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plans, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of 29 U.S.C.
Section 1104, the Plaintiffs contend.

TriNet describes itself as "a leading provider of HR expertise,
payroll services, employee benefits and employment risk mitigation
services for small to medium businesses." the Company's corporate
headquarters is located in Bradenton, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph M. Sternberg, Esq.
          LANDERS & STERNBERG PLLC
          722 W. Smith Street
          Orlando, FL 32804
          Telephone: (407) 495-1893
          Facsimile: (407) 362-6325
          E-mail: joseph@landersandsternberg.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com


ULTRA PETROLEUM: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Ultra Petroleum Corp. (Other
UPLCQ, UPL). Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition
the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about
the case can be found at the link provided.

Ultra Petroleum Corp. (Other UPLCQ, UPL)
Class Period: April 3, 2017 to August 8, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020

Ultra Petroleum is an oil and gas development company with primary
assets in the Pinedale and Jonah fields of the Green River Basin of
southwest Wyoming. Over 80% of the Company's revenues have
historically been derived from the development and sale of natural
gas.

On May 14, 2020, Ultra Petroleum filed for bankruptcy protection
and is not named as a defendant in the action.

In April 2017, at the beginning of the Class Period, Ultra
Petroleum exited a court-supervised reorganization under Chapter 11
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. According to defendants, Ultra
Petroleum exited the bankruptcy in "growth mode." Defendants stated
that the Company was poised to maximize the value of its
substantial oil and gas deposits (which they valued at $4.19
billion, including $1.5 billion of proved undeveloped reserves)
through ramped up production in 2017 and 2018 and that Ultra
Petroleum was on track to produce between 290 and 300 billion cubic
feet equivalent ("Bcfe") in 2017, with 25% production growth over
these figures in 2018. Defendants represented that the Company had
the financial and production flexibility to weather even a
low-commodity-price environment and was set to ramp up well
development with 10 rigs operating by 2018 on the back of an
estimated $788 million capital budget. Accretive to this plan was
the launch of a horizontal well drilling program, which Ultra
Petroleum executives claimed was set to significantly expand the
production capabilities of the Company's existing wells.

Then, beginning in August 2017, soon after exiting bankruptcy,
Ultra Petroleum began issuing a series of revelations demonstrating
that it could not grow production by any meaningful amount and that
its wells were worth a fraction of the values previously
represented. Finally, on August 9, 2019, Ultra Petroleum announced
disappointing results for the second quarter of 2019, disclosing
that total revenues for the quarter had decreased 18%, that the
Company's horizontal well program had been effectively halted, and
that it was lowering its 2019 projected capital investments to a
range of $260 million to $290 million and annual production to a
range of 238 to 244 Bcfe.

On this news, the price of Ultra Petroleum stock declined 31% to
just $0.09 per share and continued to fall to just $0.01 per share,
99% below the stock's Class Period high. On August 22, 2019, Ultra
Petroleum stock was delisted. And in May 2020, the Company was
forced to enter bankruptcy proceedings yet again in order to seek a
court-ordered reorganization.

The complaint, filed on September 1, 2020, alleges that these and
similar statements issued by defendants during the Class Period
were materially false and misleading when made. Throughout the
Class Period, defendants, inter alia: (i) materially overstated the
value of Ultra Petroleum's oil and gas reserves; (ii) materially
misrepresented the Company's ability to ramp up production and its
financial flexibility; (iii) failed to disclose the Company's
extreme sensitivity to even a modest decline in natural gas prices;
and (iv) concealed significant setbacks in the Company's vaunted
horizontal well drilling program.

For more information on the Ultra Petroleum class action go to:
https://bespc.com/ultrapetroleum

                        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]

ULTRA PETROLEUM: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Ultra Petroleum Corp. (OTC: UPLCQ)
between April 13, 2017 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important November 2, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline
in the class action case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Ultra investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Ultra class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1942.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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
to investors 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.
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
2, 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-1942.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.

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.

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]

USA TECHNOLOGIES: Rytych Balks at Vending Machine Credit Card Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Rytych, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. USA Technologies, Inc., a
Pennsylvania Corporation; and John Doe Entity, Case No.
2020-CP-10-04288 (S.C. Com. Pleas, Charleston Cty., Sept. 29,
2020), arises from the Defendants' unlawful practice of assessing
an unauthorized credit card surcharge on products purchased at John
Doe's vending machines located in South Carolina.

John Doe, like many others in the business of providing food
products through vending machines, labels and advertises the
products sold to consumers at a specific price. Defendant USA
Technologies provides technology that allows consumers to purchase
products from John Doe's vending machines on a cashless basis.

According to the complaint, John Doe fails to honor the specific
prices listed for its products on their vending machines because
the Defendants automatically assess a credit card surcharge on all
of the products purchased from the vending machines using a credit
or debit card. The Defendants allegedly collect unauthorized
charges from consumers, including the Plaintiff, who use their
credit or debit cards to purchase items from John Doe's vending
machines on a regular basis.

USA Technologies, Inc., is a Malvern, Pennsylvania-based company
that creates technology that allows cashless transactions for
various services, including vending machines owned by John Doe and
processes the cashless purchases of products from John Doe's
vending machines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayton B. McCullough, Esq.
          MCCULLOUGH KHAN, LLC
          359 King Street, Suite 200
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 937-0400
          Facsimile: (843) 937-0706
          E-mail: Clay@mklawsc.com


VAXART INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, announces that it
filed a class action lawsuit against Vaxart, Inc. (NASDAQ: VXRT)
("Vaxart" or the "Company"), certain directors and officers of the
Company, and Armistice Capital LLP.  The case was filed in the
Central District of California and brings claims under Sections
10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Lead
plaintiff motions are due October 23, 2020.

If you purchased Vaxart stock between June 25, 2020 and July 25,
2020, and have over $100,000 in realized or unrealized losses, you
are encouraged to contact a Scott+Scott attorney for additional
information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

Vaxart is a small, clinical-stage biotechnology company primarily
focused on the development of oral recombinant vaccines based on
its proprietary oral vaccine platform.  In early 2020, Vaxart
purportedly began to develop a Covid-19 vaccine.

In late June 2020, Vaxart made a couple of announcements regarding
its Covid-19 vaccine and the stock price increased dramatically.

Soon after these announcements, Vaxart's largest shareholder,
Armistice Capital LLP, sold massive amounts of its Vaxart shares
for a huge profit.

On July 25, 2020, The New York Times published an article entitled
Corporate Insiders Pocket $1 Billion in Rush for Coronavirus
Vaccine.  The article reported that, "Vaxart is not among the
companies selected to receive significant financial support from
[the U.S. Government's Operation] Warp Speed."

On this news, the price of Vaxart shares dropped and the Company's
stock price has continued to decline.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Vaxart stock between June 25, 2020 and July 25,
2020 and have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you
are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982
or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

                     About Scott+Scott Attorneys

Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP has significant experience in
prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement
plan actions throughout the United States.  The firm represents
pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities
worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut,
California, and Ohio.

         Joe Pettigrew
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169-1820
         Tel No: (844) 818-6982
         E-mail: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]

VAXART INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Oct. 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, announces that it
filed a class action lawsuit against Vaxart, Inc. (NASDAQ:VXRT)
("Vaxart" or the "Company"), certain directors and officers of the
Company, and Armistice Capital LLP.  The case was filed in the
Central District of California and brings claims under Sections
10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Lead
plaintiff motions are due October 23, 2020.

If you purchased Vaxart stock between June 25, 2020 and July 25,
2020, and have over $100,000 in realized or unrealized losses, you
are encouraged to contact a Scott+Scott attorney for additional
information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

Vaxart is a small, clinical-stage biotechnology company primarily
focused on the development of oral recombinant vaccines based on
its proprietary oral vaccine platform.  In early 2020, Vaxart
purportedly began to develop a Covid-19 vaccine.

In late June 2020, Vaxart made a couple of announcements regarding
its Covid-19 vaccine and the stock price increased dramatically.

Soon after these announcements, Vaxart's largest shareholder,
Armistice Capital LLP, sold massive amounts of its Vaxart shares
for a huge profit.

On July 25, 2020, The New York Times published an article entitled
Corporate Insiders Pocket $1 Billion in Rush for Coronavirus
Vaccine.  The article reported that, "Vaxart is not among the
companies selected to receive significant financial support from
[the U.S. Government's Operation] Warp Speed."

On this news, the price of Vaxart shares dropped and the Company's
stock price has continued to decline.

                                  What You Can Do

If you purchased Vaxart stock between June 25, 2020 and July 25,
2020 and have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you
are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982
or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.

                     About Scott+Scott Attorneys

Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP has significant experience in
prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement
plan actions throughout the United States.  The firm represents
pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities
worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut,
California, and Ohio.

         Joe Pettigrew
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10169-1820
         Tel No: (844) 818-6982
        E-mail: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]

WONDERFUL CITRUS: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yesenia Garcia and Cesar Herrera, as Private Attorneys General, on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated current and former
aggrieved employees employed v. WONDERFUL CITRUS PACKING, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; LEXUS FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, a
California corporation; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV37466 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 30, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The lawsuit accuses the Defendants of: failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages owed; issuing inaccurate wage statements and wage
statement records; untimely payment of wages; failure to pay wages
at termination; failure to provide proper ladders and training;
failure to establish, implement, and maintain effective injury
prevention program; and permitting unsafe work and failure to
provide safe workplace, practices, and processes.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs at least minimum wage for all time worked, inclusion
time worked prior to the Plaintiffs' scheduled shifts when the
Plaintiffs were required to appear ready for work early to either
prepare or clean the Defendant's trees. The Defendants failed to
account for all of the Plaintiffs' hours worked and consequently
failed to pay the Plaintiffs at least minimum wage for all time
worked. As a result, the Plaintiffs also accrued additional unpaid
overtime wages for hours in excess of the foregoing applicable
overtime thresholds.

The Plaintiffs were adults individual residing in Kern County,
California. The Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to all
civil penalties available under the PAGA.

WONDERFUL CITRUS PACKING, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal California place of business located in
Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed K. Ghods, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Rhyne, Esq.
          LEX OPUS
          2100 N. Broadway, Suite 210
          Santa Ana, CA 92706
          Phone: (714)558-8580
          Facsimile: (714) 558-8579
          Email: irhyne@lexopusfirm.com
               - and -

          Ruben Escobedo, Esq.
          WORKWORLD LAW CORP., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          731 S. Lincoln Street
          Santa Maria, CA 93458
          Phone: (805) 335-2476
          Facsimile: (805) 892-6213
          Email: ruben@workworldlaw.com


WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Holzer & Holzer Announces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased Wrap Technologies, Inc.
("Wrap" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WRTC) securities between July
31, 2020 and September 23, 2020 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company had concealed the results of the LAPD BolaWrap
pilot program, which demonstrated that the BolaWrap was
ineffective, expensive, and sparingly used in the field; and (2) as
a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased shares of Wrap securities between July 31, 2020
and September 23, 2020 and suffered significant losses on that
investment, you are encouraged to contact Marshall P. Dees, Esq. at
mdees@holzerlaw.com or Luke R. Kennedy, Esq. at
lkennedy@holzerlaw.com, or through www.holzerlaw.com to discuss
your legal rights.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates
its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and
investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class
action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000,
Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering
hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by
fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the
firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com and upon
request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the
dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey D.
Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.


         Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
         Tel No: (888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
         E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]

WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Kehoe Law Continues Probe for Securities Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Wrap Technologies, Inc. ("Wrap" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: WRTC) to determine whether the Company engaged
in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.

Wrap investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the Company's
common stock between July 31, 2020 and September 23, 2020, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and suffered losses greater
than $50,000 are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm's Securities
Class Action Questionnaire or contact Kevin Cauley, (215) 792-6676,
Ext. 802, kcauley@kehoelawfirm.com, securities@kehoelawfirm.com, to
discuss the securities investigation or potential legal claims.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wrap. According to
the lawsuit, during the Class Period, the Wrap Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company had concealed the results of the LAPD BolaWrap
pilot program, which demonstrated that the BolaWrap was
ineffective, expensive, and sparingly used in the field; and (2) as
a result, the Wrap Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Investors were
damaged, according to the class action lawsuit, when the true
details entered the market.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff-side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.

This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]


WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Announces Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of those who acquired Wrap
Technologies, Inc. ("Wrap" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WRTC)
securities during the period from July 31, 2020 through September
23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
November 23, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had concealed the results of the LAPD
BolaWrap pilot program, which demonstrated that the BolaWrap was
ineffective, expensive, and sparingly used in the field; and (2) 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 acquired Wrap securities, have information, or would like to
learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]

YAYYO INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of YayYo, Inc. (OTC: YAYO) pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with YayYo's November 2019 initial public offering (the
"IPO") of the important November 9, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in
the federal class action commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for YayYo investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the YayYo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1915.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement featured false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
defendant El-Batrawi continued to exercise supervision, authority,
and control over YayYo, and was intimately involved, on a
day-to-day basis, with the business, operations, and finances of
the Company, including assisting the Underwriter Defendants in
marketing YayYo's IPO; (2) defendant El-Batrawi never sold the
12,525,000 "Private Shares" and continued to own a controlling
interest in YayYo despite the NASDAQ's insistence that he retain
less than a 10% equity ownership interest in connection with the
listing agreement; (3) defendants promised certain creditors of
YayYo that in exchange to their agreeing to purchase shares in the
IPO - in order to permit the Underwriter defendants to close the
IPO - YayYo would repurchase those shares after the IPO; (4)
defendants intended to repurchase shares purchased by creditors of
YayYo in the IPO using IPO proceeds: (5) YayYo owed its former
President, CEO, and Director a half of million dollars at the time
of the IPO; (6) YayYo owed SRAX, Inc. (formerly Social Reality,
Inc.) $426,286 in unpaid social media costs, most of which was more
than a year overdue as payment had been delayed while YayYo
attempted to complete its IPO; and (7) as a result, defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. 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
9, 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-1915.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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.

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]

YK ENTERPRISE: Durham Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages for Dancers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY DURHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. YK ENTERPRISE, LLC d/b/a SOUTHSIDE JOHNNY'S; and
DARRELL R. CAGLE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00818 (M.D.N.C., Sept. 8, 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 Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as dancer.

YK Enterprise, LLC, d/b/a Southside Johnny's, operates as a strip
club featuring female exotic dancers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Krasner, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW OFFICES, PLLC
          5 West Hargett Street, Suite 910
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 999-2799
          E-mail: jkrasner@barrettlawoffices.com

               - and -

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


ZEETOGROUP: Faces Scavo TCPA Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL SCAVO v. ZEETOGROUP, LLC dba GETITFREE.US and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-01895-BEN-DEB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 23,
2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received text messages on
her cellular telephone number ending in -5901 from the Defendants.
The Defendants allegedly used automatic telephone dialing system in
sending spam advertisements and/or promotional offers via text
messages to various consumers, including the Plaintiff and those
similarly situated, without obtaining their prior express written
consent.

As a result of the Defendants' unsolicited text messages, the
Plaintiff says she and members of the Class were harmed causing
them to incur certain cellular telephone charges and invading their
privacy.

Zeetogroup, LLC, dba Getitfree.US, develops traffic monetization
technology.[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
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


[*] 11 Circuit Panel Finds Class Action Incentive Payment Improper
------------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that on September 17, 2020, in a potentially
groundbreaking decision that could have huge implications for the
future of class actions, a split panel of the Eleventh Circuit held
that incentive payments given to a named plaintiff in a class
action are improper. See Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, No.
18-12344, "Slip Op." (11th Cir. 2020).

Judge Newsom writing for the majority of him and Judge Baldock--a
Tenth Circuit judge sitting by designation--held "that Supreme
Court precedent prohibits incentive awards like the one" awarded in
this case. Id. at 18. Specifically, the panel noted that Trustees
v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527 (1882), and Central Railroad & Banking
Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885) "establish[ed] limits on the
types of awards that attorneys and litigants may recover from the
[common] fund." Id.

In Greenough, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff could be
reimbursed for "reasonable costs, counsel fees, charge, and
expenses incurred in the fair prosecution of the suit, and in
reclaiming and rescuing the trust fund [at issue in the case]." 105
U.S. at 537. The Court, however, also held that "there [was] one
class of allowances" that was "decidedly objectionable." Id. Those,
according to the Court, are the plaintiff’s "personal services
and private expenses." Id. The Court continued that the allowance
of such expenses "would present too great a temptation to parties
to intermeddle in the management of valuable property or funds in
which they have only the interest of creditors." Id. at 538.

Similarly, three years ago, the Supreme Court confirmed this
approach in Pettus. In Pettus, the Court once again held that a
class representative could claim "expenses incurred in carrying on
the suit and reclaiming the property subject to the trust." 113
U.S. at 122. The class representative could not, however, "claim to
be compensated, out of the fund or property recovered, for his
personal services and private expenses" as such claim was
"unsupported by reason or authority." Id.

Taking the "clear" principle of Greenough and Pettus, the Eleventh
Circuit panel stated that "[i]t seems to us that the modern-day
incentive award for a class representative is roughly analogous to
a salary--in Greenough[s terms, payment for ‘personal
services.’" Slip Op. at 23. Indeed, the panel continued:

If anything, we think that modern-day incentive awards present even
more pronounced risks than the salary and expense reimbursements
disapproved in Greenough. Incentive awards are intended not only to
compensate class representatives for their time (i.e., as a
salary), but also to promote litigation by providing a prize to be
won (i.e., as a bounty). [GN]

[*] Phi Finney McDonald Attorney Discusses Litigation Funding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Asset Servicing Times reports that Rhea Dhillon, Esq. of Phi Finney
McDonald explains that maintaining the current levels of
competition in the market is key to ensuring the ongoing
improvement in returns to class action participants in the long
term.

Ms. Dhillon says "As we approach the 30-year anniversary of the
Australian federal class action regime, class actions are once
again under the political spotlight. This time, the focus is on the
litigation funders that make most class actions possible. "

"While much of the focus is on how much money litigation funders
make, any concerns about excessive commercial returns or a
proliferation of claims seem increasingly out of date.

Historical picture

Since the introduction of the federal class action regime in 1992,
there have been just over 634 class actions filed. On average this
equates to about 23 class actions per year. As reported by the
Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), class actions constitute
between 0.33 percent and 0.68 percent of all cases filed in the
federal court each year.

Of the 634 class actions filed, there have been a total of 122
shareholder class actions. The successful shareholder class actions
have returned almost over $900 million to over 94,000 shareholders.
It is also estimated that product liability class actions have
returned over $400 million to nearly 12,000 customers.

There are the important policy benefits of shareholder class
actions that, through their various iterations, have operated to
correct the information asymmetry between listed companies and the
market. The potential of class action litigation has no doubt
worked effectively in the background to create a greater impetus
for company directors to carefully consider what information is
material and when it ought to be released to the market.

Litigation funders have played a key role in delivering these
policy outcomes as well as compensation to shareholders and other
class members.

Working together with plaintiff law firms, litigation funders have
delivered access to justice in circumstances where the financial
risk of litigation would not have been borne by anyone else.

Current state of the market

The market has seen an increase in players over the years. There
used to only be a single litigation funder in the Australian
market, whereas now there are 33. Meanwhile, plaintiff law firms
that conduct the majority of the class actions for plaintiffs have
increased from two to almost 30, including a number of large
commercial firms.

The growth in the number of players in the class action and
litigation funding market in Australia has unsurprisingly had the
welcome effect of generating real competition between litigation
funders and thereby driving drive down the cost of litigation to
group members.

This is a result of both greater competition and increased judicial
intervention in funding agreements in the context of common fund
applications, which allows judges to scrutinise the funder's rate
of return and risk taken in the proceeding before approving a
funder's commission in a class action settlement. The days when the
small handful of funders took a 40 percent commission on gross
recoveries are well and truly behind us. Commissions recently
approved by the court have been no greater than 25 percent of net
recoveries.

There is evidence of increasing innovation, such as in the Westpac
shareholder class action launched by Phi Finney McDonald in 2019.
In that case, group members are guaranteed to receive more than 90
percent of gross litigation proceeds. Terms like this were simply
not available to group members even three years ago.

A case for reform?

In the last five years, a number of inquiries and reports into the
class action regime commissioned by the federal and state
governments have provided overwhelmingly positive conclusions about
the effectiveness of the class action regime, including litigation
funding.

In 2014, the Productivity Commission conducted an inquiry into
access to justice arrangements in which in concluded that
litigation funders performed an important role of funding claims by
plaintiffs who would otherwise lack resources to proceed' but also
recommended that litigation funders be licensed to ensure they met
capital adequacy requirements.

Since that report, a number of organic developments in the class
action market have addressed some of the key risks associated with
capital adequacy of funders, most notably including the increased
uptake of after the event insurance by funders which provide
defendants with a direct right to call on funds to cover the
specific adverse costs liability in the case in the event of their
success.

In 2018, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) conducted a
full-scale review into the class action regime since 1992. Many of
the recommendations contained in its final report delivered to the
federal government in December 2019 went to formalising practical
mechanisms already in use by parties and the courts to deal with
specific aspects of class action procedure such as dealing with
multiplicity, embedding the presumption that funders provide
security for costs and giving the court increased powers to reject,
vary or set terms of litigation funding agreements.

The ALRC closely considered and ultimately rejected the need for a
mandated financial services licensing regime of litigation funders
on the basis that the court would be better equipped to provide
consumer protections and enforce capital adequacy requirements.
This makes sense given the court's ability to intervene on the
specific terms of litigation funding agreements, rather than having
a funder meet a set of generic requirements under a boilerplate
licencing regime.

Australian financial services licences: square peg, round hole

Rather than delivering its response to the ALRC's important
recommendations, in May 2020, the federal government urgently
tasked the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and
Financial Services to conduct yet another Inquiry into litigation
funding and the regulation of the class action industry. The
inquiry is convened on what the current data suggests is an
out-dated premise that the price of litigation funding is too high.
Their report is due by 7 December 2020 but certain outcomes have
already been determined, regardless of the committee's findings.

On 22 August, the federal government brought into force regulations
requiring litigation funders to hold an Australian Financial
Services Licence (AFSL) as well as placing class actions into the
managed investment scheme (MIS) framework.

While the need for greater regulation of litigation funding is well
accepted from both sides of the debate, there is an abundance of
doubt as to whether these regulations will deliver any net benefit
to class members.

First, the AFSL regime is far from perfect. Under this regime, a
significant number of financial advice scandals, such as Storm
Financial and Opes Prime went undetected in the Australian
regulatory regime and hundreds of millions of dollars were lost by
retail investors. The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the
Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry in 2019
also found that banks and lenders had engaged in egregious
misconduct despite operating under the AFSL regime.

Secondly, the AFSL and MIS regimes are ill-suited to litigation
funding. Under the current proposal, a litigation funded class
action will be treated as an MIS. Putting aside the associated and
onerous documentation required to operate an MIS -- it is unclear
what the 'scheme property' would be and how it would operate in
tandem with open class actions. It is unclear which entity would
appropriately act as the responsible entity. Would it open up
another layer of management fees payable by class members, as is
often the case in these investment schemes?

It is highly unlikely that introducing this overlay of mismatched
regulatory requirements will result in better consumer protections
for class action participants.

What is clear is that in addition to having to deal with litigation
funding agreements, solicitors' costs agreements and disclosure
statements, class members will also have to familiarise themselves
with the Product Disclosure Statement for the case, the scheme's
constitution and make an application for investments in the
scheme.

There is also the real risk that, given the red tape associated
with the operation of AFSL and MIS schemes, including reporting
requirements, the costs of litigation funding will have to increase
to meet the added expenditure. This may force smaller litigation
funders out of the Australian market. The resulting combination of
increased costs and fewer players will likely have the ironic
outcome of decreasing competition and increasing costs at the very
time competition is placing downwards pressures on prices.

The better outcome would be to see the federal government engage
with recommendations made by the ALRC following their in-depth
review of the class action regime.

Those recommendations favour giving more powers to the court to
intervene in litigation funding and legal cost arrangements as well
as supporting the open class action regime.

The courts have a far better understanding of class action practice
and also have a statutory role to supervise and protect the
interests of group members.

According to Ms. Dhillon, "In our view, the court is far better
placed to deliver bespoke consumer protections to class members
rather than a 'one-size-fits-no-one' regulatory regime. Regulation
for regulations' sake is the worst type of reform. As the facts
show, class actions in Australia are working relatively well.

Maintaining the current levels of competition in the market is key
to ensuring the ongoing improvement in returns to class action
participants to class action participants in the long term." [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***