/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201126.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, November 26, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 237

                            Headlines

A&D INTERESTS: Seeks Fifth Circuit Review in Kibodeaux FLSA Suit
AFNI INC: Conditional Class Certification Granted in "Waller" Suit
AIR CANADA: Faces Potential Class-Action Over Ticket Refunds
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Purchasers' Class Suit Pending
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Class Action Stayed in California

ALTERYX INC: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
ANTERO RESOURCES: Bid to Quash Subpoena Moved to N.D. West Virginia
APPLE INC: N.D. Cal. Pares Claims in Securities Suit
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Bid to Nix Putative Class Suit in Cal. Pending
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal Ruling

AURORA CANNABIS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 1 Deadline
AURORA CANNABIS: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Actions
AURORA CANNABIS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 1 Deadline
AURORA CANNABIS: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of Dec. 1 Deadline
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Binding Term Sheet Reached in Gaynor Suit

BANK OF HAWAII: Aloha Accounting Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
BANK OF HAWAII: Settlement in Overdraft Fees Suit Pending
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Gutierrez Suit Pending
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
BLOOMIN BRANDS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. California

BLUE APRON: Settlement Reached in Consolidated EDNY Class Suit
BOK FINANCIAL: CARES Act-Related Class Suit Ongoing
BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Langley Complaint
BRASILAGRO: Class Action Against IDBD et al. Underway in Israel
CBOE GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Suit vs. Unit

CBOE GLOBAL: Oral Argument on Nov. 30 in VIX Case Appeal
CHERRY HILL: Falco Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CMS ENERGY: Suit Over Wis. Gas Index Price Reporting Concluded
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Appeal in ERISA Related Class Suit Filed
CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR: Dismissal of Michelhaugh Suit Affirmed

COTY INC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Curtis Markson Putative Class Suit Ongoing
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Hagens Berman Reminds of December 1 Deadline
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 1 Deadline
CULLEN/FROST: Defends Class Suits Over PPP Loan Agent Fees

CURO GROUP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Dec. 18
CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Defends CX-072 and CX-2009-Related Class Suit
DAVITA INC: Settlement in Peace Officers' Suit Has Initial OK
DEVON ENERGY: Agreement in Principle Reached in Seeligson Suit
DIRECT ADVERT: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

EASTMAN KODAK: Gross Law Firm Announces Shareholder Class Action
ENERGY RECOVERY: Visser Purported Securities Class Suit Underway
EROS STX: Bid to Nix N.J. Consolidated Class Suit Pending
EVENTBRITE INC: Snow Class Action Ongoing
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement Reached in Cyber-Attack Class Suit

FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Platform & User Data Practices Underway
FIRST AMERICAN: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 24 Deadline
FLUIDIGM CORP: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of Class Action
GANNETT CO: 4th Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Stegemann ERISA Suit
GARBER LIFE: Hastings Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas

GEORGIA: Court Dismisses Count I in Black Voters Suit
GO FISH CARGO: Silverio Seeks Proper OT Pay for Warehouse Workers
GOHEALTH INC: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of Class Action
GOHEALTH INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
GROUPON INC: Securities Fraud Class Suit in Illinois Ongoing

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Court Dismisses Counts 5, 6 & 8 in Fonseca Suit
ILLINOIS: 7th Circuit Flips Partial Summary Judgment in Henry Suit
INNATE PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Class Action
INNATE PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 22 Deadline
INTERFACE INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Jan. 11 Deadline

JP MORGAN: Frank R. Cruz Announces Securities Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 23 Deadline
KBR INC: Appellate Court Awards $19MM to Former SSI Employees
KELLOGG CO: Arbitration Ongoing in Packaging Statement Suit
KRAFT HEINZ: Union Asset Management Holding AG Suit Ongoing

LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal Filed in Manopla Suit
LIBERTY OILFIELD: Defending Against Cobb & Joseph IPO Class Suits
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of December 14 Deadline
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Targeted in Class Action Over Privacy Breach

MAMMOTH ENERGY: Defendants Want 2nd Amended Securities Suit Tossed
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in LeJeune Class Action
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Wendco Putative Class Suit Ongoing in Puerto Rico
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Williams Class Suit Against Unit Ongoing
MDL 2460: Niaspan End-Payers' Bid for Class Certification Denied

MESOBLAST LIMITED: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Illinois Securities Class Suit Ongoing
NANO-X IMAGING: Hagens Berman Reminds of Class Action
NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in NJ Consolidated Securities Suit
NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Underway in Lord Abbett Fund Class Suit

NETGEAR INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on March 2021
NEXTCURE INC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
NIKOLA CORPORATION: Hagens Berman Reminds of Class Action
NIKOLA CORPORATION: Kahn Swick Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
OASIS PETROLEUM: Solomon Class Suit Against Subsidiary Dismissed

ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Gross Law Announces Class Action
OMEGA FLEX: Appeal in Missouri Class Action Pending
OPKO HEALTH: Settlement Hearing in Florida Suit Set for Dec. 15
PANERA LLC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
PEABODY ENERGY: Kahn Swick Reminds of November 27 Deadline

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Walters Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
PRECIGEN INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of December 4 Deadline
PRECIGEN INC: Pomerantz Law Probes Firm for Securities Fraud
PRECIGEN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 4 Deadline
PRICESMART INC: Bid to Dismiss PERA Class Action Pending

PROGREXION TELESERVICES: Can Compel Arbitration in Born FLSA Suit
RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Jan. 12 Final Hearing on Deka Settlement
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Kehoe Law Firm Reminds of November 30 Deadline

TEXAS: Seeks 5th Cir. Review in Valentine Civil Rights Suit
TEXTRON INC: Appeal from IWA Case Dismissal Order Underway
THERMON GROUP: Suit Over CCI Heating Elements Ongoing in Quebec
TOTALLY CHOCOLATE: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TURQUOISE HILL: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 14 Deadline

TWITTER INC: Class Suit Over User Settings Underway in California
TWITTER INC: Sept. 2021 Jury Trial in Calif. Consolidated Suit
US FOODS: KWPA Claims Deal in Flerlage Suit Has Prelim. Approval
US STEEL: Discovery Underway in Class Suit Over Clairton Fire
US STEEL: Discovery Underway in Shareholder Class Suit

WALMART: Disputed Document Unsealed in $9.5MM Class Action
WHIRLPOOL: 9th Cir. Vacates $14.8MM Atty. Fee Award in Chambers
ZENDESK INC: Reidinger Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend

                            *********

A&D INTERESTS: Seeks Fifth Circuit Review in Kibodeaux FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants A&D Interests, Incorporated, et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Stacey
Kibodeaux aka Illusion, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. A&D INTERESTS, INC. D/B/A HEARTBREAKERS
GENTLEMAN'S CLUB; WHITEY DOE, an individual, Case No. 3:20-CV-8, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Galveston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on January 21,
2020, the lawsuit seeks damages resulting from the Defendants'
practice of evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally absconding
with the Plaintiff's tips.

The Plaintiff alleges that she has been denied minimum wage
payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to
classify her and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors." The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum
wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the
FLSA.

The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which requires
non-exempt employees to be compensated for their overtime work at a
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, says the
complaint. As a result of the Defendants' violations, the Plaintiff
and the FLSA Class Members seek to recover double damages for
failure to pay minimum wage, overtime liquidated damages, interest,
and attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in
November 2018 until December 2019.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: A&D Interests,
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 20-40771, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, November 16, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent Stacey Kibodeaux, also known as Illusion,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, L.L.P.
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 322-6387
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com

Defendants-Petitioners A&D Interests, Incorporated, doing business
as Heartbreakers Gentleman's Club; Mike Armstrong; and Peggy
Armstrong are represented by:

          William King, Esq.
          Casey T. Wallace, Esq.
          WALLACE & ALLEN, L.L.P.
          440 Louisiana Street
          Houston, TX 77002-1652
          Telephone: (713) 227-1744
          E-mail: wking@wallaceallen.com
                  cwallace@wallaceallen.com

AFNI INC: Conditional Class Certification Granted in "Waller" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE WALLER, ET AL.,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AFNI, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01080-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge James E. Shadid entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Class Certification, on behalf of:

   "all hourly call-center employees who were employed by AFNI,
   Inc., at any time from February 27, 2017 through the final
   disposition of this matter."

The Court finds the Plaintiffs have met their initial burden to
show the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are similarly situated.
The Plaintiffs submitted declarations from 14 AFNI employees in
support of their Motion. If a plaintiff provides an affidavit,
declaration, or other support beyond allegations, it is typically
sufficient to overcome the burden in step one of showing that other
similarly situated employees exist.

On February 27, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed this action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and various state law claims as
class actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The
Plaintiffs' definition of "Hourly Call- Center Employee" includes
"any hourly employee who worked for AFNI in a call center, who
clocked in through the computer, and who's job duties included
taking outbound and/or inbound phone calls on behalf of AFNI and/or
its business clients and their customers." Among other requests for
relief, the Plaintiffs seek damages for AFNI's failure to pay
compensation for all hours worked and AFNI's failure to pay
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek at the rates required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendant AFNI is a privately held company that operates call
centers in the Midwest of the United States. The Defendant's
corporate headquarters is located in Bloomington, Illinois and it
has five production sites in Illinois, Arizona, Kentucky, and
Alabama.

A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/36ZMk0A at no extra charge.[CC]

AIR CANADA: Faces Potential Class-Action Over Ticket Refunds
------------------------------------------------------------
Glen McGregor at ctvnews.ca reports Air Canada is facing potential
class-action lawsuits and thousands of consumer complaints in the
U.S. over its refusal to refund tickets for flights cancelled due
to COVID-19.

Plaintiffs from New York and California are before federal district
courts seeking class certification to sue the airline on behalf of
U.S. customers who were offered only vouchers for future travel and
not refunds.

The lawsuits accuse Air Canada of breach of contract and unfair
practices by allegedly altering its refund policy after the
pandemic struck.

"Air Canada changed its refund policy after it sold thousands of
tickets to customers like the Plaintiff in a belated attempt to
legitimize its unfair practice of denying customers refunds,"
according to one lawsuit filed by a customer from New York.

"I think there is huge reputational damage to Air Canada," said
lawyer Stephen Fearon, who leads one of the lawsuits.

"When customers are able to fly again on a regular basis, those
customers who have been stiffed by Air Canada certainly will
remember this day."

Air Canada is defending against the litigation. None of the
allegations in the lawsuits has been proved in court.

Before the lawsuits can proceed as class actions, a judge must
agree to certify a class of plaintiffs -- meaning that damages, if
awarded, could be paid to all U.S. customers whose flights were
cancelled, not just the lead plaintiffs.

The number of potential U.S. members of the class is unclear. One
lawsuit estimates that 22 per cent of Air Canada's revenues come
from U.S. routes.

The litigation cites a U.S. Department of Transportation
enforcement notice from April that advised both U.S. and foreign
airlines to issue refunds, noting the "longstanding obligation of
carriers to provide refunds for flights that carriers cancel or
significantly delay does not cease when the flight disruptions are
outside of the carrier's control (e.g., a result of government
restrictions)."

That contrasts with the position of the Canadian Transportation
Agency, which issued a statement in March saying vouchers are "an
appropriate approach in the current context… as long as these
vouchers or credits do not expire in an unreasonably short period
of time…"

Air Canada does consider U.S. DOT statements of refund policy to be
legally binding on its U.S. operations.

"Air Canada has refunded $1.2 billion to eligible customers with
refundable fares whose travel was impacted by COVID-19," Air Canada
spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said in an email.

"Our policy exceeds the guidance provided by the CTA and provides
industry-leading flexibility and returns value to our customers."

Consumers filed 3,759 complaints over Air Canada refunds with the
U.S. Department of Transportation between January and July, more
than any other non-U.S. air carrier.

Among the complainants is Scott Osburne, the manager of a physical
therapy clinic in Portland, Oregon, who tried to obtain refunds for
tickets to Vancouver for a trip to celebrate his husband's 50th
birthday.

"We will never fly Air Canada again," he said. "We may never go to
Canada again. This is so annoying."

Osburne said he tried, unsuccessfully, to cancel the credit card
payment through American Express. But he was able to get full
refunds for COVID-19 cancellations of other international flights
he had booked this year from Delta Airlines and Air France.

Connor Mojo of St. Louis, Missouri, also failed to secure a refund
from Air Canada for tickets he had booked for a family holiday in
Banff, Alberta. The voucher isn't much use to him, he said.

"If I'm not planning on flying from the U.S. to Canada in the next
year or two," he said. "I would potentially have to make a trip
just to use that credit."


Unlike Osburne, Mojo was able to get his credit card company to
cancel the payment to Air Canada.

Many of the complaints were filed with the U.S. DOT by Canadians
who had booked travel to or through the U.S. but were unable to get
satisfaction through the airline.

Most U.S. and European airlines have granted refunds for COVID-19
cancellations.

Calgary-based WestJet said earlier this month it would refund all
passengers, but Air Canada will pay back only those who held
more-expensive refundable tickets.

Throughout the pandemic, the federal government has maintained that
paying refunds would be financially devastating for an airline
industry that has seen as much as 90 per cent of its passenger
traffic disappear. In June, Air Canada said it was holding as much
as $2.6 billion from advance ticket sales.

Even as it weighs a federal bailout for the industry, the
government has refused to say whether granting passengers refunds
would be a condition of receiving taxpayer money.

Transport Minister Marc Garneau was not available for an interview
with CTV News on refunds. [GN]

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Purchasers' Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the complaint in the class action suit initiated by a
purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock between
April 24, 2019 and July 24, 2019, is pending.

On March 2, 2020, a class action lawsuit against Align and two of
its executive officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (later transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California) on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between April 24, 2019 and July 24, 2019.

The complaint alleged claims under the federal securities laws and
sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs and
expenses incurred in the litigation.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 4, 2020
against Align and three of its executive officers alleging similar
claims as in the initial complaint on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of our common stock from April 25, 2019 to July 24,
2019.

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on September
18, 2020.

Align believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate
a range of possible loss.

Align Technology, Inc., incorporated on April 3, 1997, designs,
manufactures and markets a system of clear aligner therapy,
intra-oral scanners and computer-aided design/computer-aided
manufacturing (CAD/CAM) digital services used in dentistry,
orthodontics and dental records storage. The Company operates
through two segments: Clear Aligner segment and Scanner and
Services (Scanner) segment. The company is based in San Jose,
California.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Class Action Stayed in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the consolidated
class action pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has been stayed.

On November 5, 2018, a class action lawsuit against Align and three
of its executive officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of our common stock between July 25, 2018 and October
24, 2018.

The complaint generally alleged claims under the federal securities
laws and sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs
and expenses incurred in the litigation.

On December 12, 2018, a similar lawsuit was filed in the same court
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock
between April 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018.

On November 29, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint against Align and two of its executive
officers alleging similar claims as the initial complaints on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock from
May 23, 2018 and October 24, 2018.

On September 9, 2020, Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint was granted in part and denied in part. On
September 24, 2020, the Court stayed the case until otherwise
ordered to allow the parties time to pursue private mediation.

Align believes these remaining claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predict
the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

Align Technology, Inc., incorporated on April 3, 1997, designs,
manufactures and markets a system of clear aligner therapy,
intra-oral scanners and computer-aided design/computer-aided
manufacturing (CAD/CAM) digital services used in dentistry,
orthodontics and dental records storage. The Company operates
through two segments: Clear Aligner segment and Scanner and
Services (Scanner) segment. The company is based in San Jose,
California.


ALTERYX INC: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Alteryx, Inc. ("Alteryx" or "the
Company") (NYSE: AYX) investors that acquired securities between
May 6, 2020 and August 6, 2020.  

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

It is alleged within the complaint filed in this class action that
throughout the class period, defendants made materially misleading
and/or false statements, as well as failed to disclose facts that
were materially adverse in regard to the company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the company was unable to close
large deals within the quarter, leading to deals being downsized or
postponed to subsequent quarters; (2) that, as a result, Alteryx
increasingly relied on adoption licenses in order to attract new
customers; (3) that, due to the nature of adoption licenses, it was
reasonably likely that the Company's revenue would decline as a
result; and (4) that, positive statements made by the Defendant
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, as a result
of the foregoing.

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

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

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


ANTERO RESOURCES: Bid to Quash Subpoena Moved to N.D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition has been issued to MarkWest
Energy Partners, L.P.  MarkWest moved to Quash Subpoena and
Transfer.

On November 12, 2020, Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix ordered the
Clerk of Court to transfer MarkWest's Motion to Quash Subpoena to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia for consideration in the pending case Jacklin Romeo, Susan
R. Rine, and Debra Snyder Miller, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Antero Resources Corp., Civil Action
No. 17-cv-88.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P., a wholly owned subsidiary of MPLX
LP (NYSE: MPLX), is engaged in the gathering, processing, and
transportation of natural gas; the transportation, fractionation,
storage and marketing of NGLs; and the gathering and transportation
of crude oil.[BN]

The Movants are represented by:

          Ellie Lockwood
          SNELL & WILMER LLP-Denver
          1200 17th Street, Suite 1900
          One Tabor Center
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 634-2000
          Email: elockwood@swlaw.com

               - and -

          Stacy Ann Burrows
          GROEGE A. BARTON, P.C.
          7227 Metcalf Avenue, Suite 301
          Overland Park, KS 66204
          Phone: (913) 563-6253
          Fax: (913) 563-6259
          Email: stacy@georgebartonlaw.com

APPLE INC: N.D. Cal. Pares Claims in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------
lit-sl.shearman.com reports that on November 4, 2020, Judge Yvonne
Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
a motion to dismiss claims asserted under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against a technology company and certain of its
executives. In re Apple Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 19-cv-02033-YGR,
slip. op. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2020), ECF No. 118. Plaintiffs alleged
that the company and its CEO made material misstatements relating
to the company's earnings guidance, which the company ultimately
did not meet. Slip. op. at 4. The Court dismissed claims based on
certain of the alleged misstatements, which it held were not false
or misleading, but determined that falsity and scienter were
sufficiently alleged as to other alleged misstatements.

The Court held that a statement by the company's CEO that sales of
certain product models "got off to a really great start" was not
sufficiently alleged to be false when made. Id. at 10. The Court
explained that the models in question launched in September 2018,
but that plaintiffs alleged only that sales were slow in October
and November. Id. at 11.  Moreover, while plaintiffs argued that
the CEO's subsequent statement that the company was not seeing
evidence in sales data that sales for previously released products
were being hurt by customers waiting for the release of a new
product, the Court explained that this statement was "not
inconsistent" with sales of the new product declining for other
reasons, and emphasized that the CEO had also stated that he had
"very, very little data" regarding the launch of the new product.
Id. The Court concluded that these statements were "vague, hedging,
hyper-specific statements that are not likely to give investors an
impression of a state of affairs one way or the other," and
therefore amounted to mere puffery. Id.

The Court, however, upheld plaintiffs' claims based on statements
by the CEO that, while "we're seeing pressure" in certain markets,
"I would not put China in that category," as "business in China was
very strong last quarter" and growth for the company's main product
"was very strong." Id. at 3. Rejecting defendants' argument that
such statements referred only to past performance, the Court
explained that the CEO was responding to a question about how he
"saw" "the trajectory of business" in emerging markets, and that
when the CEO stated he "would not put China in that category" of
markets for which "we're seeing pressure," that was phrased in the
present tense. Id. The Court also rejected the argument that the
statement was not false when made, determining that the CEO's
subsequent statement that the company saw the impact of reduced
economic performance in China "as the quarter went on," could
plausibly be understood to mean that the company had known about
such issues before the second month of the quarter. Id. at 9. The
Court found the inference of falsity was further supported at the
pleading stage by allegations that the Company made production cuts
days after the CEO's statements, and reallocated staff to sales
shortly before the statements were made. Id. at 9-10.

The Court further determined that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged
scienter with respect to these statements. The Court first
explained that, under the "core operations" doctrine in the Ninth
Circuit, courts may infer that facts critical to a business's core
operations are known to a company's key officers. Id. at 13. While
the Court did not find that the "core operations" doctrine alone
was sufficient to establish scienter based on plaintiffs'
allegations, the Court observed that plaintiffs' allegations
regarding the importance of the China market to the company, wide
reporting regarding that market's decline, and the CEO's frequent
travel there sufficiently alleged that the China business was a
"core operation" of the company and "makes an inference of scienter
. . . more likely." Id. at 13. The Court concluded that these
allegations did not themselves raise a  strong inference that the
CEO knew his statements were false, but they did "raise a strong
inference that [the CEO] knew about the risk" of economic pressure
in China to the company's business when he made the challenged
statements, which "as part of the holistic analysis raises a cogent
and compelling inference that [the CEO] did not act innocently or
with mere negligence." Id. at 14.

The Court also determined that the CEO's statements after the
earnings guidance concerning what the company "saw" constituted an
admission that bolstered the inference the company knew it faced
economic pressure in China at the time the statements were made.
Id. In particular, the Court pointed to the CEO's use of the word
"saw" as suggesting that the CEO had contemporaneous knowledge at
the time the statements were made of the economic pressure that the
China market was experiencing.  Id. at 15.

In addition, the Court held that the close "temporal proximity"
between the CEO's statements and company actions allegedly
inconsistent with those statements, such as production line cuts,
"bolster an inference of scienter." Id. at 16. In contrast, the
Court determined that a potential competing inference that the
company had decided to cut production lines spontaneously or based
on only limited data obtained over the short period, was
implausible. Id. The Court also emphasized that the company
announced it would miss its earnings guidance by $9 billion, or 10%
of the overall guidance; because the Court observed that it would
take time to lose that amount of revenue, it held it was therefore
plausible that the company had data suggesting the decline was
taking place by the time of the challenged statements. Id. at 17.

Based on a holistic review, the Court concluded that plaintiffs'
allegations raised a strong inference of scienter under a
"deliberate recklessness" theory, and that they also suggested an
"extreme departure from standards of ordinary care" because the
China market and the products in question represented "core
operations" for the company. Id. at 18-19. While the company argued
that it did not profit from the alleged misstatements and conducted
a stock buyback during the same period (therefore paying too much
if the stock price had been inflated, as plaintiffs alleged), the
Court concluded that plaintiffs were not required to plead a
specific motive at the pleading stage. Id. at 19-20. Moreover,
while the Court noted that stock buybacks can potentially undermine
an inference of scienter, the Court did not find that dispositive,
particularly as buybacks use company money and could benefit
high-ranking executives whose shares are sold to the company. Id.
at 21. Therefore, while the Court found that the competing
inference of "innocence and negligence" was compelling, the Court
held that the strong inference of scienter raised by plaintiffs was
"as compelling" and therefore sufficient at the pleading stage. Id.
at 21.

The Court also addressed plaintiffs' Section 20(a) control person
claims asserted against the company's CFO.  The Court explained
that the viability of these claims turned on whether the primary
violator is deemed to be the CEO—whose statements the CFO did not
control -- or the company itself. Id. at 22. The Court noted,
however, that the complaint itself resolved that issue by alleging
that the company was the primary violator. Id. The Court held that
plaintiffs adequately alleged that the CFO plausibly controlled the
company's statements, given that he allegedly co-hosted the analyst
call on which the challenged statements were made and "could have
corrected the record, disclosed omitted facts, and explained that
[the company] faced issues in China that may undermine its
earnings." Id. Because the CFO did not do so, the Court concluded
that he could be liable "as the executive charged with delivering
the company's financial information who understood it to have made
misleading statements." [GN]

ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Bid to Nix Putative Class Suit in Cal. Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong Flooring, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the putative class action suit pending before the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, is pending.

On November 15, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and/or misleading
statements or omissions made between March 6, 2018 and November 4,
2019.  

On March 2, 2020, the court issued an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 2, 2020, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint asserting similar violations and
expanding the alleged class period to cover alleged false and/or
misleading statements or omissions made between March 6, 2018 and
March 3, 2020.  

On August 17, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the lead plaintiff filed an opposition on October 1,
2020.

Armstrong said, "We cannot predict the duration or outcome of this
suit at this time.  As a result, we are unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss arising from this lawsuit. The Company
intends to continue vigorously defending itself in this matter."

Armstrong Flooring, Inc. is a leading global producer of resilient
flooring products for use primarily in the construction and
renovation of commercial, residential and institutional buildings.
The company is based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.


ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court has affirmed a trial court
ruling dismissing a class action lawsuit.

On December 7, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, Artex Risk Solutions, Inc. (Artex) and other defendants,
in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

The named plaintiffs are micro-captives and related entities and
owners who had Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 831(b) tax
benefits disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

On August 5, 2019, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
to compel arbitration and dismissed the class action lawsuit.
Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

On September 9, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed the ruling
of the trial court dismissing the class action lawsuit.  

Arthur J. Gallagher said, "We will continue to defend against the
lawsuit vigorously. Litigation is inherently uncertain, however,
and it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of
this matter and the financial impact to us, nor are we able to
reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss in connection
with this lawsuit."

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., together with its subsidiaries, provides
insurance brokerage, consulting, and third party claims settlement
and administration services to entities in the United States and
internationally. The company offers its services through a network
of correspondent insurance brokers and consultants. Arthur J.
Gallagher & Co. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Rolling
Meadows, Illinois.


AURORA CANNABIS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 1 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 Aurora
Cannabis Inc. ("Aurora" or the "Company") (NYSE: ACB) between
February 13, 2020 and September 4, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Aurora had significantly overpaid for previous
acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain assets,
including its production facilities and inventory; (ii) the
Company's purported "business transformation plan" and cost reset
failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (iii) accordingly, it was
foreseeable that the Company would record significant goodwill and
asset impairment charges; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On September 8, 2020, Aurora issued a press release "announc[ing]
an update on its business operations along with certain unaudited
preliminary fiscal fourth-quarter 2020 results." Among other
things, Aurora announced that the Company expected to record up to
$1.8 billion in goodwill impairment charges in the fourth quarter
of 2020. The Company also announced that "previously announced
fixed asset impairment charges [were] now expected to be up to $90
million, due to production facility rationalization, and a charge
of approximately $140 million in the carrying value of certain
inventory, predominantly trim, in order to align inventory on hand
with near term expectations for demand." On this news, Aurora's
stock price fell $0.99 per share, or 11.63% to close at $7.52 per
share on September 8, 2020.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 1, 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 Aurora securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/auroracannabisinc-acb-shareholder-class-action-stock-fraud-lawsuit-322/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.

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


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

Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE:ACB)

Investors Affected : February 13, 2020 - September 4, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Aurora Cannabis Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Aurora had significantly overpaid for previous
acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain assets,
including its production facilities and inventory; (ii) the
Company's purported "business transformation plan" and cost reset
failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (iii) accordingly, it was
foreseeable that the Company would record significant goodwill and
asset impairment charges; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=10420&from=1

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

AURORA CANNABIS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE: ACB)
between February 13, 2020 and September 4, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important December 1, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Aurora investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Aurora class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1965.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) Aurora had significantly overpaid for previous
acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain assets,
including its production facilities and inventory; (2) Aurora's
purported "business transformation plan" and cost reset failed to
mitigate the foregoing issues; (3) accordingly, it was foreseeable
that Aurora would record significant goodwill and asset impairment
charges; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
1, 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-1965.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.

Contact Information:

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


AURORA CANNABIS: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of Dec. 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announced a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE: ACB)
between February 13, 2020 and September 4, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must
move the Court before the December 1 2020 DEADLINE . A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=aurora-cannabis-inc&id=2437
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.
[GN]




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

The parties' settlement is subject to court approval which is
expected to be received by the end of 2020 or in early 2021.

On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May 2016
naming MLV & Co. ("MLV"), a broker-dealer subsidiary of B. Riley
Securities (fka FBR), as a defendant in putative class action
lawsuits alleging claims under the Securities Act, in connection
with the offerings of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller") have
been consolidated. The Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor
v. Miller et al., is pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor
complaints, continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectuses issued in connection with six offerings (February 13,
2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17,
2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged
aggregate offering price of approximately $151,000.

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

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

In July 2020, the Company signed a binding term sheet to settle
this matter, subject to court approval which is expected to be
received by the end of 2020 or in early 2021.

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


BANK OF HAWAII: Aloha Accounting Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bank of Hawaii Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Aloha Accounting
and Tax LLC, has voluntarily dismissed the putative class action
suit filed against the company.

On June 2, 2020, Aloha Accounting and Tax LLC filed a lawsuit
(seeking class action status) against the Bank, First Hawaiian
Bank, American Savings Bank, Central Pacific Bank, and Kabbage Inc.
alleging that the Defendants did not pay agent fees owed under the
CARES Act PPP.  

An amended complaint was filed on June 23, 2020, adding Bank of
America as a co-defendant.  Similar lawsuits have been filed
against banks across the country.  

On August 5, 2020, Plaintiffs' motion seeking to consolidate the
cases in a Multidistrict Litigation was denied.

On October 13, 2020, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case
without prejudice.

Bank of Hawaii Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a bank
holding company headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii.


BANK OF HAWAII: Settlement in Overdraft Fees Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Bank of Hawaii Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a judge has
declined to issue a final order approving the settlement of
litigation over the assessment of overdraft fees until the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA) notice period expires on December 15,
2020.  

On September 9, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
a Bank customer primarily alleging the the Bank of Hawaii's
practice of determining whether consumer deposit accounts were
overdrawn based on "available balance" (which deducts debit card
transactions that have taken place but which have not yet been
posted) was not properly applied or disclosed to customers.  

On October 16, 2019, the Bank reached a tentative settlement with
the named plaintiff, subject to documentation and court approvals.


The settlement provides for forgiveness of certain related and
previously charged off overdraft fees, and a payment by the Company
of $8.0 million into a class settlement fund the proceeds of which
will be used to refund class members, and to pay attorneys' fees,
administrative and other costs, in exchange for a complete release
of all claims asserted against the Company.  

On March 12, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  

As a result, the Company recorded an $8.0 million liability reserve
relating to this claim.

A court hearing for final approval of the settlement was held on
July 23, 2020.  

The judge indicated he approved all substantive and procedural
terms of the settlement; however, the judge declined to issue the
approval order until the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) notice
period expires on December 15, 2020.  

Bank of Hawaii said, "A portion of the settlement fund has been put
into an interest bearing escrow account maintained by the
Settlement Administrator, and payments in the settlement of this
claim will be made after the Court issues its final approval
order."

Bank of Hawaii Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a bank
holding company headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii.


BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Gutierrez Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company's motion to dismiss the proposed class action suit
entitled, Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No.
37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CT, is pending.

On June 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in
California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson &
Johnson asserting claims for purported violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair
Competition Law in connection with their sale of talcum powder
products that the plaintiffs allege violated Proposition 65 and/or
the California Safe Cosmetics Act.

This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US in June 2019 and was
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, where it is currently pending.
Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive
relief, and reimbursement/restitution.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims, which was
granted in April 2020 without prejudice.

In May 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in June
2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint further,
which was granted.

In August 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the Fifth Amended Complaint
and the Company's motion to dismiss that complaint is pending.

The Company and Bausch Health US dispute the claims against them
and intend to defend each of these lawsuits vigorously.

Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.

BIOMARIN PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded
purchasers of the securities of BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
(NASDAQ: BMRN) between February 28, 2020 and August 18, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important November 24, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for BioMarin investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the BioMarin class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1960.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) differences between the Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 study of
valoctocogene roxaparvovec limited the reliability of the Phase 1/2
study to support valoctocogene roxaparvovec's durability of effect;
(2) as a result, it was foreseeable that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration would not approve the Biologics License Application
for valoctocogene roxaparvovec without additional data; and (3) as
a result, BioMarin's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
24, 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-1960.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.

Contact Information:

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


BLOOMIN BRANDS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bloomin Brands, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Freeman Ray Davis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bloomin Brands, Inc.,
doing business as: Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; DOES 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No.
3:20-cv-02221-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2020).

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

Bloomin' Brands, Inc. owns and operates a chain of casual dining
restaurants. The Company offers its products and services through
company owned and franchised locations worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE APRON: Settlement Reached in Consolidated EDNY Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Company has
entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement to resolve
the consolidated class action litigation in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

The Company is subject to a consolidated putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging federal securities law violations in connection with
the initial public offering (IPO).

The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain current
and former officers and directors made material misstatements or
omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus
that caused the stock price to drop.

Pursuant to a stipulated schedule entered by the parties,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
21, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a response on July 12, 2018 and
defendants filed a reply on August 13, 2018.

On April 22, 2020, the Court entered an order (i) denying the
motion to dismiss insofar as Plaintiffs' allegations pertained to
certain of the disclosures in the registration statement and
prospectus claimed by plaintiff, and (ii) narrowing the factual
issues in the case.

On August 11, 2020, the parties held a mediation after which they
entered into a memorandum of understanding on August 14, 2020,
regarding a proposed settlement.  Discovery has been stayed since
August 14, 2020.

On October 28, 2020, the Company entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement to resolve the class action litigation.

Under the terms of the settlement, a payment of $13.3 million is to
be made by the Company and/or its insurers in exchange for the
release of claims against the defendants and other released parties
by the lead plaintiff and all settlement class members and for the
dismissal of the action with prejudice.

During the three months ended September 30, 2020, the Company
recorded a charge of $1.1 million in Other operating expense for
its portion of the settlement that will not be recovered by the
insurers, in addition to charges that the Company had previously
recorded relating to its portion of the settlement of $0.9 million.


As of September 30, 2020, the Company recorded an accrual of $13.3
million for the full settlement amount in Accrued expenses and
other current liabilities and for the insurance proceeds receivable
of $11.3 million in Prepaid expenses and other current assets.

Blue Apron said, "If the court does not approve of the settlement,
the cases will continue."

The Company is also subject to two putative class action lawsuits
alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the
IPO, which are substantially similar to the above-referenced
federal court action. One of the actions is currently pending in
the New York Supreme Court.  The other action was originally filed
in the New York Supreme Court, but was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiffs on September 15, 2020 and subsequently re-filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on October
2, 2020. The Company is unable to provide any assurances as to the
ultimate outcome of any of these lawsuits or that an adverse
resolution of any of these lawsuits would not have a material
adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position
or results of operations.

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


BOK FINANCIAL: CARES Act-Related Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that BOKF, NA a company
subsidiary continues to defend a putative class action suit related
to the Small Business Administration for Paycheck Protection
Program (CARES Act) loans.

On May 12, 2020, an accounting firm filed a putative class action
in the District Court of Colorado alleging that BOKF failed to pay
the agents of borrowers making application through the Bank to the
Small Business Administration for Paycheck Protection Program
loans.

BOKF implemented a policy to pay, and paid, all agents of PPP
borrowers where the principals agreed the principals had agents.

BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss
is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated."

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

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.

BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Langley Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
30, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
the court overseeing the case, Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton
Holding Corp., has dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.

On June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia styled Langley v. Booz Allen
Hamilton Holding Corp., No. 17-cv-00696 naming the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer as
defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 19, 2016 through June 15, 2017.

On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead plaintiffs, and on
October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging
misrepresentations or omissions by the Company purporting to relate
to matters that are the subject of the Department of Justice (DOJ)
investigation.

The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages.

The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
against the lawsuit.

Motions to dismiss were argued on January 12, 2018, and on February
8, 2018, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.

Booz Allen said, "At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company is not
able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or
any loss associated with the lawsuit."

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

Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation provides management and
technology consulting, engineering, analytics, digital, mission
operations, and cyber solutions to governments, corporations, and
not for-profit organizations in the United States and
internationally. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation was
founded in 1914 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


BRASILAGRO: Class Action Against IDBD et al. Underway in Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------
BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company said in its
Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 30, 2020, for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2020, that IDBD, Dolphin Netherlands BV (IDBD's controlling
shareholder), C.A.A. Extra Holdings Ltd., continue to defend a
class action suit filed in the Central District Court in Lod,
Israel.

In June 2015, an application to approve a lawsuit as a class action
was filed with the Central District Court against IDBD, Dolphin
Netherlands BV, C.A.A. Extra Holdings Ltd. (IDBD's former
controlling shareholder, or "CAA"), and current and former
directors, including alternate directors (including, among others,
Messrs. Eduardo Elsztain, Sholem Lapidot, Saul Zang and Mauricio
Wior).

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs hold shares in IDBD and
that they are creditors of a debt arrangement with IDB Holdings
Corporation Ltd. raising, among others, claims regarding the
conduct of IDBD's controlling shareholders and of its board of
directors in connection with the expiration of a transaction for
the sale of IDBD's holdings in Clal Insurance Enterprises Holdings
Ltd. in May 2014 and in connection with a rights issuance by IDBD
in July 2014 and February 2015.

In March 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the class
action application and, in June 2016, the Court partially accepted
the motion and ordered the Plaintiffs to file an amended class
action application that would include only the allegations and
remedies with respect to the Clal Insurance transaction.

In August 2016, the Defendants filed a motion to appeal (regarding
the part of decision that did not dismiss the allegations
concerning the Clal Insurance transaction) and the Plaintiffs filed
an appeal (regarding the part of the decision that dismissed the
allegations concerning the rights issuance) both with the Israeli
Supreme Court.

Following the dismissal of the appeal proceedings by the Supreme
Court, the Plaintiffs filed, in January 2018, a motion of appeal to
summarily dismiss the appeal filed by the Defendants, in which the
Court ordered the striking of the motion for causes of action that
fall under an exemption condition included in the amendment to the
Debt Arrangement pertaining to damage that was allegedly caused due
to prejudice of rights by virtue of the undertaking of the
controlling shareholder and the former controlling shareholder to
perform a tender offer for IDBD's shares in accordance with the
Debt Arrangement. The Plaintiffs filed an amended motion to approve
the claim as a class action.

Dolphin, IDBD and IDBD's directors filed a detailed joint answer on
May 7, 2018. The preliminary hearing was scheduled for November 28,
2019.

In July 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion (in partial agreement)
for withdrawal from the proceeding against the Defendants. In light
of CAA and IDBD's former controlling shareholder refusal to agree
to the Plaintiffs' withdrawal without an order for expenses, the
Court has set a time for filing arguments on the expenses.

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

BrasilAgro - Brazilian Agricultural Real Estate Company is a
corporation (sociedade por acoes) organized under the laws of
Brazil, and was incorporated on September 23, 2005. The company
focuses on the acquisition, development and exploitation of
agricultural properties that it believes possess significant
potential for cash flow generation and value appreciation. The
company is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil.


CBOE GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Suit vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that discovery is
ongoing in the securities class action suit against Bats Global
Markets, Inc. now known as CBOE Bats, LLC and Direct Edge Holdings
LLC.

On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New
York against Bats Global Markets and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as
well as 14 other securities exchanges.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of all public investors
who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the United States
since April 18, 2009 on a registered public stock exchange
("Exchange Defendants") or a U.S.-based alternate trading venue and
were injured as a result of the alleged misconduct detailed in the
complaint, which includes allegations that the Exchange Defendants
committed fraud through a variety of business practices associated
with, among other things, what is commonly referred to as high
frequency trading.

On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance
Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially
similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which
were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode
Island securities class action lawsuit.

On June 18, 2015, the Southern District of New York (the "Lower
Court") held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and
thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Lower Court issued an Opinion
and Order granting Exchange Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
dismissing the complaint in full. Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal of the dismissal on September 24, 2015 and its appeal brief
on January 7, 2016.

Respondent's brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was
held on August 24, 2016. Following oral argument, the Court of
Appeals issued an order requesting that the SEC submit an amicus
brief on whether the Lower Court had jurisdiction and whether the
Exchange Defendants have immunity in the claims alleged.

The SEC filed its amicus brief with the Court of Appeals on
November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and the Exchange Defendants filed
their respective supplemental response briefs on December 12, 2016.


On December 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Lower
Court's dismissal and remanded the case back to the Lower Court. On
March 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the Exchange
Defendants' motion for re-hearing.

The Exchange Defendants filed their opening brief for their motion
to dismiss May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs' response was filed June 15,
2018 and the Exchange Defendants' reply was filed June 29, 2018. On
May 28, 2019, the Lower Court issued an opinion and order denying
the Exchange Defendants' motion to dismiss.

On June 17, 2019, the Exchange Defendants filed a motion seeking
interlocutory appeal of the May 28, 2019 dismissal order, which was
denied July 16, 2019. Exchange Defendants filed their answers on
July 25, 2019. The discovery period in the matter commenced and is
scheduled to continue through 2020.

Cboe said, "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, the
Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result
from this litigation. However, the Company believes that the claims
are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously."

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

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CBOE GLOBAL: Oral Argument on Nov. 30 in VIX Case Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has set oral argument for November
30, 2020, on the appeal made by the plaintiffs in the class action
suit related to the CBOE Volatility Index methodology (VIX).

On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned
Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed
in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products,
operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating
VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value
designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of
VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that
could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as
John Doe defendants.

A number of similar putative class actions, some of which do not
name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in
Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain
volatility-related products.

On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized the putative class actions in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated
complaint that is a putative class action alleging various claims
against the Company and John Doe defendants in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The claims asserted against the Company consist of a Securities
Exchange Act fraud claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a
state law negligence claim. Plaintiffs request a judgment awarding
class damages in an unspecified amount, as well as punitive or
exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment interest,
costs including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses and such
other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On November 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their
response on January 7, 2019. The Company filed its reply on January
28, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted the Company's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' entire complaint against the Company.

The state law negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the
other claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an
amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed on July 19, 2019.

On August 28, 2019, the Company filed its second motion to dismiss
the amended consolidated complaint and plaintiffs filed their
response on October 8, 2019.

On January 27, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted the Company's second motion to dismiss
and all counts against the Company were dismissed with prejudice.

On April 21, 2020, the federal district court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the
January 27, 2020 dismissal order for an immediate appeal.

On May 19, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ("7th Circuit"), seeking to
appeal the April 21, 2020 order granting the entry of partial final
judgment and both orders granting the Company's motions to dismiss
entered on May 29, 2019 and January 27, 2020.

On June 29, 2020, plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the 7th
Circuit, on August 28, 2020 the Company filed its opposition brief
with the 7th Circuit, on September 7, 2020, CME Group Inc.,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and National Futures Association
filed an amici curiae brief in support of the Company on the Bad
Faith Standard with the 7th Circuit and on October 16, 2020,
plaintiffs filed their reply brief with the 7th Circuit.

On October 14, 2020, the 7th Circuit set oral argument for November
30, 2020.

The Company currently believes that the claims are without merit
and intends to litigate the matter vigorously. The Company is
unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this
litigation.

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CHERRY HILL: Falco Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHERRY HILL
MITSUBISHI, INC.. The case is styled as Gina Marie Falco,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CHERRY HILL MITSUBISHI, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-05675 (E.D. Pa.,
Nov. 13, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Cherry Hill Mitsubishi is a retail company based in Cherry Hill,
New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory J. Gorski, Esq.
          GORSKI LAW, PLLC
          1635 Market Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 330-2100
          Email: greg@greggorskilaw.com


CMS ENERGY: Suit Over Wis. Gas Index Price Reporting Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the settlement
agreement in the Wisconsin class action related to gas index price
reporting has been approved and that case is now complete.

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

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

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

In 2017, the federal district court approved the settlement.
Plaintiffs made claims for treble damages, full consideration
damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorneys'
fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS Energy
defendants were dismissed by the district court based on FERC
preemption.

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court decision. The appellate court found that The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) preemption does not
apply under the facts of these cases. The appellate court affirmed
the district court's denial of leave to amend to add federal
antitrust claims.

The matter was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015
upheld the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The cases were remanded back
to the federal district court.

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

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

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

In the Wisconsin actions, oppositions to the remand were filed, but
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the remand
in June 2019.

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

The parties executed a settlement agreement in the Kansas case in
February 2020, and that case is now complete.

In the Wisconsin case, a settlement agreement was approved in
August 2020 and that case is now complete.

CMS Energy Corporation operates as an energy company primarily in
Michigan. The company operates in three segments: Electric Utility,
Gas Utility, and Enterprises. CMS Energy Corporation was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Jackson, Michigan.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Appeal in ERISA Related Class Suit Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on Colgate-Palmolive Company
October 30, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that the company has taken an appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the District Court's
order granting the plaintiff' motion for summary judgment on
remaining claims.

In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual
annuity payments made to certain participants in the
Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan did not
comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed
against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.

This action was certified as a class action in July 2017.

In July 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed
certain claims on consent of the parties.

In August 2020, the Court granted the plaintiff' motion for summary
judgment on the remaining claims.

The Company and the Plan are contesting this action vigorously and,
in September 2020, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and
Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR: Dismissal of Michelhaugh Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD MICHELHAUGH, ET AL., v. CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR
SECURITY, LLC, Case No. E2019-00361-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App.), a
three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville
affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the Plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice and denying the motion for class
certification.

Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC ("CNS") contracted with the
Department of Energy ("DOE") to direct operations at the Y-12
facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.  CNS became the Y-12 facility
contractor on July 1, 2014, and it replaced the former DOE
contractor, Babcock & Wilcox Technical Services Y-12, LLC ("B&W").
All four Plaintiffs -- Michelhaugh, John D. Williams, Jeff Gardner,
and Monty Goins -- worked at the Y-12 facility for several years
before the transition from B&W to CNS.  The Plaintiffs were "at
will" B&W employees, and they became "at will" CNS employees on
July 1, 2014.

A B&W provision entitled Vacation Plan, Number Y11-Y114, Revision
12/13/12, governed employees' 2014 vacation rights, and the
interpretation of the Vacation Plan is the principal issue in the
case.  Section B of the Vacation Plan applied to employees with a
Company Service Date ("CSD") before Jan. 1, 1996, and it gave those
salaried employees the right to receive all of their vacation time
up-front at the start of each year.  All four Plaintiffs worked at
the Y-12 facility before 1996, and had a CSD before Jan. 1, 1996.
Accordingly, Section B of the Vacation Plan governed their vacation
rights.  Because vacation time vested on December 31 of each year,
Plaintiffs had the ability to use their vacation time during the
first week of the calendar year.  However, employees hired after
1996 did not have this vacation benefit and were instead required
to accrue vacation time incrementally throughout the calendar
year.

From early March 2014 through June 2014 ("Transition Period"), CNS
provided prospective employees with information about the
transition from B&W to CNS.  It created a transition website that
included information about its plan to change from vacation time to
a paid time off system ("PTO") beginning in January 2015.  It also
created an informational document entitled 2014-2015 Benefits
Summary for Non-Bargained Employees and held informational sessions
to explain upcoming changes.  CNS mailed copies of the Benefits
Summary to prospective employees in early June 2014 and encouraged
prospective employees to submit questions by e-mail.

CNS mailed offers of employment to prospective employees starting
on June 2, 2014.  The offer letters required all employees to read
and accept CNS's Terms and Conditions of Employment.  The document
stated that CNS adheres to the doctrine of employment at will, and,
except for "at will" employment, other terms of employment,
policies, or procedures may exist and be changed from time to time.
All four Plaintiffs accepted CNS' offers of employment on or
before the June 9, 2014, deadline and became CNS employees on July
1, 2014.

CNS initially continued the existing Vacation Plan without change.
However, on Dec. 11, 2014, CNS formally issued Standing Order
SO-Y-12-15-2007 ("Standing Order"), which eliminated Section B of
the Vacation Plan.  CNS asserts that the Standing Order was issued
in order to reconcile the Vacation Plan with the new CNS PTO policy
that would begin on Jan. 1, 2015.  The Plaintiffs and CNS agree
that the Standing Order took effect before Dec. 31, 2014, when,
under the Vacation Plan, the Plaintiff's "next calendar year's
vacation" would have otherwise "vested."

The Plaintiffs claim that the standing order unexpectedly
eliminated vacation benefits that they had earned by working in
2014.  CNS argues that the standing order did not eliminate the
Plaintiffs' vacation time; it only changed the timeline under which
they received their 2015 PTO.  It asserts that the advance accrual
system of Section B of the Vacation Plan gave the Plaintiffs access
to all of the coming year's vacation time before that calendar year
actually started (it was always awarded on December 31).  Thus,
eliminating Section B only ended the advance accrual system.  Under
CNS's interpretation of the Vacation Plan, Section B gave the
Plaintiffs a benefit that was reserved for long standing facility
employees.  Employees with CSDs before 1996 did not actually earn
vacation time by working throughout the previous calendar year.
Instead, their former employer5 advanced all of their vacation time
without requiring them to first earn that vacation.

The Plaintiffs take the opposite position and argue that Section B
did not create an advance accrual system.  They contend that
vacation time in any given calendar year was always earned by
working throughout the previous year; vacation time was not awarded
in advance.  Under their interpretation of the plan, an employee
earns vacation time by working for an entire year, the vacation
time is collectively awarded on December 31 of that year (the year
in which it was allegedly earned), but it cannot be used until the
following calendar year.

In August 2015, Plaintiffs Michelhaugh and Williams filed their
original complaint against CNS on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated. CNS moved to dismiss, the trial court granted
the motion, and the Plaintiffs appealed.  The Court of Appeals
overturned the dismissal and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  The Tennessee Supreme Court denied CNS's application
to appeal.

On remand, the two original Plaintiffs -- Michelhaugh and Williams
-- and CNS agreed to a pre-trial scheduling order that required any
motion for class certification to be filed by Sept. 22, 2017, 180
days before the March 21, 2018, trial date.  The Plaintiffs did not
file a motion for class certification in Michelhaugh I.  On Nov. 7,
2017, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims without
prejudice.

The original Plaintiffs filed the current action on April 11, 2018,
and two additional Plaintiffs, Gardner and Goins, joined the suit.
The parties conducted discovery, and Plaintiffs moved for class
certification on August 24, 2018. CNS opposed the motion for class
certification and filed its motion for summary judgment on October
2, 2018. The trial court set both motions for a hearing scheduled
on January 25, 2019. The trial court extensively questioned both
counsel and quoted from the Appellate Court's decision in
Michelhaugh I.

After the hearing, the trial court issued a ruling in which it
granted CNS's motion for summary judgment, dismissed the
Plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, and denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  It determined that the four
Plaintiffs, and any putative class members, were not deprived of
any earned or vested vacation when CNS issued the Standing Order
that eliminated Part B of the Vacation Plan on Dec. 11, 2014.  That
document only operated prospectively.  The claims of Plaintiffs
Gardner and Goins -- and any claims that could have been asserted
by putative class members -- were dismissed with prejudice as
untimely.  The claims of Plaintiffs Michelhaugh and Williams were
also dismissed with prejudice, and the motion for class
certification was denied as moot.  The court further determined
that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 56.03 of the
Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure because they did not provide
specific citations to record evidence to support their dispute(s)
of CNS's statement of material facts.

A final order was entered on March 19, 2019.  The Plaintiffs
thereafter timely filed the appeal.

To prevail in their suit, the Plaintiffs must establish that CNS
deprived its employees of earned vacation compensation when it
eliminated Section B of the Vacation Plan.  An essential element of
such claim is that the compensation in question was actually earned
during the period at issue, 2014.  Since Section B of the Vacation
Plan governed the Plaintiffs' 2014 vacation rights, they must
demonstrate that -- under Section B and past practices -- employees
did in fact earn their 2015 vacation time by working during 2014.

The Appellate Court affirms the trial court's determination and
finds that CNS is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
The record before it reveals that CNS is entitled to summary
judgment because the Plaintiffs failed to establish that employees
earned 2015 vacation compensation by working in 2014.  The
Plaintiffs repeatedly assert that the Vacation Plan itself supports
their argument, but they failed to cite to any specific language
that justifies their position or their interpretation of Section B.
The plain language of Section B does not support their argument,
and the Plaintiffs did not provide additional facts to establish
that employees did in fact earn vacation time.  Because the
Plaintiffs failed to establish an essential element of their
deprivation of earned vacation compensation claim, the trial court
correctly determined that CNS was entitled to summary judgment as a
matter of law.

The Plaintiffs argue the trial court misapplied Rule 56.03 of the
Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure by requiring "strict" and
"rigid" adherence to the rule.  They assert that the trial court
should have applied a "more relaxed reading" instead of requiring
record citations to the "page in the record containing those
facts.

The Court finds that the trial courts have the authority to enforce
the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.  The trial court could
have, in its discretion, waived complete compliance with Rule
56.03, but it was not required to do so.  The Plaintiffs failed to
comply with the rule at issue and repeatedly failed to support
their response to CNS's statement of undisputed material facts with
proper citations to record evidence.  Thus, the trial court acted
within its discretion when it determined that the Plaintiffs'
response failed to comply with Rule 56.03 or otherwise failed to
demonstrate the existence of a disputed material fact.  For the
reasons, the Court affirms the trial court's ruling.

The Plaintiffs argue they were deprived of earned vacation
compensation when CNS issued the Standing Order that formally
eliminated Section B of the Vacation Plan.  Reviewing the record
before it, the Court finds that the evidence shows that CNS had the
right to prospectively change its Vacation Plan, and it did so
before the Plaintiffs' 2015 vacation vested, accrued, or was
earned.  Because the Plaintiffs received their 2015 vacation
time/PTO as it accrued incrementally throughout 2015, finding in
their favor would result in a double recovery that cannot be
allowed. For the reasons stated, the Court affirms the trial
court's determination and find that CNS had the right to
prospectively change its Vacation Plan, it did so before any of the
Plaintiffs' 2015 Vacation Benefits vested, and the change did not
deprive Plaintiffs of any earned vacation compensation.

The Plaintiffs argue that statements Ms. Hunt made during the
Benefits Meetings led them to believe that they would still receive
an advance accrual of their 2015 vacation benefits on Dec. 31,
2014.  In particular, Ms. Hunt stated she just wanted to reiterate
these changes are effective Jan. 1, 2015, as moving to a PTO
policy, so your vacation will stay in effect as of July 1 through
the end of the year 2014.  They contend the statement suggested
that, since the new policy would not take effect until 2015, they
would still receive an advance accrual of their entire 2015
vacation on Dec. 31, 2014.

The Court holds that what matters is whether the Plaintiffs earned
2015 vacation time by working in 2014, and whether CNS deprived
them of that vacation time.  Ms. Hunt's statements are not material
because they have no bearing on that issue.  The Vacation Plan
itself is what matters, and the parties do not dispute the text of
that document.  Ms. Hunt's statements may have been material to a
misrepresentation claim, but the Plaintiffs' complaint asserted no
such claim, nor was it amended to assert such claim.  The Court has
held that a plaintiff may not raise a new theory of recovery for
the first time in response to a defendant's motion for summary
judgment, and that is exactly what the Plaintiffs have attempted to
do.

Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that their claims were tolled by the
saving statute and by the class action tolling doctrine.  The
statute of limitations started running when CNS changed from the
Vacation Plan to the PTO policy on Jan. 1, 2015.  The three-year
statute of limitations in Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-105
required claims to be filed by Jan. 1, 2018.

The Court holds that it is undisputed that the current claims were
filed after the three-year statute of limitations expired.  It is
also undisputed that the original Plaintiffs did not move to
certify the class in Michelhaugh I, and thereby failed to protect
potential members of the class.  Plaintiffs Gardner and Goins
should have filed their individual claims within the original
limitations period (by Jan. 1, 2018), but they failed to do so.
Therefore, the trial court properly determined that the three-year
statute of limitations bars the claims of Plaintiffs Gardner and
Goins and any claims a putative class member could assert.

Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment
of the trial court.  The case is remanded for further proceedings
as may be necessary.  Costs of the appeal are assessed to the
Appellants, Michelhaugh, Williams, Gardner, and Goins.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4htqvjz from Leagle.com.

Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Mark E. Silvey --
mark@gregcolemanlaw.com -- and William A. Ladnier, Knoxville,
Tennessee, for the appellants, Richard Michelhaugh, John D.
Williams, Jeff Gardner, and Monty Goins.

John C. Burgin, Jr. -- jcburgin@kramer-rayson.com -- and John E.
Winters -- jwinters@kramer-rayson.com -- Knoxville, Tennessee, and
Kristi McKinney Stogsdill and Charles E. Young, Jr., Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, for the appellee, Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC.


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

Coty Inc. (NYSE:COTY)

Investors Affected: October 3, 2016 - May 28, 2020

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

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/coty-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=10436&from=1

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

COVENANT LOGISTICS: Curtis Markson Putative Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Southern
Refrigerated Transport, Inc., a company subsidiary continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by Curtis Markson.

On August 2, 2018, Markson, et al., filed a putative class action
case in United States District Court, Central District of
California generically claiming that five specified trucking
companies (including the company's subsidiary Southern Refrigerated
Transport, Inc.) entered into a "no poaching conspiracy" in which
they agreed not to solicit or hire employees in California who were
"under contract" with a fellow defendant.

The allegations center around new drivers in California who
received their commercial driver's license through driving schools
associated with, or paid for by, one of the named defendants, in
exchange for agreeing to drive for that defendant carrier for a
specified amount of time (typically 8-10 months).

Over the ensuing 18–20 months, the Plaintiffs added more trucking
companies as co-defendants in the lawsuit, including Covenant
Transport on April 23, 2020.

The lawsuit claims that the named defendants sent letters to one
another, providing notice of "under contract" status, if these new
California drivers were hired by another defendant carrier prior to
the driver completing their contractual obligations. Plaintiffs
contend that these notifications evidence a collusive agreement by
the named defendants to restrain competition among trucking
companies in California and suppress wages.

Southern Refrigerated Transport, Inc. and Covenant Transport, Inc.
are vigorously defending themselves against these claims.

Covenant said, "We do not currently have enough information to make
a reasonable estimate as to the likelihood, or amount of a loss, or
a range of reasonably possible losses as a result of this claim, as
such there have been no related accruals recorded as of September
30, 2020."

Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The
Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for
shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products
industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Hagens Berman Reminds of December 1 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman updates investors in the following publicly-traded
companies and urges investors who have suffered significant losses
to contact the firm. Further details about the cases can be found
at the links provided.

Credit Acceptance Corp. (CACC) Securities Fraud Class Action:

Class Period: Nov. 1, 2019 - Aug. 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Dec. 1, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/CACC
Contact An Attorney Now: CACC@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and concealed that: (1) CACC topped off packaged and
securitized pools of loans with higher-risk loans; (2) the company
made high-interest subprime auto loans it knew borrowers could not
repay; (3) borrowers were subject to hidden finance charges,
resulting in loans exceeding the state law mandated usury rate
ceiling; (4) the company engaged in illegal debt collection
practices; and, (5) that the company was likely to face regulatory
scrutiny and possible penalties.

Investors allegedly began to learn the ugly truth on Aug. 28, 2020,
when the Massachusetts Attorney General sued Credit Acceptance. The
AG alleged that since 2013 the company topped off packaged and
securitized loan pools with higher-risk loans despite telling
investors otherwise. The AG also alleged Credit Acceptance's
business model is predicated on making loans to borrowers who are
unlikely to repay them then engaging in abusive or unlawful debt
collection practices to make money.

This news sent the price of Credit Acceptance shares crashing
$85.36 lower, or over 18%, during the next two trading days.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Credit Acceptance
concealed its deceptive and illegal lending and collection
practices," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading
the investigation.

If you are a Credit Acceptance investor, click here to discuss your
legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Precigen, Inc. (PGEN) Securities Fraud Class Action:

Class Period: May 10, 2017 - Sept. 25, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Dec. 4, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/PGEN
Contact An Attorney Now: PGEN@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

The complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and concealed
that: (1) the Company was using pure methane as feedstock for its
announced yields for its methanotroph bioconversion ("MCB")
platform instead of natural gas; (2) yields from natural gas as a
feedstock were substantially lower than the announced pure methane
yields; (3) due to the substantial price difference between pure
methane and natural gas, pure methane was not a commercially viable
feedstock; (4) the Company's 1Q 2018 financial statements were
false; (5) the Company had material weaknesses in its internal
controls over financial reporting; and (6) the Company was under
investigation by the SEC since October 2018.

Investors allegedly began to learn the truth through a series of
disclosures beginning on Aug. 9, 2018, when the company announced
that its 1Q 2018 financial results could no longer be relied on. In
its restated 1Q 2018 results, the company made significant changes
to deferred revenue, collaboration and licensing revenues and
accumulated deficit, as well as admitted to material weaknesses in
its internal controls over financial reporting.

Then, on Mar. 2, 2020, the company disclosed it received a subpoena
in Oct. 2018 from the SEC concerning Precigen's MCB-related
disclosures.

Finally, on Sept. 25, 2020, the SEC issued a cease and desist order
involving "inaccurate reports concerning the company's purported
success converting relatively inexpensive natural gas into more
expensive industrial chemicals using a proprietary [MCB] program."

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving that Precigen
cooked its books and promoted fake technology," said Reed Kathrein,
the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are a Precigen investor and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

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

                      About Hagens Berman

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


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 1 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuit:

Credit Acceptance Corporation (CACC)
Class Period: 11/1/2019 - 8/28/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 1, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-cacc/

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

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. [GN]

CULLEN/FROST: Defends Class Suits Over PPP Loan Agent Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is
defending against purported class action suits that alleged the
company refuses to pay agent fees to purported agents of borrowers
under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) in violation of Small
Business Administration ("SBA") regulations.

In May of 2020, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Frost Bank in a Texas Federal court alleging that Frost Bank had
refused to pay agent fees to purported agents of borrowers under
the PPP in violation of SBA regulations.

The Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the Federal lawsuit was effected
and as a result the Federal lawsuit is resolved.

In July of 2020, another purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Frost Bank in a California Federal court alleging that
Frost Bank had refused to pay agent fees to purported agents of
borrowers under the PPP in violation of SBA regulations. Frost Bank
believes the claims to be without merit.

In October of 2020, a lawsuit was filed against Frost Bank in Texas
State court alleging, among other claims, that Frost Bank refused
to provide a PPP loan to the purported applicant.

Frost Bank believes the claims to be without merit.

Based in San Antonio, Tex., Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc. is a
financial holding company and a bank holding company. Through its
subsidiaries, the Company provides products and services throughout
numerous Texas markets, including commercial and consumer banking,
trust and investment management, mutual funds, investment banking,
insurance, brokerage, leasing, asset-based lending, treasury
management and item processing.


CURO GROUP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Dec. 18
-------------------------------------------------------------
CURO Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the final
settlement approval hearing in the case, Yellowdog Partners, LP v.
CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F. Gayhardt, William Baker and
Roger W. Dean, Civil Action No. 18-2662, is scheduled for December
18, 2020.

On December 5, 2018, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and its chief executive
officer, chief financial officer and chief operating officer in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned
Yellowdog Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F.
Gayhardt, William Baker and Roger W. Dean, Civil Action No.
18-2662.

On May 31, 2019, plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint naming
Doug Rippel, Chad Faulkner, Mike McKnight, Friedman Fleischer &
Lowe Capital Partners II, L.P., FFL Executive Partners II, L.P.,
and FFL Parallel Fund II, L.P. as additional defendants.

The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that
certain defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
as "control persons" of CURO.

Plaintiff purports to bring these claims on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased Company common stock between April 27, 2018
and October 24, 2018.

Plaintiff generally alleges that, during the putative class period,
the Company made misleading statements and omitted material
information regarding its efforts to transition the Canadian
inventory of products from Single-Pay loans to Open-End loans.
Plaintiff asserts that the Company and the individual defendants
made these misstatements and omissions to keep the stock price
high. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On May 27, 2020, the parties accepted a mediator's proposal to
settle the action for $9.0 million.

On September 4, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and scheduled the final settlement approval hearing for
December 18, 2020.

The Company's directors' and officers' insurance carriers will pay
the amount in excess of the $2.5 million retention under the policy
and, as such, the Company recorded $2.5 million in expense in 2019.


As of September 30, 2020, the entire $9.0 million settlement was
paid with $1.3 million of it paid by the Company.

As a result, the Company has a remaining $1.3 million receivable in
"Other assets," which will be collected from the insurance carrier,
and no remaining liability related to the settlement. No expense
was incurred for the three months ended September 30, 2020 related
to the settlement.

CURO Group Holdings Corp., a diversified consumer finance company,
provides consumer finance to a range of underbanked consumers in
the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The company was
formerly known as Speedy Group Holdings Corp. and changed its name
to CURO Group Holdings Corp. in May 2016. CURO Group Holdings Corp.
was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.


CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Defends CX-072 and CX-2009-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative securities class action suit related
to the product candidates CX-072 and CX-2009, both are cancer
treatment drugs.

On May 21, 2020, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California naming as defendants the Company and three current and
former officers.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements
and omissions of material fact related to the product candidates
CX-072 and CX-2009.

The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired CytomX securities between May 17, 2018, and May
13, 2020.

The plaintiff seeks damages and interest, and an award of costs,
including attorneys' fees.  

The Company believes the plaintiff's claims are without merit and
has not recorded any amount for claims associated with this lawsuit
as of September 30, 2020.

CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. operates as an oncology-focused
biopharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on developing
probody therapeutics for the treatment of cancer. CytomX
Therapeutics serves pharmaceutical industries throughout the United
States. The company is based in South San Francisco, California.

DAVITA INC: Settlement in Peace Officers' Suit Has Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement in the class action initiated by Peace
Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia, has been granted.

On February 1, 2017, the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund
of Georgia filed a putative federal securities class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against the Company and certain executives.

The complaint covers the time period of August 2015 to October 2016
and alleges, generally, that the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws concerning the Company's financial
results and revenue derived from patients who received charitable
premium assistance from an industry-funded non-profit organization.


The complaint further alleges that the process by which patients
obtained commercial insurance and received charitable premium
assistance was improper and "created a false impression of DaVita's
business and operational status and future growth prospects." In
November 2017, the Court appointed the lead plaintiff and an
amended complaint was filed on January 12, 2018.

On March 27, 2018, the Company and various individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2019, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado denied the motion to dismiss.

The Company answered the complaint on May 28, 2019. On January 31,
2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and the
Company filed its opposition on June 29, 2020.

While the Company continues to dispute the allegations, in July
2020, it reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter
without admitting to any liability.

Settlement of this matter on the agreed terms is expected to be
covered primarily with insurance proceeds, with the Company
contributing an amount that would not have a material impact on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.

A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by
the Court on October 27, 2020.

The settlement is subject to, among other things, final approval by
the Court.

DaVita Inc. provides kidney dialysis services for patients
suffering from chronic kidney failure or end stage renal disease
(ESRD). The company operates kidney dialysis centers and provides
related lab services in outpatient dialysis centers. The company
was formerly known as DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. and changed
its name to DaVita Inc. in September 2016. DaVita Inc. was founded
in 1994 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


DEVON ENERGY: Agreement in Principle Reached in Seeligson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Devon Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that an agreement in
principle has been reached in the class action entitled, Henry
Seeligson et al. v. Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., Case No.
3:16-cv-00082-K.

Devon is a party to a class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas styled Henry
Seeligson et al. v. Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., Case No.
3:16-cv-00082-K.

The Seeligson class has been certified and Devon's request to
appeal the class certification was recently denied.

The Seeligson class is composed of royalty interest owners under
approximately 4,500 oil and gas leases covering properties in the
Barnett Shale field in northern Texas.

The Seeligson class alleges that Devon breached an implied duty to
market by selling natural gas produced from the subject oil and gas
leases to a Devon affiliate and failing to obtain the best price
reasonably available for the gas. The Seeligson class alleges that
this breach resulted in Devon underpaying royalties to the class
during the period from January 1, 2008 through March 1, 2014.

Although Devon denies the allegations asserted in the Seeligson
case, in order to avoid the uncertainty of litigation, Devon
recently reached an agreement in principle to settle the class
claims.

Devon said, "Although this settlement is contingent upon the
negotiation and execution of a final definitive settlement
agreement and subject to approval by the District Court, Devon
recorded a $28 million expense for this matter in its third quarter
2020 discontinued operations. The amount is included within
discontinued operations in the consolidated statements of
comprehensive earnings and consolidated balance sheets."

Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Devon Energy Corporation
operates as an independent energy company that is involved
primarily in oil and gas exploration, development and production,
the transportation of oil, gas, and NGLs and the processing of
natural gas.


DIRECT ADVERT: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct Advert Media
LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Direct Advert Media LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-09555 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2020).

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

Direct Advert Media LLC is a full-service advertising and marketing
agency to create a one-stop shop specifically targeting small to
mid-sized businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


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

Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE:KODK)

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

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

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/eastman-kodak-company-loss-submission-form/?id=10012&from=1

Genius Brands International, Inc (NASDAQ:GNUS)

Investors Affected: March 17, 2020 - July 5, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Genius Brands International, Inc. According to the Genius Brands
lawsuit defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material information regarding: (i)
Nickelodeon's purported broadcast expansion of Genius's Rainbow
Rangers cartoon; (ii) subscription fees for the Kartoon Channel!;
and (iii) the Company's growth potential and overall prospects as a
company.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/genius-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=10012&from=1

Qutoutiao Inc. (NASDAQ:QTT)

This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that: a)
purchased or otherwise acquired Qutoutiao American Depositary
Shares pursuant and/ortraceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's September 2018
initial public offering; and/or b) purchased or otherwise acquired
Qutoutiao securities between September 14, 2018 and July 15, 2020.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Qutoutiao Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Qutoutiao replaced its advertising agent with a
related party, thereby bypassing third-party oversight of the
content and quality of the advertisements; (2) 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) as a result, the Company would
face increasing regulatory scrutiny and reputational harm; (4) as a
result, the Company's advertising revenue was reasonably likely to
decline; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/qutoutiao-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=10012&from=1

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

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


ENERGY RECOVERY: Visser Purported Securities Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Recovery, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is a
named defendant in a purported securities class action suit
entitled, Visser, et al. v. Energy Recovery, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-05647-VM (S.D.N.Y.).

On July 21, 2020, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Visser, et al. v. Energy Recovery, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-05647-VM (S.D.N.Y.)), naming as defendants the Company
and certain of the Company's present and former executive officers.


The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making materially false and
misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts concerning, the commercialization of VorTeq and expectations
of future license revenue.

The Complaint further alleges unspecified damages based on a
decline in the market price of the Company's shares following the
announcement of the termination of the VorTeq License Agreement.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.

Energy Recovery said, "At this time, the Company is not able to
estimate any reasonable possible loss, if any, due to the early
state of this matter."

Energy Recovery, Inc. is an energy solutions provider to industrial
fluid flow markets worldwide. The company is based in San Leandro,
California.


EROS STX: Bid to Nix N.J. Consolidated Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Eros STX Global Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020,
for the transition period from September 30, 2019 to March 31,
2020, that the motion to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated
putative class action suit before the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey remains pending.

Beginning on June 21, 2019, Eros was named a defendant in three
substantially similar putative class action lawsuits filed in
federal courts in California and New Jersey by purported
shareholders of Eros.

The lawsuits allege that Eros and certain individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by
making false and/or misleading statements regarding Eros'
accounting for trade receivables.

On September 27, 2019, the putative class action filed in
California was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

On April 14, 2020, the three putative class actions were
consolidated, and a lead plaintiff was appointed. On July 1, 2020,
the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.


The consolidated complaint expands the scope of the allegations.

Eros filed a motion to dismiss on August 28, 2020.

On October 14, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the
Company's motion to dismiss.

The Company expects to file a reply brief, which is due on or
before November 13th, 2020.

Eros STX Global Corporation operates as a global entertainment
company. The Company acquires, co-produces, and distributes films,
digital content, and music across multiple formats such as
theatrical, television, and OTT (over-the-top) digital media
streaming. Eros STX Global serves customers worldwide.


EVENTBRITE INC: Snow Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------
Eventbrite, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Snow, et al. v.
Eventbrite, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-03698.

On June 4, 2020, three plaintiffs, seeking to represent a proposed
class of individuals who purchased tickets on or after June 3,
2016, filed suit against Eventbrite in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The Plaintiffs allege that Eventbrite failed to provide an
opportunity for purchasers of tickets to events sold through
Eventbrite's platform to obtain a refund where the event is
postponed, rescheduled, or canceled.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in addition to restitution and
monetary damages under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, in addition to
claims brought under California common law.

Eventbrite denies the allegations and intends to defend the case
vigorously. The case is in its early stages.

Eventbrite said, "While the Court denied the Company's motion to
compel arbitration, the Company has not yet answered the complaint,
no other motions have been made, and no other rulings have been
issued. The Company is unable to predict the likely outcome at this
point."

Eventbrite, Inc., incorporated on October 20, 2009, provides a
global platform for live experiences. The Company’s platform
allows anyone to create, share, find and attend events. It enable
events ranging from fundraisers, seminars, wellness activities and
music festivals to classes and cultural celebrations all over the
world. The company is based in San Francisco, California.

FACEBOOK INC: Settlement Reached in Cyber-Attack Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2020, that the parties in a 2018 consolidated class
action suit related to a cyber-attack have agreed to a settlement
in principle to resolve the lawsuit.

Beginning on September 28, 2018, multiple putative class actions
were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and
elsewhere against the company alleging violations of consumer
protection laws and other causes of action in connection with a
third-party cyber-attack that exploited a vulnerability in
Facebook's code to steal user access tokens and access certain
profile information from user accounts on Facebook, and seeking
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

The actions filed in the United States were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

On November 26, 2019, the district court certified a class for
injunctive relief purposes but denied certification of a class for
purposes of pursuing damages.

On January 16, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle to resolve the lawsuit. The settlement is subject to
court approval.

Facebook said, "We believe the remaining lawsuits are without
merit, and we are vigorously defending them. In addition, the
events surrounding this cyber-attack became the subject of Irish
Data Protection Commission (IDPC) and other government inquiries."

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

Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.



FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Platform & User Data Practices Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2020, that a putative class action suit related to
the company's Platform & User Data Practices remains pending.

Beginning on March 20, 2018, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States and elsewhere against the company and certain of its
directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws,
breach of fiduciary duties, and other causes of action in
connection with its platform and user data practices as well as the
misuse of certain data by a developer that shared such data with
third parties in violation of our terms and policies, and seeking
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

Beginning on July 27, 2018, two putative class actions were filed
in federal court in the United States against the company and
certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of
securities laws in connection with the disclosure of its earnings
results for the second quarter of 2018 and seeking unspecified
damages.

These two actions subsequently were transferred and consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
with the putative securities class action relating to the company's
platform and user data practices.

On September 25, 2019, the district court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class
action, with leave to amend.

On November 15, 2019, a second amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated putative securities class action. On August 7, 2020,
the district court granted the company's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint, with leave to amend.

On October 16, 2020, a third amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated putative securities class action.

The company believes these lawsuits are without merit, and the
company is vigorously defending them.

Facebook said, "In addition, our platform and user data practices,
as well as the events surrounding the misuse of certain data by a
developer, became the subject of U.S. Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), state attorneys general, and other government inquiries in
the United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions. In July 2019,
we entered into a settlement and modified consent order to resolve
the FTC inquiry, which was approved by the federal court and took
effect in April 2020. Among other matters, our settlement with the
FTC required us to pay a penalty of $5.0 billion which was paid in
April 2020 upon the effectiveness of the modified consent order."

Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.


FIRST AMERICAN: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

First American Financial Corp. (FAF)
Class Period: 2/17/2017 - 10/22/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-faf/

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 Kahn Swick

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

FLUIDIGM CORP: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on Oct. 6 announced a class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Fluidigm Corporation
(NASDAQ: FLDM) between February 7, 2019 and November 5, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
investor losses under the federal securities laws.

To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=fluidigm-corporation&id=2433
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the November 20, 2020 DEADLINE.   A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles; (2) as a
result, Fluidigm's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.  When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation.  You
may retain counsel of your choice.  You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.

Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide.

Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN]


GANNETT CO: 4th Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Stegemann ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINA STEGEMANN, Appellant, and JEFFREY QUATRONE,
on Behalf of Gannett Co., Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GANNETT COMPANY, INC.;
THE GANNETT BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN
AND JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 19-1212 (4th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled 2-1 to vacate
the judgment of the district court dismissing the Plaintiffs'
complaint for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Stegemann and Quatrone, participants in the
Gannett Co., Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan, brought the suit on behalf
of themselves and other participants in the Plan against the Plan's
sponsor, Defendant Gannett, and the Plan's management committee.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties of prudence and diversification under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").  Specifically, they
contend that the Defendants ignored an imprudent single-stock fund
in the Plan for several years, resulting in millions of dollars in
losses.

In June 2015, the publicly traded media company Gannett Co., Inc.
-- a different Gannett Co., Inc. than is the Defendant in the case
-- changed its name to TEGNA, Inc.  Simultaneously, it spun off its
publishing business into a newly created, independently traded
company, which inherited the name Gannett Co., Inc.  The new,
spun-off Gannett Co., Inc. is the selfsame Defendant in the case.

When Old Gannett effectuated the spin-off and became TEGNA, Old
Gannett's then-existing plan became the operative plan for the
employees of the spun-off New Gannett, including those employees
who transferred from Old Gannett to New Gannett.  Employees staying
with TEGNA, and their liabilities and account balances, transferred
to a new TEGNA 401(k) plan.

TEGNA and New Gannett were now two different publicly traded
companies.  However, because Old Gannett had made Old Gannett stock
contributions for employees who now worked for New Gannett, the New
Gannett Plan had a significant investment in Old Gannett's
successor, TEGNA.  During the spin-off process, the governing
document for the Old Gannett plan that New Gannett inherited was
restated and amended to provide for the new TEGNA stock.  The
amendments created a "TEGNA Stock Fund" on the Plan's investment
menu to hold, exclusively, TEGNA stock—such a fund is commonly
called a "single-stock fund."  However, the fund was "frozen."

At the time of the spin-off in June 2015, the New Gannett Plan
allegedly held $269 million invested in TEGNA common stock,
representing more than 21.7% of the Plan's total assets.
Meanwhile, for two years after the spin-off, the Defendants
maintained the frozen holding pattern for the TEGNA Stock Fund
before deciding in June 2017 to liquidate it over a twelve-month
period beginning in July 2017.  Nevertheless, as of August 2018
(the date of the Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint), the TEGNA
Stock Fund had still not been fully liquidated.

The Plaintiffs allege that between the time of the spin-off and the
decision to liquidate the TEGNA Stock Fund, Defendant Gannett
Benefit Plans Committee repeatedly received risk warnings related
to holding large quantities of TEGNA stock.  According to them, the
problem with the TEGNA Stock Fund was that, as a single-stock fund,
it was inherently unduly risky because it put all the eggs in one
basket, thus violating the diversification principle of sound
investment.  

During the Committee's period of inaction, TEGNA stock prices fell.
The Plaintiffs calculate that the failure to promptly liquidate
TEGNA stocks during the first half of 2016 cost the Plan between
$43 million and $57 million, depending on how the funds might have
been otherwise invested.

In March 2018, named Plaintiff Quatrone filed a putative class
action suit on behalf of the Plan against Defendants Gannett Co.,
Inc. and the Gannett Benefit Plans Committee.  Quatrone faulted
them for failing to respond to the warnings about the TEGNA Stock
Fund.

The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).  It two key holdings were that (1) the Plaintiffs'
duty-of-prudence claims were barred under Fifth Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer, which raised the bar for pleading a breach of the
duty of prudence related to the retention of publicly traded stock
by requiring a plaintiff to allege "special circumstances" related
to mistakes in market valuation not alleged in the case; and (2)
the duty to diversify requires diversity among the full set of
funds offered in the menu of plan offerings but does not compel
every individual fund in a plan to be diversified.

The Plaintiffs sought leave to amend the complaint.  The proposed
amendments added allegations based on some discovery and sought to
substitute named Plaintiffs but did not alter the fundamental
claims.  The district court denied amendment as futile because the
amended complaint failed to address the deficiencies of the
original complaint.  Specifically, the district court determined
that the amended complaint still did not allege "special
circumstances" and its diversification theory was still that the
fiduciaries should have compelled participants to have diverse
portfolios by forcing them out of an undiversified fund (i.e.,
divesting the TEGNA stock).

Accordingly, on appeal the Fourth Circuit considers whether and how
a participant in a defined contribution plan can allege a breach of
the ERISA fiduciary duties of either prudence or diversification on
the basis of a plan fiduciary's non-divestment of an allegedly
imprudent frozen single-stock fund.  The Plaintiffs' claims turn on
alleged breaches of the duty of prudence, and the duty to
diversify.  Of those two duties, they focus on the duty of prudence
because, although ERISA has a statutory duty to diversify in
Section 1104(a)(1)(C), the Section 1104(a)(1)(B) duty of prudence
has an included duty to diversify as well.  Relevant to the case,
the duty of prudence also includes a duty to monitor investments
and remove imprudent investments.

The Fourth Circuit concludes that the Plaintiffs have stated a
claim, and it rejects the Defendants' arguments that various
considerations apply to bar their claim at the motion to dismiss
stage of litigation.  It finds that the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants breached their duty of prudence because they did not
monitor and remove the allegedly imprudent TEGNA Stock Fund.

Again, to state a claim for a breach of an ERISA fiduciary duty, a
plaintiff must plausibly allege that a fiduciary breached a duty,
causing a loss to the employee benefit plan.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants breached their duty of prudence.  The
Defendants allegedly breached this duty by failing to monitor the
continuing prudence of holding a single-stock fund.  Because the
Defendants did not monitor the merits of the fund, they did not
uncover that it was an imprudent fund.

As the fund was a single-stock fund with inherent concentration
risk, it is plausible that the fund was, in fact, imprudent.
Simultaneously, the allegedly imprudent single-stock fund was
correlated with another single-stock fund on the Plan's menu,
intensifying diversification concerns.  The Defendants' failure to
discover the imprudence led to another failure, a failure to divest
the fund. Since the fiduciaries did not divest the fund, when the
price of the stock in the fund went down, the Plan suffered a
loss.

The Court explains that DiFelice v. U.S. Airways, Inc. authorizes
examining the prudence of a fund standing alone from the other
offerings on a plan's menu.   That case also requires a fiduciary
to identify and remedy imprudent funds on a menu.  Tatum then shows
that maintaining an allegedly imprudent fund in a frozen state is
not necessarily adequate -- indeed, the outcome of Tatum suggests
that a prudent fiduciary would have near-immediately moved to
sunset the single-stock fund.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have
plausibly alleged the Defendants breached their duty of prudence
and caused a loss to the Plan.

Finally, neither Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer nor
participant choice structure bar the claim.  Dudenhoeffer is simply
inapposite.  And as for participant choice, ERISA accounts for that
choice with the situational safe harbor of Section 404(c) -- but
that does not affect whether the Plaintiffs have stated a claim.

For the foregoing reasons, the Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment
of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's Aug. 11, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5nek3mp from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Gregory Y. Porter -- GPORTER@BAILEYGLASSER.COM -- BAILEY &
GLASSER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Eric S. Mattson --
EMATTSON@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for
Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Robert A. Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Mark P. Kindall
-- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Douglas P. Needham, IZARD KINDALL & RAABE
LLP, West Hartford, Connecticut; Mark G. Boyko --
MBOYKO@BAILEYGLASSER.COM -- BAILEY & GLASSER LLP, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellants. Laurin H. Mills -- Laurin@Samek-law.com -- SAMEK /
WERTHER / MILLS, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.


GARBER LIFE: Hastings Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gerber Life Insurance
Company, et al. The case is styled as Stan Hastings, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Gerber Life Insurance
Company, Doe Corporation doing business as: American Benefits, Case
No. 4:20-cv-01345-BSM (E.D. Ark., Nov. 13, 2020).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Gerber Life Insurance Company was formed in 1967 in Fremont,
Michigan. Gerber Life provides juvenile and family life insurance
products to middle-income families along with medical insurance to
small- and medium-sized businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (615) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


GEORGIA: Court Dismisses Count I in Black Voters Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, BLACK VOTERS MATTER FUND, MEGAN GORDON, and PENELOPE
REID, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State of Georgia, and DEKALB COUNTY BOARD OF
REGISTRATION & ELECTIONS, and all others similarly Defendants,
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-01489-AT (N.D. Ga.), Judge Amy Totenberg
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division, (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction as to the November 2020 General Election;
and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Secretary's Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

Georgia law permits voters to cast an absentee ballot by mail.  The
statute requires that absentee ballot applications may be submitted
"by mail," and that absentee ballot applications will be personally
mailed or personally delivered by the voter.  However, no portion
of the Georgia Code addresses who must pay for postage for absentee
ballot applications and absentee ballots.  Absentee ballot
application forms do not contain prepaid postage, and therefore the
voter must pay postage to return the application.  A voter could
return the completed form electronically to the county email
address supplied on the absentee ballot request form that was
mailed out.  However, this option applies only to the absentee
ballot application, not to the ballot itself.

The entire world is currently embroiled in a global pandemic unlike
any seen in recent history.  In light of this public health
emergency, Secretary of State Raffensperger announced on March 14,
2020 that he was delaying the Presidential Preference Primary
Election, which was originally scheduled for March 24, 2020, and
for which early voting had already begun, to coincide with the
later Statewide General Primary on May 19, 2020.  The Secretary of
State took the additional step of mailing absentee ballot
applications to every registered, active voter.

The absentee ballot applications which were sent by the Secretary
of State did not contain prepaid postage, and therefore voters were
required to provide postage to return the application if mailed to
their local board of elections office.  Alternatively, the voter
could return the completed form electronically to the county email
address supplied on the absentee ballot request form that was
mailed out.

On April 15, 2020 the State Election Board passed an emergency rule
that authorizes counties to establish secured absentee ballot drop
boxes where voters may drop off completed absentee ballots to a
secured location without using a stamp.  Most counties took
advantage of this rule to set up at least one drop box, and many
set up several.  However, at least 62 counties did not.  Governor
Kemp renewed the Public Health State of Emergency on April 30, and
again on May 28, June 29, and July 31, 2020.

Plaintiffs Black Voters Matter Fund, Gordon and Reid filed the
putative class action against Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia
Secretary of State and the DeKalb County Board of Registration &
Elections (on behalf of all similarly situated county boards of
elections), alleging that the Defendants have unconstitutionally
infringed the rights of Georgians to vote by requiring voters to
pay for their own postage to submit absentee ballot applications
and absentee ballots.  The Plaintiffs contend that the postage
requirement is a poll tax in violation of the Twenty-Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments and an unjustifiable burden on the right to
vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Plaintiffs seek relief, in the form of (a) a declaratory
judgment that the requirement that voters affix their own postage
to mail-in absentee ballots and mail-in absentee ballot
applications is unconstitutional; and (b) a preliminary and
permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from requiring that
voters affix their own postage for absentee ballots and
applications and mandating that Defendants provide prepaid postage
returnable envelopes for absentee ballots or postage.

The Court previously held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion on
April 24, 2020.  It denied the Motion for Preliminary Injunction as
to the June 2020 election only, and later as to the August 2020
election in response to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order.  The Court has kept the issue of the November
2020 election under advisement, and the parties have filed a number
of supplemental briefs and filings, which the Court has reviewed.

Currently pending before the Court are the following motions: (i)
the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; and (ii) the
Secretary's Motion to Dismiss.  

The DeKalb Defendants have also filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.  In addition to incorporating the
Secretary's arguments, the DeKalb Defendants also raise issues of
immunity that the Court need not reach in connection with the
instant Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  Accordingly, the Court
will address that motion to dismiss at a later time.  For similar
reasons, because the it finds that Plaintiffs have alleged
standing, the Court need not reach the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify Plaintiff and Defendant Classes at this time.

Judge Totenberg finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits as to their poll
tax claim.  The fact that any registered voter may vote in Georgia
on election day without purchasing a stamp, and without undertaking
any "extra steps" besides showing up at the voting precinct and
complying with generally applicable election regulations,
necessitates a conclusion that stamps are not poll taxes under the
Twenty-Fourth Amendment prism.  In-person voting theoretically
remains an option for voters in Georgia, though potentially a
difficult one for many voters, particularly during a pandemic.  

The Judge recognizes that voting in person is materially burdensome
for a sizable segment of the population, both due to the COVID-19
pandemic and for the elderly, disabled, or those out-of-town.  But
these concerns -- while completely justifiable and pragmatically
solvable -- are not the specific evils the Twenty-Fourth Amendment
was meant to address.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Injunction is denied as to Count I of the Amended
Complaint.  Furthermore, for the same reasons, the Secretary's
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint is granted as to Count I of the
Amended Complaint.

Next, the Plaintiffs alternatively claim that the postage
requirement is an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.
The Plaintiffs contend that due to the pandemic, voting by mail is
now the only meaningful option for the vast majority of Georgia
voters for exercising their right to vote.  The Secretary argues in
response that he has taken action to protect Georgia voters from
the pandemic, such as pushing back election dates, voluntarily
sending out absentee ballot applications to all active voters in
the June 2020 primary election, providing funding to polling sites
for additional hygiene measures, and overseeing election
regulations and grant allocations to enable counties to establish
secure drop boxes for absentee ballots and permit the distribution
of stamps without fear of prosecution.

The Judge finds that in light of the alternatives to purchasing a
postage stamp, the Plaintiffs have not, at least on the existing
record in this specific case, demonstrated a substantial likelihood
of success on their argument that the burden of the postage
requirement outweighs the cost to the state of the requested
relief.  Because a showing of substantial likelihood of success on
the merits "is generally the most important" factor, and because
the Judge has held that the Plaintiff was unable to show a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits, she need not
consider the other requirements for injunctive relief.  The Judge
cautions once again though, that the evidentiary record and framing
of claims related to the absentee ballot voting process may differ
in other cases and therefore yield different results.

As to the Secretary's Motion to Dismiss, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiffs have at the very least stated a claim that a burden
exists on the right to vote under the Anderson-Burdick line of
cases.  Her denial of the preliminary injunction is based on the
expedited record as it exists at this time, but discovery and
factual development may potentially fortify the Plaintiffs' claims
for permanent injunctive relief.

Judge Totenberg concludes that the case is one of many challenges
to Georgia's election procedures, both before and after the
pandemic, pending in the district.  It addresses an extremely
narrow question of whether the state may require voters to affix
postage to absentee ballot applications and absentee ballots, or
whether the state must prepay for such postage.  It is by no means
the final word on Georgia's absentee balloting procedures, election
procedures or Georgia's response in the electoral sphere to the
challenges posed by the pandemic.  There may be evidence that leads
another court to different conclusions as to the overall legality
of the absentee ballot process or specific features of that process
-- or their implementation within the state.

But, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs presented compelling
evidence that the state's handling of the June 2020 election was
plagued with difficulties, including many instances of voters not
receiving their absentee ballots, and as a result being
unnecessarily exposed to the virus.  However, she agrees with the
Secretary that these important issues are beyond the scope of the
litigation, which is focused on the postage requirement for
absentee voting.  Other courts in the district are considering more
direct challenges to Georgia's handling of the elections in general
during the pandemic.  Variations in the evidence and issues
presented in cases may always lead to a different record, resulting
in different outcomes.  The narrow ruling in the case is certainly
not likely the final word on absentee balloting issues or the
implementation of the absentee ballot process in Georgia.

For these reasons, Judge Totenberg (i) granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Supplement, (ii) denied the Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction, and (iii) granted in part and denied in part the
Secretary's Motion to Dismiss.  The Secretary's Motion to Dismiss
is granted as to Count I, and denied as to Count II.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Order & Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y25xeaxh from Leagle.com.


GO FISH CARGO: Silverio Seeks Proper OT Pay for Warehouse Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO J. MARTE SILVERIO, JAIRO J. LUNA, and other similarly
situated individuals v. GO FISH CARGO, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-24205
(S.D. Fla., Oct. 14, 2020) seeks to recover money damages arising
from the Defendant's unlawful labor practices under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant willfully failed to pay
the Plaintiffs for overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half
their regular rate for every hour that they worked over 40, in
violation of the FLSA.

Plaintiff Silverio was employed by the Defendant from approximately
from September 20, 2018, to March 16, 2020, or 78 weeks as
full-time, warehouse employee.

Plaintiff Luna was also employed by the Defendant from
approximately from August 6, 2018, to March 06, 2020, or 82 weeks
as full-time, warehouse employee.

Based in Miami, Florida, Go Fish Cargo is a third-party logistics
provider, specializing in the fish market. The Company provides
full cold storage, warehousing, transportation, and related
services to companies engaged in interstate commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

GOHEALTH INC: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Investors had until the deadlines listed
below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOCO)
IPO: July 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2020

The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that at the time of
the IPO: (1) the Medicare insurance industry was undergoing a
period of elevated churn, which had begun in the first half of
2020; (2) GoHealth suffered from a higher risk of customer churn
due to its unique business model and limited carrier base; (3)
GoHealth suffered from degradations in customer persistency and
retention as a result of elevated industry churn, vulnerabilities
that arose from the Company's concentrated carrier business model,
and its efforts to expand into new geographies, develop new carrier
partnerships and worsening product mix; (4) GoHealth had entered
into materially less favorable revenue sharing arrangements with
its external sales agents; and (5) these adverse financial and
operational trends were internally projected by GoHealth to
continue and worsen following the IPO.

NextCure, Inc. (NASDAQ: NXTC)
Class Period: November 5, 2019 – July 14, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2020

The complaint filed 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 that: (1) NextCure possessed NC318 data that showed a
lack of efficacy and objective responses; (2) as a result, NC318
was not, in fact, effective in treating most tumor types; (3) as a
result, the NC318 application was proving to be limited (if even
useful at all); (4) as a result of the foregoing, there was a
significant realizable risk that NC318 would not be nearly as
popular as then-existing blockbuster drugs, such as Keytruda.   

Wrap Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: WRTC)
Class Period: July 31, 2020 - September 23, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 23, 2020

The complaint 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 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 Company's public statements
were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.  

Golar LNG Limited (NASDAQ: GLNG)
Class Period: April 30, 2020 – September 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 24, 2020

The complaint filed 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 Chief Executive Officer, had bribed
third parties, thereby violating anti-bribery policies; (2) as a
result, the Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and
possible penalties; (3) 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.

To be a member of these class actions, 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 these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


GOHEALTH INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., reminded investors of
the pending deadline in the following securities class action
lawsuit:

GoHealth, Inc. (GOCO)
Class Period: Shares issued in connection with the July 2020
initial public stock offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 20, 2020
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-goco/

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

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

GROUPON INC: Securities Fraud Class Suit in Illinois Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a securities fraud class action suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

An individual plaintiff filed the class suit on April 28, 2020, and
in July 2020, another individual was appointed as lead plaintiff.

The lawsuit covers the time period from July 30, 2019 through
February 18, 2020.

The lead plaintiff alleges that Groupon and certain of its officers
made materially false and/or misleading statements or omissions
regarding its business, operations and prospects, specifically as
it relates to reiterating its full-year guidance on November 4,
2019 and the Groupon Select program.

Groupon said, "We intend to vigorously defend against these
allegations, which we believe to be without merit."

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

Groupon, Inc., operates online local commerce marketplaces that
connect merchants to consumers by offering goods and services at a
discount in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
internationally. The Company was formerly known as ThePoint.com,
Inc. and changed its name to Groupon, Inc. in October 2008. The
Company was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois. Groupon, Inc. is a subsidiary of The Point, LLC.

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Court Dismisses Counts 5, 6 & 8 in Fonseca Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRYANT FONSECA, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public, Plaintiffs, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation; HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; HP, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19cv1748-GPC-MSB (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the Defendant HP, Inc.'s'
motion to dismiss counts five, six, and eight of the Third Amended
Complaint ("TAC") with prejudice.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the County of San Diego and was an
employee for HP at HP's San Diego site.  The Defendants are
Hewlett-Packard Co., HP Enterprise Services, LLC, and HP, Inc.
HP's headquarters and principal place of business are in Palo Alto,
California.  Non-party 3D Systems, Inc. is HP's major competitor in
the 3D printing industry.  The Plaintiff also names as Defendants
Does 1 through 100 as agents, servants, alter egos, and/or
employees of the other Defendants.

The Plaintiff brings the class action on behalf of all individuals
employed by HP from Jan. 1, 2016 to present and all current,
former, or prospective employees who were at least 40 years old at
the time that HP terminated them under HP's 2012 U.S. Workforce
Reduction ("WFR") plan.  At the time that he filed his complaint,
the Plaintiff was 55 years old.  He alleges that HP eliminated the
jobs of older, age-protected employees in November 2015 in order to
begin replacing them with younger employees.  Additionally, he
additionally alleges that, due to HP's "no-poach" agreement with 3D
Systems, the Plaintiff and the other HP employees were unable to
obtain employment at 3D Systems.

On Nov. 29, 2017, the class action was commenced in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of San Diego.  It was
first removed to the Court on Jan. 11, 2018 and was remanded back
to the Superior Court for the County of San Diego on Sept. 5, 2018.
On April 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class
Action Complaint ("FAC") in response to the Defendant's
then-pending demurrer to Counts Five and Six for violations of the
Cartwright Act and Section 16600.  On Aug. 2, 2019, the Superior
Court for the County of San Diego sustained the Defendant's
demurrer.

On Aug. 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint in San Diego Superior Court (SAC").  The SAC re-alleged
the counts in the FAC and additionally alleged an eighth count for
violation of the Sherman Act.  On Sept. 11, 2019, the Defendant
removed the case to the Court.  The Court granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss counts five, six, and eight of the SAC.  

On Feb. 24, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the TAC.  The TAC contains
the following eight counts: (1) Disparate Treatment - California
Government Code Sections 12900 et seq.; (2) Disparate Impact -
California Government Code Sections 12940(A), 12941; (3) Wrongful
Termination In Violation Of Public Policy; (4) Failure To Prevent
Discrimination - California Government Code Sections 12900 et seq.;
(5) Violation of the Cartwright Act; (6) Violation of California
Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 16600 et seq.; (7) Unfair Competition -
California Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; and (8)
Violation of the Sherman Act.  

The Defendant moves to dismiss counts five, six, and eight.  The
Plaintiff opposes and also seeks judicial notice of six exhibits.

The Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of orders or pleadings filed in
the underlying state court action or filed previously in the Court.
Judge Curiel holds that since these documents are either pleadings
or documents otherwise recorded by the Court, they are the proper
subject of judicial notice.  

The Plaintiff additionally requests judicial notice of HP Inc.'s
Workforce Reduction Plan Summary Plan Description (Exhibit 5) and
Hewlett-Packard Company Workforce Reduction Plan (Exhibit 6).  For
these documents, authenticity is not contested and the the
Plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies on them.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's request for judicial notice for Exhibits 5 and 6 are
granted.  The Judge takes notice of these documents for the fact of
their existence, but not for the truth of the content therein.

HP argues that the Plaintiff's amended claims under the Sherman Act
and Cartwright Act must again be dismissed since (1) the TAC fails
to allege direct evidence of a conspiracy; (2) the TAC fails to
adequately allege parallel conduct; and (3) Plaintiff lacks the
requisite standing.  It also notes that the TAC does not link
Defendant Enterprise Services to the no-poach agreement.  The
Plaintiff opposes each of the arguments.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's allegations fail to provide
sufficient factual content to support their claims.  The Plaintiff
has made numerous conclusory allegations regarding the alleged
no-poaching agreement, including claims that HP and 3D shared pay
scales, and discontinued cold-calling each other's employees,
third-party recruiting firms stopped pursuing each other's
employees and 3D systems employees began to complain about their
wages after the agreement was entered.  Aside from the conclusory
allegations, the TAC fails to provide specific facts to demonstrate
that the claim is plausible.

HP argues that the Plaintiff lacks both Article III and antitrust
standing.  On Article III standing, HP argues that the Plaintiff
has not been injured by the alleged no-poach agreement.  The
Plaintiff counters that he was injured because the no-poach
agreement suppressed 3D Systems' hiring of HP employees.  On
antitrust standing, HP argues that the Plaintiff has not been
injured by an injury of the type that antitrust laws were meant to
prevent -- i.e., by an anticompetitive aspect of the Defendant's
acts.  The Plaintiff opposes.  He no longer argues that the
standing standard is affected by an agreement's alleged per se
illegality.

The Judge holds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient
facts to establish HP and 3D Systems were engaged in a no-poach
agreement.  On this basis, the Plaintiff cannot show that he has
sustained any injury.

The Plaintiff bases his California Business and Professions Code
Section 16600 claim on the alleged 'no-poach' or anti-hire
agreements between HP and 3D Systems or, in the alternative, on the
WFR plan as an additional and independent ground.  On the no-poach
or anti-hire agreements, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff
has failed to allege a violation of Section 16600 since he has
failed to adequately allege the existence of any such no-poach
agreement.

As he discussed, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
sufficiently plead allegations regarding the existence of the
no-poach agreement.  He agrees and finds that the Plaintiff lacks
standing to challenge the provisions of the WFR plan associated
with severance pay since he never signed the related release
agreement.  Accordingly, to the extent that the Plaintiff has
standing to bring any claim, it is only with respect to challenging
the terms of the Rehire Policy -- i.e., that the WFR plan is
illegal and unenforceable based on its terms providing that
employees who left the company, in May 2012 or later, through a
workforce reduction program are ineligible for hire or to be
engaged as an agency contractor.  

However, in order to decide the claim, the Judge must first
consider two questions: (1) whether the WFR plan constitutes a
"contract" as defined by Section 16600; and (2) whether the Rehire
Policy is incorporated into the WFR Plan.  The Judge holds that
while the WFR plan may qualify as a "contract" for purposes of
consideration under Section 16600, the Rehire Policy was not
incorporated by reference into the WFR plan.  Determinations of
incorporation-by-reference must be made with careful attention to
the factual circumstances unique to each case and although a
contract need not explicitly state that it incorporates another
document, the incorporation must be "clear and unequivocal." Any
reference that the WFR plan might make to the Rehire Policy fails
to meet the "clear and unequivocal" standard.

In the alternative, HP argues that the Plaintiff's Section 16600
claim should be denied since it is preempted by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  The Plaintiff
counters that the Court has previously decided, in response to
Plaintiff's earlier motion to remand, that ERISA does not preempt
his state claims; the WFR plan is not an ERISA plan; and
Plaintiff's claims do not relate to ERISA. Parties presented brief
arguments addressing ERISA preemption in their pleadings.  HP also
argues that the Plaintiff is judicially estopped from bringing the
claim.

The Judge finds that because the Plaintiff's Section 16600 claim is
premised on language that he argues should be considered part of
the WFR plan, his cause of action "makes specific reference to, and
indeed is premised on" a plan that is otherwise governed by ERISA
and would therefore be preempted since there simply is no cause of
action if there is no plan.  He also finds that HP has not met the
requisite elements of judicial estoppel since the Plaintiff has not
previously prevailed in a prior phase of the case on that argument.
Based on the analysis, the motion to dismiss count six is
granted.

Judge Curiel granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss counts five,
six, and eight of the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyanm6vj from Leagle.com.


ILLINOIS: 7th Circuit Flips Partial Summary Judgment in Henry Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DELORES HENRY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
MELODY HULETT, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-4234 (7th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed
the district court's entry of partial summary judgment for the
Defendants on the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim, and remanded
for further proceedings.

The Plaintiffs -- a class of more than 200 current and former
female inmates at Lincoln Correctional Center -- brought the action
following mass strip searches conducted as part of a cadet training
exercise in 2011.  They contend that the circumstances of the
searches -- particularly the intrusive and degrading manner in
which they occurred -- violated their Fourth and Eighth Amendment
rights.

On March 31, 2011, administrators at Lincoln Correctional Center --
a medium security facility of the Illinois Department of
Corrections ("IDOC") in Logan County, Illinois, housing
approximately 1,000 female inmates -- held a cadet training
exercise.  The training exercise simulated a "mass shakedown" -- a
practice where IDOC employees search inmates' living areas and
perform strip searches of the inmates' persons to find contraband.
Lincoln Warden Hulett testified that she could not think of any
reason other than the training of cadets that she ordered a
shakedown on March 31st, 2011, at the Lincoln facility.  No
evidence in the record indicates the presence of an ongoing
emergency or heightened concern on the day that the training
exercise took place.

Orange Crush tactical team members, cadets from the IDOC training
academy, and correctional officers at Lincoln carried out the mass
shakedown.  Correctional officers and cadets lined up 200 of the
inmates in rows, forced them to stand facing the wall, called them
"bitches," and threatened to put them in segregation if they were
not quiet.  Cadets practiced handcuffing prisoners.  Female cadets
performed the strip searches, which occurred in a bathroom and
beauty shop adjacent to the gym.

When cadets strip searched the women, they forced them to remove
all clothing and stand in a line, nearly shoulder to shoulder.  The
Officers and cadets ordered the women to raise their breasts, lift
their hair, turn around and bend over, spread their buttocks and
vaginas, and cough several times.  Women were forced to stand naked
for as long as 14 minutes, far longer than a typical strip search
because of its group nature.  The officers and cadets ordered
menstruating prisoners to remove feminine products and dispose of
them on the floor and in overflowing garbage cans, in full view of
others.

During the strip searches, one inmate pulled three pills out of her
vaginal cavity.  The prison officials recovered contraband from the
cells of approximately 45 of the 200 inmates.  Dozens of prisoners
submitted grievances after the exercise.  Many never received a
response.  No one ever completed an internal investigation, and no
employee received any discipline.

Ieshia Brown, Henry, Patricia Philipps, and Jacqueline Hegwood
filed a putative class action alleging that Warden Hulett,
Assistant Warden Russell Reynolds, and a group of other supervisors
and correctional officers violated their Fourth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights.  The Plaintiffs sought damages and
injunctive relief prohibiting future public group strip searches
during cadet training exercises.

The district court certified several classes seeking both damages
and injunctive relief: (1) women subjected to the March 2011
searches who remain in IDOC custody; (2) women subjected to the
March 2011 strip searches who had been released from custody; and
(3) women who are currently incarcerated at Logan Correctional
Center, the facility that now houses all of the inmates formerly at
Lincoln, or will be incarcerated there in the future.

The Defendants moved for summary judgment.  In their motion,
Defendants did not dispute that Plaintiffs' factual assertions, if
true, supported an Eighth Amendment claim.  Regarding the
Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim, however, they argued that,
pursuant to Hudson v. Palmer, and Johnson v. Phelan, there is no
Fourth Amendment protection against searches for prison inmates.
The Defendants did not raise a qualified immunity defense, nor did
they argue that the Plaintiffs failed to present evidence of
physical injury pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

The district court agreed, concluding that, under Johnson, and King
v. McCarty, convicted prisoners do not maintain a privacy interest
during visual inspections of their bodies.  A divided panel of the
Court affirmed the district court's judgment.  Relying on Hudson
and King, the panel determined that the strip searches fell outside
of the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

The Seventh Circuit granted the Plaintiffs' petition for rehearing
en banc and vacated the panel's opinion and judgment.  It first
addresses the issue at the heart of the appeal: whether convicted
prisoners retain a Fourth Amendment right to privacy during visual
inspections of their bodies. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the
"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

It concludes that a diminished right to privacy in one's body,
unlike a right to privacy in one's property and surroundings, is
not fundamentally incompatible with imprisonment and is an
expectation of privacy that society would recognize as reasonable.
It therefore joins every other circuit to have addressed the
question and hold that the Fourth Amendment protects (in a severely
limited way) an inmate's right to bodily privacy during visual
inspections, subject to reasonable intrusions that the realities of
incarceration often demand.  Thus, when evaluating a prisoner's
Fourth Amendment claim regarding a strip or body cavity search,
courts must assess that search for its reasonableness, considering
the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is
conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in
which it is conducted.

In the alternative, the Defendants argue that the Seventh Circuit
should affirm the district court's judgment on the ground that they
are entitled to qualified immunity.  They contend that, as of March
2011, it was not clearly established that a visual strip and body
cavity search of a prisoner could violate the Fourth Amendment.
Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that protects
government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as
their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known.

Because the Defendants failed to raise their qualified immunity
defense in their summary judgment motion before the district court,
and instead raised it for the first time in their appellate brief,
they have waived it for purposes of the appeal.  It is true even
though the Defendants asserted qualified immunity in their answer
and interrogatory responses.  The Court previously said it will not
affirm a judgment based on an affirmative defense raised for the
first time on appeal.  Accordingly, it will not consider the merits
of the Defendants' qualified immunity defense at this stage.  Even
if it viewed the Defendants' invocation of qualified immunity as
only forfeited, the outcome is no different.  Waiver and forfeiture
are distinct legal concepts.

Even if the Defendants had only forfeited their qualified immunity
defense, the case does not present an exceptional circumstance that
would warrant its consideration in the first instance on appeal.
Despite their failure to properly preserve the issue for purposes
of the appeal, the Defendants may still invoke the defense in a
later motion before the district court.  With the defense still
available to the Defendants, there is no risk of a miscarriage of
justice.

The Defendants argue that -- if not on the scope of the Fourth
Amendment or qualified immunity -- the Seventh Circuit should
affirm the judgment of the district court on multiple alternate
grounds.  The Court does not reach any of these arguments.  Because
the district court granted summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
Fourth Amendment claim, it did not assess any of these arguments
pertaining to the availability of remedies as to that claim.  The
Court thus also leave these issues for the district court's initial
determination on remand.

Lastly, the Defendants seek decertification of the Plaintiffs'
damages classes.  They did not file a cross-appeal to challenge the
district court's class certification decision.  As the Defendants'
challenge to the district court's class certification decision
seeks to diminish the Plaintiffs' rights, it is outside the scope
of the Court's review absent a cross-appeal.

The Seventh Circuit concludes that the continuing guarantee of
substantial rights to prison inmates is testimony to a belief that
the way a society treats those who have transgressed against it is
evidence of the essential character of that society.  It holds that
the Fourth Amendment right to bodily privacy is one of those rights
that the Constitution guarantees, even though in a significantly
diminished way, within the walls of a prison.  It does not
extinguish upon conviction.

The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed and
remanded for the district court to assess in the first instance
whether the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that an issue of fact
exists as to the reasonableness of the strip and body cavity
searches in question and for further proceedings consistent with
the Court's Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's Aug. 11, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4l6q5hy from Leagle.com.


INNATE PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Innate
Pharma SA ("Innate" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IPHA) securities
between March 10, 2020 and September 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Innate investors have until December 22, 2020 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Innate investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On October 23, 2018, Innate and AstraZeneca plc ("AstraZeneca")
announced an expansion of a pre-existing collaboration agreement,
whereby AstraZeneca acquired 9.8% equity stake in Innate and
obtained full oncology rights to monalizumab, a first-in-class
humanized anti-NKG2A antibody. As part of this agreement, Innate
would receive $100 million in milestone payments at the start of
the first Phase 3 clinical trial for monalizumab.

On September 8, 2020, Innate announced that it had amended its
collaboration agreement with AstraZeneca. Innate "will now receive
a $50 million payment upon AstraZeneca's dosing of the first
patient in the Phase 3 trial, and a $50 million payment after the
interim analysis demonstrates the combination meets a pre-defined
threshold of clinical activity."

On this news, the Company's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price
fell $1.62 per share, or 26.6%, to close at $4.45 per ADS on
September 8, 2020.

The complaint filed 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 that: (1) Innate touted
the results of their various Phase 2 trials as being within
expectations; (2) Innate continued to reassure investors that they
were eligible for the $100 million payment upon first dosing of
Phase 3 trials; (3) Innate failed to timely disclose their
renegotiations with AstraZeneca to split the $100 million payment
into two $50 million payments, to be partially contingent on
performance during the Phase 3 trials; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased Innate securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.[GN]

INNATE PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Innate Pharma S.A. (NASDAQ: IPHA) between March 10,
2020 and September 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Innate investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Innate class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1763.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) Innate touted the results of their various Phase 2 trials
as being within expectations; (2) Innate continued to reassure
investors that they were eligible for the $100 million payment upon
first dosing of Phase 3 trials; (3) Innate failed to timely
disclose their renegotiations with AstraZeneca to split the $100
million payment into two $50 million payments, to be partially
contingent on performance during the Phase 3 trials; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
22, 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-1763.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]

INTERFACE INC: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Jan. 11 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Interface, Inc. ("Interface" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
TILE) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
and docketed under 20-cv-05518, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise
acquired Interface securities between March 2, 2018 and September
28, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Interface securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 11, 2021, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Interface is a modular flooring company that designs, produces, and
sells modular carpet products primarily in the Americas, Europe,
and the Asia-Pacific. The Company was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Interface had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) consequently, Interface, inter alia,
reported artificially inflated income and earnings per share
("EPS") in 2015 and 2016; (iii) Interface and certain of its
employees were under investigation by the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") with respect to the foregoing issues since at
least as early as November 2017, had impeded the SEC's
investigation, and downplayed the true scope of the Company's
wrongdoing and liability with respect to the SEC investigation; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 24, 2019, Defendants filed a current report on Form 8-K
with the SEC, disclosing, inter alia, that Interface "received a
letter in November 2017 from the [SEC] requesting that the Company
voluntarily provide information and documents in connection with an
investigation into the Company's historical quarterly [EPS]
calculations and rounding practices during the period 2014-2017";
that "[t]he Company subsequently received subpoenas from the SEC in
February 2018, July 2018 and April 2019 requesting additional
documents and information"; and that "[i]n the fourth quarter of
2018, the Company conducted at the SEC's request an internal
investigation into these and other related issues for seven
quarters in 2015, 2016 and 2017."

On this news, Interface's stock price fell $1.43 per share, or
8.37%, to close at $15.66 per share on April 25, 2019.

Then, on September 28, 2020, the SEC announced the conclusion of
its investigation into Interface's historical quarterly EPS
calculations and rounding practices. Interface agreed to pay a $5
million fine to resolve the matter and was ordered to cease and
desist from violating the federal securities laws. In the SEC's
enforcement order issued that same day, the SEC also disclosed how,
inter alia, "Interface employees caused Interface to produce
documents in response to Commission investigative requests that
were suggestive of contemporaneous support for journal entries
that, in truth, did not exist at the time the entries were
recorded," and had modified certain documents after the SEC's
investigation began.

On this news, Interface's stock price fell $0.20 per share, or
3.13%, over the following two trading sessions to close at $6.18
per share on September 29, 2020

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

JP MORGAN: Frank R. Cruz Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired JP Morgan Chase & Co. ("JPMorgan"
or the "Company") (NYSE: JPM) securities between February 23, 2016
and September 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). JPMorgan
investors have until December 23, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

On November 6, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ")
announced in a press release that former JPMorgan precious metals
trader John Edmonds had pled guilty to commodities fraud and
spoofing conspiracy—i.e., placing larger orders with no intention
of executing, thereby creating an artificial impression of high
demand or supply of the commodity in question.

On August 20, 2019, the DOJ then announced that another JPMorgan
employee, Christian Trunz, pled guilty to spoofing charges,
admitting that he had learned to spoof from more senior traders and
had engaged in spoofing with the knowledge and consent of his
supervisors.

On September 23, 2020, Bloomberg reported that the Company was
nearing a settlement to resolve the spoofing charges, stating that
JPMorgan was "poised to pay close to $1 billion."

On this news, JPMorgan's stock price fell $2.04 per share, or
2.15%, to close at $92.74 per share on September 23, 2020.

On September 29, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
formally announced that it had ordered JPMorgan to pay $920 million
to settle spoofing and market manipulation charges.

The complaint filed 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 that: (1) traders at the
Company, with the knowledge and consent of their superiors,
manipulated the precious metals market by "spoofing," or placing
fake orders to generate the appearance of market demand; (2) the
Company had insufficient controls and compliance protocols to
enable it to identify and stop the misconduct; (3) the Company's
earnings in the physical commodity market were, at least in part,
ill-gotten; (4) such conduct would result in enhanced regulatory
scrutiny; (5) the Company provided misleading information to CFTC
investigators at early stages of the investigation into the
misconduct; (6) resolution of the governmental investigation into
the Company would result in a record-breaking $920 million fine;
and (7) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased JPMorgan securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than December 23, 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 purchased JPMorgan securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.[GN]

JPMORGAN CHASE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) between February 23,
2016 and September 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for JPMorgan investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the JPMorgan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1959.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) traders at the Company, with the knowledge and consent of
their superiors, manipulated the precious metals market by
"spoofing," or placing fake orders to generate the appearance of
market demand; (2) the Company had insufficient controls and
compliance protocols to enable it to identify and stop the
misconduct; (3) the Company's earnings in the physical commodity
market were, at least in part, ill-gotten; (4) such conduct would
result in enhanced regulatory scrutiny; (5) the Company provided
misleading information to CFTC investigators at early stages of the
investigation into the misconduct; (6) resolution of the
governmental investigation into the Company would result in a
record-breaking $920 million fine; and (7) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
23, 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-1959.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]

KBR INC: Appellate Court Awards $19MM to Former SSI Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the appellate court of
Moundou, in Chad, has awarded the plaintiffs in the class action
suit initiated by former employees Subsahara Services, Inc.
("SSI"), approximately $19 million.

On May 2018, former employees of the company's former Chadian
subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc., filed a class action suit
claiming unpaid damages arising from the ESSO Chad Development
Project for Exxon Mobil Corporation dating back to the early 2000s.


Exxon is also named as a defendant in the case. The SSI employees
previously filed two class action cases in or around 2005 and 2006
for alleged unpaid overtime and bonuses.  

The Chadian Labour Court ruled in favor of the SSI employees for
unpaid overtime resulting in a settlement of approximately $25
million which was reimbursed by Exxon under its contract with SSI.
The second case for alleged unpaid bonuses was ultimately dismissed
by the Supreme Court of Chad.

The current case claims $122 million in unpaid bonuses
characterized as damages rather than employee bonuses to avoid the
previous Chadian Supreme Court dismissal and a 5-year statute of
limitations on wage-related claims.  

SSI's initial defense was filed and a hearing was held in December
2018. A merits hearing was held in February 2019. In March 2019,
the Labour Court issued a decision awarding the plaintiffs
approximately $34 million including a $2 million provisional award.


Exxon and SSI have appealed the award and requested suspension of
the provisional award which was approved on April 2, 2019. Exxon
and SSI filed a submission to the Court of Appeal on June 21, 2019
and filed briefs at a hearing on February 28, 2020.

The plaintiffs failed to file a response on March 13, 2020 and a
hearing was scheduled for April 17, 2020. The hearing was postponed
due to COVID-19 but took place on September 18, 2020.

On October 9, 2020 the appellate court of Moundou awarded the
plaintiffs approximately $19 million.

"The court has only issued an extract of its decision so we do not
know the legal basis for the decision," the Company said.

KBR said, "At this time we do not believe a risk of material loss
is probable related to this matter.  SSI is no longer an existing
entity in Chad or the United States. Further, we believe any
amounts ultimately paid to the former employees related to this
adverse ruling would be reimbursable by Exxon based on the
applicable contract."

KBR, Inc. is a global engineering, construction, and services
company supporting the energy, petrochemicals, government services,
and civil infrastructure sectors. The Company offers a wide range
of services through two business segments, Energy and Chemicals
(E&C) and Government and Infrastructure (G&I). The company is based
in Houston, Texas.



KELLOGG CO: Arbitration Ongoing in Packaging Statement Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kellogg Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the parties in the
class action related to packaging statements in the company's
products are continuing arbitration.

In 2016, a class action complaint was filed against Kellogg in the
Northern District of California relating to statements made on
packaging for certain products.

In August 2019, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff regarding
certain statements made on the Company's products and ordered the
parties to conduct settlement discussions related to all matters in
dispute.

In October 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion to the Court to
approve a settlement between Kellogg and the class. During 2019,
the Company concluded that the contingency related to the
unfavorable ruling was probable and estimable, resulting in a
liability being recorded.

In February 2020, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to approve
the settlement and the parties are continuing arbitration.

Kellogg said, "This litigation, including any potential settlement,
is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's
consolidated financial statements. The Company will continue to
evaluate the likelihood of potential outcomes as the litigation
continues."

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

Kellogg Company manufactures and markets ready-to-eat cereal and
other convenience foods. The Company's products include cereals,
cookies, crackers, toaster pastries, cereal bars, fruit snacks,
frozen waffles, and veggie foods. Kellogg markets its products in
the United States, Canada, and other countries throughout the
world. The company is based in Battle Creek, Michigan.


KRAFT HEINZ: Union Asset Management Holding AG Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated securities class action suit
entitled, Union Asset Management Holding AG, et al. v. The Kraft
Heinz Company, et al.

The company's Employee Benefits Administration Board and certain of
The Kraft Heinz Company's current and former officers and employees
are currently defendants in an Employee Retirement Income Security
Act ("ERISA") class action lawsuit, Osborne v. Employee Benefits
Administration Board of Kraft Heinz, et al., which is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit purport to represent a class of current
and former employees who were participants in and beneficiaries of
various retirement plans which were co-invested in a commingled
investment fund known as the Kraft Foods Savings Plan Master Trust
(the "Master Trust") during the period of May 4, 2017 through
February 21, 2019.

An amended complaint was filed on June 28, 2019. The amended
complaint alleges violations of Section 502 of ERISA based on
alleged breaches of obligations as fiduciaries subject to ERISA by
allowing the Master Trust to continue investing in the company's
common stock, and alleges additional breaches of fiduciary duties
by current and former officers for their purported failure to
monitor Master Trust fiduciaries.

The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees, and other relief.

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

The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy
products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other
grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J. Heinz
Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz Company
in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal Filed in Manopla Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that lead
plaintiffs in Daniel Manopla v. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Lonnel Coats, Jeffrey L. Wade and Pablo Lapuerta, M.D., have taken
an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from a
court's dismissal order.

On January 28, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Daniel Manopla v. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lonnel
Coats, Jeffrey L. Wade and Pablo Lapuerta, M.D. was filed against
the company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The company's motion to dismiss was granted and the action was
dismissed with prejudice by the District Court on August 14, 2020.


The lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on September 11, 2020.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of our securities during the period from March 11, 2016
through July 29, 2019.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and/or omissions concerning data from the company's
Phase 3 clinical trials of sotagliflozin in type 1 diabetes
patients and the prospects of F ood and Drug Administration (FDA)
approval of sotagliflozin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint seeks, on behalf of the purported class, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses
of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical
products. Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


LIBERTY OILFIELD: Defending Against Cobb & Joseph IPO Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
is defending against putative class action suits initiated by
Marshall Cobb and Marc Joseph.

On March 11, 2020, Marshall Cobb, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the state District Court of Denver County, Colorado
against the Company and certain officers and board members of the
Company along with other defendants in connection with the initial
public offering.

The Cobb Complaint alleges that the Company and certain officers
and board members of the Company violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of inaccurate or misleading
statements allegedly contained in the registration statement filed
in connection with the IPO and requests unspecified damages and
costs.

The Cobb Plaintiffs also allege control person liability claims
under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against certain
officers and board members of the Company and other defendants.

On April 3, 2020, Marc Joseph, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court in Denver, Colorado against the
Company and certain officers and board members of the Company along
with other defendants in connection with the IPO and requests
unspecified damages and costs.

The Joseph Complaint, which is based on similar factual allegations
made in the Cobb Complaint, alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of
inaccurate or misleading statements allegedly contained in the
registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the
IPO.

The Joseph Complaint also alleges control person liability claims
under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against certain
officers and board members of the Company and other defendants.

The Company has hired counsel and plans to vigorously defend
against the allegations in the Securities Lawsuits.

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

Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. is an independent provider of
hydraulic fracturing services and goods to onshore oil and natural
gas exploration and production ("E&P") companies in North America.
The company had grown from one hydraulic fracturing fleet in
December 2011 to 24 fleets in the first quarter of 2020, including
the addition of one fleet in January 2020. The company is based in
Denver, Colorado.


LOOP INDUSTRIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of December 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
December 14, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Loop
Industries, Inc. ("Loop" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LOOP)
securities between September 24, 2018 and October 12, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  

Investors suffering losses on their Loop investments are encouraged
to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their
legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On October 13, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that "Loop's scientists, under
pressure from CEO Daniel Solomita, were tacitly encouraged to lie
about the results of the company's process internally." The report
also stated that "Loop's previous claims of breaking PET down to
its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100% were 'technically and
industrially impossible,'" according to a former employee.
Moreover, the report alleged that "Executives from a division of
key partner Thyssenkrupp, who Loop entered into a 'global alliance
agreement' with in December 2018, told us their partnership is on
'indefinite' hold and that Loop 'underestimated' both costs and
complexities of its process."

On this news, Loop's share price fell $3.78, or over 32%, to close
at $7.83 per share on October 13, 2020, thereby damaging
investors.

The complaint filed 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 Loop
scientists were encouraged to misrepresent the results of Loop's
purportedly proprietary process; (2) that Loop did not have the
technology to break PET down to its base chemicals at a recovery
rate of 100%; (3) that, as a result, the Company was unlikely to
realize the purported benefits of Loop's announced partnerships
with Indorama and Thyssenkrupp; 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 Loop securities, have information or would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania, 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]

LOOP INDUSTRIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of Loop Industries, Inc. shareholders.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

LOOP Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/loop-industries-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=10597&wire=1

Loop Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ:LOOP)

LOOP Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 24,
2018 - October 12, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 14, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/loop-industries-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=10597&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Loop
Industries, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Loop scientists were encouraged
to misrepresent the results of Loop's purportedly proprietary
process; (2) Loop did not have the technology to break PET down to
its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100%; (3) as a result, the
Company was unlikely to realize the purported benefits of Loop's
announced partnerships with Indorama Ventures Public Company
Limited and thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions; and (4) 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.

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

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

LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Targeted in Class Action Over Privacy Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
bloomberglaw.com reports that a luxury eyewear conglomerate that
operates a network of vision facilities allegedly invaded consumer
privacy when it failed to protect sensitive data following a
breach, according to a customer who filed a proposed class action
in an Ohio federal court.

Luxottica of America Inc., which produces and licenses products
under brands including Ray-Ban and Oakley, also operates a network
of retail locations that provide optometry and vision services.
Luxottica allegedly breached its obligations to customers and acted
negligently when it failed to safeguard its computer systems and
data, according to the lawsuit filed Nov. 10 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Michael Doyle, a Connecticut resident, received a letter in late
October informing him of the breach, according to the complaint. He
had obtained an annual vision exam and bought new prescription
glasses from a retail location operated by Luxottica, providing his
Social Security number, insurance information, and medical history
in the process, he alleged.

An "unauthorized individual" may have gained access to customer
data on Aug. 5 through an online scheduling application used by
eyecare providers, Luxottica said in a breach notification letter
to Doyle cited in the complaint. The company learned of an issue
with its scheduling application on Aug. 9 and "immediately began"
an internal investigation, the letter said.

Information compromised in the breach includes health insurance
information, medical information, and other sensitive data that
puts consumers at risk of identity theft and fraud, Doyle alleged.

Luxottica notified federal law enforcement of the breach and
implemented additional access restrictions on its patient
scheduling platform, according to a website it created following
the breach. Social Security numbers and credit card numbers were
impacted in "a limited number of cases," Luxottica said.

"At this time, Luxottica has no reason to believe that any patient
information contained in the appointment application has been
misused," the company said on its website.

Causes of Action: Invasion of privacy, negligence and negligence
per se, breach of express and implied contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, willful and negligent violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Relief: Damages, certification of the class action, disgorgement of
wrongfully attained revenues, payment of at least three years of
credit monitoring services, enjoinment from engaging in wrongful
conduct.

Potential Class Size: Unknown.

Judge: Michael R. Barrett.

Response: Luxottica didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Attorneys: Ronald S. Weiss represents Doyle.

The case is: Doyle v. Luxottica of America, S.D. Ohio, No.
1:20-cv-908, complaint 11/10/20. [GN]

MAMMOTH ENERGY: Defendants Want 2nd Amended Securities Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Mammoth Energy
Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, remains pending.

In June 2019 and August 2019, the Company was served with three
class action lawsuits filed in the Western District of Oklahoma. On
September 13, 2019, the court consolidated the three lawsuits under
the case caption In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

On November 12, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint against Mammoth Energy Services, Inc., Arty Straehla, and
Mark Layton.

Pursuant to their first amended complaint, the plaintiffs brought a
consolidated putative federal securities class action on behalf of
all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Mammoth Energy
Services, Inc. common stock between October 19, 2017, and June 5,
2019, inclusive.

On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint. On March 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint for violation of federal securities laws
which contains allegations substantially similar to those contained
in the plaintiff’s first amended complaint.

On March 30, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
will vigorously defend the action.

Mammoth said, "However, at this time, the Company is not able to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a
material impact on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."

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

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in LeJeune Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that discovery
is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, LeJeune v. Mammoth
Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Cobra Energy & ESPADA Logistics and
Security Group, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00286-JKP-ESC.

On March 20, 2019, EJ LeJeune, a former employee of ESPADA
Logistics and Security Group, LLC and ESPADA Caribbean LLC
(together, "ESPADA") filed a putative collective and class action
complaint in LeJeune v. Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Cobra
Energy & ESPADA Logistics and Security Group, LLC, Case No.
5:19-cv-00286-JKP-ESC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas.

On August 5, 2019, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend his complaint, dismissing Mammoth Energy Services,
Inc. as a defendant, adding Cobra Acquisitions LLC ("Cobra") as a
defendant, and adding ESPADA Caribbean LLC and two officers of
ESPADA—James Jorrie and Jennifer Gay Jorrie—as defendants.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants jointly employed
the plaintiff and all similarly situated workers and failed to pay
them overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Puerto Rico law.

The complaint also alleges the following violations of Puerto Rico
law: illegal deductions from workers' wages, failure to timely pay
all wages owed, failure to pay a required severance when
terminating workers without just cause, failure to pay for all
hours worked, failure to provide required meal periods, and failure
to pay a statutorily required bonus to eligible workers.

Mr. LeJeune seeks to represent a class of workers allegedly
employed by one or more defendants and paid a flat amount for each
day worked regardless of how many hours were worked.

The complaint seeks back wages, including overtime wages owed,
liquidated damages equal to the overtime wages owed, attorneys'
fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On June 16, 2020, Cobra answered Mr. LeJeune's amended complaint,
denying that it employed Mr. LeJeune and the putative class members
and denying that they are entitled to relief from Cobra. All other
defendants have also answered the amended complaint.

The parties stipulated to conditional certification of a collective
action, and on August 14, 2020, Court ordered that notice be sent
to all individuals engaged by ESPADA to provide services to Cobra
in Puerto Rico between January 21, 2017 and the present who were
paid a day-rate.

Notice was sent to putative class members on September 15, 2020,
and the opt-in period will close on November 14, 2020. The parties
are in discovery.

Mammoth Energy said, "The Company believes these claims are without
merit and will vigorously defend the action. However, at this time,
the Company is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
whether it will have a material impact on the Company’s business,
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Wendco Putative Class Suit Ongoing in Puerto Rico
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action in Puerto Rico initiated by
Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc.

On June 19, 2018, Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc. filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico styled Wendco of
Puerto Rico Inc.; Multisystem Restaurant Inc.; Restaurant Operators
Inc.; Apple Caribe, Inc.; on their own behalf and in representation
of all businesses that conduct business in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico vs. Mammoth Energy Services Inc.; Cobra Acquisitions,
LLC; D. Grimm Puerto Rico, LLC, et al.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants caused power outages in
Puerto Rico while performing restoration work on Puerto Rico's
electrical network following Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017,
thereby interrupting commercial activities and causing economic
loss.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend the action.

Mammoth Energy said, "However, at this time, the Company is not
able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have
a material impact on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."

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

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Williams Class Suit Against Unit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Cobra
Acquisitions LLC, a company subsidiary, continues to defend a
putative class and collective action suit entitled, Christopher
Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Higher Power Electrical, LLC, Cobra Acquisitions LLC,
and Cobra Energy LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico.

On April 16, 2019, Christopher Williams, a former employee of
Higher Power Electrical, LLC, filed a putative class and collective
action complaint in Christopher Williams, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Higher Power Electrical,
LLC, Cobra Acquisitions LLC, and Cobra Energy LLC in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.

On June 24, 2019, the complaint was amended to replace Mr. Williams
with Matthew Zeisset as the named plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges
that the Company failed to pay overtime wages to a class of workers
in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and Puerto Rico
law.

On August 21, 2019, upon request of the parties, the court stayed
proceedings in the lawsuit pending completion of individual
arbitration proceedings initiated by Mr. Zeisset and opt-in
plaintiffs.

The arbitrations remain pending. Other claimants have subsequently
initiated additional individual arbitration proceedings asserting
similar claims.

All complainants and the respondents have paid the filing fees
necessary to initiate the arbitrations.

In May 2020, six arbitrations were held in the related matters.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend the arbitrations.

Mammoth said, "However, at this time, the Company is not able to
predict the outcomes of these proceedings or whether they will have
a material impact on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."

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

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.


MDL 2460: Niaspan End-Payers' Bid for Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the court overseeing the
consolidated purported class action suit entitled, In re: Niaspan
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460. has denied the end-payers'
motion to certify a class.

Lawsuits are pending against AbbVie and others generally alleging
that the 2005 patent litigation settlement involving Niaspan
entered into between Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- a company
acquired by Abbott in 2006 and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie --
and a generic company violates federal and state antitrust laws and
state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment
laws.

Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits pending in federal court consist of four individual
plaintiff lawsuits and two consolidated purported class actions:
one brought by Niaspan direct purchasers and one brought by Niaspan
end-payers.

The cases are pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated
pre-trial proceedings under the MDL Rules as In re: Niaspan
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460.

In August 2019, the court certified a class of direct purchasers of
Niaspan. In June 2020, the court denied the end-payers' motion to
certify a class.

In October 2016, the Orange County, California District Attorney's
Office filed a lawsuit on behalf of the State of California
regarding the Niaspan patent litigation settlement in Orange County
Superior Court, asserting a claim under the unfair competition
provision of the California Business and Professions Code seeking
injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties and attorneys'
fees.

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


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

Mesoblast Limited (NASDAQ:MESO)

Investors Affected : April 16, 2019 - October 1, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Mesoblast Limited. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) comparative analyses between Mesoblast's Phase 3
trial and three historical studies did not support the
effectiveness of the Company's lead product candidate,
remestemcel-L, for steroid refractory acute graft versus host
disease due to design differences between the four studies; (2) as
a result, the US Food and Drug Administration was reasonably likely
to require further clinical studies; (3) as a result, the
commercialization of remestemcel-L in the U.S. was likely to be
delayed; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/mesoblast-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=10420&from=1

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


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Illinois Securities Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend against a putative securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

On November 14, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against MoneyGram and certain of its executive
officers.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that MoneyGram made
material misrepresentations regarding its compliance with the
stipulated order for permanent injunction and final judgment that
MoneyGram entered into with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") in
October 2009 and with the deferred prosecution agreement (the
"DPA") that MoneyGram entered into with the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Department of
Justice in November 2012.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest
and costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes the case is without merit and is vigorously
defending this matter.

MoneyGram said, "We are unable to predict the outcome, or the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, related to this matter."

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

MoneyGram International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides money transfer services in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments, Global
Funds Transfer and Financial Paper Products. MoneyGram
International, Inc. was founded in 1940 and is based in Dallas,
Texas.


NANO-X IMAGING: Hagens Berman Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman updates investors in Nano-X Imaging and urges
investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm.
Further details about the case, including upcoming application
deadlines, can be found at the link provided.

NNOX Investors Click: https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/nnox

Nano-X Imaging (NASDAQ:NNOX) Securities Class Action:

Class Period: Aug. 21, 2020 - Sept. 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Nov. 16, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/NNOX
Contact An Attorney Now: NNOX@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
concealed that Nano-X's: (1) commercial agreements and customers
were fabricated; (2) statements regarding its novel Nanox System
were misleading; and (3) Nano-X's submission to the FDA admitted
the Nanox System was not original.

Investors allegedly began to learn the truth on Sept. 15, 2020,
when Citron Research published a report accusing Nano-X of
conducting "the most blatant stock promotion we have seen in
years." Citron challenged Nano-X's claimed new innovative
technology, stating "we have not even seen proof of the product and
have only seen a mockup drawing of what this machine is supposed to
look like." Citron also alleged that Nano-X's commercial agreements
"appear to be no more than fake customers."

Following this report, the price of Nano-X shares crashed sharply
lower.

Then, on Sept. 17, 2020 Empire Financial Research issued a report,
stating that Nano-X looks like "Theranos 2.0" and that "this stock
is worthless."

Finally, on Sept. 22, 2020 Muddy Waters published a report
concluding that Nano-X "is a much bigger piece of garbage than
Nikola will ever be," based on interviews with radiologists and
purported distributors. Muddy Waters stated Nano-X's ARC device
"appears to be little more than a futuristic movie prop" and "[i]n
fact, an Israeli company that designed a pickup truck used in the
movie Jurassic World claims credit for its design."

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Nano-X
misrepresented the status of its X-ray source and commercial
agreements," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading
the investigation.

If you are a Nano-X investor or may assist the firm's
investigation, discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

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

                            # # #

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw.[GN]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court,
with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff.

The caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated
Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs
filed their amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016.

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

The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court in
November 2017 and the Navient defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in January 2018.

In January 2019, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the
Navient defendants' motion to dismiss. The Navient defendants deny
the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the
allegation in this lawsuit.

Discovery is on-going.

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

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


NETGEAR INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on March 2021
------------------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2020, that the hearing on the
final approval of the settlement in John Pham v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc., NETGEAR Inc., et al., and other related actions is scheduled
for March 11, 2021.

On January 9, 2019 and January 10, 2019, February 1, 2019 and
February 8, 2019, the Company was sued in four separate securities
class action suits in Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, along with Arlo Technologies, individuals, and underwriters
involved in the spin-off of Arlo.

Two more similar state actions have been filed against Arlo
Technologies Inc. et al.. In total, six putative class action
complaints have now been filed in California state court in Santa
Clara County.

The Company is named as a defendant in five of the six lawsuits.

The complaints generally allege that Arlo's initial public offering
(IPO) materials contained false and misleading statements, hiding
problems with Arlo’s Ultra product. These claims are styled as
violations of Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

There is also a putative class action pending in federal court in
the Northern District of California, on behalf of the same class of
plaintiffs, making very similar claims.

The Company is not presently named in the federal action.
Defendants filed motions to stay the state court actions in
deference to the federal court action.

The court held a hearing on April 26, 2019 to consider whether to
consolidate the six lawsuits and appoint a "lead plaintiff" and
another hearing on May 31, 2019 to consider defendants' motions to
stay the state court cases. On June 21, 2019, the California state
court judge granted the Company's motion to stay the state court
case pending the outcome of the federal case. The case will now
proceed only in federal court.

On August 6, 2019, all the defendants, including NETGEAR, filed a
motion to dismiss the federal court action. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition brief on September 6, 2019 and defendants filed a reply
on October 4, 2019. The state court action remains stayed pending
the outcome of the federal action.

On November 18, 2019, the parties participated in mediation, but
did not settle the case. On December 5, 2019, the court held a
hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on December 19,
2019, granted that motion as to all counts, with leave to amend.

On February 14, 2020, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation to
stay proceedings to permit filing of a motion for preliminary
approval for classwide settlement.

On June 11, 2020, the Parties signed the Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement.

On June 12, 2020, lead attorney for plaintiffs filed a motion with
the Court for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement.


In September 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the Parties'
settlement.

Subject to final approval of the settlement by the Court at a
hearing currently scheduled for March 11, 2021, there will be no
material financial impact on the Company.

NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops and markets networking products for
home users and small businesses worldwide. The Company, based in
Santa Clara, Calif., was founded in 1996.


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

Nextcure, Inc. (NASDAQ:NXTC)

The Nextcure lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Nextcure, Inc. (NASDAQ: NXTC) securities: (1) between November 5,
2019 and July 14, 2020, inclusive; and/or (2) pursuant or traceable
to the company's secondary public offering declared effective on
November 14, 2019.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Nextcure, Inc. Throughout the class period defendants' statements
were materially misleading because the data Defendants possessed on
its principle product candidate, NC318, showed a lack of efficacy
and objective responses. Had the truth been revealed, the market
would have seen that NC318 was not, in fact, effective in treating
most tumor types, that the NC318 application was proving to be
limited (if even useful at all), and, as a result, there was a
significant realizable risk that NC318 would not be nearly as
popular as then-existing blockbuster drugs, such as Keytruda.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/nextcure-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=10436&from=1

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

NIKOLA CORPORATION: Hagens Berman Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman updates investors in Nikola Corporation and urges
investors who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm.
Further details about the case, including upcoming application
deadlines, can be found at the link provided.

NKLA Investors Click: https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/nkla

Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ:NKLA) Securities Class Action:

Class Period: Mar. 3, 2020 - Sept. 20, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Nov. 16, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/NKLA
Contact An Attorney Now: NKLA@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
falsely stated or omitted, among other things, that: (1) Nikola
overstated its in-house design, manufacturing, and testing
capabilities; (2) exaggerated its hydrogen production capabilities;
(3) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of
hydrogen fuel; (4) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor
Milton, tweeted a misleading test video of the Company's Nikola Two
truck; (5) the work experience and background of key Nikola
employees, including Mr. Milton, had been overstated and
obfuscated; and (6) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed.

Investors learned the truth through a series of partial
disclosures, beginning on Sept. 10, 2020, when Hindenburg Research
published a scathing report accusing Nikola of lying about its
truck's capabilities, partnerships and products, and ending on
Sept. 20, 2020, when Milton abruptly resigned.

These events have driven the price of Nikola shares sharply lower.

Significantly, less than a month before these disclosures, on Aug.
11, 2020, In-Cap, an entity indirectly controlled by Nikola
director Jeffrey Ubben, sold 1.4 million Nikola shares at
$42.69/share for a total of over $59 million. While Ubben
reportedly contends the suspiciously timed sale was forced on him
by "investor redemptions," Hagens Berman is actively investigating
the validity of this claim.

Most recently, on Sept. 29, 2020 CNBC reported a second sexual
abuse allegation against Milton and that the widely-touted
partnership with GM announced earlier in the month is not a "done
deal."

"We're focused on (i) investors' losses, (ii) proving Nikola
misrepresented its truck's functionality, its technology and
partnerships, and (iii) whether Nikola stakeholders like Ubben
engaged in unlawful insider trading," said Reed Kathrein, the
Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you are a Nikola investor or may assist the firm's
investigation, discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

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

                            # # #

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]

NIKOLA CORPORATION: Kahn Swick Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., reminded investors of
the deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

Nikola Corporation (NKLA, NKLAW) f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp.
(VTIQ, VTIQW, VTIQU)
Class Period: 3/3/2020 - 10/6/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 16, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-nkla/

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

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.
[GN]

OASIS PETROLEUM: Solomon Class Suit Against Subsidiary Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oasis Petroleum Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the suit entitled,
Andrew Solomon, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Oasis Petroleum, LLC, had been dismissed.

On or about August 28, 2019, Oasis Petroleum LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Oasis Petroleum Inc., was named as a defendant in the
Solomon lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the
District of North Dakota.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act (the "FLSA") and Title 29 of the North Dakota Century Code as
the result of OP LLC's alleged practice of paying the plaintiff and
similarly situated current and former employees overtime at rates
less than required by applicable law, or failing to pay for certain
overtime hours worked.

The lawsuit requested that: (i) its federal claims be advanced as a
collective action, with a class of all operators, technicians, and
all other employees in substantially similar positions employed by
OP LLC who were paid hourly for at least one week during the three
year period prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40
or more hours in at least one workweek and/or eight or more hours
on at least one workday; and (ii) its state claims be advanced as a
class action, with a class of all operators, technicians, and all
other employees in substantially similar positions employed by OP
LLC in North Dakota during the two year period prior to the
commencement of the lawsuit, who worked 40 or more hours in at
least one workweek and/or worked eight or more hours in a day on at
least one workday.

On September 14, 2020, OP LLC entered into a Settlement Agreement
and Release of All Claims with Solomon which provides for, among
other things, payment by OP LLC of $15,000 and a release by Solomon
of claims against OP LLC and its affiliates, which includes, but is
not limited to, all claims asserted, or which could have been
asserted, against OP LLC and its affiliates arising out of or
relating in any way to the Solomon litigation.

On September 25, 2020, the Solomon litigation was dismissed with
prejudice.

Oasis Petroleum Inc. is an independent exploration and production
(E&P) company focused on the acquisition and development of
onshore, unconventional crude oil and natural gas resources in the
United States. Oasis Petroleum North America LLC (OPNA) and Oasis
Petroleum Permian LLC (OP Permian) conduct the company's
exploration and production activities and own its crude oil and
natural gas properties located in the North Dakota and Montana
regions of the Williston Basin and the Texas region of the Delaware
Basin, respectively. The company is based in Houston, Texas.

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

Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ODT)

Investors Affected: December 7, 2017 - April 21, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's orally
administered chemotherapy agent, tesetaxel, was not as safe or
well-tolerated as the Company had led investors to believe; (ii)
consequently, tesetaxel's commercial viability as a cancer
treatment was overstated; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/odonate-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=10436&from=1

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


OMEGA FLEX: Appeal in Missouri Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Omega Flex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that plaintiffs have
taken an appeal from an adverse summary judgment decision made in
the putative class action in Missouri state court.

In September 2017, a putative class action case was filed against
the Company and other parties in Missouri state court.

The Company successfully removed the case to federal court, and the
court recently granted the defendants' joint summary judgement
motion, and dismissed the case.

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the adverse summary
judgment decision.

The Company is continuing to vigorously defend the case.

Omega Flex, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells flexible metal hoses and accessories in the United States and
internationally. The company was formerly known as Tofle America,
Inc. and changed its name to Omega Flex, Inc. in 1996. Omega Flex,
Inc. was founded in 1975 and is based in Exton, Pennsylvania.


OPKO HEALTH: Settlement Hearing in Florida Suit Set for Dec. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that an Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement was entered and a settlement
hearing is scheduled for December 15, 2020, in a class action in
Florida.

On June 26, 2020, The Amitim Funds, the lead plaintiff in the class
action lawsuit against the Company and Dr. Phillip Frost, filed a
Stipulation of Settlement in the Southern District of Florida of
behalf of itself and the remainder of the class, which, if
approved, will provide for the settlement of and release of the
previously reported class action claims against the Company and Dr.
Frost for $16.5 million.

The company reached agreement with its insurance carriers with
respect to claims made in the class action and derivative lawsuits
and the company's insurance carriers have agreed to provide
coverage for a significant portion of the settlement amounts.

The lead plaintiff also filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement and a Notice of Dismissal on June 29, 2020.

On September 4, 2020, an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement
was entered and a settlement hearing is scheduled for December 15,
2020.

The settlement remains subject to court approval.

OPKO Health, Inc., a healthcare company, engages in the diagnostics
and pharmaceuticals business in the United States, Ireland, Chile,
Spain, Israel, Mexico, and internationally. OPKO Health, Inc. was
incorporated in 1991 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida.


PANERA LLC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panera, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Freeman Ray Davis, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Panera, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; DOES 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No.
3:20-cv-02223-JLS-AHG (S.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2020).

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

Panera LLC operates as a chain of bakery-cafes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PEABODY ENERGY: Kahn Swick Reminds of November 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuit:

Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU)
Class Period: 4/3/2017 - 10/28/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 27, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-btu/

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 Kahn Swick

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

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Walters Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jessy Walters,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
0:20-cv-02322 (D. Minn., Nov. 13, 2020).
  
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC provides debt recovery and
collection services. The Company specializes in contingency
collections for national credit card issuers, consumer lenders,
telecommunications providers, retail credit stores, healthcare,
utilities, and commercial accounts receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avraham Z. Cutler, Esq.
          BALLON STOLL BADER & NADLER, PC
          729 7th Ave 17th Fl
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (718) 578-7711
          Fax: (212) 764-5060
          Email: avicutler@gmail.com


PRECIGEN INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of December 4 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming December 4, 2020  deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Precigen, Inc. ("Precigen" or the
"Company") f/k/a Intrexon Corporation ("Intrexon") (NASDAQ: PGEN,
XON) securities between May 10, 2017 and September 25,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Precigen 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/precigen-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 or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On September 25, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") announced a $2.6 million civil penalty against the Company
related to its statements about the "purported success converting
relatively inexpensive natural gas into more expensive industrial
chemicals using a proprietary methane bioconversion ('MBC')
program." In its cease-and-desist order, the SEC noted that
"Intrexon was primarily using significantly more expensive pure
methane for the relevant laboratory experiments but was indicating
that the results had been achieved using natural gas." Though the
Company had pitched the program to business partners throughout
2017 and 2018, the SEC pointed out that a "number of the potential
partners performed due diligence on the MBC program including
reviewing lab results and plans for commercialization[, and]
Intrexon has not yet found a partner for the MBC program."

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
that: (1) Intrexon was using pure methane as feedstock for its
announced yields for its methanotroph bioconversion platform
instead of natural gas; (2) yields from natural gas as a feedstock
were substantially lower than the aforementioned pure methane
yields; (3) due to the substantial price difference between pure
methane and natural gas, pure methane was not a commercially viable
feedstock; (4) the Company's financial statements for the quarter
ended March 31, 2018 were false and could not be relied upon; (5)
Intrexon had material weaknesses in its internal controls over
financial reporting; (6) the Company was under investigation by the
SEC since October 2018; and (7) 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 the Company's securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later
than December 4, 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 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]


PRECIGEN INC: Pomerantz Law Probes Firm for Securities Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Precigen, Inc (f/k/a Intrexon Corporation) ("Precigen" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:PGEN). Such investors are advised to contact
Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext.
7980.

The investigation concerns whether Precigen and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On March 2, 2020, post-market, Precigen disclosed in its annual
report for fiscal year 2019, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"), that "[i]n October 2018, the Company
received a subpoena from the Division of Enforcement of the SEC
informing the Company of a non-public, fact-finding investigation
concerning the Company's disclosures regarding its methane
bioconversion platform. Then, on September 25, 2020, the SEC
announced that it had imposed a Cease-and-Desist Order in
connection with the Precigen's "purported success converting
relatively inexpensive natural gas into more expensive industrial
chemicals using a proprietary methane bioconversion ('MBC')
program.

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

PRECIGEN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 4 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 12
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Precigen, Inc. f/k/a Intrexon
Corporation (NASDAQ:PGEN, XON) between May 10, 2017 and September
25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Precigen f/k/a Intrexon investors under the
federal securities laws. A class action lawsuit has already been
filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than December 4, 2020.

To join the Precigen class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1964.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) the Company was using pure methane as
feedstock for its announced yields for its methanotroph
bioconversion platform instead of natural gas; (2) yields from
natural gas as a feedstock were substantially lower than the
aforementioned pure methane yields; (3) due to the substantial
price difference between pure methane and natural gas, pure methane
was not a commercially viable feedstock; (4) the Company's
financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 were
false and could not be relied upon; (5) the Company had material
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting; (6)
the Company was under investigation by the SEC since October 2018;
and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
4, 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-1964.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.

Contact Information:

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


PRICESMART INC: Bid to Dismiss PERA Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
PriceSmart, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed
in the class action suit headed by Public Employees Retirement
Association of New Mexico's (PERA's) is pending.

On May 22, 2019, a class action complaint was filed against
PriceSmart, Inc., as well as certain former and current officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

On October 7, 2019, the Court granted Public Employees Retirement
Association of New Mexico's (PERA's) Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff.

On January 3, 2020, PERA filed a consolidated class action
complaint, which alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against any obligations or liability to the
plaintiffs.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2020, the Company filed a Motion
to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Complaint and the
Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. During the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2020, the Company filed a Reply to the
Opposition.

The Court has taken the matter under advisement.

PriceSmart, Inc. owns and operates U.S. style membership shopping
warehouse clubs in Central America, the Caribbean, and Colombia.
PriceSmart, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in San
Diego, California.


PROGREXION TELESERVICES: Can Compel Arbitration in Born FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRISTIN BORN and JESSICA CHAUHAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PROGREXION
TELESERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00107 (D. Utah),
Judge Robert J. Shelby of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah (i) granted Progrexion's Motion to Compel Arbitration, and
(ii) denied in part Progrexion's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

The case concerns alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA").  Plaintiffs Born and Chauhan filed the
putative FLSA class action against Defendant Progrexion and a
number of additional Plaintiffs have since opted-in to the action.

Since 2011, Progrexion has used third-party software to host its
onboarding portal for new hires.  As part of that process, new
hires electronically review and sign an "Employee Non-Competition,
Non-Solicitation, Confidentiality and Inventions Agreement."  The
Agreement contains a section related to arbitration.

Of the Plaintiffs implicated in Progrexion's Motions, all but two
-- Aja Chatmon and Chauhan -- electronically signed the Agreement
during the onboarding process.  Chatmon and Chauhan did not check
the signature box on the Agreement during onboarding.  The
onboarding software does show, however, that both Chatmon and
Chauhan accessed and reviewed the Agreement during onboarding, even
though no signature was recorded.

On Dec. 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs' counsel filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, asserting FLSA
claims against Progrexion and seeking to certify a nationwide class
action.  On April 18, 2019 and July 2, 2019, the Arizona Court
ordered the Arizona Action plaintiffs to arbitration and dismissed
the case.

Before instituting arbitration, the Plaintiffs' counsel and
Progrexion's counsel participated in mediation in November 2019.
When mediation proved unsuccessful, the Plaintiffs' counsel
requested arbitration agreements for the claimants it then
represented -- including a number of the Plaintiffs in the instant
action.  Progrexion began producing the relevant arbitration
agreements, the last of which was produced on April 19, 2020.

On Feb. 19, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the putative collective
class action against Progrexion, alleging violations of the FLSA.
At least 31 Plaintiffs have filed opt-in forms and consented to
join the litigation.  On April 20, 2020, Progrexion filed two
motions.  First, Progrexion filed a Motion to Dismiss For Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction, arguing the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims of the four Plaintiffs
("Untimely Plaintiffs") in the action.  Second, it filed a Motion
to Compel Arbitration, asking the Court to compel the 29 Plaintiffs
("Arbitration Plaintiffs") to arbitration -- including three of the
Untimely Plaintiffs named in the Motion to Dismiss.

Progrexion's Motion to Dismiss argues the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the claims of the four Untimely
Plaintiffs, three of whom are also named in Progrexion's Motion to
Compel Arbitration.  It argues the Court must dismiss their claims
because they are untimely under the FLSA's three-year statute of
limitations.  According to Progrexion, all four Untimely Plaintiffs
stopped working for Progrexion more than three years before the
date they opted-in to the lawsuit.  Thus, it argues, the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these claims because they
are untimely.

The Plaintiffs respond that Progrexion's Motion to Dismiss, though
styled as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion asserting lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, is properly considered as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  

Judge Shelby agrees.  Progrexion cites to no binding authority for
the proposition that its Motion to Dismiss should be construed as a
Rule 12(b)(1) motion.  Instead, Progrexion cites only to a Tenth
Circuit case discussing the Federal Tort Claims Act26 and a case
from the Court of Federal Claims that applied Rule 12(b)(1) in an
FLSA case.  He is not persuaded by either case.  Because a Rule
12(b)(6) motion does not challenge the Court's subject matter
jurisdiction, the Judge accedes to Progrexion's request to consider
its Motion to Compel Arbitration before considering its Motion to
Dismiss.

Progrexion moves the Court to compel the Arbitration Plaintiffs to
arbitration.  The Plaintiffs raise two primary arguments in
opposition to the Motion to Compel Arbitration.  First, they argue
Progrexion has waived its right to arbitration through its
litigation conduct.  Second, they argue the Agreement's
fee-shifting provision is unconscionable and renders the Agreement
unenforceable.  Progrexion replies that both of these issues should
be decided by the arbitrator.

The Judge concludes the question of waiver is for the Court to
decide, but the question of unconscionability is for the arbitrator
to decide.  He further finds that Progrexion has not waived its
right to arbitration and therefore the Arbitration Plaintiffs must
arbitrate their claims.

The Plaintiffs also argue that Chatmon and Chauhan are not bound by
the Agreement because their electronic signature was not affixed to
the Agreement during their onboarding.  The Judge concludes that
even though Chatmon and Chauhan did not electronically sign the
Agreement, they are nonetheless bound by its terms and must
arbitrate their claims.

Progrexion asks the Court to compel the Arbitration Plaintiffs to
individual arbitration and dismiss their claims.  The Judge
concludes the question of whether the claims must be arbitrated
individually or as a class is one for the arbitrator to decide.
The Judge further concludes dismissal of the Arbitration
Plaintiffs' claims is appropriate.

Having granted Progrexion's Motion to Compel Arbitration, its
Motion to Dismiss is now denied as moot with respect to Brett
Barrett, Aja Chatmon, and Gary Goulding.  The Motion to Dismiss
must still be resolved, however, with respect to Mark Weimer.  

Progrexion argues Weimer's claims must be dismissed because they
are untimely.  In support of this argument, it cites to a
declaration from Jamie Martinez -- a custodian of records with
Progrexion -- who declares Weimer's last date of employment with
Progrexion was on Feb. 6, 2017.  The declaration, however, is a
matter outside the pleadings.  Indeed, because Weimer is an
opt-inPplaintiff, the complaint contains no allegations specific to
Weimer.  But the dates of Weimer's employment -- and by extension,
the Court's consideration of the Martinez declaration -- are
crucial to resolving Progrexion's Motion to Dismiss.

Because Progrexion's Motion to Dismiss requires the court to
consider materials outside the pleadings -- namely, the Martinez
declaration -- Rule 12(d) requires the Court to convert
Progrexion's Motion to Dismiss to a motion for summary judgment
under Rule 56 and allow the parties to present all material that is
pertinent to the motion.  To that end, the Plaintiffs are invited
to file an opposition within 28 days of the Order.

For the reasons explained, Judge Shelby granted Progrexion's Motion
to Compel Arbitration, and dismissed the Arbitration Plaintiffs'
claims.  The Judge denied as moot Progrexion's Motion to Dismiss
with respect to Plaintiffs Barrett, Chatmon, Goulding, and Haley
Whittaker.  With respect to Plaintiff Weimer, the Judge, pursuant
to Rule 12(d), converts the Motion to Dismiss to a motion for
summary judgment under Rule 56.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Memorandum
Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3jezg37 from
Leagle.com.


RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ribbon Communications Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the class action initiated by Ron Miller is still pending.

On November 8, 2018, Ron Miller, a purported company stockholder,
filed a Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts against the company and three of
its former officers, Raymond P. Dolan, Mark T. Greenquist and
Michael Swade, claiming to represent a class of purchasers of Sonus
common stock during the period from January 8, 2015 through March
24, 2015 and alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

Similar to a previous complaint entitled Sousa et al. vs. Sonus
Networks, Inc. et al., which was dismissed with prejudice by an
order dated June 6, 2017, the Miller Complaint claims that the
Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning
Sonus' expected fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance,
which statements were also the subject of an August 7, 2018
Securities and Exchange Commission Cease and Desist Order, whose
findings we neither admitted nor denied.

The Miller plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.

After the Miller Complaint was filed, several parties filed and
briefed motions seeking to be selected by the Massachusetts
District Court to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the action.

On June 21, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court appointed a
group as Lead Plaintiffs and the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on July 19, 2019.

On August 30, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Miller Complaint and, on October 4, 2019, the Lead Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Defendants filed a
reply to such opposition on November 1, 2019.

There was an oral argument on the motion to dismiss on February 12,
2020.

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

Ribbon Communications Inc. provides networked solutions in the
United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, other Asia
Pacific, and internationally. The company was formerly known as
Sonus Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Ribbon Communications
Inc. in November 2017. Ribbon Communications Inc. was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in Westford, Massachusetts.


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

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (NYSE:RCL)

Investors Affected : February 4, 2020 - March 17, 2020

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Royal Caribbean misled
investors to believe that any issue related to COVID-19 was
relatively insignificant; (2) the Company falsely assured investors
that bookings outside China were strong with no signs of a
slowdown; (3) the Company was experiencing material declines in
bookings globally due to customer concerns over COVID-19; and (5)
the Company's ships were following grossly inadequate protocols
that would foster the spread of COVID-19 and pose a substantial
risk to passengers and crews.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/royal-caribbean-cruises-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=10420&from=1

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

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Jan. 12 Final Hearing on Deka Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
Final Settlement Hearing in Deka Investment GmbH et al. v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K, is
set on January 12, 2021.

The Company is a defendant in a purported securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer
USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought
against the Company, certain of its current and former directors
and executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (IPO) on
behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's securities between January 23, 2014 and June
12, 2014.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay
dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and
oversight.

In December 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied. In December 2016, the
plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes.

In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit
pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order
in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be
stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification.

On July 28, 2020, the Company executed a Stipulation of Settlement
with the plaintiffs in the Deka Lawsuit that fully resolves all of
the plaintiffs' claims for a cash payment of $47 million.

On August 13, 2020, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily
Approving the Settlement and Providing For Notice, setting the
Final Settlement Hearing for January 12, 2021.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a specialized consumer
finance company, provides vehicle finance and third-party servicing
in the United States. Its products and services include retail
installment contracts and vehicle leases, as well as dealer loans
for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital, and
revolving lines of credit. The company was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. is a subsidiary of Santander Holdings USA, Inc.


TACTILE SYSTEMS: Kehoe Law Firm Reminds of November 30 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Tactile Systems Technology, Inc.
("Tactile" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TCMD) to determine whether
Tactile engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business
practices.

Tactile investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the
Company's securities between May 7, 2018 and June 8, 2020, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and suffered losses greater
than $100,000 are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm's
Securities Class Action Questionnaire or contact Michael Yarnoff,
Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com,
securities@kehoelawfirm.com, to discuss the securities
investigation or potential legal claims.

IF YOU WISH TO SERVE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, YOU MUST MOVE THE COURT NO
LATER THAN NOVEMBER 30, 2020. To be a member of the class action,
you do not need to take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice; or you can take no action and remain an
absent member of the class action. No class has yet been certified
in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not
represented by counsel, unless you retain an attorney. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

According to a class action lawsuit filed on September 29, 2020 in
United States District Court, District of Minnesota, during the
Class Period, the Tactile Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies, and financial results.

According to the class action complaint, 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 ("PCDs") 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 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.

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.  [GN]


TEXAS: Seeks 5th Cir. Review in Valentine Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Bryan Collier, the executive director of Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, et al., filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit titled LADDY CURTIS VALENTINE and
RICHARD ELVIN KING, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. BRYAN COLLIER, in his official capacity, ROBERT
HERRERA, in his official capacity, and TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, Case No. 4:20-CV-1115, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendants' willful and/or deliberately indifferent
and discriminatory conduct in failing to protect inmates housed in
the Wallace Pack Unit, who face a high risk of severe illness from
exposure to Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19.

This case is about the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's
("TDCJ") failure to take proper measures to prevent transmission of
COVID-19 to some of its most vulnerable inmates. The named
Plaintiffs and the classes they seek to represent are currently
incarcerated at TDCJ's Pack Unit in unincorporated Grimes County,
Texas. Prisons are an ideal breeding ground for COVID-19. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that prisons are
particularly susceptible to the spread of COVID-19 due to the high
population density of inmates, and the tight, confined
environment.

The Plaintiffs contend that despite the ticking time bomb that
COVID-19 represents, TDCJ has failed to implement necessary or even
adequate policies and practices at the Pack Unit. The Plaintiffs
say they have been denied proper and equal access to vital
preventative measures to avoid the transmission of COVID-19, in
violation of federal law and the United States Constitution.

The appellate case is captioned as Laddy Valentine, et al. v. Bryan
Collier, et al., Case No. 20-20525, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, filed October 2, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Laddy Curtis Valentine and Richard Elvin King
are represented by:

            Brandon W. Duke, Esq.
            WINSTON & STRAWN, L.L.P.
            800 Capitol Street
            Houston, TX 77002-2925
            Telephone: (713) 651-2600
            Email: bduke@winston.com

                   - and -

            Jeff S. Edwards, Esq.
            THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM
            1101 E. 11th Street, Haehnel Building
            Austin, TX 78702
            Telephone: (512) 623-7727

Defendants-Appellants BRYAN COLLIER, ROBERT HERRERA and TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, are represented by:

            Matthew Hamilton Frederick, Esq.
            Christin Audrey Cobe-Vasquez, Esq.
            Kyle Douglas Hawkins, Esq.
            OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
            209 W. 14th Street
            Austin, TX 78701
            Telephone: (512) 936-6407


TEXTRON INC: Appeal from IWA Case Dismissal Order Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Textron Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended October 3, 2020, that the appeal from the court's
decision granting the company's motion to dismiss the class action
headed by IWA Forest Industry Pension Fund is still pending.

On August 22, 2019, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court in the Southern
District of New York against Textron, its Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer.

The suit, filed by Building Trades Pension Fund of Western
Pennsylvania, alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and concealing material adverse facts related to the
Arctic Cat acquisition and integration.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages.

On November 12, 2019, the Court appointed IWA Forest Industry
Pension Fund ("IWA") as the sole lead plaintiff in the case.

On December 24, 2019, IWA filed an Amended Complaint in the now
entitled In re Textron Inc. Securities Litigation.  

On February 14, 2020, IWA filed a Second Amended Complaint, and on
March 6, 2020, Textron filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.

On July 20, 2020, the Court granted Textron's motion to dismiss and
closed the case.

On August 18, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal contesting
the dismissal, which Textron has opposed. That appeal remains
pending.

Textron Inc. is one of the world's best known multi-industry
companies, recognized for its powerful brands such as Bell, Cessna,
Beechcraft, E-Z-GO, Arctic Cat and many more. The company leverages
its global network of aircraft, defense, industrial and finance
businesses to provide customers with innovative products and
services. The company is bases in Providence, Rhode Island.


THERMON GROUP: Suit Over CCI Heating Elements Ongoing in Quebec
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a suit in the Province of Quebec, Canada
related to certain heating elements previously manufactured by CCI
Thermal Technologies Inc. (CCI).

In January 2020, the Company received service of process in a class
action application in the Province of Quebec, Canada related to
certain heating elements previously manufactured by CCI prior to
the company's acquisition and incorporated into portable
construction heaters sold by certain manufacturers.

The Company believes this claim is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the claim.

Thermon said, "The Company continues to evaluate the facts and
circumstances of this claim; however, due to the current
uncertainty of the basis for the claim, the Company is unable to
establish an amount of an accrual for this claim at this time."

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

Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. provides highly engineered thermal
solutions (heating cables, tubing bundles and control systems) and
services (design optimization, engineering, installation and
maintenance services) required to deliver comprehensive solutions
to complex projects.

TOTALLY CHOCOLATE: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Totally Chocolate
Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Totally Chocolate Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-05546 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2020).

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

Totally Chocolate Inc. produces custom chocolates. The Company
offers business, wedding, and individual personalized gifts, as
well as provides chocolates for business and special event
use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


TURQUOISE HILL: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:

Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. (TRQ)
Class Period: 7/17/2018 - 7/31/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-trq/

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 Kahn Swick

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

TWITTER INC: Class Suit Over User Settings Underway in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative securities class action related to
its announcements that it had discovered and taken steps to
remediate issues related to certain user settings.  

Beginning in October 2019, putative class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against
the Company and certain of the Company's officers alleging
violations of securities laws in connection with the Company's
announcements that it had discovered and taken steps to remediate
issues related to certain user settings designed to target
advertising that were not working as expected and seeking
unspecified damages.

The Company disputes the claims and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.

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

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.


TWITTER INC: Sept. 2021 Jury Trial in Calif. Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a scheduled jury
trial has been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and is
currently scheduled for September 2021.

Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States against the Company and the Company's directors
and/or certain former officers alleging that false and misleading
statements, made in 2015, are in violation of securities laws and
breached fiduciary duty.

The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On October 16, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2018, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
consolidated securities action.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on September 13,
2019, which was denied on April 17, 2020.

The scheduled jury trial has been postponed due to the COVID-19
pandemic and is currently scheduled for September 2021.

Twitter said, "The outcome of this litigation is, and any potential
losses therewith are, inherently uncertain, and the Company is,
therefore, not able to estimate a reasonable range of possible
loss, if any. The Company disputes the claims and intends to
continue to defend the lawsuits vigorously."

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self-expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter that allows users to consume, create,
distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a mobile
application that enables user to broadcast and watch video live
with others. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered
in San Francisco, California.



US FOODS: KWPA Claims Deal in Flerlage Suit Has Prelim. Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARGARET FLERLAGE & MARKUS MURRAY, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. US
FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-2614-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), Judge
Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas:

   (i) granted in part and denied in part Class Representatives
Flerlage and Murray's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Settlement
Approval; and

  (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' motion asks the court for (1)
conditional certification of settlement class, (2) preliminary
approval of a proposed settlement, (3) approval of the form and
manner of notice, and (4) a schedule and hearing date for final
settlement approval.

On Jan. 22, 2019, Plaintiffs Flerlage and Murray filed,
collectively and as a class action, claims against Defendant US
Foods for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
Kansas Wage Payment Act ("KWPA").  The claims arise from
allegations that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs, and
others similarly situated, for hours and overtime as required by
state and federal law.  The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant
required them to work without compensation before they "clocked in"
every morning.  On Feb. 6, 2019, the Defendant filed an Answer
denying all liability.

The parties then served initial disclosures, interrogatories,
requests for production, and they conducted depositions.  On Aug.
29, 2019, the parties participated in a mediation.  The result of
which is the proposed Settlement Agreement.

On Feb. 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Settlement Approval and a memorandum in support of that
motion.  The motion asks the Court to enter an Order approving the
Joint Stipulation of Class Action and FLSA Settlement.  More
specifically, the Plaintiffs request that the Court enters an order
that: (i) certifies the proposed Settlement Class for settlement
purposes only, (ii) grants preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement, (iii) directs notice to be disseminated to Settlement
Class Members in the form and manner proposed by the parties, and
(iv) sets a schedule and hearing for final approval of the
Settlement and related deadlines.  

The parties' proposed Settlement Class includes all persons who are
or were previously employed by the Defendant as Order Selectors who
worked at any time at Defendant's business location in Topeka,
Kansas, from Nov. 15, 2015 until Sept. 30, 2019.  As noted, the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that certifies the
proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only.  They
request that the Court conditionally certifies the Rule 23 Class
for the KWPA state law claims and conditionally certifies the
collective class for the FLSA claims.

Judge Crabtree beings his analysis with Rule 23 certification.
Then it turns to Rule 23 settlement approval. Next, he addresses
notice, then finally the settlement schedule.  

The parties assert that all of the Rule 23 class action
certification requirements are satisfied.  The Judge agrees.  The
Judge finds that (i) the Plaintiffs' ability to prove a violation
of law occurred is common to all putative class members' claims;
(ii) their legal and remedial theories are identical to those of
the putative class; (iii) there is no showing of any conflict or
other evidence that would make the named Plaintiffs and the counsel
inadequate; and (iv) the class encompasses only people who worked
in Kansas.  As a result, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification for the settlement purposes for the KWPA
claim.

The Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an order granting
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.  The Judge finds
that the proposed settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate"
under Rule 23.  The Judge finds that (i) the parties fairly and
honestly negotiated the settlement; (ii) serious questions of law
and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in
doubt; (iii) the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the
potential for future relief after protracted and expensive
litigation; and (iv) the agreement of the parties, and the notice
plan to give potential class members an opportunity to object to
the settlement terms suggests the agreement is a fair and
reasonable one.  For these reasons, the Judge granted preliminary
approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement for the purposes of
the KWPA claims under Rule 23.

The Settlement Agreement requires the Defendant to pay the
mediator's fees and a Gross Settlement Amount ("GSA") of $210,000.
The GSA will pay all claims by the class members, any fees and
costs awarded to the Plaintiffs' counsel, and any incentive award
to the Representative Plaintiffs.  The Net Settlement Amount
consists of the GSA less (1) the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, (2)
expenses incurred in the action, claims administration costs,
penalties and interest, and (3) the Plaintiffs' representative
service award.

The Settlement Agreement limits the Plaintiffs' counsel to no more
than $17,500 in costs and $125,000 in attorneys' fees.  The
Plaintiffs' counsel requests a service award for class
representatives, Ms. Flerlage and Mr. Murray, of $3,500 each.
Assuming the Court grants final approval of the settlement as
currently proposed, the Net Settlement Amount will consist of about
$60,500 to divide among the class members who file claims.

The amount each class and collective member will receive will be
based on the weeks they worked from Nov. 15, 2015 to Sept. 30,
2019.  The amount received for each work week will equal the Net
Settlement Amount divided by total number of workweeks of the
class.  Each class and collective member will receive an estimated
$4.51 per week worked during the Class Period.  So, for example, if
one worker worked every week for the Class Period, six weeks shy of
four years, he would receive an estimated $911.02 total settlement
payment.  If all 341 workers worked for the entire period, each
worker would receive just $177.42.

Having approved the Settlement Agreement preliminarily, the Judge
next considers the content, form, and manner of notice that the
parties propose to have the Claim Administrator send to the class
members.  Under the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement
Administrator will send notice to all of the class members via
regular First-Class U.S. Mail.  The Plaintiffs propose that the
Court grants the class members 60 days from the Settlement
Administrator's initial mailing of notices of settlement by the
Settlement Administrator to opt-out or object to the settlement.
If individual notice does not reach a class member and no
forwarding address is provided, the Settlement Agreement provides
that the Settlement Administrator will use skip-tracing to
determine a correct address.

The Judge finds that he must approve the content, form, and manner
of notice proposed by the parties.  The mailed notice provides the
class members with the information that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)
requires.  Also, the 60 days is sufficient for the class members to
review the settlement information, weigh their options, and select
a course of action.  He thus approved the proposed notice—with
one exception.

The Judge observes that the proposed notice refers to the amounts
of the service fee awards and attorneys' fee award that the
Plaintiffs seek in their motion.  The Judge finds these awards are
not fair and reasonable, and thus he refused to approve the
parties' FLSA settlement.  The Judge directed the parties to revise
that portion of the notice before issuing notice to the class
members.  The notice should provide a revised proposed service fee
award and attorneys' fee award and note that these amounts still
are subject to the Court's approval.

The Judge scheduled a final approval rating for Feb. 4, 2021 at 9
a.m.

Turning to the FLSA Claims, the Plaintiffs contend that the class
plainly meets the requirement of 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) because
all members are similarly situated.  All members were Order
selectors at the Defendant's Topeka location.  The Plaintiffs have
asserted substantial allegations that the putative class members
were victims of single policy of the Defendant.  After reviewing
the Plaintiffs' submissions, the Judge concludes that he cannot
approve the parties' settlement of the FLSA collective action
claims because the proposed attorneys' fees are not reasonable.

The Judge finds that the proposed amount rewards the Plaintiffs
about $106 and $78 per hour respectively.  This award is a much
greater amount than any class member could recover in the
settlement.  Given the Court's $20 per hour standard, the proposed
service award of $3,500 for Ms. Flerlage and Mr. Murray each is
unreasonable.  As for the requested attorneys' fees represent
nearly 60% of the common fund, while several factors are neutral or
favor approving the requested attorneys' fees, the Judge finds that
the customary fee and awards in similar cases factors outweigh the
other factors.  The Judge thus finds the requested attorneys' fees
are not fair and reasonable.

Under these facts, the Judge cannot approve the requested award for
fees and costs.  If the parties wish to reapply to the Court for an
award of fees and costs, they must reduce the proposed attorneys'
fees to an amount that conforms to the standards and provide more
justification for their request for costs.  Otherwise, he will
reduce the attorneys' fees and cost award to an amount he
determines fair and reasonable before it will approve the
settlement.

In sum, the Judge finds that there is a bona fide dispute, but he
can't conclude that the FLSA settlement is fair and reasonable.
The Judge granted the motion to certify the collective class for
notice purposes but denied preliminary approval of the settlement
for the FLSA claims.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Settlement
Approval is granted in part and denied in part.  The Judge granted
class certification under Rule 23 and approved preliminarily the
parties' settlement of their KWPA claims.  He also directed the
parties to provide notice to the class members consistent with his
Order.  And, the Judge adopted a schedule for the parties to
provide notice, for the class members to opt-out or object, and for
the parties to seek final approval of their KWPA settlement.
Finally, the Judge certified a collective action under the FLSA,
but it denied preliminary approval of the Plaintiffs' FLSA
settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Memorandum &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6qcdmo9 from
Leagle.com.


US STEEL: Discovery Underway in Class Suit Over Clairton Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that discovery
is ongoing in the class action suit related to the December 24,
2018 fire at the Company's plant in Clairton, Pennsylvania.

On April 24, 2019, U. S. Steel was served with a class action
complaint that was filed in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas
related to the December 24, 2018 fire at Clairton.

The complaint asserts common law nuisance and negligence claims and
seeks compensatory and punitive damages that allegedly were the
result of U. S. Steel's conduct that resulted in the fire and U. S.
Steel's operations subsequent to the fire.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

U. S. Steel is vigorously defending the matter.

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

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled
(Flat-Rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


US STEEL: Discovery Underway in Shareholder Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that discovery
is ongoing in the shareholder class action suit related to the
company's August 2016 secondary public offering (SCO).

On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint
was filed in Federal Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania
consolidating previously-filed actions.

Separately, five related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed
in State and Federal courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

The underlying consolidated class action lawsuit alleges that U. S.
Steel, certain current and former officers, an upper level manager
of the Company and the financial underwriters who participated in
the August 2016 secondary public offering of the Company's common
stock (collectively, Defendants) violated federal securities laws
in making false statements and/or failing to discover and disclose
material information regarding the financial condition of the
Company.

The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of
plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27,
2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class
purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock
dropped.

The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against
the same officers and also allege that certain current and former
members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate
control and oversight over the Company and were unjustly
compensated. The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were
allegedly sustained. The class action Defendants moved to dismiss
plaintiffs’ claims.

On September 29, 2018 the Court ruled on those motions granting
them in part and denying them in part. On March 18, 2019, the
plaintiffs withdrew the claims against the Defendants related to
the 2016 secondary offering.

As a result, the underwriters are no longer parties to the case.
The Company and the individual defendants are vigorously defending
the remaining claims.

On December 31, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the proceeding as a class action. The Company's appeal of
that decision has been denied by the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Discovery is proceeding.

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

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled
(Flat-Rolled), U.S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). United States Steel was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


WALMART: Disputed Document Unsealed in $9.5MM Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel at Reuters reports that Judge Martinez unsealed a
controversial document in a $9.5 million class action against
Walmart, ruling that Walmart and class counsel from Morgan & Morgan
failed to rebut the presumption of public access to court records.
In a nationwide class action, Judge Martinez wrote, the public
interest weighs strongly against secrecy. "Class members," he
wrote, "are entitled to a full and fair understanding of the
case."

Amen to that!

The disputed document, as I've previously told you, is a Sept. 22
letter to the judge from Vassilios Kukorinis, the lead plaintiff in
the class action. It's important, as you'll see, because it raises
questions about whether the lead plaintiff and his lawyers are
fulfilling their obligations to represent the interests of all
class members.

In the letter, Kukorinis renounced the proposed settlement of the
case, which alleges that Walmart overcharged customers for certain
items whose price was based on their weight, and alleged that his
lawyers at Morgan & Morgan did not tell him about the deal or
obtain his consent before moving for preliminary approval in
August. In fact, Kukorinis said in the letter, he had not heard
from Morgan & Morgan since last January, more than six months
before the firm asked the judge to grant preliminary approval of
the Walmart settlement.

"I don't want to participate in this fiasco/cover up and betrayal
to all class action members, orchestrated without my knowledge,"
Kukorinis told Judge Martinez.

Kukorinis' letter was docketed on Sept. 25 but struck from the
docket a few days later because the filing broke a local rule that
precludes parties who are represented by counsel from appearing on
their own behalf without an order of substitution. Judge Martinez
called for a status conference to figure out what to do.

Before the scheduled conference, Morgan & Morgan filed a second
declaration from Kukorinis in which he withdrew his opposition to
the proposed settlement. Kukorinis said he was now satisfied, after
discussion with Morgan & Morgan, that the settlement's releases
were not overly broad. He did not address his initial assertion
that his lawyers did not obtain his consent before agreeing to the
proposed deal. John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan told me last month
that Kukorinis "was always informed of the progress and status" of
the case and that "of course" Morgan & Morgan obtained the lead
plaintiff's consent before moving for preliminary approval of the
settlement with Walmart.

The second declaration did not end the matter of Kukorinis'
original letter, though. A Walmart class member named Steven
Helfand informed Judge Martinez that he wanted to participate in
the status conference to decide whether the letter would remain
struck from the docket. Walmart and Morgan & Morgan filed a joint
brief arguing that Helfand should not be privy to information about
the Kukorinis letter because the letter divulged information
shielded by attorney-client privilege, as well as details about
confidential mediation.

Judge Martinez allowed Helfand to attend the Oct. 7 conference. I
subsequently heard about the dispute over the Kukorinis letter. I
obtained the document from the docket service Docketbird, where it
was still publicly available, and included a link to the letter in
my Oct. 27 story about the case.

With no ruling yet from Judge Martinez on formal public access to
the Kukorinis letter, Helfand took matters into his own hands. He
filed a declaration arguing that the dispute was moot because the
letter was already circulating publicly. Helfand attached a copy of
the Kukorinis letter to his declaration. Helfand's key point: The
dispute between Kukorinis and Morgan & Morgan means that either the
lead plaintiff or class counsel is not adequately representing the
interests of class members. If Morgan & Morgan sought approval of
the settlement without Kukorinis' consent, Helfand said, it
breached its obligations to Kukorinis, and, by extension, the other
class members. On the other hand, if Kukorinis was mistaken about
his communications with his lawyers, his fitness as a class
representative is in question, according to Helfand.

Walmart and Morgan & Morgan moved jointly to seal Helfand's
declaration. They accused Helfand -- a recently-disbarred
California lawyer -- of violating Judge Martinez's order striking
the letter from the case record. They also repeated their previous
arguments that the Kukorinis letter must remain confidential
because it contains privileged and improperly disclosed
information.

In the order, Judge Martinez criticized Helfand for disclosing the
Kukorinis letter before the judge decided whether to make it
public. "As a previously-licensed attorney engaged in federal class
action litigation, Mr. Helfand's filing of the still-under-seal
document was both inappropriate and in violation of this court's
order," the judge wrote. "And, while certain underhanded litigation
tactics may be employed by parties engaged in adversarial
proceedings, they will not be entertained by this court."

But Helfand's conduct, Judge Martinez said, was distinct from the
issue of public access to the Kukorinis letter. The judge rejected
privacy arguments by Walmart and Morgan & Morgan. Attorney-client
privilege, he said, belongs to the client, Kukorinis, not his
lawyers. And Kukorinis waived the privilege when he divulged his
communications with Morgan & Morgan to the court, Judge Martinez
said. And even though his letter disclosed a single, confidential
statement from the mediator who helped Walmart and class counsel
reach a resolution, the judge said, that revelation was relatively
insignificant when weighed against the public interest in the
document.

"Though a named plaintiff's assent is not required for final
approval of a class settlement, it is indeed a factor to be
considered by the court," Judge Martinez wrote. "And class members,
including potential objectors, should be privy to those objections,
even if they have been since withdrawn — to ensure that the
fairness hearing is indeed fair."

Walmart, which denies liability for the overcharging, said in an
email statement that it "respects the court's decision on the
issue." Class counsel Yanchunis did not respond to my email.

Helfand said he's "ecstatic" about the decision, despite the
judge's criticism of his conduct. "Objectors are not popular with
either class counsel or courts," he said via email. "Regardless of
any criticism leveled at me by either class counsel or the court,
the access to documents in a class action, required by the First
Amendment, is far more important." [GN]

WHIRLPOOL: 9th Cir. Vacates $14.8MM Atty. Fee Award in Chambers
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetNews reports that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
vacated a $14.8 million award of attorneys fees in a class action
against Whirlpool in which a portion of the benefit, under a
settlement, was providing coupons to class members for use in
purchasing new dishwashers, holding that the District Court erred
in using the lodestar method, under California law, in connection
with the coupons, rather than the federal standard of a percentage
of their value.

Judge Kenneth K. Lee wrote the opinion which rejects the
plaintiffs' contention that California law should be utilized in
the diversity case because the settlement agreement provides that
"the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be construed and
enforced in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State
of California." California recognizes only the lodestar method of
calculating attorney fees, which is based on the number of hours
reasonably expended times the reasonable hourly billing rates of
the attorneys, often with a multiplier.

The jurist noted that the federal Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"), in general, recognizes both the lodestar method and the
percentage-of-value method, but said that coupon settlements are in
a distinct category.

"The plain language of CAFA makes clear that a court should
ordinarily use the percentage-of-value, not lodestar, methodology
for the portion of the settlement involving coupons," he wrote.

That should have been followed in the present case, Lee said,
notwithstanding the proviso in the settlement agreement,
declaring:

"The plain language of CAFA makes clear that its attorneys fees
provisions preempt any corresponding state law and apply to any
class action case in federal court, including those based on
diversity jurisdiction."

                           Remand Ordered

Lee's opinion, while affirming the settlement, vacates the attorney
fee award by District Court Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the Central
District of California and remands the case for a new calculation.

While application of the lodestar method to the non-coupon portion
of the settlement was appropriate, Lee said, it could not be
determined what value was placed on that portion. He noted that
Whirlpool proclaimed the value of that portion of the settlement to
be about $3 million, while the plaintiffs reckoned it to be $63
million.

Reflecting at the outset of the opinion on the uncertainty of the
value of coupon settlements, he wrote:

"Is it reasonable to award $14.8 million in attorney's fees in a
class action settlement that provides $116.7 million in benefits to
class members? But what if the class settlement is in fact worth
only $4.2 million? We face these two dramatically divergent
scenarios in large part because the settlement here offers
'coupons' that may provide phantom benefits to most class
members."

                          Coupon-Settlements

Lee went on to comment:

"Federal courts, as well as Congress, have long viewed coupon-based
class action settlements with a skeptical eye. And for good reason:
counsel for plaintiffs and defendants have sometimes conspired to
craft class action settlements that benefit themselves at the
expense of the class members.

"Defendants sometimes favor coupon settlements because they do not
require the payment of cash out of pocket, but instead offer
coupons for the company's product or service. Moreover, coupon
settlements often impose onerous obstacles that make it difficult
to redeem the coupons. Many plaintiffs" counsel also prefer coupon
settlements to inflate the ostensible value of the
settlement—and, in turn, ratchet up their request for attorney's
fees.  . . . And too often, class members do not benefit from a
coupon settlement because any of them, not surprisingly, do not
want to reward the offending company by buying its product or
service again, even if they receive a discount."

(The plaintiffs sued over defects in Whirlpool dishwashers, with
122,294 persons receiving coupons, and 26,380 gaining cash
reimbursements.)

Lee observed the Congress, in enacting CAFA, "struck back against
this perceived menace of phantom benefits in coupon settlements."

The opinion also set forth that no valid basis appears for Olguin
having utilized a lodestar multiplier of 1.68.

The case is Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp., 16-56694. [GN]

ZENDESK INC: Reidinger Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Reidinger v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-06968-CRB
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer on November 9, 2020, entered
an Amended Order granting the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class
Action Complaint, with leave to amend.

Zendesk, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that on October 24, 2019
and November 7, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company filed
two putative class action complaints in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Charles
Reidinger v. Zendesk, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-06968-CRB and Ho v.
Zendesk, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-07361-WHA, respectively, against
the Company and certain of the Company’s executive officers.

The complaints are nearly identical and allege violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased Zendesk, Inc. common stock between February 6, 2019 and
October 1, 2019, inclusive.

The claims are based upon allegations that the defendants
misrepresented and/or omitted material information in certain of
the company's prior public filings. To this point, no discovery has
occurred in these cases.

The court has appointed a lead plaintiff and consolidated the
various lawsuits into a single action (Case No. 3:19-cv-06968-CRB),
and lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on April 14, 2020
asserting the same alleged violations of securities laws as the
initial complaints.

On June 29, 2020, Zendesk and the executive officer defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Lead Plaintiff opposed that
motion.

Zendesk, Inc. provides web-based help desk software with customer
support platform. The Company offers applications that allow
clients to manage incoming support requests from end customers from
any Internet connected computer. Zendesk serves customers in the
United States. The company is based in San Francisco, California.



                            *********

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 ***