/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201127.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 27, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 238

                            Headlines

ABBOTT LAB: Smith Alleges Deceptive Labeling of Infant Formula
ACT: Settles Class Action for $16 Million
ADAMAS PHARMA: MOU Signed to Settle Securities Class Suit
ADAMAS PHARMA: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in California
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: ARPI, Sidney Naiman Putative Class Suit Ongoing

ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Bid to Nix Hicks Putative Class Suit Granted
ALASKA AIRLINES: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Clarkson USERRA Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Court Denies Class Certification in Securities Suit
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Klaas Appeals ERISA Suit Ruling to 11th Cir.
AMERICAN RENAL: Court to Consider $5.7MM Class Deal on Jan. 12

ANGLO AMERICAN: To Defend Class Action Lawsuit
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Investors Seek Final OK of $15MM Deal
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Discovery Ongoing in AOT Holding's Suit
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Discovery Ongoing in Suit v. Golden Peanut
AURORA CANNABIS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Dec. 1 Motion Deadline

AURORA CANNIBAS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 1 Bid Deadline
AUSTRALIA: 1,600+ Indigenous People Register for Stolen Wage Suit
AUSTRALIA: Victorians' Hotel Quarantine Suits Unlikely to Succeed
AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces 2 Potential Suits Alleging ERISA Breach
AUTOMATIC DATA: Settlement Reached in Biometric Data Use Suit

AXOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Einhorn Class Action Pending
BANK OF NEW YORK: Bid for Writ of Certiorari Seeking Appeal Nixed
BECTON DICKINSON: Sued Over Defective Alaris System Devices
BLACKBAUD INC: Fails to Safeguard Customers' PII, Mortensen Says
BLINK CHARGING: Gross Law Alerts of Securities Class Action

BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Wiretaps Web Site Visitors, Sacco Alleges
BRISTOL-MYERS: Class Certification Bid in Suit v. Celgene Pending
BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
BRISTOL-MYERS: Dismissal of CheckMate-026 Suit Under Appeal
BRISTOL-MYERS: Thalomid & Revlimid-Related Antitrust Suit Dismissed

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Securities Class Suit in Tennessee Ongoing
CAPACITORS ANTITRUST: Indirect Buyers' Class Cert. Bid Denied
CASELLA WASTE: Vandemortel Class Suit Ongoing in New York
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss GoTo Services Spinoff Suit Pending
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 1 Bid Deadline

DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Seeks Dismissal of Oyoque Tuition Refund Action
DIETSCH AND WRIGHT: Court Awards $23,840 of Attorneys' Fees
DOORDASH INC: Lona's Lil Eats Slams Webpage Misdirection
EHEALTH INC: Feb. 17 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
ELECTRONICS ARTS: Faces Class Suit Over Loot Boxes in Canada

ELEMIS USA INC: Monegro Claims Website Inaccessible to the Blind
ELYSIUM HEALTH INC: Romero Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Appeal in O'Donnell Class Suit Pending
EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Suit over COI Rate Increase Ongoing
EVENTBRITE INC: Securities Class Action Pending in California

EVOLUS INC: Pomerantz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
EVOLUS INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Dec. 15 Motion Deadline
EXPEDIA GROUP: Bench Trial on Buckeye Suit Set for March 8
EXPEDIA GROUP: Tentative Settlement Agreed in Suit vs. HomeAway.com
FCA US: Bid to Partially Dismiss 2nd Amended Class Action Denied

GARRETT MOTION: Gross Law Alerts of Securities Class Action
GARRISON CAPITAL: Smith Sues Over Portman Merger Deal
GENERAL MOTORS: December Final Hearing on Economic-Loss Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Defective Airbag Inflators Class Suits Ongoing
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for April 1

HARLEM CHICKEN: Resto Staff Seeks Unpaid OT Pay, Withheld Tips
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Must Face Kanefsky Class Suit
HYATT HOTELS: Claims in Texas Antitrust Suit Resolved
IQIYI: Labaton, Rosen to Serve as Class Action Co-Lead Counsel
ISHARES S&P: Suit Against BlackRock Fund Advisors Closed

KRAFT HEINZ: Union Asset Management Holding AG Suit Ongoing
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Continues to Defend Erceg Putative Class Suit
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Dismissal of Veal Suit Under Appeal
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Sosa ADA Class Action Ongoing in New York
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Shron Suit

LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Krisco Suit for Overcharging Advertisers
LIVE NATION: Class Suits Related to Overpriced Tickets Ongoing
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
MCKESSON CORP: Evanston Police Pension Plan Seeks to Certify Class
MGXM CORP: Siguencia Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL

MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE: Mooers Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Johnson Class Suit Pending
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Nix Shareholder Suit in N.D. Ga. Pending
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Delaware Securities Suit Temporarily Stayed
NANO-X IMAGING: Duarte Slams Share Drop Over Imaging Device Flop

NESTLE HOLDINGS: Prescott Sues Over Deceptive Labeling of Creamers
NEWELL BRANDS: Appeal in Securities Class Suit Still Pending
NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: First Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Dextenza Suit
OMNICELL INC: Bid to Dismiss Heard Class Suit Pending

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Approval of Proposed Allocation Plan Pending
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Injunction Sought Against Phoenix Insurance
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Preliminary OK of Costas Settlement Pending
PORTLAND GENERAL: Facing 3 Putative Class Suits in Oregon
POSH BOW: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Calcano Claims

PRECIGEN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 4 Motion Deadline
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Supplemental Claims Report in Hsu Submitted
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Moehrl Putative Class Suit Denied
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Tanaskovic Suit Pending
REALOGY GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Sitzer Class Suit

REALOGY GROUP: Whitlach Class Action Ongoing in California
REATA PHARMA: Klein Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
SEY INC: Silva Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & IMLW
SUNRUN INC: May 6 Final Approval Hearing on Loftus Suit
SUNRUN INC: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Silverberg Suit

SUNRUN INC: Toledo Putative Class Action Suit Tossed
SUNRUN INC: Wolf Putative Class Action Dismissed
TANDEM DIABETES: Continues to Defend Deluna Consolidated Class Suit
TANDEM DIABETES: Facing Walsh Putative Class Action
TESLA INC: Model S & X Cars Have Suspension Defect, Williams Says

TEVA PHARMA: Pension Fund Slams Share Drop Over Kickback Charge
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Pandemic Concerns Postpones MPERS Suit Mediation
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Preliminary Settlement Reached in Negrete Suit
TURQUOISE HILL: Frank R. Cruz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
TWIN CITY FIRE: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Class Action Claims

UNDER ARMOUR: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in Maryland
UNDER ARMOUR: Suit Over MyFitnessPal Data Breach Underway
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Class Action Seek Tuition Refunds
US XPRESS: Continues to Defend 2019 Independent Contractor Suit
US XPRESS: IPO Related Class Action Suits Ongoing

US XPRESS: Petition to Appeal in Cal. Wage & Hour Suit Granted
US XPRESS: Plaintiff in Tenn. Contractor Suit Agrees to Arbitrate
US XPRESS: Suit Over Phishing Attack Ends Following Parties' Deal
WALMART INC: Johnson Slams Denied Tire Care Service
WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Class Definition in Bitzko Suit Modified

WPX ENERGY: Allen Challenges $12-Bil. Merger Value With Devon
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Cobden Suit Hits Share Price Drop
ZYNGA INC: Awaits Court Ruling in Bid to Transfer Oeste Class Suit
ZYNGA INC: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Chaudhri-Gitre Suit
ZYNGA INC: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Johnson-Thomas Suit

ZYNGA INC: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Martinez-Petro Case
ZYNGA INC: Continues to Defend Rosiak Data Breach Class Suit
[*] Ontario AG Announces Amendments to 1992 Class Proceedings Act

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $7MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Defends Claims at Sept. 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $578MM Reserves in Sept.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Estimates $101.1MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Still Defends PL Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Faces Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Mexico's Consumer Case vs. J&J Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Still Faces Claims, Suits at Sept. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp., Units Still Defend Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Company Defends Talcum Suits at Sept. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Defends Various Lawsuits at Sept. 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Estimates $500K Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy Had 275 Suits Pending at Nov. 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor's Appeal in Calif. Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Has 182 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warner-Lambert Still Faces Claims vs. Former Unit


                            *********

ABBOTT LAB: Smith Alleges Deceptive Labeling of Infant Formula
--------------------------------------------------------------
Giovanna Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Abbott Laboratories Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05684 (Nov.
22, 2020) alleges that the Defendant misrepresented the
substantive, nutritionally appropriate, quantitative, qualitative,
compositional and/or organoleptic attributes of Similac Go & Grow
Toddler Drink.

For instance, the Defendant's infant formula product is identified
as "Infant Formula with Iron" and "Powder, Milk-Based" ("Infant
Formula Product"). The "Go & Grow" Product is "Toddler Drink" and
"Milk-Based Powder." The name "Toddler Drink, Milk-Based Powder" is
deceptive and misleading because it is confusingly similar to the
name of "Infant Formula with Iron, Powder, Milk-Based," says the
complaint.

"Toddler Drink, Milk-Based Powder" does not state what it is in a
way that distinguishes it from different foods such as the Infant
Formula Product. The absence of the term "Iron" from the Toddler
Drink's statement of identity is insufficient to distinguish the
Products because the front panel prominently references spinach and
iron, two vegetables known to be high in iron, as part of its
OptiGRO graphic.

The labeling of the Toddler Drink and Infant Formula gives
caregivers of children of the targeted age group the false
impression that the Toddler Drink is the appropriate "next step"
for a child's nutritional needs after the first year of life.

The Plaintiff relied on the statements, omissions and
representations of the Defendant, and the Defendant knew or should
have known the falsity of same. The Plaintiff and class members
would not have purchased the product or paid as much if the true
facts had been known, suffering damages.

Feeding infants and toddlers, including the transition from only
breastfeeding or infant formula with iron to the regular family
diet is "critical for establishing healthy dietary preferences and
preventing obesity in children."

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends "exclusive
breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life with the addition of
complementary foods and the continuation of breastfeeding until at
least 12 months of age."

U.S. Nielsen data shows that advertising spending on transition
formula quadrupled between 2003 and 2015, with sales increasing
almost threefold during this period. These products are practically
identical to infant formula in that they are based on milk powder
with added nutrients.

The Plaintiff bought the product at or exceeding the
above-referenced price because she liked the product for its
intended use for those children in the applicable age-range to whom
she was a caregiver, and believed the product was necessary and/or
valuable to the nutritional needs of said children.

Abbott manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells Similac
Go & Grow Toddler Drink, a milk-based powder purporting to meet,
and be necessary for, the nutritional needs of children between 12
and 36 months.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

ACT: Settles Class Action for $16 Million
-----------------------------------------
Scott Jaschik at insidehighered.com reports that ACT has agreed to
settle a class action suit that charges it with disclosing --
without appropriate permission -- some test takers' disability
status to colleges and scholarship organizations.

ACT has not admitted any wrongdoing and says in the agreement that
it agreed to settle only to avoid the litigation costs and
uncertainty of prolonged litigation.

However, ACT is making real changes in its practices and has agreed
to pay $16 million for violations of state law to members of the
class who live in California.

FairTest: The National Center for Fair & Open Testing, which
monitors lawsuits against testing companies, says that $16 million
is the largest settlement ever agreed to by an admissions testing
company.

Under the agreement, ACT cannot:

-- Provide any information on score reports for the ACT Test"  . .
. which discloses that the examinee received disability-related
testing accommodations or that the examinee has a disability
(including examinees self-identifying as having a disability)."

-- Use "school" or "national" to "identify the location of an exam
administration on score reports for the ACT Test . . . that would
identify whether an individual took the ACT Test by way of national
or special testing."

-- Include "any examinee's answer to any question regarding
disabilities on any score report for
the ACT Test sent to any covered program, for any test taken in a
college-reportable manner."

-- Ask about "an examinee's disability status during
registration."

For years, testing companies resisted the efforts of people with
disabilities to get accommodations on standardized tests. Those
accommodations are now guaranteed by state and federal law. Since
then, much of the fighting over accommodations has been over
disclosing them. Advocates for those with disabilities argue that
colleges would be less likely to admit someone with disabilities.

Halie Bloom, lead plaintiff (among 65,728 in the class), said in a
statement, "It took a lot of courage for me to stand up publicly
for myself and others like me, especially knowing that in our
society, test scores are considered a measure of how 'smart'
someone is. I'm honored to be a part of this change that
permanently impacts college admissions and recruitment for students
with disabilities and gives us the power to decide for ourselves if
and how to disclose our own unique stories."

ACT released this statement: "Neither the settlement nor the court
found that ACT violated any laws or rights of students with
disabilities or privacy rights. ACT's mission includes serving
underserved populations, including students with disabilities. ACT
creates opportunities in education for students with disabilities;
this is a longstanding priority for ACT and will continue to be."
[GN]


ADAMAS PHARMA: MOU Signed to Settle Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, 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 it signed a
Memorandum of Understanding on October 29, 2020 to settle a
putative class lawsuit for a payment of $7.5 million to eligible
settlement class members in resolution of claims asserted against
the Company, its officers, directors, and the other defendants.

On May 13, 2019, the putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in California
Superior Court for the County of Alameda.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by the
Company and certain of the Company's current and former directors
and officers for allegedly making false statements and omissions in
the registration statement and prospectus filed by the Company in
connection with its January 24, 2018, secondary public offering of
common stock.

On October 29, 2020, Adamas signed a Memorandum of Understanding to
settle this lawsuit for a payment of $7.5 million to eligible
settlement class members in resolution of claims asserted against
the Company, its officers, directors, and the other defendants. The
settlement will be paid by the Company's Director & Officer
liability insurance.

As a result of signing the Memorandum of Understanding and the
potential liability becoming probable and estimable, the Company
has recorded a litigation settlement liability of $7.5 million,
which is included in other current liabilities on the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Additionally, the Company has recorded an insurance litigation
recovery of $7.5 million within prepaid expenses and other current
assets on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets, which
represents the estimated insurance proceeds agreed with the
Company's insurance carrier in excess of the Company's retention.

The Company and the other defendants continue to deny each of the
plaintiff's claims and all liability. The Company has agreed to the
settlement to resolve the disputes, avoid the costs and risks of
further litigation, and avoid further distractions to management.

Adamas said, "This settlement remains subject to final
documentation and approval by the court. A final non-appealable
closure of this court action is expected in mid-2021."

Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorporated on November 15, 2000, is
a pharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in developing
medicines to manage the daily lives of those affected by chronic
neurologic disorders. The Company offers a platform based on an
understanding of time-dependent biologic effects of disease
activity and drug response to achieve relief without tolerability
issues. The company is based in Emeryville, California.

ADAMAS PHARMA: Securities Class Suit Ongoing in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, 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 class action lawsuit filed in
federal court in the Northern District of California (Case No.
4:19-cv-08051).

The putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
federal securities laws was filed on December 10, 2019.

This lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers.

On March 16, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in
federal court in the Northern District of California (Case No.
4:20-cv-01815).

This lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by certain of the Company’s
current and former directors and officers.

The Company is named as a nominal defendant only.

On April 6, 2020, another, virtually identical, shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Northern
District of California (Case No. 4:20-cv-02320).

This lawsuit contains the same allegations, claims, and defendants
as the first derivative action.

Other similar cases may be filed in the future. In all of these
actions, Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

These actions are ongoing.

The Company believes it has strong factual and legal defenses to
all actions and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorporated on November 15, 2000, is
a pharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in developing
medicines to manage the daily lives of those affected by chronic
neurologic disorders. The Company offers a platform based on an
understanding of time dependent biologic effects of disease
activity and drug response to achieve relief without tolerability
issues. The company is based in Emeryville, California.




ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: ARPI, Sidney Naiman Putative Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm.com 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 putative class action suit initiated by
Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc. and Sidney Naiman.

On July 29, 2020, a putative class action was filed against
Alarm.com Incorporated d/b/a ICN Acquisition, among other
defendants, by Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc. and Sidney Naiman in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

The complaint seeks statutory damages under the TCPA, injunctive
relief, and other relief.

The company had agreed to waive service of the complaint, and its
response is due November 20, 2020.

Alarm.com said, "Based on currently available information, we have
determined a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this
time."

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software platform
solutions for smart residential and commercial properties in the
United States and internationally. The company provides interactive
security solutions to control and monitor their security systems,
as well as connected security devices, including door locks, motion
sensors, thermostats, garage doors, and video cameras; and high
definition video monitoring solutions, such as live streaming,
smart clip capture, secure cloud storage, video alerts, continuous
HD recording, and commercial video surveillance solutions.
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered
in Tysons, Virginia.

ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Bid to Nix Hicks Putative Class Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm.com 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 Court granted
the company's motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint
initiated by Craig Hicks in its entirety.

On May 8, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the company by Hicks in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, or the TCPA, and the Virginia Telephone Privacy
Protection Act, or the VTPPA.

The complaint seeks statutory damages under the TCPA and VTPPA,
injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorneys' fees.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 2,
2020, and the plaintiff filed his response on July 16, 2020. The
company filed its reply on July 22, 2020.

On August 6, 2020, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software platform
solutions for smart residential and commercial properties in the
United States and internationally. The company provides interactive
security solutions to control and monitor their security systems,
as well as connected security devices, including door locks, motion
sensors, thermostats, garage doors, and video cameras; and high
definition video monitoring solutions, such as live streaming,
smart clip capture, secure cloud storage, video alerts, continuous
HD recording, and commercial video surveillance solutions.
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered
in Tysons, Virginia.

ALASKA AIRLINES: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Clarkson USERRA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CASEY CLARKSON, Plaintiff, v. ALASKA AIRLINES INC.,
HORIZON AIR INDUSTRIES INC., and ALASKA AIRLINES PENSION/BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-0005-TOR
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington granted in part the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.

The case concerns two of the Defendants' employment policies
regarding military leave and their compliance with the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA").  

Plaintiff Casey Clarkson was employed as an airline pilot by
Horizon until Nov. 6, 2017 and thereafter was employed by Alaska,
and during his employment with both Defendants was a member of the
Washington Air National Guard.  He alleges that neither Horizon nor
Alaska provides servicemember-employees with paid short-term
military leave, despite providing other forms of paid short-term
leave.

The Plaintiff also alleges that Horizon applies a "virtual credit"
policy to employees who take military leave.  The "virtual credit"
policy allocates 2.45 credit hours per day for paid and unpaid
leave days to employees, which reflects fewer credit hours than the
employee would have received on days when they are scheduled to
fly.  The number of hours per month that an employee works or is
credited determines that employee's status as a Regular Line
holder, which comes with a minimum pay guarantee and a more
predictable schedule, or a Reserve or Reduced Line holder, which do
not.

Because an employee who takes short-term military leave is only
credited with 2.45 hours per day rather than the full amount of
hours they would have worked had they not taken leave, the employee
who takes short-term military leave is then required to either work
additional hours to maintain their Regular Line holder status or to
forfeit their Regular Line holder status.

The Plaintiff took military leave from June 8, 2017 through July 8,
2017, received virtual credit for his military leave, and was
demoted to a Reserve Line holder from a Regular Line holder upon
his return to work.  He took military leave again in October 2017
and was able to meet the 70-hour threshold to maintain his Regular
Line holder status in October 2017, but only by working extra days
when he was not on military leave.

In August 2017, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the U.S.
Department of Labor regarding the "virtual credit" policy.  On Oct.
4, 2017, the Department completed its investigation of the
Plaintiff's complaint and concluded that the "virtual credit"
policy violated USERRA.  Despite the finding, Horizon continues to
use a virtual credit policy.  In February 2018, Horizon adopted an
updated matrix for virtual credit.

On Jan. 7, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in federal court
challenging the Defendants' paid leave and "virtual credit"
policies' compliance with USERRA.  On June 16, 2019, the Court
denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss but granted the Plaintiff
leave to amend the Complaint.

On July 1, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which is
the current operative complaint.  The Amended Complaint raises five
causes of action: (1) violation of USERRA for failure to re-employ
employees in their proper line holder position following military
leave; (2) violation of USERRA for failing to treat military
service as continued employment for determining line holder status;
(3) violation of USERRA for transferring employees to inferior line
holder positions following military leave; (4) violation of USERRA
for failure to provide paid military leave while providing other
forms of paid short-term leave; and (5) violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for failure to
respond to the Plaintiff's ERISA request.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification proposes the
following class definitions:

  a. Virtual Credit Class (Counts I-III): All current and former
     employees of Horizon or any subsidiary, joint venture, or
     division of Horizon who were subjected to Horizon's "virtual
     credit" policy with respect to a period of military leave
     from May 1, 2017 through the date of the judgment.

  b. Paid Leave Class (Count IV Only): All current or former
     Alaska union represented employees or Horizon employees who
     have taken short-term military leave from Oct. 10, 2004
     through the date of the judgment and current or former
     Alaska non-union employees who took short-term military
     leave between Oct. 10, 2004 and Dec. 31, 2017.

The matter was heard with telephonic oral argument on Aug. 4, 2020.


As an initial matter, Judge Thomas notes that the Plaintiff's
proposed Virtual Credit Class definition exceeds the scope of the
Amended Complaint.  Counts I-III all seek relief for employees who
were demoted from Regular Line holder positions as a result of the
virtual credit policy, or were required to work additional hours to
avoid demotion.  These claims are narrower than the Plaintiff's
proposed class definitions because they limit the class to those
who were not only subject to the "virtual credit" policy, but who
were also demoted in their line holder status as a result of the
policy or were required to work additional hours to avoid demotion.
Accordingly, the Judge considers the present class certification
motion within the scope of the Plaintiff's claims as alleged in the
Amended Complaint.

The Virtual Credit Class must be limited to employees whose line
holder status was reduced as a result of the "virtual credit"
policy or who were required to work additional hours to maintain
their status, in order to comply with the scope of the Amended
Complaint.  If the Defendants identify evidence to indicate that
the causation issue further narrows the size of the Virtual Credit
Class, it may properly be the subject of a motion for class
decertification.

Judge Thomas finds that class adjudication would serve the
interests of individual class members for whom the potential
recovery may be small in comparison to the costs of litigation.
The parties do not identify other litigation concerning the same
subject-matter.  The district is an appropriate forum given the
extent of the Defendants' business in this state and the number of
class members who reside in the district.  Finally, with the
limitations to the class definition, the case could feasibly be
managed as a class action.  With certain restrictions to the scope
of the classes, the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for
class certification.

Accordingly, Judge Thomas granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification.  

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Judge Thomas certified the
following Classes in the case:

  a. Virtual Credit Class (Counts I-III): All current and former
     employees of Horizon who were subjected to Horizon's virtual
     credit policy with respect to a period of military leave and
     who were demoted or were forced to work additional hours in
     order to maintain their line holder status as a result of
     the virtual credit policy from May 1, 2017 through Nov. 6,
     2017.

  b. Paid Leave Class (Count IV Only): All current or former
     Alaska or Horizon pilots who have taken short-term military
     leave from October 10, 2004 through the date of the judgment.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B), Judge Thomas certified the
following claims, including all damages related thereto:

  a. Virtual Credit Class (Counts I-III): The claims that Horizon
     gave the class members virtual credit during short-term
     military leave at a lesser rate than if they had been
     continuously employed resulting in reemployment at an
     inferior position, in violation of USERRA which requires
     reemployment in the position of employment in which the
     person would have been employed if the continuous employment
     of such person with the employer had not been interrupted by
     such service, or in the position of employment in which the
     person was employed on the date of the commencement of the
     service in the uniformed services (count I); that Horizon
     failed to treat the class members' military leaves of
     absence as continuous employment in computing the number of
     hours of credit they had for purposes of determining the
     employee's position following a period of military leave,
     including the seniority and rights and benefits which
     would have attained if the person remained continuously
     employed, in violation of USERRA (Count II); and that
     Horizon, by applying it virtual credet policy demoted or
     transferred class members following their military leave
     without cause, in violation of USERRA (count III).

  b. Paid Leave Class (Count IV Only): The claim that
     Defendants Alaska and Horizon failed to pay the regular
     wages or salaries of class members when they took
     short-term military leave, while paying pilots when
     they took comparable forms of non-military leave, in
     violation of the class members' rights under USERRA.

Plaintiff Casey Clarkson is appointed as the Class Representative
for both certified Classes.

R. Joseph Barton of Block & Leviton LLP and Michael J. Scimone of
Outten & Golden LLP are appointed as the Co-Lead Class Counsel for
the Classes.  Peter Romer-Friedman of Gupta Wessler PLLC, Matthew
Crotty of Crotty & Son Law Firm, PLLC, and Thomas G. Jarrard of the
Law Office of Thomas G. Jarrard are appointed as additional Class
Counsel for the Classes.

Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B), within 14 days from the date of the
Order, the class counsel is ordered to serve and file a proposed
Notice to members of the certified classes and suggest a method by
which it should be accomplished and at whose expense.  The Notice
will comply with the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 4, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4u2mf9u from Leagle.com.


ALLERGAN PLC: Court Denies Class Certification in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Shapiro, Esq. -- EShapiro@mintz.com -- of Mintz, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that in a scathing
decision by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, the Court denied class certification of the
Allergan securities class action ("Allergan"). See In re Allergan
PLC Sec. Litig., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179371 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 29,
2020). Regardless of the underlying merits of the class action's
allegations, the decision came as a surprise to many as the Court,
itself, found this securities class action, concerning the
Company's textured silicone-gel breast implants, to be "a
garden-variety securities fraud suit . . .." Id. Nevertheless,
class certification was denied as the Lead Plaintiff was found to
be inadequate, primarily because it sought the services of not one,
but two plaintiffs firms, despite the Court's earlier insistence
that it choose only one law firm. Id. at *25. The denial of class
certification came on the heels of an Illinois court's dismissal of
individual plaintiffs' claims against Allergan concerning the
textured silicone-gel breast implants. See Opinion and Order, Dietz
v. Allergan, Inc., No. 20 L 4843 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook County,
October 8, 2020) (dismissing claims against Allergan on preemption
grounds).

The procedural history of the Allergan securities class action is a
familiar one, with one wrinkle: the presumptive Lead Plaintiff
hired two law firms to represent it. Following a recall of
Allergan's textured silicone-gel breast implants and a 7% stock
drop, multiple lawsuits were filed against Allergan. The cases were
consolidated and an institutional investor was appointed Lead
Plaintiff based on the Court's conclusion that not only was the
institutional investor qualified, but also that it had the largest
holding in Allergan. See Cook v. Allergan PLC, 2019 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 51962, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019). The Court conditioned
its appointment of Lead Plaintiff on its selection of one law firm
to serve as lead counsel, noting "this court is not interested in
appointing co-lead counsel in this matter." Id. at *10. The Court
explained:      

Unless there is some special reason why the services of two firms
are needed, the appointment of co-lead counsel tends to inflate
legal fees -- a result this court is particularly anxious to avoid.
No reason for having two law firms rather than one is suggested in
[proposed lead plaintiff's] moving papers.          

Id. The day after the Court's appointment of Lead Plaintiff, the
institutional investor designated its lead counsel. In re Allergan
PLC Sec. Litig., No. 18-cv-12089, Dkt. No. 50 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22,
2019). Months later, however, both law firms referenced in Lead
Plaintiff's original motion papers signed the institutional
investor's opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss, which was
granted in part. See id, Dkt. No. 76 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2019).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, class certification is
proper where (1) the class is "so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable," (2) there exist common questions of law
and fact; (3) lead plaintiff's claims or defenses are "typical" of
the class; and (4) "representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a). In this case, Lead Plaintiff must also demonstrate "that the
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members and that a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3). While class certification papers routinely dispute
typicality and commonality, the sole element in dispute in Allergan
was whether the representative parties would "fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class." Ultimately, the Court found
that it would not, and therefore declined to certify the class.

The Second Circuit has previously stated that "class certification
may be denied on adequacy grounds where the proposed class
representative is 'unwilling or unable to protect the interests of
the class against the possibly competing interests of the
attorneys.'" In re Allergan PLC Sec. Litig., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
179371, at *16 (quoting Baffa v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec.
Corp., 222 F.3d 52, 61 (2d Cir. 2000)). The Allergan Court further
noted: "It is this court's experience (and I have quite a bit of
it) that the involvement of multiple firms tends to inflate legal
fees to the detriment of the other class members." Id. at *17.
Ultimately, the Court found that Lead Plaintiff's continued use of
two law firms, which were "fully involved in every aspect of this
case" and had entered into an undisclosed 55%-45% fee arrangement,
id. at *18, "renders them inadequate to serve as class counsel."
Id. at *21. Notably, the Court indicated that had it known two law
firms would have been needed, it would have appointed a different
Lead Plaintiff in the first instance. Id. at *19.  

The Court gave Lead Plaintiff two options to remedy the deficiency:
(1) "prosecute its claim individually, hiring (at its own expense)
as many law firms as it likes" or (2) allow "some other putative
class member [to] step up and seek to replace" the Lead Plaintiff
within 30 days. Id. at *25. Moving forward, defense attorneys are
likely to cite to this decision when opposing class certification
in cases in which the lead plaintiff has hired multiple law firms.
Such cases may be increasingly rare, however, as Allergan may also
serve as a warning to institutional investors seeking the
assistance of two law firms to guide their class action strategy to
pare down the representation to only one firm. [GN]


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Klaas Appeals ERISA Suit Ruling to 11th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John Klaas, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled John Klaas, et al v. Allstate
Insurance Company, Case No. 2:13-cv-00685-ECM-KFP, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

The appellate case is captioned as John Klaas, et al v. Allstate
Insurance Company, Case No. 20-14104, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN E. KLAAS; FRANK M. BERARDI, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; DAVID R. SANGSTON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; TERRY G.
MOUNTFORD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;
GARNET TURNER; SUZANNE WILLINGHAM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; DONALD KERR; JAMES CARTRETTE; BILL
HUFF; KATHY SHEPHERD; VERNON BENTLEY; TED SPEIWAK; HERB WOFFORD;
ALBERTA NIXON; CHARLIE DRAKE; HERBERT VIDALES; and RICHARD SCHOLL
are represented by:

          Taylor Bartlett, Esq.
          William Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          Christopher Boyce Hood, Esq.
          Jeanie Snipes Sleadd, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 1st Ave North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          E-mail: taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
                  wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com
                  chood@hgdlawfirm.com
                  jsleadd@hgdlawfirm.com  

               - and -

          Kearney Dee Hutsler, III, Esq.
          KEARNEY DEE HUTSLER, PC
          15 Richard Arrington Blvd N Ste 320
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 414-9979

               - and -

          Robert Jay Pearl, Esq.
          THE PEARL LAW FIRM, P.A.
          7400 Tamiami Trl N Ste 101
          Naples, FL 34108
          Telephone: (239) 653-9330

               - and -

          Glenn Murdock, Esq.
          2906 Canterbury Rd
          Birmingham, AL 35223

Defendant-Appellee ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by:

          Christopher Kenneth Meyer, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
          1 S Dearborn ST
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: cmeyer@sidley.com  

               - and -

          David James Middlebrooks, Esq.
          LEHR MIDDLEBROOKS VREELAND & THOMPSON, PC
          2021 3rd Ave N Ste 300
          PO Box 11945
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3002
          E-mail: dmiddlebrooks@lehrmiddlebrooks.com

               - and -

          Anne E. Rea, Esq.
          1620 A N Mohawk St
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Telephone: (312) 943-2529

               - and -

          Yale Taitz Freeman, Esq.
          YALE T. FREEMAN, PA
          7257 NW 4th Blvd Ste 82
          Gainesville, FL 32607
          Telephone: (239) 530-2500
          E-mail: ytfreeman@ytfreemanlaw.com

AMERICAN RENAL: Court to Consider $5.7MM Class Deal on Jan. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benesch, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey will consider a proposed
settlement of class action case involving individuals who purchased
common stock in American Renal Associates between Aug. 10, 2016 and
Mar. 27, 2019.  It's alleged the defendants made false statements
concerning ARA's financial results, including that they were
prepared in compliance with GAAP and the adequacy of their internal
controls.  If approved, the settlement would result in a payout of
$5,775,000, plus interest and minus attorney fees and other
expenses, to the class.  The hearing to discuss the proposed
settlement is set for Jan. 12. [GN]


ANGLO AMERICAN: To Defend Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------
iol.co.za reports that Anglo American South Africa (Aasa) is being
sued in a class action filed on behalf of more than 100,000
residents of Zambia's Kabwe district who were believed to have been
poisoned by lead.

Mbuyisa Moleele and Leigh Day attorneys said that they had filed
the class-action lawsuit in the high court in Gauteng.

Leigh Day attorneys is no stranger to class lawsuits and was
involved in the silicosis litigation against the mining firm. In
2018, Anglo and five other companies paid about R5 billion to
settle the lawsuit.

Aasa said that it noted the reports of the class action, and the
company would defend its position.

The lawsuit alleges that Aasa, which managed and controlled the
Kabwe lead mine between 1925 and 1974, was liable for substantial
emissions of lead into the local environment due to deficiencies in
the design and systems of operation and control of the lead that
Aasa failed to ensure were rectified.

The class action also claims Aasa failed to ensure the clean-up of
the communities' contaminated land and alleged that, according to
experts, about two-thirds of the lead currently in the local
environment was likely to have been deposited there between 1925
and 1974. Kabwe was one of the world's most productive lead mines
during this time.

The mining operation was transferred to ZCCM, a Zambian state-owned
company, in 1974.

The claimants are seeking compensation for children under 18, as
well as girls and women who have been, or may, become pregnant in
the future.

They also want blood lead screening for children and pregnant women
in Kabwe, and a clean-up of the area to ensure that the health of
future generations of children and pregnant women is not
jeopardised.

Partner at Mbuyisa Moleele, Zanele Mbuyisa, said Aasa had to take
responsibility for the environmental and social impact of the
mine.

"Aasa is considered a mining giant that has been instrumental in
building the economies of various countries, but it also has to be
acknowledged that their operations have caused the decimation of
communities and long-lasting damage to the health of those
communities," said Mbuyisa.

According to the attorneys, the claimants - mainly young children -
were suffering from alarming levels of lead poisoning which,
depending on various factors, including the blood lead level,
causes a range of significant conditions, from psychological,
intellectual and behavioural damage to serious and permanent
physical damage to their bodily organs, neurological systems and
fertility.

In extreme cases, serious brain damage and deaths occur.

In pregnant women, the lead they ingested as children was absorbed
into their bones and released during pregnancy. Women were also
exposed to lead during pregnancy from the surrounding environment.

Richard Meeran, a partner and head of the international department
at Leigh Day, said from the 1950s Anglo American publicly committed
to making a lasting contribution to communities in which it
operated.

"Its current human rights policy is to contribute to remediation
when its business has contributed to adverse human rights impacts.
This ongoing public health disaster is the result of a flagrant
disregard for the health of the local community, which is totally
at odds with those grand public pronouncements," Meeran said.

In response to the lawsuit, Anglo American said: "The company will
review the claims made and will take all necessary steps to
vigorously defend its position," said the group.

Anglo American said it was one of several investors in the company
that owned the Kabwe mine until the early 1970s.

"Anglo American was, however, at all times, far from being a
majority owner. Furthermore, in the early 1970s, the company that
owned the mine was nationalised by the government of Zambia and for
more than 20 years. Thereafter, the mine was operated by a
state-owned body until its closure in 1994," Anglo American said.
[GN]


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Investors Seek Final OK of $15MM Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that investors in a Houston-based fiber optics
manufacturer Applied Optoelectronics Inc. on Oct. 20 asked a Texas
judge to give final approval to a $15.5 million deal to end a class
action claimed the company inflated its stock prices by covering up
declining sales. [GN]


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Discovery Ongoing in AOT Holding's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland 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 discovery
is ongoing in the putative class action suit initiated by AOT
Holding AG.

On September 4, 2019, AOT filed a putative class action under the
U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district court in Urbana,
Illinois, alleging that the Company sought to manipulate the
benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol derivatives traded
on futures exchanges.

AOT alleges that members of the putative class suffered "hundreds
of millions of dollars in damages" as a result of the Company's
alleged actions. In May 2020, the court granted in part and denied
in part the Company's motion to dismiss, and the parties are
engaged in discovery.

On July 14, 2020, Green Plains Inc. and its related entities filed
a putative class action lawsuit, alleging substantially the same
operative facts, in federal court in Nebraska, seeking to represent
all sellers of ethanol.

On July 23, 2020, Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC filed a putative
class action in federal court in Illinois alleging substantially
the same operative facts and asserting claims under the Sherman
Act. The Company denies liability, and is vigorously defending
itself in these actions.

Archer-Daniels-Midland said, "As these actions are in pretrial
proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to predict the
final outcome with any reasonable degree of certainty, but believes
the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows."

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores,
processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products, and
ingredients. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Discovery Ongoing in Suit v. Golden Peanut
------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland 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 discovery
is ongoing in the putative class action suit against Golden
Peanut.

On September 5, 2019, D&M Farms, Mark Hasty, and Dustin Land filed
a putative class action on behalf of a purported class of peanut
farmers under the U.S. federal antitrust laws in federal court in
Norfolk, Virginia, alleging that the Company's subsidiary, Golden
Peanut, and another peanut shelling company, conspired to fix the
price they paid to farmers for raw peanuts.

In May 2020, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and
the parties are engaged in discovery.

The Company denies liability and is vigorously defending itself, in
this action.

Archer-Daniels-Midland said, "As this action is in pretrial
proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to predict the
final outcome with any reasonable degree of certainty, but believes
the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows."

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores,
processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products, and
ingredients. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


AURORA CANNABIS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Dec. 1 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against certain officers of Aurora Cannabis, Inc. ("Aurora" or the
"Company") (NYSE: ACB). The class action, filed in United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and docketed under
20-cv-13819, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Aurora
securities between February 13, 2020, and September 4, 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 Aurora securities during the
class period, you have until December 1, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com . To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Aurora is headquartered in Edmonton, Canada. The Company produces
and distributes medical cannabis products worldwide. It is
vertically integrated and horizontally diversified across various
segments of the cannabis value chain, including facility
engineering and design, cannabis breeding, genetics research,
production, derivatives, high value-add product development, home
cultivation, wholesale, and retail distribution.

In 2018, the Canadian government approved the Cannabis Act, which
legalized and regulated the use of recreational cannabis. In
response to the statute's approval and the corresponding surge of
the recreational cannabis industry, Aurora completed a series of
acquisitions to expand the Company's presence and increase its
distribution, including the Company's all-share purchase of the
Canadian medical cannabis producer MedReleaf for a total
consideration of 3.2 billion Canadian dollars. Like many other
companies in the cannabis industry, however, the Company
encountered a variety of difficulties as the industry surged,
including, inter alia , overproduction, regulatory delays, and
competition from the black market.

On February 6, 2020, shortly before the start of the Class Period,
Aurora issued a press release announcing, inter alia , a "business
transformation plan," to "better align the business financially
with the current realities of the cannabis market in Canada while
maintaining a sustainable platform for long-term growth."
Specifically, the press release touted that the plan was "expected
to include significant and immediate decreases in selling, general
& administrative ("SG&A") expenses and capital investment plans."

The complaint alleges that thought the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known
to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
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.

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]


AURORA CANNIBAS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 1 Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Aurora Cannabis. You can
review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you
may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations
Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at
212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Aurora Cannibas, Inc. (NYSE:ACB)

Class Period: February 13, 2020 - September 4, 2020

Deadline: December 1, 2020

For more info: www.bgandg.com/acb

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and specifically
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) the
Company's purported "business transformation plan" and cost reset
failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (3) accordingly, it was
foreseeable that the Company would record significant goodwill and
asset impairment charges; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]


AUSTRALIA: 1,600+ Indigenous People Register for Stolen Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angie Raphael, writing for News.com.au, reports that more than
1,600 indigenous people, many of whom were taken from their
families as children, have so far registered their interest in a
class action against the West Australian government over allegedly
stolen wages.

The legal action, lodged with the Federal Court through Shine
Lawyers, is being funded through Litigation Lending Services
Limited, which last year settled a similar case with the Queensland
government for $190 million.

LLS non-executive director Nyunggai Warren Mundine said during the
Aboriginal protection era, many indigenous Australians worked hard
but were never paid their wages.

"The moneys owed to them was paid to the Protector of Aborigines in
each state," he said in a statement on Oct. 21.

"The recovery of wages earned by indigenous Australians, but never
paid to them, is a major area of unfinished business.

"A scheme set up by the WA government returned to them only a few
thousand dollars each for a lifetime's work. It was an insult."

To be eligible to join the class action, an indigenous person or
their relative must have worked in WA before 1972 and not been paid
all of their wages.

It is not yet known how many people who have registered so far will
actually be eligible.

Among the group is Ron Harrington-Smith, who was aged four when he
was taken from his mother in 1949 to work at the Mount Margaret
mission.

His duties included chopping and carting wood to missionaries,
marshalling livestock and emptying toilet pans down a mineshaft.

"All of this was barefoot and in squalid conditions," Mr
Harrington-Smith said in a statement.

"They might have given us some tucker, like spuds and onions, but
we never got paid."

A spokeswoman for Aboriginal Affairs Minister Ben Wyatt, who is
indigenous, said the state aimed to settle the case through
mediation and was currently considering the grounds of the
compensation claims. [GN]


AUSTRALIA: Victorians' Hotel Quarantine Suits Unlikely to Succeed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Estcourt, writing for The Age, reports that judges, top silks
and legal academics have urged caution for Victorians looking to
join hotel quarantine class actions launched against the Andrews
government, saying they are unlikely to succeed.

The class actions, which are often spruiked as being worth
billions, are among a barrage of lawsuits faced by the state
government over its response to the coronavirus pandemic.

In all, there are at least 11 separate actions in Victoria related
to COVID-19 losses, eight of which are being pursued against the
Andrews government.

Of those, two major class action lawsuits have been lodged against
the government and senior ministers in an attempt to hold them
responsible for retrenchments and financial damage caused by the
imposition of lockdown measures to combat the spread of
coronavirus.

The legal bids allege that the Andrews government's mismanagement
of the hotel quarantine scheme amounts to negligence, claiming that
when COVID-19 escaped the hotels and infected people within the
broader community, the resulting lockdown to drive down
transmission, and the economic damage it caused, was foreseeable
and the government's fault.

Barrister Lachlan Armstrong, QC, who has practised in class actions
for 25 years and was involved in all six Black Saturday bushfire
class actions, said the cases would inevitably be drawn into an
analysis of government policy and could fail on that basis.

"Courts tend to take the view that governments are elected to make
decisions on behalf of the community," he said.

"And when it comes to decisions about the allocations of public
resources or policy responses to crisis, those are political
decisions that should be left to the ballot box.

"The courts are reluctant to try to put themselves in the shoes of
public health officials or ministers in determining how government
powers should be exercised."

Mr. Armstrong said if a government was held responsible for this
kind of policy response, it would be difficult for the court to
"draw a line" regarding where their liability would end.

"If the argument is that the relevant state government actor, when
making decisions about how to run the hotel quarantine program,
should have foreseen that the wrong decision could result in an
outbreak leading to lockdown restrictions, leading to an impact on
particular businesses, then why would you stop at those
businesses?

"Why would the impact on the businesses employees not be
foreseeable? If the business can't pay its rent, why not the impact
on the landlord?"

Mr Armstrong said another issue was that the cases claim "pure"
economic losses, meaning financial losses not resulting from
personal injuries or property damage such as a business premises
being burnt down.

"The reasons for the court's and law's traditional reluctance to
compensate for pure economic loss is where does the liability
stop," he said.

"I think the general public hears about class actions that are high
profile, high value, and often hears most about them when the big
ones settle. That tends to create an impression that every class
action is a strong prospect.

"People shouldn't be organising their affairs on any assumption
that these cases will result in pots of gold."

Former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein, who has worked on and
adjudicated class actions when he was on the bench, said the claims
could succeed but carry real risks.

"From the claimants' perspective, the claims have prospects of
success but could be described as involving real, and known,
risks," he said.

Mr. Finkelstein said that cases hinge on two key factors: does the
government owe a legal duty of care to the plaintiffs, which he
thinks at present they do not, and whether the number of people who
have the right to compensation can be defined.

"Here the important issue is whether the 'indeterminacy' factor
will be a stumbling block. The indeterminacy arises at two levels:
the nature of the class (all people in Victoria) and the nature of
the loss (pure economic loss).

"In each of these areas indeterminacy could be a real barrier to
success. In part, this is because each area is still legally
unsettled."

Documents filed in the Supreme Court in August claim the government
acted negligently because it failed to ensure that hotel security
guards had access to and knew how to use personal protective
equipment, and that they weren't adequately trained to protect
against the risk of community transmission of COVID-19 from
returned travellers.

The two cases say that anyone retrenched in Victoria, or whose
Victorian business has lost revenue due to the lockdowns, may be
eligible for compensation, and lists Victorian Jobs Minister Martin
Pakula and former health minister Jenny Mikakos, and their
department secretaries, as defendants.

Damian Scattini, a partner at Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan
who is managing the business class action, said his litigation
would not be drawn into challenging government policy.

"We're not criticising the government for the hard lockdown –
that policy is a matter for them and it's not our place to
criticise. But if you do hotel quarantine, you best do it
reasonably competently, or you'll be called to account," he said.

Managing partner of Carbone Lawyers, Tony Carbone, who is managing
the litigation on behalf of retrenched workers, said the decision
by the Victorian government to forgo using Australian Defence Force
personnel to guard hotels amounted to gross negligence.

"The whole decision-making around hotel quarantine was totally
flawed. It was an arbitrary decision, a very poor one. Botched is
not the word – shambolic is the way to describe it," he said,
"I've got people that are suicidal, I've got people that are
destitute."

Melbourne Law School lecturer Brad Jessup agreed with statements
urging caution, saying courts have historically found that the
government doesn't have a duty of care in situations where people
have incurred financial losses due to policy decisions.

"If you lose your house, that's something they prioritise more than
losing your income," he said.

"For good or bad, sometimes the law is used as a tool for putting
pressure on the government to change policy or to do something."

Dr Jessup said it was worth distinguishing between the "hopeless"
cases brought against the Andrews government on the one hand, and
the "hopeful" cases brought against aged care facilities St Basil's
Home for the Aged and Epping Gardens Aged Care that were accused of
negligence.

He also said that estimates of billion-dollar damages being awarded
by the court would not approach that amount. [GN]


AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces 2 Potential Suits Alleging ERISA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, 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 two potential class action suits in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In May 2020, two potential class action complaints were filed
against the company (ADP), TotalSource and related defendants in
the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey.

The complaints assert violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in connection with the ADP
TotalSource Retirement Savings Plan's fiduciary administrative and
investment decision-making.

The complaints seek statutory and other unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

These claims are still in their earliest stages and the Company is
unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of loss,
with respect to these matters.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

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

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey.


AUTOMATIC DATA: Settlement Reached in Biometric Data Use Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, 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 reached a settlement of all outstanding claims against
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) for $25.0 million, subject to
the court's preliminary approval.

In June 2018, a potential class action complaint was filed against
the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois asserting
that Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) violated the Illinois
Biometric Privacy Act in connection with its collection, use and
storage of biometric data of employees of its clients who are
residents of Illinois.

In addition, similar potential class action complaints have been
filed in Illinois state courts against ADP and/or certain of its
clients with respect to the collection, use and storage of
biometric data of the employees of these clients.

In June 2020, the Company reached a settlement of all outstanding
claims against ADP for $25.0 million, subject to the court's
preliminary approval.

The Company does not expect that any of the remaining cases against
ADP's clients will result in any material liabilities to the
Company.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey.


AXOGEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Einhorn Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
AxoGen, 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
second amended class action complaint in the case entitled, Einhorn
v. Axogen, Inc., et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069, is pending.

On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff Neil Einhorn, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United Stated District Court for the Middle
District of Florida alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against Axogen, certain of its directors and officers, and (i)
the several underwriters named in an Underwriting Agreement, dated
November 16, 2017, by and between the Company and Leerink Partners
LLC, as representative of the several underwriters named therein,
and (ii) the several underwriters named in an Underwriting
Agreement, dated May 8, 2018, by and between the Company and
Jefferies LLC and Leerink Partners LLC, as representatives of the
several underwriters named therein, captioned Einhorn v. Axogen,
Inc., et al., No. 8:19-cv-00069 (M.D. Fla.).  

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants made false or misleading
statements in connection with the Company’s November 2017
registration statement issued regarding its secondary public
offering in November 2017 and May 2018 registration statement
issued regarding its secondary public offering in May 2018, and
during a class period of August 7, 2017 to December 18, 2018.  

In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants issued false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company aggressively increased prices to mask lower sales; (2)
that the Company's pricing alienated customers and threatened the
Company's future growth; (3) that ambulatory surgery centers form a
significant part of the market for the Company's products; (4) that
such centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) that
the Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the
Company paid to generate sales; (6) that the Company's consignment
model for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel
stuffing; (7) that the Company offered purchase incentives to sales
representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) that the
Company's sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue
to artificially inflate metrics; (9) that the Company lacked
adequate internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and
backdating of revenue; (10) that the Company's key operating
metrics, such as number of active accounts, were overstated; and
(11) 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.  

Axogen was served on January 15, 2019. On February 4, 2019, the
court granted the parties' stipulated motion which provided that
Axogen is not required to file a response to the complaint until
thirty days after Plaintiff files a consolidated amended complaint.


On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint, and on July 22, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss. Plaintiff filed opposing papers on August 12, 2019. The
Court held a status hearing on September 11, 2019 and stayed all
deadlines regarding the parties' obligations to file a case
management report. On December 4, 2019 the parties' presented oral
arguments.  

On April 21, 2020, the Court dismissed the Complaint without
prejudice, finding the Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.  

The Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint on June
22, 2020.  Axogen filed a motion to dismiss on August 6, 2020. The
Plaintiff filed an opposition to such dismissal on September 20,
2020.  

Both parties have requested to present oral arguments and await the
Court's decision.  

Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, reimbursement of
expenses and costs, including counsel and expert fees and such
other relief as the court deems just and proper.

The Company and Individual Defendants continue to dispute the
allegations and intend to vigorously defend against any amended
Complaint, if filed. The amount of loss, if any, cannot be
reasonably estimated at this time.

AxoGen, Inc. provides surgical solutions for physical damage or
transection to peripheral nerves. The company provides its products
to hospitals, surgery centers, and military hospitals in the United
States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other European countries,
and internationally. AxoGen, Inc. is headquartered in Alachua,
Florida.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Bid for Writ of Certiorari Seeking Appeal Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation 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 United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs'
Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking permission to appeal.

In late December 2005, Pershing LLC became a clearing firm for
Stanford Group Co., a registered broker-dealer that was part of a
group of entities ultimately controlled by R. Allen Stanford.

Stanford International Bank, also controlled by Stanford, issued
certificates of deposit ("CDs"). Some investors allegedly wired
funds from their SGC accounts to purchase CDs.

In 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Stanford
with operating a Ponzi scheme in connection with the sale of CDs,
and SGC was placed into receivership.

Alleged purchasers of CDs have filed two putative class action
proceedings against Pershing: one in November 2009 in Texas federal
court, and one in May 2016 in New Jersey federal court.

Thirteen lawsuits have been filed against Pershing in Louisiana,
Florida and New Jersey federal courts in January 2010, January and
February 2015, October 2015 and May 2016. The purchasers allege
that Pershing, as SGC's clearing firm, assisted Stanford in a
fraudulent scheme and assert contractual, statutory and common law
claims.

In March 2019, a group of investors filed a putative class action
against The Bank of New York Mellon in New Jersey federal court,
making the same allegations as in the prior actions brought against
Pershing.

All the cases that have been brought in federal court against
Pershing and the case brought against The Bank of New York Mellon
have been consolidated in Texas federal court for discovery
purposes.

On Dec. 19, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of six individual federal lawsuits brought
under Florida law, which will also apply to four other similarly
situated cases.

On March 18, 2020, the plaintiffs in those lawsuits filed a
Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking permission to appeal to the
United States Supreme Court.

On Oct. 5, 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied the
Petition.

In July 2020, after being enjoined from pursuing claims before the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. ("FINRA"), an
investment firm filed an action against Pershing in Texas federal
court. FINRA arbitration proceedings also have been initiated by
alleged purchasers asserting similar claims.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation provides a range of
financial products and services to institutions, corporations, and
high net worth individuals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through two segments,
Investment Management and Investment Services. The Bank of New York
Mellon Corporation was founded in 1784 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.

BECTON DICKINSON: Sued Over Defective Alaris System Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Drugwatch reports that lawyers are filing BD Alaris Systems
lawsuits for people who suffered a serious injury, coma or death
after receiving infusions from a faulty Alaris pump. Between 2019
and 2020, Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) recalled millions of
its BD Alaris System devices for defective software, hardware and
other issues because of serious injuries and at least one death

The BD Alaris System is an infusion pump system that delivers
fluids, medications, blood and blood products to adults, children
and babies. Hospitals and health care facilities across the United
States depend on these infusion pumps to deliver lifesaving fluids
and medications to patients.

Infusion pumps such as those manufactured by BD often deliver
high-risk medications and critical fluids, and when they fail it
can lead to serious patient safety issues, according to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.

Over the years, BD has issued several recalls for its Alaris System
infusion pumps. In 2020 alone, the company issued four recalls
affecting more than one million devices sold in the United States.

The FDA classified most of the 2020 recalls as class one recalls,
meaning the recalled device may cause serious injuries and death.

"We stand behind the safety and clinical benefits of the Alaris
System, which is used in the care of approximately 70 percent of
patients undergoing infusion therapy in the U.S.," said Ranjeet
Banerjee, BD Worldwide President, Medication Management Solutions
in a Feb. 14, 2020 customer letter.

Reasons for Recall
BD issued recalls of its 8000 series infusion pumps for various
hardware, software and user-related errors. BD said these errors
could lead to over and under infusion, interruption of infusion and
infusion delay.

High-risk patients receiving life-saving medications have the
greatest risk of harm from delays or interruption of infusion.
Problems with infusion could even lead to death for these patients,
BD said in its Aug. 4, 2020 Urgent Medical Device Recall letter for
its BD Alaris PC Unit Model 8015 PC Unit Front Case with Keypad
Replacement Kits.

"For some hospitals, it could be a financial issue (to not replace
the pumps) and then a quality issue," Joseph Spallina, a health
care consultant with Arvina Group LLC, told Crains. "This is a very
serious recall, no doubt about it. The facts are the FDA said using
these devices can cause serious injury or death to patients."

A BD spokesperson told Crains that even though the company issued a
voluntary recall, "a recall doesn't mean that devices have to be
returned or stop being used."

Reasons for recalls include:

   * Software and system errors (class one recall)

   * Alarm failures for low battery and "end of infusion" (class
     one recall)

   * Use-related errors (class one recall)

   * Delay options programming (class one recall)

   * Damaged inter-unit interface (IUI) connectors (class one
     recall)

   * Broken elements on module platen (class one recall)

   * Improperly secured PCU battery (class one recall)

   * Dim LED segment(s) on modules (class two recall)

At the time of the recalls, BD was aware of 55 reported injuries
and one death.

It also reported 1,186 complaints related to its Alaris PC Unit
Model 8015. The company recalled the devices because one or more
keys on the keypad could become stuck or unresponsive. This could
prevent clinicians from changing medication or fluid infusions and
infusion delay. [GN]


BLACKBAUD INC: Fails to Safeguard Customers' PII, Mortensen Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHRYN MORTENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BLACKBAUD, INC., a South Carolina
Resident, Case No. 2:20-cv-04042-RMG (D.S.C., Nov.19, 2020) is
class action complaint against Blackbaud for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard protected health information as
defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA), medical information, and other personally identifiable
information, including without limitation names, dates of birth,
phone numbers, addresses, health insurance information, and medical
treatment information (PII), failure to comply with industry
standards to protect information systems that contain that PII, and
failure to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to the
Plaintiff and other Class members that their PII had been
compromised.

The Plaintiff seeks orders requiring Blackbaud to fully and
accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been
compromised, to adopt reasonably sufficient security practices and
safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure in the future,
and to provide for the lifetimes of the Plaintiff and Class members
identity theft protective services as the Plaintiff and Class
members will be at an increased of identity theft due to the
conduct of Blackbaud.

Blackbaud is a publicly traded company that provides its customers
with cloud-based software, services, expertise, and data
intelligence. Blackbaud has "millions of users" located in over 100
countries around the world. Blackbaud's customers include
nonprofits, foundations, corporations, educational institutions,
healthcare institutions, and the individual change agents who
support them.

In the course of doing business with Blackbaud's customers,
individuals such as the Plaintiff are regularly required to provide
either Blackbaud's customers or Blackbaud directly with their PII.
That PII is then stored on Blackbaud's cloud.

On September 9, 2020, Nuvance Health, a healthcare facility and
customer of Blackbaud, notified its patients, including the
Plaintiff, that their PII, which Nuvance was storing on Blackbaud's
cloud, had been illegally exposed to unauthorized third parties
between February 7, 2020 and May 20, 2020.

Since the announcement of the data breach, other healthcare
facilities have issued similar notices, indicating that their
patients also had PII compromised in the wide-reaching data breach.
The said breach compromised the PII of 314,829 patients at Nuvance
alone, according to Nuvance's notice to the U.S. Secretary of
Health and Human Services at the Office for Civil Rights.

As a result of Blackbaud's failure to implement and follow basic
security procedures, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII is now
in the hands of criminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members now and
will forever face a substantial increased risk of identity theft.
Consequently, the  Plaintiff and Class Members have had to spend,
and will continue to spend, significant time and money in the
future to protect themselves due to Blackbaud's failures, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, alleges claims for for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, declaratory
judgment, breach of confidence, violation of South Carolina's Data
Breach Security Act, and invasion of privacy.

Plaintiff Kathryn Mortensen is a citizen and resident of Wilton,
Connecticut. At all times relevant to this complaint, Ms. Mortensen
was a patient of Nuvance, whose PII was disclosed without
authorization to an unknown third party as a result of the
Blackbaud data breach.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank B. Ulmer, Esq.
          Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER LLC
          701 E. Bay St., Ste. 411
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 444-5404
          Facsimile: (843) 444-5408
          E-mail: fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com
                  smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
          768 Plandome Road
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (516) 426-6870
          E-mail: paul@paulwhalen.com

BLINK CHARGING: Gross Law Alerts of Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of Blink Charging Company shareholders.
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.

Blink Charging Company (NASDAQ:BLNK)

Investors Affected: March 6, 2020 - August 19, 2020A class action
has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Blink Charging
Company. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) many of Blink's charging stations are damaged,
neglected, non-functional, inaccessible, nor non-accessible; (ii)
Blink's purported partnerships and expansions with other companies
were overstated; (iii) the purported growth of the Company's
network has been overstated; 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/blink-charging-company-loss-submission-form/?id=10402&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]


BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Wiretaps Web Site Visitors, Sacco Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN SACCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and MOUSEFLOW, INC., Case
No. 2:20-at-01155 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2020) is a class action suit
brought against the Defendants for wiretapping the electronic
communications of visitors to the Website worldofwarcraft.com.

The wiretap, which is embedded in the JavaScript code of
worldofwarcraft.com, is used by the Defendants to secretly observe
and record Website visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other
electronic communications, including the entry of personally
identifiable information (PII) in real time. By doing so, the
Defendants have violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act
(CIPA), says the complaint.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a class
of all people in California whose electronic communications were
intercepted through the use of the Defendants' wiretap on
worldofwarcraft.com.

Plaintiff Brian Sacco is a California resident who lives in
Roseville, California and is domiciled in California. He has
visited worldofwarcraft.com 2-3 times in approximately March and
April of 2020. He was in California at the time. While visiting
worldofwarcraft.com, he was unaware that his keystrokes, mouse
clicks, and other electronic communications, including the
information, were being intercepted in real-time and disclosed to
Mouseflow, nor did he consent to the same.

Blizzard is a California corporation with its headquarters in
Irvine, California. Blizzard owns and operates the Website
worldofwarcraft.com. Blizzard does business throughout California.


Mouseflow, Inc. is a Texas corporation with its headquarters in
Austin, Texas. Mouseflow does business throughout California.

Mouseflow is a tool that surreptitiously records, in real time, a
Website visitor's interactions on a Website. As explained in its
brochure, Mouseflow's "Session Replay" recordings include a user's
keystrokes, mouse clicks, mouse movements, scrolls and other
interactions with the Website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com

BRISTOL-MYERS: Class Certification Bid in Suit v. Celgene Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 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
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated
class action suit against its wholly-owned subsidiary, Celgene, is
pending.

Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed
against Celgene and certain of its officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning
(1) trials of GED-0301, (2) Celgene's 2020 outlook and projected
sales of Otezla, and (3) the new drug application for Zeposia.

The Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative
class. In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's amended complaint in full.

In December 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss in part
and granted the motion to dismiss in part (including all claims
arising from alleged misstatements regarding GED-0301).

Although the Court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the
dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims
are now dismissed with prejudice.

No trial date has been scheduled for the claims that survived the
Court's order.

In May 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification.
In June 2020, the defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

In April 2020, certain Schwab management investment companies on
behalf of certain Schwab funds filed an individual action in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting
largely the same allegations as the Celgene Securities Class Action
against the same remaining defendants in that action. In July 2020,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint
in full.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.

BRISTOL-MYERS: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 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
and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd continue to defend class action
suits in Quebec and Ontario related to Abilify.

BMS and Otsuka are co-defendants in product liability litigation
related to Abilify.

Plaintiffs allege Abilify caused them to engage in compulsive
gambling and other impulse control disorders.

There have been over 2,500 cases filed in state and federal courts
and additional cases are pending in Canada. The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the federal court cases for
pretrial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida.

In February 2019, BMS and Otsuka entered into a master settlement
agreement establishing a proposed settlement program to resolve all
Abilify compulsivity claims filed as of January 28, 2019 in the MDL
as well as various state courts, including California and New
Jersey.

To date, approximately 2,700 cases, comprising approximately 3,900
plaintiffs, have been dismissed based on participation in the
settlement program or failure to comply with settlement-related
court orders.

In the U.S., approximately 30 cases remain pending on behalf of
plaintiffs, who either chose not to participate in the settlement
program or filed their claims after the settlement cut-off date.

There are ten cases pending in Canada (four class actions, six
individual injury claims). Out of the ten cases, only three are
active (the class actions in Quebec and Ontario and one individual
injury claim).

Both class actions have now been certified and will proceed
separately.

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

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.

BRISTOL-MYERS: Dismissal of CheckMate-026 Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 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 plaintiffs
in the putative class action suit related to the company's
disclosure to CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer, have
appealed the Court's decision granting the company's motion to
dismiss.

Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of
California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company, BMS's Chief Executive Officer,
Giovanni Caforio, BMS's Chief Financial Officer at the time,
Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives of
BMS.

The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed.

The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for
BMS's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in
lung cancer.

In September 2019, the Court granted BMS's motion to dismiss, but
allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. In
October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. BMS moved
to dismiss the amended complaint.

In September 2020, the Court granted BMS's motion to dismiss with
prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed the Court's decision in October 2020.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.

BRISTOL-MYERS: Thalomid & Revlimid-Related Antitrust Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 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 Court
in the class action suit related to Thalomid & Revlimid, entered a
final order approving a settlement agreement and dismissed the
matter.

Beginning in November 2014, certain putative class action lawsuits
were filed against Celgene--Bristol-Myers' newly-acquired
company--in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging that Celgene violated various antitrust, consumer
protection, and unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing
an exclusive supply contract for the alleged purpose of preventing
a generic manufacturer from securing its own supply of thalidomide
active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b) allegedly refusing to sell
samples of Thalomid and Revlimid brand drugs to various generic
manufacturers for the alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing
necessary for a New Drug Applications (NDAs) to be submitted to the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval to market generic
versions of these products, (c) allegedly bringing unjustified
patent infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval
for proposed generic versions of Thalomid and Revlimid, and/or (d)
allegedly entering into settlements of patent infringement lawsuits
with certain generic manufacturers that allegedly have had
anticompetitive effects.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and putative classes of
third-party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and damages. The
various lawsuits were consolidated into a master action for all
purposes.

In October 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of
two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the
District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class.

Celgene filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion and a motion
for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all state law claims where
the plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a class.

In October 2018, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and Celgene's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
In December 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification, which Celgene opposed.

In July 2019, the parties reached a settlement under which all the
putative class plaintiff claims would be dismissed with prejudice.


In December 2019, after certain third-party payors who were members
of the settlement class refused to release their potential claims
and participate in the settlement, Celgene exercised its right to
terminate the settlement agreement.

In March 2020, Celgene reached a revised settlement with the class
plaintiffs. In May 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement. In October 2020, the Court entered a final order
approving the settlement and dismissed the matter.

Bristol-Myers said, "That settlement does not resolve the claims of
certain entities that opted out of the first settlement."

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells biopharmaceutical
products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in
1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York.

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Securities Class Suit in Tennessee Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living 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 in
Tennessee.

In June 2020, the Company and several current and former executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws filed in
the federal court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

The lawsuit asserts that the defendants made material misstatements
and omissions concerning the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies that caused the Company's stock price to be
artificially inflated between August 2016 and April 2020.

While the Company cannot predict with certainty the result of this
or any other legal proceedings, the Company believes the
allegations in the suit are without merit and does not expect this
matter to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

In October 2020, an alleged stockholder of the Company filed a
stockholder derivative lawsuit in the federal court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, asserting claims on behalf of the Company
against certain current and former officers and directors for
alleged breaches of duties owed to the Company.

The complaint refers to the securities lawsuit described above and
incorporates substantively similar allegations.

Brookdale Senior Living Inc. is an operator of senior living
communities throughout the United States.  The Company is committed
to providing senior living solutions primarily within properties
that are designed, purpose-built, and operated to provide quality
service, care, and living accommodations for residents.  The
Company operates and manages independent living, assisted living,
memory care, and continuing care retirement communities. The
Company also offers a range of home health, hospice, and outpatient
therapy services to residents of many of its communities and to
seniors living outside of its communities. The Company is based in
Brentwood, Tennessee.

CAPACITORS ANTITRUST: Indirect Buyers' Class Cert. Bid Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO.
III), Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James
Donato entered an order:

   1. denying indirect purchaser plaintiffs' (IPP) class
      certification motion in all respects;

   2. terminating as moot the Defendants' Daubert motion to
      exclude the IPPs' expert, Dr. Russell L. Lamb;

   3. setting a status conference for December 10, 2020, at
      10:00 a.m.; and

   4. directing the IPPs, Shinyei and Taitsu to file by December
      3, 2020, a status update, including a jointly proposed
      schedule for pre-trial filings and trial.

The Court said, "the IPPs have not established that California law
can or should be applied to their proposed 31-state class. Even if
the Court were to permit residents of states not identified in the
complaint to join the case, the proposed 31-state class could not
be certified as one class under Rule 23(b)(3) because variations in
state law would defeat predominance. Certification of a multi-state
class under California law is denied."

In this multi-district antitrust litigation, several groups of
plaintiffs have alleged the defendant corporations engaged in a
long-running, global price-fixing conspiracy in the capacitor
industry. The IPPs are one of the plaintiff groups.

A copy of the Court's Order re indirect purchaser plaintiffs' class
certification motion dated Nov. 3, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2GWSFAN at no extra charge.[CC]

CASELLA WASTE: Vandemortel Class Suit Ongoing in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Casella Waste Systems, 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 suit initiated by  Richard
Vandemortel and Deb Vandemortel.

On or about September 17, 2019, Richard Vandemortel and Deb
Vandemortel filed a class action complaint against the company on
behalf of similarly situated citizens in Ontario County, New York.


The lawsuit has been filed in Ontario County. It alleges that over
one thousand (1,000) citizens constitute the putative class in the
New York Litigation, and it seeks damages for diminution of
property values and infringement of the putative class' rights to
live without interference to their daily lives due to odors
emanating from the Subtitle D landfill located in Seneca, New York,
which is operated by us pursuant to a long-term Operation,
Maintenance and Lease Agreement with Ontario County.

The New York Litigation was served on the company on October 14,
2019.

Casella said, "We intend to present a vigorous defense."

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

Casella Waste Systems, Inc. provides integrated and non-hazardous
solid waste services throughout the Eastern United States. The
Company offers collection, transfer, disposal, and recycling
services, generates steam, and manufactures finished products
utilizing recyclable materials. The company is based in Rutland,
Vermont.


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss GoTo Services Spinoff Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citrix Systems, 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'
motions to dismiss the class action suit related to the company's
2017 spin-off of Citrix's GoTo family of service offerings remains
pending.

On July 25, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed against Citrix,
LogMeIn, Inc. and certain of their current and former directors and
officers in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County, Florida.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making alleged misstatements and omissions in
LogMeIn's Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in connection
with the 2017 spin-off of Citrix's GoTo family of service offerings
and subsequent merger of that business with LogMeIn.

The complaint seeks among other things the recovery of monetary
damages.

On April 28, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint, which remain pending.

Citrix said, "We believe that Citrix and our current and former
directors named as defendants have meritorious defenses to these
allegations; however, we are unable to currently determine the
ultimate outcome of this matter or the potential exposure or loss,
if any."

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

Citrix Systems, Inc., incorporated on April 17, 1989, offers
Enterprise and Service Provider products, which include Workspace
Services solutions and Delivery Networking products. The Company's
Enterprise and Service Provider products include Cloud Services
solutions, and related license updates and maintenance, support and
professional services. The Company's NetScaler nCore Technology is
an architecture that enables execution of multiple packet engines
in parallel. The company is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 1 Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Acceptance
Corporation. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting
the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Credit Acceptance Corporation (NASDAQ:CACC)

Class Period: November 1, 2019 - August 28, 2020

Deadline: December 1, 2020

For more info: www.bgandg.com/cacc

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and specifically
failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was topping off the pools
of loans that they packaged and securitized with higher-risk loans;
(2) Credit Acceptance was making high-interest subprime auto loans
to borrowers that the Company knew borrowers would be unable to
repay; (3) the borrowers were subject to hidden finance charges,
resulting in loans exceeding the usury rate ceiling mandated by
state law; (4) Credit Acceptance took excessive and illegal
measures to collect debt from defaulted borrowers; (5) as a result,
the Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and possible
penalties from various regulators or lawsuits; and (6) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendant's positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and adherence to appropriate laws
and regulations were materially misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]


DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Seeks Dismissal of Oyoque Tuition Refund Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Buehler and Celeste Bott, writing for Law360, report that
DePaul University has asked an Illinois federal court to toss a
proposed class action by students seeking refunds of fees and
tuition in light of the school's move to remote classes during the
COVID-19 pandemic, arguing the case amounts to impermissible
"educational malpractice" claims.

In a motion to dismiss filed on Oct. 20 in the Northern District of
Illinois, the private Catholic university based in Chicago argued
that the Seventh Circuit and other courts have established
"overwhelming precedent foreclosing educational malpractice
actions." Courts are unwilling to wade into educational malpractice
issues because there is no standard of care by which to evaluate
educators, the university said.

The proposed class action, filed in June, also asserts breach of
contract claims against the university for not providing allegedly
promised in-person classes, but DePaul said it has no such
contractual responsibility.

"While plaintiffs' frustration with changes necessitated by the
COVID-19 pandemic is understandable, their legal claims fail for
several reasons," the university said.

DePaul halted in-person classes on March 11 and offered students
three options for the spring 2020 quarter: take a leave of absence,
forgo the quarter and receive a full refund, or proceed with remote
classes, the university said.

But now, members of the proposed class -- such as named plaintiff
Alhix Oyoque, who took remote classes and graduated in the spring
-- are seeking refunds, DePaul said.

Oyoque claims the university owes her $3,800 in tuition for the
spring quarter, but she hasn't received a refund yet. Her claims
are based on arguments that the online classes offered to students
during the public health crisis were "subpar in practically every
aspect."

She and other members of the proposed class didn't choose to attend
an online institution of higher learning; they chose to enroll on
an in-person basis. And DePaul markets its on-campus experience as
a benefit of enrollment on its website, according to the
complaint.

DePaul contends in its motion on Oct. 20 that it maintains
discretion over academic affairs and never made a contractual
promise to provide an in-person education under all circumstances.
The university was forced to make what it thought was the right
decision, it said.

"Its hands tied, DePaul, like many other universities, implemented
remote learning because it was the only viable solution for the
continuation of educational services in a safe manner," the
university said.

The proposed class action includes claims for breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and conversion. Oyoque is seeking to represent a
class of all students who paid DePaul's spring 2020 term tuition
whose tuition and fees haven't been refunded.

Oyoque and the proposed class are represented by Carl V. Malmstrom
of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, and L. Timothy
Fisher, Neal J. Deckant and Sarah N. Westcot of Bursor & Fisher
PA.

DePaul is represented by Daniel M. Blouin and Jaime R. Simon of
Winston & Strawn LLP.

The case is Oyoque et al. v. DePaul University et al., case number
1:20-cv-03431, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois. [GN]


DIETSCH AND WRIGHT: Court Awards $23,840 of Attorneys' Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESSERI MCCRAY, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DIETSCH AND
WRIGHT, P.A., Case No. 8:18-cv-00731-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge William F. Jung entered an order granting in part and denying
in part the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs.

The Court said, "Attorneys' fees are awarded in favor of Plaintiff
in the amount of $23,840.00 and costs in the amount of $525.70, for
a total of $24,365.70. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in
favor of Plaintiff and thereafter close the case. After careful
consideration of the submissions of the parties and the entire
file, the Court awards a reduced amount of attorneys’ fees and
costs."

The Plaintiff accepted an offer of judgment of $10,000 for the
class and $1,000 for the named, lead Plaintiff in this action
brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The
Plaintiff, as the prevailing party, seeks attorneys' fees of
$92,562.00, which represents approximately 250 hours expended, and
costs in the amount of $2,888.03.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2IF34Cf at no extra charge.[CC]

DOORDASH INC: Lona's Lil Eats Slams Webpage Misdirection
--------------------------------------------------------
Lona's Lil Eats, LLC, on its own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Doordash, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-06703 (N.D. Cal., September 24, 2020) seeks damages and
injunctive relief for false advertising under the Lanham Act and
for violation of the California False Advertising Law and Unfair
Competition Law of the California Business and Professions Code.

DoorDash is in the business of facilitating delivery services for
restaurants via its websites and mobile apps. Lona's Lil Eats does
not engage DoorDash in its business. However, it claims that should
a consumer were to search for "Lona's Lil Eats delivery," one of
the first results that comes up is a link on DoorDash's website.
Moreover, DoorDash would represent to customers looking for Lona's
that the restaurant was either "closed" or "unavailable." DoorDash
allegedly takes advantage of the existing market demand for Lona's
and other restaurants to drive traffic to its site and will
redirect customers to its "Partner Restaurants" by suggesting that
Lona's is not an option, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
      422 South Curson Avenue
      Los Angeles, CA 90036
      Tel: (314) 662-2836
      Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com

             - and -

      James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
      CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
      8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Tel: (314) 725-7700
      Direct: (314) 678-1064
      Fax: (314) 721-0905
      Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

             - and -

      Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
      Zachary P. Beatty, Esq.
      CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
      361 W. Lancaster Ave.
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      Email: steveschwartz@chimicles.com
             ZPB@chimicles.com


EHEALTH INC: Feb. 17 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
eHealth, 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 hearing on the
motion to dismiss filed in the consolidated purported class action
suit entitled, In re eHealth Securities Litig., Master File No.
4:20-cv-02395-JST (N.D. Cal.), is on February 17, 2021.

On April 8, 2020 and April 29, 2020, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed against the company, its chief executive
officer, Scott N. Flanders, its chief financial officer, Derek N.
Yung, and its then-chief operating officer, David K. Francis, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The cases are captioned Patel v. eHealth, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-02395 (N.D. Cal.) and Bertrand v. eHealth, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02967 (N.D. Cal.).

The complaints allege, among other things, that the company and
Flanders, Yung and Francis made materially false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material information regarding
the company's accounting and modeling assumptions, rate of member
churn and the company's profitability during the alleged class
period of March 19, 2018 to April 7, 2020.

The complaints allege that the company and Flanders, Yung and
Francis violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

The complaints seek compensatory and (in the Patel lawsuit)
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief
as the court deems proper.

On June 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the above-referenced
matters under the caption In re eHealth Securities Litig., Master
File No. 4:20-cv-02395-JST (N.D. Cal.).

The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
consolidated matter. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on August 25, 2020, which Defendants moved to dismiss.

The motion to dismiss is set to be heard by the court on February
17, 2021.

eHealth, Inc. provides private health insurance exchange services
to individuals, families, and small businesses in the United States
and China. The company operates through two segments, Medicare; and
Individual, Family and Small Business. eHealth, Inc. was
incorporated in 1997 and is headquartered in Santa Clara,
California.

ELECTRONICS ARTS: Faces Class Suit Over Loot Boxes in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Kent at eurogamer.net reports that it seems Electronics Arts
(EA) is once again facing legal trouble for its use of loot boxes,
as the company is now facing a class action lawsuit in Canada.

As spotted by esports and gaming law blog The Patch Notes, the
lawsuit was filed on 30th September by two individuals based in
British Columbia and Ontario, Mark Sutherland and Shawn Moore. The
suit argues that loot boxes constitute gambling, and that EA is
operating an unlicensed gambling business in breach of the Canadian
Criminal Code. It also argues EA is liable to the plaintiffs under
common law (including unjust enrichment) and has breached consumer
protection statutes such as the BC Consumer Protection Act by
failing to publish the odds of winning prizes and tying loot boxes
to gameplay progression.

The Patch Notes explains that because this is a class action,
everyone in Canada who has bought loot boxes from EA since 2008 is
covered by the suit, and the filing comes with a list of over 60
titles including EA's sports franchises, Mass Effect, Need for
Speed, Battlefield, Apex Legends and more. The plaintiffs are
seeking everything EA made through loot boxes since 2008 in
damages, so if the suit was to be successful, it's safe to say EA
would have to pay a whole lot of money.

The question is, then, what are the chances this will succeed? The
plaintiffs are apparently represented by a reputable firm in
British Columbia, which has experience in going after large
corporations. If you remember disagreements on the definition of as
gambling in the UK, however, you may recall the Gambling Commission
said loot boxes cannot be defined as gambling under current laws as
prizes cannot be "cashed out", and it seems this lawsuit could run
into similar problems in Canada. We'll have to see how it plays out
in court, and the next stage in the process is for EA to file a
response, and then wait for the court to determine whether the case
can proceed as a class action.

This isn't the first class action lawsuit EA has faced over loot
boxes this year, as a similar lawsuit targeting FIFA's Ultimate
Team mode was filed in California back in August (via VGC). As for
legislation on loot boxes in the UK, the government last month
opened a call for evidence on player and game organisation
experiences of loot boxes, which remains open until 22nd November.
[GN]


ELEMIS USA INC: Monegro Claims Website Inaccessible to the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frankie Monegro, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Elemis USA,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-07834 (S.D. N.Y., September 23,
2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York
State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.

Defendant is a skincare products company that owns and operates
www.timetospa.com. It offers products and services for online sale
and general delivery to the public. Monegro is legally blind and
claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Paul Force, Esq.
      STEIN SAKS, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 107
      Fax: (201) 282-6501
      Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


ELYSIUM HEALTH INC: Romero Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Elysium Health, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-07865, (S.D. N.Y., September 23, 2020), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Elysium Health is a dietary supplement manufacturer and retail
company and owns and operates the website, www.elysiumhealth.com,
that ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United
States, including New York State. Romero is legally blind and
claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, New York 11201
      Tel: (929) 575-4175
      Fax: (929) 575-4195
      Email: Joseph@cml.legal


EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Appeal in O'Donnell Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Equitable 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 a notice of appeal
has been filed in the putative class action suit entitled, Richard
T. O'Donnell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.

The lawsuit was filed in August 2015 at the Connecticut Superior
Court, Judicial Division of New Haven.

This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased variable annuities from Equitable Financial, which
were subsequently subjected to the volatility management strategy
and who suffered injury as a result thereof.

Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract alleging that
Equitable Financial implemented the volatility management strategy
in violation of applicable law.

Plaintiff seeks an award of damages individually and on a classwide
basis, and costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees,
expert witness fees and other costs.

In November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court
transferred this action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. In March 2017, the Southern District
of New York granted Equitable Financial's motion to dismiss the
complaint.

In April 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In April
2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the trial court's decision with instructions to remand the
case to Connecticut state court.

In September 2018, the Second Circuit issued its mandate, following
Equitable Financial's notification to the court that it would not
file a petition for writ of certiorari. The case was transferred in
December 2018 to the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District
of Stamford.

In December 2018, Equitable Financial sought dismissal of the
complaint by filing a motion to strike, which the court granted in
August 2019. Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint in
September 2019. Equitable Financial filed a motion for entry of
judgment in October 2019.

On August 3, 2020, the court granted Equitable Financial's motion
for entry of judgment. In August 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal.

Equitable Holdings said, "We are vigorously defending this
matter."

Equitable Holdings, Inc. operates as a diversified financial
services company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Individual Retirement, Group Retirement, Investment Management and
Research, and Protection Solutions. The company was founded in 1859
and is based in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Holdings, Inc. is
a subsidiary of AXA S.A.

On January 14, 2020, the company announced its plans to rebrand as
"Equitable" and to discontinue the use of the "AXA" brand. In
connection with this rebranding, the company removed "AXA" from its
legal entity name, which is now Equitable Holdings, Inc.

EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Suit over COI Rate Increase Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Equitable 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 litigation over  COI rate increase related
suit.

In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family
Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company.

This lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all
owners of universal life ("UL") policies subject to Equitable
Financial's COI rate increase.

In early 2016, Equitable Financial raised COI rates for certain UL
policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both issue ages 70
and above and a current face value amount of $1 million and above.


A second putative class action was filed in Arizona in 2017 and
consolidated with the Brach matter.

The current consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the
following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations by
Equitable Financial in violation of Section 4226 of the New York
Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section
349; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and
the California Elder Abuse Statute. Plaintiffs seek: (a)
compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and post-judgment interest;
(b) with respect to their claim concerning Section 4226, a penalty
in the amount of premiums paid by the plaintiffs and the putative
class; and (c) injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees in
connection with their statutory claims.

In August 2020, the federal district court issued a decision
granting in part Brach Plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification. The court certified nationwide breach of contract
and Section 4226 classes, and a New York State Section 349 class,
and class notice has gone out.

Equitable Financial filed a petition seeking permission to appeal
the decision to certify the Section 4226 class and New York State
Section 349 class.

Five other federal actions challenging the COI rate increase are
also pending against Equitable Financial and have been coordinated
with the Brach action for the purposes of pre-trial activities.

They contain allegations similar to those in the Brach action as
well as additional allegations for violations of various states’
consumer protection statutes and common law fraud. Three actions
are also pending against Equitable Financial in New York state
court.

Equitable Financial is vigorously defending each of these matters.

Equitable Holdings, Inc. operates as a diversified financial
services company worldwide. It operates through four segments:
Individual Retirement, Group Retirement, Investment Management and
Research, and Protection Solutions. The company was founded in 1859
and is based in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Holdings, Inc. is
a subsidiary of AXA S.A.

On January 14, 2020, the company announced its plans to rebrand as
"Equitable" and to discontinue the use of the "AXA" brand. In
connection with this rebranding, the company removed "AXA" from its
legal entity name, which is now Equitable Holdings, Inc.

EVENTBRITE INC: Securities Class Action Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 consolidated class action suit in
California.

Beginning on April 15, 2019, purported stockholders of the company
filed two putative securities class action complaints in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, and
three putative securities class action complaints in the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Mateo, against the
company, certain of its executives and directors, and its
underwriters for its initial public offering (IPO). Some of these
actions also name as defendants venture capital firms that were our
investors as of the IPO.

On August 22, 2019, the federal court consolidated the two pending
actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

The consolidated federal case is titled In re Eventbrite, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 5:19-cv-02019-EJD.

On October 11, 2019, the lead plaintiffs in the Federal Action
filed their amended consolidated complaint.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the company
misrepresented and/or omitted material information in its IPO
offering documents in violation of the Securities Act. The amended
complaint also challenges public statements made after the IPO in
violation of the Exchange Act.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of investors who purchased the company's Class A
common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering
documents, or between September 20, 2018 and May 1, 2019,
inclusive.

On December 11, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On March 18, 2020, the court vacated the hearing
on the defendants' motion to dismiss set for April 16, 2020.

On April 28, 2020, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss in its entirety with leave to amend and set a deadline of
June 24, 2020 for the plaintiff to file its second amended
consolidated complaint. On June 22, 2020, the Court extended lead
plaintiff's deadline to file its second amended consolidated
complaint to August 10, 202

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 enables 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.

EVOLUS INC: Pomerantz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Evolus, Inc. ("Evolus" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EOLS) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise, acquired Evolus stock between February 1,
2019 and July 6, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violation 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 Evolus securities during the
class period, you have until December 15, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Evolus is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Newport Beach,
California. The Company operates as a medical aesthetics company,
and develops, produces, and markets clinical neurotoxins for the
treatment of aesthetic concerns. Evolus' sole product is
Jeuveau(TM), which is a purified botulinum toxin indicated for the
temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe frown
lines in adults. As such, Evolus directly competes with Botox(R),
which is manufactured by Allergan plc and Allergan Inc.
("Allergan") and distributed by Medytox Inc. ("Medytox"). Botox(R)
has been the gold standard of the industry since its FDA approval
more than two decades ago.

Beginning in February 2019, Evolus embarked on a public campaign to
hype the market right before the commercial launch of its sole
leading product Jeuveau™. To secure an aggressive growth and a
rapid influx of revenue, Evolus and the Individual Defendants
disseminated dozens of public statements in which they promoted
Jeuveau™ as a proprietary formulation of the botulinum toxic type
A complex, purportedly developed by Korean bioengineering company
Daewoong through years of clinical research and millions of dollars
worth of investment in research and development. Among other
things, Evolus promised investors that it would attain the number
two U.S. market position within 24 months of launch.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the real
source of botulinum toxin bacterial strain as well as the
manufacturing processes used to develop Jeuveau(TM) originated with
and were misappropriated from Medytox; (ii) sufficient evidentiary
support existed for the allegations that Evolus misappropriated
certain trade secrets relating to the botulin toxin strain and the
manufacturing processes for the development of Jeuveau(TM); (iii)
as a result, Evolus faced a real threat of regulatory and/or court
action, prohibiting the import, marketing, and sale of Jeuveau(TM);
which in turn (iv) seriously threatened Evolus' ability to
commercialize Jeuveau(TM) in the United States and generate
revenue; and (v) any revenues generated from the sale of
Jeuveau(TM) were based on Evolus' unlawful activities, including
the misappropriation of trade secrets and secret manufacturing
processes belonging to Allergan and Medytox.

The investing public learned the real truth about Jeuveau(TM) on
July 6, 2020, when the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC")
issued its Initial Final Determination in a case brought by
Allergan and Medytox against Evolus, alleging that Evolus stole
certain trade secrets to develop Jeuveau(TM). Coming as a great
surprise to the unsuspecting investors, the ITC Judge found that
Evolus misappropriated the botulinum toxin strain as well as the
manufacturing processes that led to its development and
manufacture. To make things even more catastrophic, the ITC Judge
recommended a ten-year long ban on Evolus' ability to import
Jeuveau(TM) into the United States and a ten-year long cease and
desist order preventing Evolus from selling Jeuveau(TM) in the
United States.

This news caused a precipitous and immediate decline in the price
of Evolus shares, which fell 37% over the course of two trading
days, to close at $3.35 on July 8, 2020, on unusually high trading
volume. Following the news of the ITC's Initial Final Determination
and the subsequent price drop of Evolus' common shares, several
securities analysts downgraded Evolus' rating and significantly
lowered the Company's price target.

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]


EVOLUS INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Dec. 15 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 21 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Evolus, Inc. ("Evolus" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: EOLS) and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Evolus stock
between February 1, 2019 and July 6, 2020, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violation 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 Evolus securities during the
class period, you have until December 15, 2020, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Evolus is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Newport Beach,
California. The Company operates as a medical aesthetics company,
and develops, produces, and markets clinical neurotoxins for the
treatment of aesthetic concerns. Evolus' sole product is
Jeuveau(TM), which is a purified botulinum toxin indicated for the
temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate to severe frown
lines in adults. As such, Evolus directly competes with Botox(R),
which is manufactured by Allergan plc and Allergan Inc.
("Allergan") and distributed by Medytox Inc. ("Medytox"). Botox(R)
has been the gold standard of the industry since its FDA approval
more than two decades ago.

Beginning in February 2019, Evolus embarked on a public campaign to
hype the market right before the commercial launch of its sole
leading product Jeuveau(TM). To secure an aggressive growth and a
rapid influx of revenue, Evolus and the Individual Defendants
disseminated dozens of public statements in which they promoted
Jeuveau(TM) as a proprietary formulation of the botulinum toxic
type A complex, purportedly developed by Korean bioengineering
company Daewoong through years of clinical research and millions of
dollars worth of investment in research and development. Among
other things, Evolus promised investors that it would attain the
number two U.S. market position within 24 months of launch.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) the real
source of botulinum toxin bacterial strain as well as the
manufacturing processes used to develop Jeuveau(TM) originated with
and were misappropriated from Medytox; (ii) sufficient evidentiary
support existed for the allegations that Evolus misappropriated
certain trade secrets relating to the botulin toxin strain and the
manufacturing processes for the development of Jeuveau(TM); (iii)
as a result, Evolus faced a real threat of regulatory and/or court
action, prohibiting the import, marketing, and sale of Jeuveau(TM);
which in turn (iv) seriously threatened Evolus' ability to
commercialize Jeuveau(TM) in the United States and generate
revenue; and (v) any revenues generated from the sale of
Jeuveau(TM) were based on Evolus' unlawful activities, including
the misappropriation of trade secrets and secret manufacturing
processes belonging to Allergan and Medytox.

The investing public learned the real truth about Jeuveau(TM) on
July 6, 2020, when the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC")
issued its Initial Final Determination in a case brought by
Allergan and Medytox against Evolus, alleging that Evolus stole
certain trade secrets to develop Jeuveau(TM). Coming as a great
surprise to the unsuspecting investors, the ITC Judge found that
Evolus misappropriated the botulinum toxin strain as well as the
manufacturing processes that led to its development and
manufacture. To make things even more catastrophic, the ITC Judge
recommended a ten-year long ban on Evolus' ability to import
Jeuveau(TM) into the United States and a ten-year long cease and
desist order preventing Evolus from selling Jeuveau(TM) in the
United States.

This news caused a precipitous and immediate decline in the price
of Evolus shares, which fell 37% over the course of two trading
days, to close at $3.35 on July 8, 2020, on unusually high trading
volume. Following the news of the ITC's Initial Final Determination
and the subsequent price drop of Evolus' common shares, several
securities analysts downgraded Evolus' rating and significantly
lowered the Company's price target.

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

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com[GN]


EXPEDIA GROUP: Bench Trial on Buckeye Suit Set for March 8
----------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, 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 court in
Buckeye Tree Lodge lawsuit denied Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment and denied in part and granted in part Expedia's motion
for summary judgment on September 9, 2020.

The case is scheduled for a bench trial on March 8, 2021.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc.


EXPEDIA GROUP: Tentative Settlement Agreed in Suit vs. HomeAway.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, 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 on October 13,
2020, the parties in the cases against HomeAway.com, Inc., agreed
to a tentative settlement of the remaining individual claims.

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia segments.
The company was formerly known as Expedia, Inc. and changed its
name to Expedia Group, Inc. in March 2018. Expedia Group, Inc.

FCA US: Bid to Partially Dismiss 2nd Amended Class Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS PECK, YVETTE
TAYLOR, TAYADRA CABBELL, KATHLEEN RETZ ADAM and JAMES SCHREINER on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. FCA US
LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01789-MN (D. Del.),
the Hon. Judge Maryellen Noreika entered an order:

   1. denying the Defendant's Motion to Find Dennis Peck
      Inadequate to Represent Class; and

   2. denying the Defendants' Motion to Partially Dismiss the
      Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Court said, "As for Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Court
has already considered and rejected these arguments. Specifically,
on September 10, 2019, the Plaintiffs sought leave of the Court to
file a second amended complaint. The Defendant submitted a brief in
opposition, arguing that amendment would be futile. The Court
rejected that argument and granted leave to amend. The summary of
the argument in the Defendant's opposition to the amendment and the
summary of the argument in the Defendant's motion to dismiss are
verbatim the same. There is no reason for the Court to revisit
arguments it has already considered and rejected except in the
context of a Motion for Reargument, which the Defendant has not
filed, and which would be untimely if Defendant filed now.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied."

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant concealed a known safety
defective in a valve stem and nut used on vehicles with a tire
pressure monitoring system. Based on this allegation, the
Plaintiffs have asserted claims for violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability under Michigan, Massachusetts, and Illinois state
law, deceptive and unfair practices in violation of the Consumer
Protection Acts of Massachusetts and Illinois, and common law fraud
by concealment.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Nov. 4, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lCKngu at no
extra charge.[CC]

GARRETT MOTION: Gross Law Alerts of Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of Garrett Motion Inc shareholders.
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.

Garrett Motion Inc. (NYSE:GTX)

Investors Affected: October 1, 2018 - September 18, 2020A class
action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Garrett
Motion Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) due to its agreement to indemnify and reimburse
Honeywell for certain asbestos-related liability, Garrett was
saddled with an unsustainable level of debt; (2) as a result,
Garrett had a highly leveraged capital structure that posed
significant challenges to its overall strategic and financial
flexibility; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Garrett's ability to
gain or hold market share was impaired; (4) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company was reasonably likely to seek bankruptcy
protection; 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/garrett-motion-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=10402&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]


GARRISON CAPITAL: Smith Sues Over Portman Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
Edward Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Garrison Capital Inc., Joseph Tansey, Brian
Chase, Cecil Martin, Joe Morea, Matthew Westwood, Portman Ridge
Finance Corporation and Citadel Acquisition Sub Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-01290 (D. Del., September 24, 2020), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the merger between Garrison Capital and
Portman Ridge Finance Corporation, rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Garrison Capital is an externally-managed, non-diversified,
closed-end management investment company.

Under the proposed transaction, Garrison Capital stockholders will
receive $19,100,000 in aggregate cash consideration, a number of
shares of Portman Ridge common stock equal to the quotient of the
Garrison Capital per share divided by the Portman Ridge per share
and an aggregate amount in cash equal to $5,000,000 with the
Aggregate Cash Consideration and the Exchange Ratio paid by Portman
Ridge's external investment adviser Sierra Crest Investment
Management LLC. Based on the number of shares of Portman Ridge
common stock issued and outstanding and the NAV of each of Portman
Ridge and Garrison Capital as of June 30, 2020, it is expected
that, following consummation of the Proposed Merger, current
Portman Ridge stockholders will own approximately 60% of the
post-merger combined company and former Garrison Capital
stockholders will own approximately 40% of the post-merger combined
company.

However, the registration statement for the merger failed to
include by the company's financial advisor, Keefe, Bruyette &
Woods, Inc. in order for stockholders to make a fully informed
decision whether to vote in favor of the proposed transaction or
seek appraisal needed by the shareholders to make an informed
decision on the merger deal.

Joseph Tansey, Brian Chase, Cecil Martin, Joseph Morea and Matthew
Westwood serve on the board of Garrison Capital. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
      Email: rm@maniskas.com


GENERAL MOTORS: December Final Hearing on Economic-Loss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company 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 final fairness
hearing in the economic-loss related suit is set for December
2020.

The company is aware of over 100 putative class actions that were
filed against GM in the U.S. and Canadian courts alleging that
consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or
Motors Liquidation Company (MLC) had been economically harmed by
one or more of the 2014 recalls and/or the underlying vehicle
conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases).

In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported
compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain
damages or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the
vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other
relief.

Many of the pending U.S. economic-loss claims have been transferred
to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District).

These plaintiffs have asserted economic-loss claims under federal
and state laws, including claims relating to recalled vehicles
manufactured by GM and claims asserting successor liability
relating to certain recalled vehicles manufactured by MLC.

In August 2017, the Southern District granted GM's motion to
dismiss the successor liability claims of plaintiffs in seven of
the sixteen states at issue on the motion and called for additional
briefing to decide whether the plaintiffs' claims can proceed in
the other nine states.

In December 2017, the Southern District granted GM's motion and
dismissed the plaintiffs' successor liability claims in an
additional state, but found that there are genuine issues of
material fact that prevent summary judgment for GM in eight other
states.

In January 2018, GM moved for reconsideration of certain portions
of the Southern District's December 2017 summary judgment ruling.
That motion was granted in April 2018, dismissing plaintiffs'
successor liability claims in any state where New York law
applies.

In September 2018, the Southern District granted our motion to
dismiss claims for lost personal time (in 41 out of 47
jurisdictions) and certain unjust enrichment claims, but denied our
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' economic loss claims in 27
jurisdictions under the "manifest defect" rule.

In August 2019, the Southern District granted the company's motion
for summary judgment on plaintiffs' economic loss "benefit of the
bargain" damage claims (the August 2019 Opinion).

The Southern District held that the plaintiffs' conjoint
analysis-based damages model failed to establish that plaintiffs
suffered difference-in-value damages and without such evidence,
plaintiffs' difference-in-value damage claims fail under the laws
of all three bellwether states: California, Missouri, and Texas.

Later in August 2019, the bellwether plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting that the Southern District reconsider its summary
judgment decision or allow an interlocutory appeal if
reconsideration is denied.

In December 2019, the Southern District denied the plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration of the August 2019 Opinion, but granted
the plaintiffs' motion for certification of an interlocutory
appeal.

On April 1, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted the
bellwether plaintiffs' petition seeking leave to appeal the August
2019 Opinion. On April 15, 2020, the bellwether plaintiffs and GM
filed a Stipulation to withdraw the appeal from the Second Circuit
based on the class settlement agreement described below. Pursuant
to the Stipulation, the bellwether plaintiffs can reinstate the
appeal no later than April 2021. The Second Circuit endorsed the
Stipulation by order on April 16, 2020.

In September 2019, GM filed an updated motion for summary judgment
on the plaintiffs' remaining economic loss claims that were not
addressed in the Southern District's August 2019 Opinion and
renewed its evidentiary motion seeking to strike the opinions of
the plaintiff's expert on plaintiffs' alleged "lost time" damages
associated with having the recall repairs performed.

In March 2020, GM, the plaintiffs, and the MLC GUC Trust reached a
settlement agreement to resolve on a national basis the economic
loss claims of the proposed settlement class and proposed
sub-classes, consisting of consumers who purchased or leased GM
vehicles covered by the seven 2014 safety recalls at issue in the
Southern District and the Bankruptcy Court.

The proposed Class Settlement Agreement provides a common fund of
approximately $120 million for settlement class members, of which
GM will fund approximately $70 million and the GUC Trust will fund
the remaining $50 million. GM will also pay attorneys' fees and
costs that may be awarded by the Southern District to plaintiffs’
counsel up to a maximum of $35 million.

In April 2020, the Avoidance Action Trust (AAT), GM, and the
plaintiffs reached a tentative settlement under which the AAT will
pay an insignificant amount and will be added as a settling party
to the Class Settlement Agreement.

During April and May 2020, the Southern District entered orders
granting preliminary approval of the Class Settlement Agreement.

The deadline for class members to object to or opt-out of the Class
Settlement Agreement was October 2020. The final fairness hearing
is set for December 2020.

General Motors Company designs, builds and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. The company operates
through GM North America, GM International, GM Cruise, and GM
Financial. General Motors Company was founded in 1908 and is
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.

GENERAL MOTORS: Defective Airbag Inflators Class Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company 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 several class action suits related to defective
airbag inflators manufactured by Takata Corporation.

There are several putative class actions that have been filed
against GM, including in the federal courts in the U.S., in the
Provincial Courts in Canada, and in Mexico and Israel, arising out
of allegations that airbag inflators manufactured by Takata are
defective.

General Motors said, "At this early stage of these proceedings, we
are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss
will be incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of possible
loss."

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

General Motors Company designs, builds and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. The company operates
through GM North America, GM International, GM Cruise, and GM
Financial. General Motors Company was founded in 1908 and is
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for April 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, 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 trial in the
consolidated Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier case is scheduled to
commence on April 1, 2022.

On April 6, 2020, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company
(GLAIC), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the company, was
named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, captioned Brighton Trustees, LLC, on behalf of and as
trustee for Diamond LS Trust; and Bank of Utah, solely as
securities intermediary for Diamond LS Trust; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and
Annuity Insurance Company.

On May 13, 2020, GLAIC was also named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned Ronald L. Daubenmier,
individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company.

On June 26, 2020, plaintiffs filed a consent motion to consolidate
the two cases. On June 30, 2020, the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an order consolidating
the Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier cases.

On July 17, 2020, the Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint, alleging that GLAIC subjected
policyholders to an unlawful and excessive cost of insurance
increase.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims for breach of contract
and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million.

On August 31, 2020, the company filed an answer to the plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint. The trial is scheduled to commence on April
1, 2022.

Genworth said, "We intend to vigorously defend this action."

Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.

HARLEM CHICKEN: Resto Staff Seeks Unpaid OT Pay, Withheld Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Miguel Antonio Anacleto, Vicente Juarez and Virgilio Juarez
Vazquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Harlem Chicken LLC, Michalis Kokkinos and Jenny Doe,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07898 (S.D. N.Y., September 24, 2020),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and
spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant in New York City
under the name "Chirping Chicken" where Plaintiffs were employed as
a cook and as delivery workers. They claim to have generally worked
in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime for hours in excess
of 40 hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for
workdays exceeding 10 hours. Chirping Chicken claimed tip credit
for all hours worked despite requiring Hernandez to work non-tipped
duties for hours exceeding 20% of the total hours worked each
workweek. Plaintiffs also claim to have never received wage
statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Must Face Kanefsky Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell 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's motion to dismiss the putative class action suit
initiated by David Kanefsky has been denied.

On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder, filed
a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior accounting
for Bendix asbestos claims.

An Amended Complaint was filed on December 30, 2019, and on
February 7, 2020, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss.

On May 18, 2020, the court denied the company's Motion to Dismiss.


Honeywell said, "We believe the claims have no merit."

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

Honeywell International Inc. is a worldwide diversified technology
and manufacturing company. The Company provides aerospace products
and services, control, sensing and security technologies,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals, electronic
and advanced materials, process technology for refining and
petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions. The
company is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey.


HYATT HOTELS: Claims in Texas Antitrust Suit Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------
Hyatt Hotels Corporation 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
resolved the claims and counterclaims in the Texas lawsuit without
either party admitting liability.

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

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

As part of the Texas federal court case, the Company filed
counterclaims against the plaintiffs for unfair competition and
trademark infringement.

In October 2020, the Company resolved the claims and counterclaims
in the Texas lawsuit without either party admitting liability.

The Company disputes the allegations in the remaining Illinois
federal district court lawsuit and will defend its interests
vigorously.

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

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

IQIYI: Labaton, Rosen to Serve as Class Action Co-Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Labaton
Sucharow LLP and Rosen Law Firm PA will serve as co-lead counsel in
a securities class action accusing Chinese online video service
iQIYI of making materially false and misleading statements in
connection with the platform's initial public offering.

Four candidates sought to be appointed lead plaintiffs in the
action, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act by
iQIYI, referred to in the complaint as the "Netflix of China."
[GN]


ISHARES S&P: Suit Against BlackRock Fund Advisors Closed
--------------------------------------------------------
The iShares S&P GSC(TM) Commodity-Indexed Trust 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 investors purported class action suit against BlackRock
Fund Advisors is now closed.

On June 16, 2016, BlackRock Fund Advisors (the Advisor) and certain
principals of the Advisor and the Sponsor were named as defendants
in a purported class action lawsuit filed in California state
court.

The lawsuit was filed by investors in certain iShares ETFs, and
alleges the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses issued by the ETFs
the risks to the ETFs' shareholders in the event of a "flash
crash."

Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and rescission damages. The
plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in December 2016 and on January
6, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On April 27, 2017, the court partially granted the defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing certain of the
plaintiffs' claims. On September 18, 2017, the court issued a
decision dismissing the remainder of the lawsuit after a one-day
bench trial.

On October 11, 2017, the court entered final judgment dismissing
all of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. In an opinion dated
January 23, 2020, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the
dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.

On March 3, 2020, plaintiffs filed a petition for review by the
California Supreme Court. On May 27, 2020, the California Supreme
Court denied the plaintiffs' petition for review.

The case is now closed.

The iShares S&P GSC(TM) Commodity-Indexed Trust is a Delaware
statutory trust that issues units of beneficial interest
representing fractional undivided beneficial interests in its net
assets. The Trust holds long positions in exchange-traded index
futures contracts of various expirations, or "Index Futures" on the
S&P GSCI(TM) Excess Return Index, together with cash, U.S. Treasury
securities or other short-term securities and similar securities
that are eligible as margin deposits for the Trust's Index Futures
positions, referred to as "Collateral Assets." The Index Futures
held by the Trust are listed on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
The Trust seeks to track the results of a fully collateralized
investment in futures contracts on an index composed of a
diversified group of commodities futures. The Trust seeks to track
the investment returns of the S&P GSCI(TM) Total Return Index
before payment of the Trust's expenses and liabilities.

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 Kraft Heinz Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors are currently defendants in a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Union Asset
Management Holding AG, et al. v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al.

The consolidated amended class action complaint, which was filed on
August 14, 2020 and also names 3G Capital, Inc. and several of its
subsidiaries and affiliates ("3G Entities") as defendants, asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly materially false or
misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press
releases, investor presentations, earnings calls, Company
documents, and SEC filings regarding the Company's business,
financial results, and internal controls, and further alleges the
3G Entities engaged in insider trading and misappropriated the
Company's material, non-public information.

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

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.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Continues to Defend Erceg Putative Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation 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 class action suit entitled, Erceg v.
LendingClub Corporation, No. 3:20-cv-01153.

In February 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The lawsuit alleges violations of California and Massachusetts law
based on allegations that LendingClub recorded a call with the
plaintiff without notifying him that it would be recorded.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a purported class of similarly
situated individuals who had phone calls recorded by LendingClub
without their knowledge and consent.

LendingClub filed a motion to dismiss certain of the plaintiff's
claims, strike nationwide class allegations, and, alternatively, to
stay the litigation. Rather than oppose that motion, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint.

The Company again filed a motion to stay, or alternatively to
dismiss certain of the claims in the amended complaint and to
strike nationwide class allegations. That motion was heard by the
Court on July 9, 2020.

On July 28, 2020, the Court entered an order granting the Company's
motion to stay Plaintiff's California claims pending a decision by
the California Supreme Court in a case involving the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's
claim under Massachusetts law, and denying the Company's motion to
strike Plaintiff's nationwide class allegations.

LendingClub said, "No assurances can be given as to the timing,
outcome or consequences of this matter."

LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables
investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit.
The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.

LENDINGCLUB CORP: Dismissal of Veal Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation 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 lead plaintiffs in
Veal v. LendingClub Corporation et.al., No. 5:18-cv-02599, have
appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

In 2016, the Company received a formal request for information from
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC commenced an
investigation concerning certain of the Company's policies and
practices and related legal compliance.

On April 25, 2018, the FTC filed a complaint in the Northern
District of California (FTC v. LendingClub Corporation, No.
3:18-cv-02454) alleging causes of action for violations of the FTC
Act, including claims of deception in connection with disclosures
related to the origination fee associated with loans available
through the Company's platform, and in connection with
communications relating to the likelihood of loan approval during
the application process, and a claim of unfairness relating to
certain unauthorized charges to borrowers' bank accounts.

In May 2018, following the announcement of the FTC's litigation
against the Company, putative shareholder class action litigation
was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of
California (Veal v. LendingClub Corporation et.al., No.
5:18-cv-02599) against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors alleging violations of federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's description of
fees and compliance with federal privacy law in securities filings.


The Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the
litigation in November 2018. On January 7, 2019, the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint
which asserts the same causes of action as the original complaint
and adds additional allegations.

On March 8, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants in the
case filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint. A hearing on these motions was held on September 26,
2019.

On November 4, 2019, the Court issued a written order granting
defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed
a Second Amended Complaint on December 19, 2019, which modifies and
adds certain allegations and drops one of the former officer
defendants as a defendant in the case, but otherwise advances the
same causes of action.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint on January 28, 2020. The Court heard argument on this
motion on April 30, 2020. On June 12, 2020, the Court issued an
order granting defendants' motion without leave to amend, in part,
and with leave to amend, in part.

On July 27, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice with the Court
indicating their intention not to file a Third Amended Complaint in
this case and requesting that the Court enter judgment.

The Court entered judgment and dismissed all claims in the case the
same day. The lead plaintiffs have appealed the judgment to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

LendingClub said, "The timing of a ruling in the appeal is
uncertain. The Company denies and will vigorously defend against
the allegations in the case. No assurances can be given as to the
timing, outcome or consequences of this matter."

LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables
investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit.
The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.

LENDINGCLUB CORP: Sosa ADA Class Action Ongoing in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation 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 class action suit entitled, Sosa v.
LendingClub Corporation, No. 1:20-cv-05256.

In July 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act and various state law claims based on allegations that the
plaintiff, who alleges he is visually-impaired, encountered access
barriers in visiting LendingClub's website that denied the
plaintiff the full enjoyment of the services of the website.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated
individuals in the lawsuit and seeks monetary, injunctive, and
declaratory relief, among other relief.

In September 2020, LendingClub filed an answer to the plaintiff's
complaint denying liability in the case. This case is in its early
stages.

LendingClub said, "No assurances can be given as to the timing,
outcome or consequences of this matter."

LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables
investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit.
The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.

LENDINGCLUB CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Shron Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
LendingClub Corporation 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 parties in Shron v.
LendingClub Corp., 1:19-cv-06718, have reached a tentative
settlement to resolve the litigation the terms of which are not
material to the Company's financial position or results of
operations.

In July 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in federal court in the State of New York alleging various
claims including fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and
violations of the federal Truth-in-Lending Act and New York General
Business Law sections 349 and 350, et seq., based on allegations,
among others, that the Company made misleading or inadequate
statements or omissions in relation to the total cost and
origination fee associated with loans available through the
Company's platform.

The plaintiff seeks to represent classes of similarly situated
individuals in the lawsuit.

The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's
claims on an individual basis.

The Court denied that motion on July 13, 2020. The Company has
filed a notice of appeal with respect to the Court's decision.

The parties have reached a tentative settlement to resolve this
litigation the terms of which are not material to the Company's
financial position or results of operations. The Company denies and
will vigorously defend against the allegations in the case in the
event this litigation continues for any reason.

LendingClub said, "No assurances can be given as to the timing,
outcome or consequences of this matter."

LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace
platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United
States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan
products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured
personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans,
auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables
investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit.
The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.

LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Krisco Suit for Overcharging Advertisers
-------------------------------------------------------------
DREW KRISCO, an individual, and LIVLY, INC., a Delaware
corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-08204-SVK (N.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2020) alleges that
advertisers were overcharged and overpaid for advertisements on
LinkedIn's platform, all while relying on LinkedIn's assurances
that their advertising metrics were accurate and reliable.

On November 12, 2020, Defendant LinkedIn stated on its own blog
that "[i]n August, our engineering team discovered and then
subsequently fixed two measurement issues in our ads products that
may have overreported some Sponsored Content campaign metrics for
impression and video views." The Defendant revealed that these
"issues" impacted hundreds of thousands of LinkedIn advertisers,
undetected, over the span of at least two years.

The Plaintiffs contend that while LinkedIn has tried to downplay
the impact of this failure to monitor and control its own
advertising platform, the total extent of the damage to their
customers is not yet known. Nor is there conclusive proof that
these problems have been fully rectified and that other unknown
"measurement issues" may not lurk in its vast system.

Above and beyond simply overpaying for mismeasured ads, the
Plaintiffs and members of the Class paid for an unknown number of
ineffective ads, losing out on the opportunity to serve effective
ads that would have fulfilled the purposes of the advertisements.
Had Plaintiffs and members of the Class known of the lack of
reliability in choosing to place ads with LinkedIn, they would have
taken their ad dollars to other competitive platforms, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring this complaint to seek compensation for the
amount they overcharged, as well as seek an accounting of their ad
accounts, along with those of the Class, to ensure that the
payments they have made are consistent with the services they
received.

The Plaintiffs are current customers of LinkedIn. Plaintiff Drew
Krisco is a natural person and resident of the State of Illinois.
Plaintiff Livly, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws
of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business
located at 1325 West Randolph Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.

LinkedIn is a global professional networking site, offering
numerous professional services for job seekers, professionals,
recruiters, and employers. With LinkedIn, users create an in-depth
professional profile, and user information is standardized by
education, profile headlines, profile experience and a customer's
prior experience. LinkedIn has branded itself as "the place to find
and be found."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Antonio M. Romanucci, Esq.
          Bryce T. Hensley, Esq.
          David A. Neiman, Esq.
          ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC
          321 North Clark Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 458-1000
          Facsimile: (312) 458-1004
          E-mail: aromanucci@rblaw.net
                  bhensley@rblaw.net
                  dneiman@rblaw.net

LIVE NATION: Class Suits Related to Overpriced Tickets Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, 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 several class action suits related to the
resale of tickets on secondary ticket exchanges at elevated
prices.

The following putative class action lawsuits were filed against
Live Nation and/or Ticketmaster in the United States and Canada:

Vaccaro v. Ticketmaster LLC (Northern District of Illinois, filed
September 2018);

Ameri v. Ticketmaster LLC (Northern District of California, filed
September 2018);

Lee v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Northern District of California,
filed September 2018);

Thompson-Marcial v. Ticketmaster Canada Holdings ULC (Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, filed September 2018);

McPhee v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Superior Court
of Quebec, District of Montreal, filed September 2018);

Crystal Watch v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Court of
Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan, by amendments filed September
2018);

Gaetano v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Northern
District of New York, filed October 2018);

Dickey v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of California,
filed October 2018);

Gomel v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Supreme Court of
British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, filed October 2018);

Smith v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, filed October 2018);

Messing v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of
California, filed November 2018); and

Niedbalski v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of
California, filed December 2018).

In March 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel
arbitration of the Dickey lawsuit and stayed the matter. The
parties reached a settlement and the case was dismissed with
prejudice in November 2019.

In April 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel
arbitration of the Lee lawsuit and dismissed the case. Lee
subsequently appealed the District Court's ruling to the Ninth
Circuit, and in June 2020 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District
Court's ruling in the defendants' favor.

The Gaetano lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the
plaintiff in April 2019.

The Ameri lawsuit was dismissed in May 2019 in light of the
parties' agreement to arbitrate the matter, and the Vaccaro lawsuit
was settled and dismissed in June 2019.

The Messing and Niedbalski lawsuits are stayed pending the outcome
of the appeal in the Lee matter.

The remaining lawsuits make similar factual allegations that Live
Nation and/or Ticketmaster LLC engage in conduct that is intended
to encourage the resale of tickets on secondary ticket exchanges at
elevated prices. Based on these allegations, each plaintiff asserts
violations of different state/provincial and federal laws.

Each plaintiff also seeks to represent a class of individuals who
purchased tickets on a secondary ticket exchange, as defined in
each plaintiff's complaint.

The complaints seek a variety of remedies, including unspecified
compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

Live Nation said, "Based on information presently known to
management, we do not believe that a loss is probable of occurring
at this time, and believe that the potential liability, if any,
will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position,
cash flows or results of operations. Further, we do not currently
believe that the claims asserted in these lawsuits have merit, and
considerable uncertainty exists regarding any monetary damages that
will be asserted against us. We intend to vigorously defend these
actions."

Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. operates as a live entertainment
company. It operates through Concerts, Sponsorship & Advertising,
and Ticketing segments. The Company was incorporated in 2005 and is
headquartered in Beverly Hills, California.

LOOP INDUSTRIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 14 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Oct. 15 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been 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"). Loop investors have until December
14, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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.

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]


MCKESSON CORP: Evanston Police Pension Plan Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned EVANSTON POLICE PENSION FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-06525-CRB (N.D.
Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff Pension Trust Fund for Operating
Engineers will move the Court on March 26, 2021, for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired the common stock of McKesson Corporation during
      the period from October 24, 2013 through November 3, 2016,
      inclusive, and were damaged thereby."

      Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and their
      families, the officers and directors of the Company, at
      all relevant times, members of their immediate families
      and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or
      assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a
      controlling interest.;

   2. appointing Operating Engineers as class representative;
      and

   3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as class
      counsel.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of materially false and
misleading statements and omissions throughout the Class Period
that falsely characterized the generic drug market as competitive
and falsely attributed skyrocketing generic drug prices that were
driving in part McKesson's Class Period profits solely to three
sources of legitimate supply constraints.

McKesson is the largest wholesale distributor of prescription drugs
in the United States, and its common stock trades on the New York
Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol "MCK."

A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated
Nov. 16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2KzW7Tw at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer aA Burkholz, Esq.
          Luke O. Brooks, Esq.
          Jonah H. Goldstein, Esq.
          Angel P. Lau, Esq.
          Christopher D. Stewart, Esq.
          Andrew W. Hutton, Esq.
          Erika Oliver, Esq.
          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619/231-1058
          Facsimile: 619/231-7423

MGXM CORP: Siguencia Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO SIGUENCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MGXM CORP., LEMX CORP., MILTON MIRANDA, and GRACIELA
MIRANDA, Case No. 1:20-cv-05679 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2020) seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Siguencia worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he
worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants' conduct
extended beyond Plaintiff Siguencia to all other similarly situated
employees.

Mr. Siguencia was employed as a general assistant, a brick layer,
and a metal cutter at the construction corporations of the
Defendants.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company,
located at 166 Stanhope Street, Brooklyn, New York and at 61-32
56th Drive, Maspeth, New York. The individual Defendants Milton
Miranda and Graciela Miranda, serve or served as owners, managers,
principals, or agents of Defendant Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE: Mooers Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
--------------------------------------------------------
Henry Mooers, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Middlebury College, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00144 (D. Vt., September 24, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all
amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing,
and meals; injunctive relief including enjoining the Defendant from
retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition, fees,
on-campus housing and meals; reasonable attorney's fees; costs and
expenses; prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded; and such other and further relief as may be just and
proper, including a refund of all tuition fees paid on a pro-rata
basis, together with other damages resulting from breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.

Middlebury College is an institution of higher learning located in
Middlebury, Vermont where Mooers was an undergraduate student
during the Spring 2020 semesters and is expected to graduate in May
2021. In spring 2020, Middlebury charged him approximately
$27,895.00 in tuition, mandatory fees of $213.00 that was labeled
as "Spring Student Activity Fee" and $4,809.00 for room and board.
Middlebury College decided to close campus, constructively evict
students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as
a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Mooers claims that he
was deprived the benefits of in-person instruction, access to
campus facilities, student activities and other benefits and
services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and
tuition. Middlebury refused to provide reimbursement for the
tuition, fees and other costs, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tristan Christopher Larson, Esq.
     LARSON & GALLIVAN LAW, PLC
     128 Merchants Row, Suite 405
     Rutland, Vermont 05701
     Tel: (802) 779-9771
     Email: larson@larsongallivan.com

            - and -

     Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
     Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
     Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
     LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
     One Old Country Road, Suite 347
     Carle Place, NY 11514
     Tel: (516) 873-9550
     Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
            mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
            bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

            - and -

     Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
     Jeremy Francis, Esq.
     THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
     270 Madison A venue, Suite 1800
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 969-7810
     Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
            francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Johnson Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, 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 26, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the complaint in the class action suit initiated by Jarrod
Johnson is pending.

In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of
Gadsden, Alabama (the "Gadsden Water Board") filed an individual
complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against
certain manufacturers, suppliers, and users of chemicals containing
specific Perfluorinated Compounds ("PFCs"), including the Company.


In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre,
Alabama (the "Centre Water Board") filed a similar complaint in the
Circuit Court of Cherokee County, Alabama.

The Gadsden Water Board and the Centre Water Board both seek
monetary damages and injunctive relief claiming that their water
supplies contain excessive amounts of PFCs.

Certain defendants, including the Company, filed dispositive
motions in each case arguing that the Alabama state courts lack
personal jurisdiction over them. These motions were denied.

In June and September 2018, certain defendants, including the
Company, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for Writs of Mandamus
directing each lower court to enter an order granting the
defendants' dispositive motions on personal jurisdiction grounds.
The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petitions on December 20,
2019.  

Certain defendants, including the Company, filed an Application for
Rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court asking the Court to
reconsider its December 2019 decision.

The Alabama Supreme Court denied the application for rehearing. On
August 21, 2020, certain defendants, including the Company,
petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for review of the
matter.

In December 2019, the City of Rome, Georgia ("Rome") filed a
complaint in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia that is
similar to the Gadsden Water Board and Centre Water Board
complaints, again seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief
related to PFCs.  

Also in December 2019, Jarrod Johnson filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia purporting to
represent all water subscribers with the Rome (Georgia) Water and
Sewer Division and/or the Floyd County (Georgia) Water Department
and seeking to recover, among other things, damages in the form of
alleged increased rates and surcharges incurred by ratepayers for
the costs associated with eliminating certain PFCs from their
drinking water.  

In January 2020, defendant 3M Company removed the class action to
federal court. The Company has filed motions to dismiss in both of
these cases.

The Company denies all liability in these matters and intends to
defend them vigorously.

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

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Nix Shareholder Suit in N.D. Ga. Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, 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 26, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the amended complaint filed in the putative shareholder
class action suit is pending.

On January 3, 2020, the Company and certain of its executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making materially false and misleading statements and that the
officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between April 28, 2017 and
July 25, 2019 ("Class Period").

On June 29, 2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Securities
Class Action against Mohawk and its CEO Jeff Lorberbaum, based on
the same claims and the same Class Period. The amended complaint
alleges that the Company (1) engaged in fabricating revenues by
attempting delivery to customers that were closed and recognizing
these attempts as sales; (2) overproduced product to report higher
operating margins and maintained significant inventory that was not
salable; and (3) valued certain inventory improperly or improperly
delivered inventory with knowledge that it was defective and
customers would return it.

On October 27, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Delaware Securities Suit Temporarily Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, 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 26, 2020, that a Delaware state
court has granted a temporary stay of litigation pending the
earlier of either the close of fact discovery or the deadline to
appeal the dismissal of a related securities class action.

The Company and certain of its present and former executive
officers were named as defendants in a putative state securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware on January 30, 2020.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock in Mohawk Industries
Retirement Plan 1 and Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 2 between
April 27, 2017 and July 25, 2019.

On March 27, 2020, the Court granted a temporary stay of the
litigation pending the earlier of either the close of fact
discovery or the deadline to appeal the dismissal of the related
Securities Class Action pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.  

Mohawk said, "The stay may be lifted according to the terms set
forth in the Court's Order to Stay Litigation. The Company intends
to vigorously defend against the claims."

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

Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that
creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces
around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia.


NANO-X IMAGING: Duarte Slams Share Drop Over Imaging Device Flop
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Duarte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. NANO-X Imaging Ltd, Ran Poliakine and
Itzhak Maayan, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04528, (E.D. N.Y.,
September 24, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Nano-X is an Israeli company that develops and produces x-ray
source technology for the medical imaging industry. Its securities
trade on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "NNOX."

NANO-X Imaging allegedly failed to disclose that Nano-X's
commercial agreements and its customers were fabricated and that
its statements regarding its Nanox System were misleading as it
never provided data comparing its images with images from
competitors' machines. Nano-X admitted that Nanox System's
submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was not
original.

On this news, Nano-X's ordinary share price fell $12.41 per share,
or more than 25%, over the next two trading days to close at $36.80
per share on September 16, 2020, damaging investors including
Duarte. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

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


NESTLE HOLDINGS: Prescott Sues Over Deceptive Labeling of Creamers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Prescott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nestle Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05683
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2020) alleges that the Defendant misrepresented
the substantive, quantitative, qualitative, compositional and/or
organoleptic attributes of the Natural Bliss brand, claiming it
does not have artificial flavors including ethyl vanillin, vanillin
and piperonal, which in fact it has.

The Plaintiff expected the product to have more vanilla than it did
and did not expect added vanillin since the label said "natural
flavor." Nestle manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells almond milk coffee creamer labeled as "Vanilla" under the
Natural Bliss brand ("Product"). The Product is sold in bottles of
32 OZ to consumers from retail and online stores.

The label states "Vanilla," "Natural Flavor," "All Natural" and has
images of vanilla beans and a vanilla flower. Contrary to the front
label representations of "Vanilla" and "Natural Flavor," the
Product is not flavored mainly from vanilla and has no appreciable
amount of vanilla, says the complaint. Instead, the Product is
flavored mainly from vanillin from non-vanilla sources and as a
result, does not taste like vanilla.

Vanilla (Vanilla planifolia Andrews and Vanilla tahitenis Moore)
comes from an orchid plant that originated in Mexico where it was
first cultivated. The fruit pod of the vanilla flower is the
vanilla bean, the raw material for vanilla flavorings.

The Plaintiff contends that as a result of the false and misleading
labeling, the Product is an sold at a premium price, approximately
no less than $5.49 per 32 OZ compared to other similar products
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than the price of
the Product if it were represented in a non-misleading way.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

NEWELL BRANDS: Appeal in Securities Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands 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 appeal in the
class action suit entitled, In re Newell Brands, Inc. Securities
Litigation, is still pending.

The Company and certain of its officers have been named as
defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2017 and
January 24, 2018.

The first lawsuit was filed on June 21, 2018 and is captioned Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund, Individually and on behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk,
Ralph J. Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-10878 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

The second lawsuit was filed on June 27, 2018 and is captioned
Matthew Barnett, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Newell Brands Inc., Michael B. Polk, Ralph J.
Nicoletti, and James L. Cunningham, III, Civil Action No.
2:18-cv-11132 (United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated these two cases under
Civil Action No. 18-cv-10878 (JMV)(JBC) bearing the caption In re
Newell Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The court also named Hampshire County Council Pension Fund as the
lead plaintiff in the consolidated case.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects between February 6, 2017 and January 24, 2018.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

On January 10, 2020, the court in In re Newell Brands Inc.
Securities Litigation entered a dismissal with prejudice after
granting the Company's motion to dismiss.

On February 7, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

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

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


NEWELL BRANDS: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Firefighters Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands 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 suit entitled, Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell Brands Inc.,
et al.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a putative securities
class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Hudson County, on behalf of all persons who acquired Company common
stock pursuant or traceable to the S-4 registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the April 2016 acquisition of
Jarden Corporation (Jarden) (the "Registration Statement").

The action was filed on September 6, 2018, and is captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Newell
Brands Inc., et al., Civil Action No. HUD-L-003492-18.

The operative complaint alleges certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions in the Registration Statement regarding the Company's
financial results, trends, and metrics.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of
damages being sought.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

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

Newell Brands Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, and distributes
consumer and commercial products worldwide. Newell Brands Inc. was
formerly known as Newell Rubbermaid Inc. and changed its name to
Newell Brands Inc. in April 2016. The company was founded in 1903
and is based in Hoboken, New Jersey.


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: First Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Dextenza Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ocular Therapeutix, 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 plaintiffs in
the class action related to the company's disclosures regarding the
drug DEXTENZA, did not seek review of the First Circuit's decision
prior to the deadline for filing a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

On July 7, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, captioned Thomas Gallagher v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc,
et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05011.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July
6, 2017. The complaint generally alleges that the company and
certain of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b)
and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the Form
483 issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) related to
DEXTENZA and the company's manufacturing operations for DEXTENZA.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.  

On July 14, 2017, an amended complaint was filed; the amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the company's common stock between May 5, 2017 and July
11, 2017, and otherwise includes allegations similar to those made
in the original complaint.

On July 12, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, captioned Dylan Caraker v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05095.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased our common stock between May 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017.

The complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the
Gallagher complaint and seeks similar relief.  

On August 3, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, captioned Shawna Kim v. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:17-cv-05704.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased our common stock between March 10, 2016 and July 11,
2017.

The complaint includes allegations similar to those made in the
Gallagher complaint and seeks similar relief.  

On October 27, 2017, a magistrate judge for the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
defendants' motion to transfer the above-referenced Gallagher,
Caraker, and Kim litigations to the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.  

These matters were assigned the following docket numbers in the
District of Massachusetts: 1:17-cv-12288 (Gallagher), 1:17-cv-12146
(Caraker), and 1:17-cv-12286 (Kim).

On March 9, 2018, the court consolidated the three actions and
appointed co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel for the
consolidated action.  

On May 7, 2018, co-lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint. The amended complaint makes allegations
similar to those in the original complaints, against the same
defendants, and seeks similar relief on behalf of shareholders who
purchased our common stock between March 10, 2016 and July 11,
2017.  

The amended complaint generally alleges that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  

On July 6, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
the motion to dismiss on September 4, 2018, and defendants filed a
reply on October 4, 2018.

The court held oral argument on the motion to dismiss on February
6, 2019. By order dated April 30, 2019, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

On May 31, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding the
District Court's opinion and order of dismissal of the Complaint.


The First Circuit held an oral argument on the appeal on February
4, 2020. The First Circuit issued its decision on April 9, 2020,
affirming the District Court's dismissal of the class action.

The plaintiffs did not seek review of the First Circuit's decision
prior to the deadline for filing a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the formulation, development, and commercialization of therapies
for diseases and conditions of the eye using its bioresorbable
hydrogel platform technology. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. was founded
in 2006 and is headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts.

OMNICELL INC: Bid to Dismiss Heard Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Omnicell, 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 entitled, Corey
Heard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No. 2019-CH-06817, is pending.

A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, on June 5,
2019, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, captioned Corey Heard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Omnicell, Inc., Case No.
2019-CH-06817.

The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages in the
form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the
alternative, negligent violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and certain declaratory,
injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to
allegations of violation of BIPA by the Company.

The complaint was served on the Company on June 13, 2019. On July
31, 2019, the Company filed a motion to stay or consolidate the
case with the action Yana Mazya, et al. v. Northwestern Lake Forest
Hospital, et al., Case No. 2018-CH-07161, pending in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division (the "Mazya
Action').

The Court subsequently, on October 10, 2019, denied the motion,
without prejudice, as being moot in view of the Company's dismissal
from the Mazya Action.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 31,
2019. The hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was held on
September 2, 2020.

The Court ruled from the bench and dismissed the complaint without
prejudice giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by
September 30, 2020.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 30, 2020 and the
Company subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
October 28, 2020. A status conference is currently set for November
5, 2020.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software
solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare
worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Automation
and Analytics, and Medication Adherence. The Company was formerly
known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to
Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Approval of Proposed Allocation Plan Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, 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 plaintiff's
revised motion requesting the court to approve the plaintiff's
proposed allocation plan in the settlement in Riche v. Pappas, et
al., Case No. 2018-0177, is pending.

Following the announcement of the Company's acquisition of U.S.
Geothermal Inc., a number of putative shareholder class action
complaints were initially filed on behalf of USG shareholders
between March 8, 2018 and March 30, 2018 against USG and the
individual members of the USG board of directors.  

All of the purported class action suits filed in Federal Court in
Idaho have been voluntarily dismissed.  The single remaining class
action complaint is a purported class action filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court, entitled Riche v. Pappas, et al., Case No.
2018-0177 (Del. Ch., Mar. 12, 2018).

An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 2018 under seal, under a
confidentiality agreement that was executed by the plaintiff. The
amended Riche complaint alleges state law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against former USG directors and seeks post-closing
damages.

On March 27, 2020, pursuant to out of court mediation, a term sheet
for a proposed settlement of the action, without admission of
liability or wrongdoing, was signed between the parties.

On June 3, 2020, a comprehensive settlement package and stipulation
of settlement was filed with the court for approval, and on
September 16, 2020 the Delaware Chancery Court approved the
settlement.

Plaintiff's revised motion requesting the court to approve the
Plaintiff's proposed allocation plan was filed on October 6, 2020.


The sum the Company will bear in this context is not material.

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia,
Kenya,Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally.
The company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product,
and Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is
based in Reno, Nevada.

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Injunction Sought Against Phoenix Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, 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 plaintiff in a
class action in Israel has asked the Tel Aviv court to issue an
Anti-Suit Injunction against Phoenix Insurance, the lead plaintiff
in the United States case, instructing it to, inter alia,
discontinue acting on behalf of the Israeli class members in the
matter.

On May 21, 2018, a motion to certify a class action was filed in
Tel Aviv District Court against Ormat Technologies, Inc. and 11
officers and directors.  

The alleged class is defined as "All persons who purchased Ormat
shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between August 3, 2017 and
May 13, 2018".

The motion alleges that the Company and other respondents violated
Sections 31(a)(1) and 38C of the Israeli Securities Law, and
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
because they allegedly: (1) misled investors by stating in the
Company's financial statements that it maintains effective internal
controls over its accounting policies and procedures, even though
the Company's internal controls had material weaknesses which led
to erroneous accounting in its 2017 unaudited quarterly reports
that had to be restated, including adjustments to the Company's net
income and shareholders' equity; and (2) failed to issue an
immediate report in Israel until May 16, 2018, analogous to the
report that was released in the United States on May 11, 2018
stating, inter alia, that the errors in its financial reports
affected its balance sheet and would be remedied in its 2017 annual
report.

Agreed motions were filed from time to time with, and granted by,
the Tel Aviv District Court to stay the proceedings in Israel in
light of the United States case (Mac Costas).

On June 30, 2020, pursuant to the execution and submission of a
settlement agreement to the United States court for approval, which
resolves the matters raised with respect to the entire class of
shareholders (whether traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange or U.S.
stock exchange), the Company filed a motion informing the Tel Aviv
court of the settlement.

On July 2, 2020, the plaintiff in the Tel Aviv action filed a
motion requesting the Israeli court to issue an Anti-Suit
Injunction against Phoenix Insurance, the lead plaintiff in the
United States case, instructing it to, inter alia, discontinue
acting on behalf of the Israeli class members in the matter.

Agreed motions were filed from time to time to, and granted by, the
Tel Aviv District Court delaying the date for response to the
Anti-Suit Injunction.

The Company considers that it has strong legal defenses and it is
not probable that the request for an Anti-Suit Injunction will be
granted.

The potential amount that the Company may bear in this context
cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

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

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia,
Kenya,Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally.
The company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product,
and Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is
based in Reno, Nevada.

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Preliminary OK of Costas Settlement Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, 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 preliminary
approval of the settlement in the putative class action suit
initiated by Mac Costas, is pending.

On June 11, 2018, a putative class action filed by Mac Costas on
behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or acquired the
Company's ordinary shares between August 8, 2017 and May 15, 2018
was commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer, which was subsequently amended by a
consolidated complaint filed by lead plaintiff Phoenix Insurance in
May 13, 2019.  

The complaint asserts claim against all defendants pursuant to
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder and against its officers pursuant to Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  

The complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-K for the years
ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and Form 10-Qs for each of the
quarters in the nine months ended September 30, 2017 contained
material misstatements or omissions, among other things, with
respect to the Company's tax provisions and the effectiveness of
its internal control over financial reporting, and that, as a
result of such alleged misstatements and omissions, the plaintiffs
suffered damages. On December 6, 2019 the Company's motion to
dismiss was denied by the court.

On March 23, 2020, pursuant to out of court mediation, a term sheet
for a proposed settlement of the action without admission of
liability or wrongdoing, was signed between the parties and on June
10, 2020, a joint stipulation and motion for preliminary approval
of the comprehensive executed settlement documentation was filed
for the court for approval, which is now pending.

The sum the Company will bear in this context is not material.

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,
Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The
company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and
Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in
Reno, Nevada.

PORTLAND GENERAL: Facing 3 Putative Class Suits in Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company (PGE) 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 facing three putative class action suits in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon.

During September and October, 2020, three putative class action
complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon against PGE and certain of its officers, captioned Hessel v.
Portland General Electric Co., No. 20-cv-01523, Cannataro v.
Portland General Electric Co., No. 3:20-cv-01583, and Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Portland General
Electric Co., No. 20-cv-01786. Two of these actions were filed on
behalf of purported purchasers of PGE stock between April 24, 2020,
and August 24, 2020; a third action was filed on behalf of
purported purchasers of PGE stock between February 13, 2020, and
August 24, 2020.

All three complaints assert causes of action arising under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged
misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, PGE's
alleged lack of sufficient internal controls and risks associated
with PGE's trading activity in wholesale electric markets.

Each complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory damages
of an unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs’ costs
and attorneys' and expert fees.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuits.

Portland General said, "Since these lawsuits are in early stages,
the Company is unable to predict outcomes or estimate a range of
reasonably possible losses."

Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility
company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase,
transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the
state of Oregon. The company was founded in 1930 and is
headquartered in Portland, Oregon.


POSH BOW: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Calcano Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVELINA CALCANO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. POSH BOW PEEP, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09824-AT
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2020) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Because Defendant's Website, https://www.tutugirl.com/, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.

In a September 25, 2018 letter to U.S. House of Representative Ted
Budd, U.S. Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Stephen
E. Boyd confirmed that public accommodations must make the Websites
they own, operate, or control equally accessible to individuals
with disabilities.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Defendant offers the commercial Website,
https://www.tutugirl.com, to the public. The Website offers
features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and
services offered by the Defendant and which the Defendant ensures
delivery of such goods throughout the United States including New
York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com
                  Michael@Gottlieb.legal

PRECIGEN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 4 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Precigen Inc. You can review
a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may
contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst,
Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.
If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Precigen, Inc. f/k/a Intrexon Corporation (NASDAQ:PGEN, XON)

Class Period: May 10, 2017 - September 25, 2020

Deadline: December 4, 2020

For more info: www.bgandg.com/pgen

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and specifically
failed to disclose 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.

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Supplemental Claims Report in Hsu Submitted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, 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 claims
administrator in the class action suit initiated by Hsingching Hsu,
has submitted its supplemental claims report.

On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).

On October 16, 2015, lead plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed a
consolidated complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015. A
trial on the claims relating to four statements alleged to have
been false or misleading was held from January 15, 2019 to January
29, 2019.

At trial, the jury found that three of the four challenged
statements were not false or misleading, and thus found in the
defendants’ favor on those claims. The jury found liability as to
one statement and awarded a maximum of $4.50 per share in damages,
which represents approximately 5% of the total claimed damages of
$87.20 per share.

On September 9, 2019, the Court entered an order specifying the
rate of prejudgment interest to be awarded on any valid claims at
the 52-week Treasury Bill rate.

On September 8, 2020, the claims administrator submitted its final
claims report to the Court and, on October 9, 2020, the claims
administrator submitted its supplemental claims report. The claims
report reflects approximately $50.5 million in claimed damages.

The Company disagrees with the amount of claimed damages and has
submitted a proposal to the Court for challenging claims. Based on
a review of specific claims and subject to the outcome of the
claims challenge process, the Company believes that total claimed
damages after all claims challenges have been adjudicated could
range from $24.8 million to $51.3 million.

The total amount of aggregate class-wide damages still remains
uncertain and will be ascertained only after the claims challenge
process and the exhaustion of any appeals.

Puma said, "It is reasonably possible that the final total damages
awarded will differ from these estimates; however, the amount is
not estimable at this time. A final judgment has not yet been
entered."

Puma Biotechnology, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of products to enhance cancer
care in the United States. Puma Biotechnology, Inc. was founded in
2010 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.

REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Moehrl Putative Class Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC  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 motion to
dismiss the complaint in the case, Moehrl, Cole, Darnell, Nager,
Ramey, Sawbill Strategic, Inc., Umpa and Ruh v. The National
Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of
America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies,
Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. has been
denied.

The amended putative class action complaint, filed on June 14,
2019, (i) consolidates the Moehrl and Sawbill litigation reported
in the company's Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019,
(ii) adds certain plaintiffs and defendants, and (iii) serves as a
response to the separate motions to dismiss filed on May 17, 2019
in the prior Moehrl litigation by each of NAR and the Company
(along with the other defendants named in the prior Moehrl
complaint).

In the amended Moehrl complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or
conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly
established mandatory anticompetitive policies for the multiple
listing services and its member brokers that require brokers to
make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property.


The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which
provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a
portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is
anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the
defendant franchisors conspired with NAR by requiring their
respective franchisees to comply with NAR's policies and Code of
Ethics.

The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants
from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or to
otherwise restrict competition among buyer brokers, an award of
damages and/or restitution, attorneys fees and costs of suit.

In October 2019, the Department of Justice filed a statement of
interest for this matter, in their words "to correct the inaccurate
portrayal, by defendant The National Association of Realtors
('NAR'), of a 2008 consent decree between the United States and
NAR."

A motion to appoint lead counsel in the case was granted on an
interim basis by the Court on May 30, 2020. On October 2, 2020, the
Court denied the separate motions to dismiss filed in August 2019
by each of NAR and the Company (together with the other defendants
named in the amended Moehrl complaint).

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.

REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Tanaskovic Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC  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 motion to
dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled,
Tanaskovic v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et al., is pending.

This is a putative class action complaint filed on July 11, 2019 by
plaintiff Sasa Tanaskovic against the Company and certain of its
current and former executive officers. The lawsuit alleges
violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements
made by the Company about its business, operations, and prospects.


The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages for
purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 24, 2017
through May 22, 2019, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating
Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust was
appointed lead plaintiff on November 7, 2019. The lead plaintiff
filed its amended complaint on March 6, 2020.

The Company filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 3, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to such
motion on September 17, 2020, and the Company filed its reply on
November 2, 2020.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.

REALOGY GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Sitzer Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC  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 discovery is
ongoing in the putative class action suit entitled, Sitzer and
Winger v. The National Association of Realtors (NAR), Realogy
Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings,
Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.

This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 29, 2019
and amended on June 21, 2019 by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and Amy
Winger against NAR, the Company, Homeservices of America, Inc.,
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. The
complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks the
same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Moehrl litigation.

The Sitzer litigation is limited both in allegations and relief
sought to the State of Missouri and includes an additional cause of
action for alleged violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act or MMPA.

On August 22, 2019, the Court denied the defendants' motions to
transfer the Sitzer matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and on October 16, 2019, denied the
motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and
the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor
defendants).

In September 2019, the Department of Justice filed a statement of
interest and appearances for this matter for the same purpose
stated in the Moehrl matter and in July 2020 requested the company
to provide them with all materials produced for Sitzer.

Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is ongoing.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.

REALOGY GROUP: Whitlach Class Action Ongoing in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC  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 class action suit entitled, Whitlach
v. Premier Valley, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 M&M and Century 21 Real
Estate LLC in the Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County.


This was filed as a putative class action complaint on December 20,
2018 by plaintiff James Whitlach against Premier Valley Inc., a
Century 21 Real Estate independently-owned franchisee doing
business as Century 21 M&M.

The complaint also names Century 21 Real Estate LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company and the franchisor of Century 21 Real
Estate as an alleged joint employer of the franchisee's independent
sales agents and seeks to certify a class that could potentially
include all agents of both Century 21 M&M and Century 21 in
California.

In February 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert
claims pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"). Following the Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's
non-PAGA claims without prejudice in June 2019, the plaintiff
continues to pursue his PAGA claims as a representative of
purported "aggrieved employees" as defined by PAGA.

As such representative, the plaintiff seeks all non-individualized
relief available to the purported aggrieved employees under PAGA,
as well as attorneys' fees.

Under California law, PAGA claims are generally not subject to
arbitration and may result in exposure in the form of additional
penalties.

Following the Court's grant of the defendants' demurrer to the
plaintiff's amended complaint (with leave to replead), the
plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting one cause of
action for alleged civil penalties under PAGA in June 2020.

In the second amended complaint, the plaintiff continues to allege
that Century 21 M&M misclassified all of its independent real
estate agents, salespeople, sales professionals, broker associates
and other similar positions as independent contractors, failed to
pay minimum wages, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed
to pay timely wages, failed to keep proper records, failed to
provide appropriate wage statements, made unlawful deductions from
wages, and failed to reimburse plaintiff and the putative class for
business-related expenses, resulting in violations of the
California Labor Code.

Century 21 M&M filed its demurrer to the amended complaint, to
which Century 21 filed a joinder (and, in the alternative, a motion
to strike certain portions of the amended complaint), on August 3,
2020.

This case raises various previously unlitigated claims and the PAGA
claim adds additional litigation, financial and operating
uncertainties.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.

REATA PHARMA: Klein Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Oct. 22 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Reata
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: RETA) alleging that the Company
violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: October 15, 2019 and August 7, 2020

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 14, 2020

Learn more about your recoverable losses in RETA:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/reata-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?id=10370&from=5

The filed complaint alleges that Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the MOXIe Part 2 study results were insufficient
to support a single study marketing approval of omaveloxolone for
the treatment of FA in the U.S. without additional evidence; (ii)
as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not accept
marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA in the
U.S. based on the MOXIe Part 2 study results; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders have until December 14, 2020 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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

CONTACT:

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


SEY INC: Silva Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA & IMLW
----------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA SILVA, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. SEY INC. dba RODEWAY INN-LYONS, STEVE GORE and JACK
GORE, Case No. 1:20-cv-06893 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 20, 2020) alleges
that the Defendants deprive Ms. Debra and other similarly situated
workers out of overtime pay and other compensation while also
avoiding paying taxes to the government.

The Defendants illegally paid Ms. Devra (and others) by paying
compensation partially in cash.

Debra brings claims for overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

As part of her compensation, the Plaintiff received an apartment.
In October 2020, the Defendants fired Debra and when they did so,
they evicted her from her apartment and ordered her to immediately
vacate her apartment. They did this in the middle of the COVID-19
pandemic, while an eviction moratorium was in place, and left Debra
homeless, says the complaint.

Debra is a 61-year old woman who worked for the Defendants' motel
(a Rodeway Inn) for 5 years.

Rodeway Inn is headquartered in Cook County, Illinois. Defendant
Jack Gore is Rodeway Inn's Corporate Secretary and his wife, Beryl
S. Gore, is its president.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
          200 E 5th Ave Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: docketing@fishlawfirm.com

SUNRUN INC: May 6 Final Approval Hearing on Loftus Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun 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 court in Loftus et al. v.
Sunrun Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01608, has scheduled the final
approval hearing for May 6, 2021.

On April 8, 2019, a putative class action captioned Loftus et al.
v. Sunrun Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01608, was filed in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California.

The complaint generally alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act on behalf of an individual and putative
classes of persons alleged to be similarly situated.

The plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on June 26, 2019,
adding defendant MediaMix 365, LLC, also asserting individual and
putative class claims under the TCPA, along with claims under the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.

In the amended version of their Complaint, the plaintiffs seek
statutory damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees and costs on behalf of themselves and the absent purported
classes.

Most, if not all, of the claims asserted in the lawsuit relate to
activities allegedly engaged in by third-party vendors, for which
the Company denies any responsibility. The vendors are
contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for losses related
to the conduct alleged.

While the Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit, in view of the cost and risk of continuing to defend the
action, it has reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the
lawsuit on a class-wide basis for $5.5 million, which was accrued
as of June 30, 2020, in exchange for a release of all claims that
were or could have been asserted in the litigation.

The settlement is subject to court approval. Preliminary approval
was granted on September 25, 2020 and the court has scheduled the
final approval hearing for May 6, 2021.

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.

SUNRUN INC: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Silverberg Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun 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 a notice of voluntary
dismissal has been filed in Silverberg v. Vivint Solar, Inc., et
al., No. 20-cv-07051 (S.D.N.Y.), s purported class action suit.

On October 8, 2020, Sunrun completed the acquisition of Vivint
Solar, a leading full-service residential solar provider in the
United States, at an estimated purchase price of $5 billion,
pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 6,
2020, by and among the Company, Vivint Solar and Viking Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and direct wholly owned subsidiary of
the Company, pursuant to which Merger Sub merged with and into
Vivint Solar, with Vivint Solar continuing as the surviving
corporation. As a result of the Merger, Vivint Solar became a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.

Additional complaints were filed against the Vivint Solar
Defendants only on August 26 in the cases captioned Brown v. Vivint
Solar, Inc., et al., No. 20-cv-06900 (S.D.N.Y.), August 27
captioned Alanazi v. Vivint Solar, Inc., et al., No. 20-cv-06926
(S.D.N.Y.) and Alvarez v. Vivint Solar, Inc., et al., No.
20-cv-4000 (E.D.N.Y.), and August 31 captioned Silverberg v. Vivint
Solar, Inc., et al., No. 20-cv-07051 (S.D.N.Y.).

The Brown, Alanazi and Alvarez complaints alleged that the Vivint
Solar Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 14a-9, and the Alanazi complaint contained an
additional allegation that the Vivint directors breached their
fiduciary duty of candor and disclosure.

The Silverberg complaint was filed as a purported class action, and
alleged only a violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 14a-9.

The Brown, Alanazi, and Silverberg complaints were consolidated on
September 8, 2020.

As of the date of the filing of this Form 10-Q, Notices of
voluntary dismissal have been filed by the plaintiffs in all three
cases and are pending final approval by the court. The Alvarez
complaint was dismissed on October 12, 2020.

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.

SUNRUN INC: Toledo Putative Class Action Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
Sunrun 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 putative class action
suit entitled, Toledo v. Vivint Solar, Inc., et al., No.
653982/2020, has been dismissed.

On October 8, 2020, Sunrun completed the acquisition of Vivint
Solar, a leading full-service residential solar provider in the
United States, at an estimated purchase price of $5.0 billion,
pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 6,
2020, by and among the Company, Vivint Solar and Viking Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and direct wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Company pursuant to which Merger Sub merged with and into
Vivint Solar, with Vivint Solar continuing as the surviving
corporation. As a result of the Merger, Vivint Solar became a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

A complaint was filed as a putative class action on August 21, 2020
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against the Vivint
Solar Defendants and Sunrun Defendants (captioned Toledo v. Vivint
Solar, Inc., et al., No. 653982/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)).

The complaint asserted that members of the Vivint Solar Board
breached their fiduciary duties, and that the other defendants
aided and abetted that alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

The Toledo complaint was dismissed on October 12, 2020.

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.

SUNRUN INC: Wolf Putative Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Sunrun 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 putative class action
suit entitled, Wolf v. Vivint Solar, Inc., et al., No 1:20-cv-01111
(D. Del.), has been dismissed.

On October 8, 2020, Sunrun completed the acquisition of Vivint
Solar, a leading full-service residential solar provider in the
United States, at an estimated purchase price of $5.0 billion,
pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 6,
2020, by and among the Company, Vivint Solar and Viking Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and direct wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Company pursuant to which Merger Sub merged with and into
Vivint Solar, with Vivint Solar continuing as the surviving
corporation. As a result of the Merger, Vivint Solar became a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

A complaint captioned Wolf v. Vivint Solar, Inc., et al., No
1:20-cv-01111 (D. Del.) was filed on August 24, 2020, as a putative
class action, and a fourth complaint captioned Abalos v. Vivint,
Solar, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-01117 (D. Del.) was filed on an
individual basis on August 25, 2020, both in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware against the Vivint
Solar Defendants and the Sunrun Defendants.

Both complaints asserted violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 against the Vivint Solar Defendants and
the Sunrun Defendants, and violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the members of the Vivint Solar Board.

These complaints were dismissed on October 8, 2020.

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.

TANDEM DIABETES: Continues to Defend Deluna Consolidated Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tandem Diabetes Care, 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 consolidated class action suit entitled,
Joseph Deluna et al v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.

In May 2020 the company was named as a defendant in three
California state court class action lawsuits arising from a data
breach.

Collectively, these lawsuits seek statutory, compensatory, actual,
and punitive damages; equitable relief, including restitution; pre-
and post-judgment interest; injunctive relief; and attorney fees,
costs, and expenses from the company.

On July 24, 2020, these three pending lawsuits were consolidated
into a single case in the Superior Court of the State of California
in the County of San Bernardino entitled Joseph Deluna et al v.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.

The consolidated case alleges violations of the Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act (CMIA), California Consumer Privacy Act
(CCPA), California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and breach of
contract.

The company filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of all claims, which
was heard by the Court on October 27, 2020, and which resulted in
the following outcome: (i) the demurrer of the CMIA claim was
denied; and (ii) the demurrer of the CCPA, UCL, and contract claims
were sustained with leave to amend the pending complaint.

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. is a public US medical device
manufacturer based in San Diego, CA. The company develops medical
technologies for the treatment of diabetes and specifically insulin
infusion therapy.

TANDEM DIABETES: Facing Walsh Putative Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Tandem Diabetes Care, 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 is a
defendant in a putative class action suit entitled, Buck Walsh,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Tandem
Diabetes Care, Inc.

In September 2020, the company was named as a defendant in the
Walsh lawsuit which was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego County.

The alleged violations include business and professions code and
labor code violations for failure to compensate wages, unpaid meal
and rest periods, and failure to reimburse for necessary
business-related expenses.

The proposed class of plaintiffs includes hourly paid or non-exempt
employees of the Company who were employed from April 6, 2016
through the date of adjudication.

Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. is a public US medical device
manufacturer based in San Diego, CA. The company develops medical
technologies for the treatment of diabetes and specifically insulin
infusion therapy.


TESLA INC: Model S & X Cars Have Suspension Defect, Williams Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHERY WILLIAMS individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TESLA, INC. and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 4:20-cv-08208 (N..D Cal., Nov. 20, 2020) seeks
damages against Tesla for breach of warranty and for unfair and
deceptive acts and practices pertaining to its design and
manufacture of all Tesla Model S and Model X with a production date
between September 17, 2013 and October 15, 2018.

According to the complaint, the Class vehicles suffer from one or
more latent defects in their suspension system that cause the front
and rear suspension control arm assembly components to prematurely
loosen, wear, crack, and/or break.

The suspension defect unreasonably increases the risk of crash and
threatens the health and safety of the drivers and passengers of
the Class vehicles. Moreover, the suspension defect directly
affects the Plaintiff's use, enjoyment, safety, and value of the
Class vehicles. Numerous owners and lessees of the Class vehicles
have experienced the suspension defect already, and Tesla is
gambling with the lives and safety of hundreds of thousands of
additional drivers and passengers whose vehicles suspension parts
at an imminent risk of failure, says the complaint.

For years, Tesla actively concealed the information regarding
suspension defect from its 20 customers and regulators, withholding
its knowledge because once known, the suspension defect would
diminish the Class vehicles' intrinsic and resale value and cause
owners to demand immediate and costly repairs.

The Plaintiff contends that Tesla has not only failed to disclose
the existence of the suspension defect to the Plaintiff and the
Class, it has taken active measures to conceal its knowledge by
misrepresenting the reasons that the affected suspension parts
fail.

As a direct and proximate result of Tesla's unlawful and fraudulent
concealment of the suspension defect, the Plaintiff and the Class
members have suffered significant economic harm. Moreover, because
Tesla has refused to acknowledge and disclose the suspension defect
to its customers, many Class vehicle owners are at a continued
unreasonable risk of suffering serious bodily injury or death.

Plaintiff Williams purchased a pre-owned 2016 Model S directly from
Tesla online. On August 31, 2019, Plaintiff completed his purchased
of the vehicle and took delivery of it. At the time Plaintiff took
delivery of the vehicle, it had 54,492 miles on the odometer and
was covered by Tesla's 2 year/100,000 mile Used Vehicle Limited
Warranty.

Tesla, Inc. is an American electric vehicle and clean energy
company based in Palo Alto, California. Tesla's current products
include electric cars, battery energy storage from home to grid
scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles, and related products and
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          Steven A. Haskins, Esq.
          Mark I. Richards, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  dcw@mccunewright.com
                  sah@mccunewright.com
                  mir@mccunewright.com

TEVA PHARMA: Pension Fund Slams Share Drop Over Kickback Charge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halman Aldubi Provident and Pension Funds Ltd., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Erez Vigodman, Eyal Desheh,
Robert Koremans and Michael Derkacz, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-04660, (E.D. Pa., September 23, 2020), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Teva is a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures,
markets and distribute generic medicines, specialty medicines, and
biopharmaceutical products in North America, Europe, and
internationally. Its product, Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), is a
prescription drug that is used to treat relapsing forms of multiple
sclerosis.

Teva allegedly failed to disclose it had made substantial illegal
kickback payments to charitable foundations to cover Medicare
co-payment obligations of patients taking Copaxone. Teva largely
effectuated its scheme through its vendor, Advanced Care Scripts
Inc. (ACS), a specialty pharmacy to which Teva referred virtually
all Copaxone patients who faced Medicare co-pays for the drug. Teva
used information from ACS and from TAF and CDF to calculate how
much money to pay each foundation to maintain coverage of the
Medicare co-pays of Copaxone patients enrolled in each foundation.


On this news, Teva's American Depository Receipts price fell $1.11
per ADR from its previous close on August 17, 2020, or 9.6%, to
close at $10.48 per ADR on August 18, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
      KASKELA LAW LLC
      18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
      Newtown Square, PA 19073
      Tel: (484) 258-1585
      Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

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


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Pandemic Concerns Postpones MPERS Suit Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, 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 any in-person
mediation in Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi v.
TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al. has been postponed due to the ongoing
COVID-19 concerns until at least November 17, 2020.

On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a
class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and certain of its
officers.

The complaint, amended on March 24, 2017, is purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of TreeHouse common stock from January 20,
2016 through and including November 2, 2016. It asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other
things, damages and costs and expenses.

On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-16359,
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse
and certain of its officers. This complaint, purportedly brought
derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, asserts state law claims
against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, and corporate waste.

On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, et al., Case No. 17-cv-01014, in
the Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of
its officers. This complaint is also purportedly brought
derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse, and it asserts state law
claims against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and
corporate waste.

On February 8, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Bartelt v. Reed, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00835, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. This complaint is purportedly brought
derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse and asserts state law claims
against certain officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate
waste, in addition to asserting violations of Section 14 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Finally, on June 3, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder
filed an action captioned City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement
System v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2019-CH-06753, in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of
its officers.

Like Wells, Lavin, and Bartelt, this complaint is purportedly
brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse and asserts claims for
contribution and indemnification, breach of fiduciary duty, and
aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.

All five complaints make substantially similar allegations (though
the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional detail).

Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under the
authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made
certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s
business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to
disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was
underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business was
underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was
underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016
guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis.

The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of TreeHouse common stock during the class period,
thus purportedly harming investors. The Bartelt action also
includes substantially similar allegations concerning events in
2017, and the Ann Arbor complaint also seeks contribution from the
individual defendants for losses incurred by the company in these
litigations.

The company believes that these claims are without merit and intend
to defend against them vigorously.

Since its initial docketing, the Tarara matter has been
re-captioned as Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi
v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., in accordance with the Court's
order appointing Public Employees' Retirement Systems of
Mississippi as the lead plaintiff.

On May 26, 2017, the Public Employees' defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which the court denied on February 12, 2018. On April 12,
2018, the Public Employees' defendants filed their answer to the
amended complaint. On April 23, 2018, the parties filed a joint
status report with the Court, which set forth a proposed discovery
and briefing schedule for the Court's consideration.

On July 13, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to certify the
class, and the defendants filed their response in opposition to the
motion to certify the class on October 8, 2018. On November 12,
2018, the parties filed an agreed motion to stay proceedings to
allow them to explore mediation. The motion was granted on November
19.

The parties thereafter engaged in mediation but failed to resolve
the dispute.

On March 29, 2019, the parties resumed litigation by filing an
agreed motion for extension of time, which was granted on April 9.
Under that schedule, the lead plaintiff filed its reply class
certification brief on May 17, 2019.

On February 26, 2020, the court granted the lead plaintiff's motion
for class certification. Defendants then filed a petition for
permissive appeal of the class certification order in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on March 11, 2020.
After ordering the lead plaintiff to file a response, the court
denied the petition on May 4, 2020.

On December 16, 2019, the parties agreed to extend the case
schedule 90 days. This agreed motion was granted on December 25,
2019. At a status conference on March 10, 2020, the parties
informed the court that they intended to engage in a second
mediation and the court extended then-upcoming deadlines under the
case schedule, pending a further status report from the parties
regarding the extent of the stay needed to facilitate mediation.

The court subsequently issued multiple general orders as a result
of the COVID-19 outbreak, which together postponed all case
deadlines for a total of 77 days. On June 9, 2020, the parties
filed a joint status report informing the court that mediation had
been scheduled for July 9, 2020.

The next day, the court stayed the case pending the outcome of
mediation.

Any in-person mediation was thereafter postponed due to ongoing
COVID-19 concerns until at least November 17, 2020.

Due to the similarity of the complaints, the parties in Wells and
Lavin entered stipulations deferring the litigation until the
earlier of (i) the court in Public Employees' entering an order
resolving defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss therein or (ii)
plaintiffs' counsel receiving notification of a settlement of
Public Employees' or until otherwise agreed to by the parties.

On September 27, 2018, the parties in Wells and Lavin filed joint
motions for entry of agreed orders further deferring the matters in
light of the Public Employees' Court’s denial of the motion to
dismiss in February 2018.

The Wells and Lavin Courts entered the agreed orders further
deferring the matters on September 27, 2018 and October 10, 2018,
respectively. On June 25, 2019, the parties jointly moved to
consolidate the Bartelt matter with Lavin, so that it would be
subject to the Lavin deferral order.

This motion was granted on June 27, 2019, and Bartelt is now
consolidated with Lavin and deferred. There is no set status date
in Lavin at this time. Similarly, Ann Arbor was consolidated with
Wells on August 13, 2019, and is now deferred. In Wells, the next
status conference is scheduled to take place on January 15, 2021.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.

TREEHOUSE FOODS: Preliminary Settlement Reached in Negrete Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, 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 has
notified the Court that it has reached a preliminary settlement
understanding with the plaintiffs in Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings,
Inc.

The Company is party to matters challenging its wage and hour
practices.

These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under
the caption Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., et al, pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in
which plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California
and/or federal law at three former Company manufacturing facilities
in California.

The Company has notified the Court that it has reached a
preliminary settlement understanding with the Negrete plaintiffs
that would resolve all associated matters for a payment by the
Company of $9 million.

The preliminary understanding reached with the Negrete plaintiffs
involves procedural requirements and Court approval which may
continue through 2021.

As a result of these developments, the Company has an accrual for a
$9.0 million liability as of September 30, 2020.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.

TURQUOISE HILL: Frank R. Cruz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Oct. 21 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd.
("Turquoise Hill" or the "Company") (NYSE: TRQ) common stock
between July 17, 2018 and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Turquoise Hill investors have until December 14, 2020 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

On February 26, 2019, the Company announced in a press release
that, while "the [Oyu Tolgoi] project cost was expected to remain
within the $5.3 billion budget," a review had determined that
"there was an increasingly likely risk of a further delay to
sustainable first production beyond Q3'21." Turquoise Hill
attributed the "likely risk" to productivity setbacks in completing
Shaft 2 and "challenging ground conditions that have had a direct
impact on the project's critical path."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.27, or
approximately 13%, to close at $1.83 per share on February 27,
2019, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on July 15, 2019, Turquoise Hill announced that sustainable
first production from the underground development of Oyu Tolgoi
would now be delayed by another 9 to 21 months until May 2022 to
June 2023. The Company also stated that "the development capital
spend for the project may increase by $1.2 to $1.9 billion over the
$5.3 billion previously disclosed."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.47, or 44%, to
close at $0.60 per share on July 16, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.

Then, on July 31, 2019, after the market closed, Turquoise Hill
disclosed that it had taken a $600 million impairment charge and a
significant "deferred income tax recognition adjustment" tied to
the Oyu Tolgoi project, and that it had suffered a loss in the
second quarter.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.05, or over 8%, to
close at $0.53 per share on August 1, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.

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 the progress
of underground development of Oyu Tolgoi was not proceeding as
planned; (2) that there were significant undisclosed underground
stability problems that called into question the design of the mine
and the projected cost and timing of production; (3) the Company's
publicly released estimates of the cost, date of completion, and
dates for production from the underground mine were not realizable;
(4) the development capital required for the underground
development of Oyu Tolgoi would cost significantly more than a
billion dollars over what Turquoise Hill had represented; (5) the
Company would require further financing and/or equity to complete
the project; and (6) 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 Turquoise Hill securities during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than December 14, 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 Turquoise Hill 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.

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


TWIN CITY FIRE: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Class Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDEPENDENCE BARBERSHOP,
LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED;
v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00555-JRN
(W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James R. Nowlin entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
      Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint;

   2. denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended
      Complaint's Nationwide Class Action Claims.

The Court agrees with the Plaintiff that no standing issue exists.
The Defendant has not challenged the Plaintiff's standing to bring
suit on its own behalf, and the Court does not foresee any reason
such a challenge would be successful. Instead, Defendant challenges
whether the Plaintiff has standing "to bring contract claims under
the laws of California, or Colorado, or Connecticut -- or anywhere
else." As Plaintiff argues, "[Fed.R.Civ.P.] Rule 23, not Article
III standing, is the better framework for analyzing differences
between the named plaintiff and the absent class members." The
Court therefore denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the class
action claims and will determine the question of class
certification at the appropriate time.

The Plaintiff is a barbershop and grooming supply retailer located
in Austin, Texas. The Defendant is an insurance company that sold
and issued an insurance policy to Plaintiff.

On March 31, 2020, in response to the danger posed by the
SARS-CoV-2 virus -- AKA the coronavirus -- and COVID-19, the
disease caused by the virus, the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott,
issued an executive order forcing the temporary closure of the
Plaintiff's business. Having suffered this suspension of
operations, the Plaintiff submitted a claim to Defendant under a
clause in the policy covering "direct physical loss of or physical
damage" to the Plaintiff's place of business. However, Defendant
denied the business income loss claim on the grounds that the
"coronavirus did not cause property damage at [Plaintiff's] place
of business" and "[e]ven if the virus did cause damage, it is
excluded from the policy, and the limited coverage available for
losses caused by virus does not apply to the facts of [Plaintiff's]
loss."

On May 22, 2020, the Plaintiff filed this suit, seeking (a) class
certification and designation as Class Representative; (b) damages
for breach of contract; (c) declaratory judgment; (d) pre- and
post-judgment interest; and (e) attorneys' fees and costs.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 4, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32QgkdT at no extra charge.[CC]

UNDER ARMOUR: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour 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 itself from a consolidated securities class
action suit in Maryland.

On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland were consolidated under the caption In re
Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB.

On August 4, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated
Securities Action, Aberdeen City Council as Administrating
Authority for the North East Scotland Pension Fund, joined by named
plaintiff Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund filed a
consolidated amended complaint against the Company, the Company's
then-Chief Executive Officer, Kevin Plank, and former Chief
Financial Officers Lawrence Molloy and Brad Dickerson.

The Amended Complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act
against the officers named in the Amended Complaint, claiming that
the defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding,
among other things, the Company's growth and consumer demand for
certain of the Company's products.

The class period identified in the Amended Complaint is September
16, 2015 through January 30, 2017. The Amended Complaint also
asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended in connection with the Company's public offering
of senior unsecured notes in June 2016.

The Securities Act claims were asserted against the Company, Mr.
Plank, Mr. Molloy, the Company's directors who signed the
registration statement pursuant to which the offering was made and
the underwriters that participated in the offering.

The Amended Complaint alleged that the offering materials utilized
in connection with the offering contained false and/or misleading
statements and omissions regarding, among other things, the
Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's
products.

On November 9, 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 19, 2018,
the District Court dismissed the Securities Act claims with
prejudice and the Exchange Act claims without prejudice.

Lead plaintiff Aberdeen, joined by named plaintiff Monroe County
Employees’ Retirement Fund filed a Second Amended Complaint on
November 16, 2018, asserting claims under the Exchange Act and
naming the Company and Mr. Plank as the remaining defendants.

The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on January 17, 2019. On August 19, 2019, the
District Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with
prejudice.

In September 2019, plaintiffs Aberdeen and Bucks County filed an
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
challenging the decisions by the District Court on September 19,
2018 and August 19, 2019. The Appeal was fully briefed as of
January 16, 2020.

On November 6 and December 17, 2019, two purported shareholders of
the Company filed putative securities class actions in the District
Court against the Company and certain of its current and former
executives (captioned Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No.
1:19-cv-03209-RDB, and Waronker v. Under Armour, Inc., No.
1:19-cv-03581-RDB.

The complaints in Patel and Waronker alleged violations of Section
10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) of the Exchange Act, against all defendants,
and Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act
against the current and former officers named in the complaints.

The complaints claimed that the defendants' disclosures and
statements supposedly misrepresented or omitted that the Company
was purportedly shifting sales between quarterly periods allegedly
to appear healthier and that the Company was under investigation by
and cooperating with the United States Department of Justice and
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission since July
2017.

On November 18, 2019, Aberdeen, the lead plaintiff in the
Consolidated Securities Action, filed in the District Court a
motion for an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 62.1 seeking relief from the final judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Rule 62.1 Motion alleged
that purported newly discovered evidence entitled Aberdeen to
relief from the District Court's final judgment.

Aberdeen also filed motions seeking (i) to consolidate the Patel
and Waronker cases with the Consolidated Securities Action, and
(ii) to be appointed lead plaintiff over the consolidated cases.

On January 22, 2020, the District Court granted Aberdeen's Rule
62.1 motion and indicated that it would grant a motion for relief
from the final judgment and provide Aberdeen with the opportunity
to file a third amended complaint if the Fourth Circuit remanded
for that purpose.

The District Court further stated that it would, upon remand,
consolidate the Patel and Waronker cases with the Consolidated
Securities Action and appoint Aberdeen as the lead plaintiff over
the consolidated cases.

On August 13, 2020, the Fourth Circuit remanded the Appeal to the
District Court for the limited purpose of allowing the District
Court to rule on Aberdeen's motion seeking relief from the final
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

On September 14, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting
that relief. The District Court's order also consolidated the Patel
and Waronker cases into the Consolidated Securities Action and
appointed Aberdeen as lead plaintiff over the Consolidated
Securities Action.

On October 14, 2020, Aberdeen, along with named plaintiffs Monroe
and KBC Asset Management NV, filed a third amended complaint in the
Consolidated Securities Action, asserting claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company and Mr.
Plank and under Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Mr. Plank.


The TAC alleges that the defendants supposedly concealed
purportedly declining consumer demand for certain of the Company's
products between the third quarter of 2015 and the fourth quarter
of 2016 by making allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's performance and future prospects and by
engaging in undisclosed and allegedly improper sales and accounting
practices, including shifting sales between quarterly periods
allegedly to appear healthier.

The TAC also alleges that the defendants purportedly failed to
disclose that the Company was under investigation by and
cooperating with DOJ and the SEC since July 2017. The class period
identified in the TAC is September 16, 2015 through November 1,
2019.

The Company continues to believe that the claims asserted in the
Consolidated Securities Action are without merit and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Under Armour said, "However, because of the inherent uncertainty as
to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at this
time to estimate the possible impact of this matter."

Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.

UNDER ARMOUR: Suit Over MyFitnessPal Data Breach Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour 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 consumer class action lawsuit related to the
company's MyFitnessPal application and website.

In 2018, an unauthorized third party acquired data associated with
the Company's Connected Fitness users' accounts for the Company's
MyFitnessPal application and website.

The Company has faced consumer class action lawsuits associated
with this incident and has received inquiries regarding the
incident from certain government regulators and agencies.

The Company does not currently consider these matters to be
material and believes its insurance coverage will provide coverage
should any significant expense arise.

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

Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.


UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Class Action Seek Tuition Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------
The College Fix reports that many colleges are claiming there's no
contractual difference between learning online and in person as
they invoke COVID-19 to keep students, who are not at serious risk
from the illness, out of communal environments.

Students around the country who abruptly saw their educations
yanked out of classrooms, labs and offices beg to differ.

The University of San Diego is one of the latest schools to face a
class-action lawsuit by students claiming they are owed a refund
for an objectively worse education in the spring semester, The San
Diego Union-Tribune reports.

Haley Martinez and Matthew Sheridan are students in the Catholic
university's $6,500 Paralegal Certificate Program, which moved
online in the name of COVID-19 mitigation. Their suit seeks to
represent the entire USD student body of 9,000:

USD students "contracted and paid for an education, not course
credits," the lawsuit states. "They paid for the robust education
and full experience of academic life on USD's campus; remote online
learning cannot provide the same value as in-person education."

The lawsuit points to USD's own tuition structure, which assigns a
different dollar value to in-person instruction than it does online
learning. For example, a master of science in health care
informatics costs $1,580 per unit of on-campus classes compared to
$925 per unit for the online version.

In the online environment, Sheridan received fewer hours of
instruction and days of classes than promised, the lawsuit states.

Sheridan missed out on a "real world" internship that the paralegal
program had promised, according to the USD lawsuit. He had to make
do with a simulated one instead, adding to the concern that he may
be at a disadvantage when it comes time to get a job, said one of
his Washington, D.C.-based lawyers, Yvette Golan.

Golan is litigating similar lawsuits against the University of
Rochester, where a music student was banned from continuing "his
chamber ensemble and organ classes," as well as Yale, Northwestern
and Boston College. The harm from the sudden moves online, in
violation of contracts with students, "is going to follow them
through their careers," she told the Union-Tribune.

According to the newspaper, suits seeking class-action status
against the University of California and California State
University systems "are already deep into litigation," with
potentially 750,000 students represented if certified:

The lawsuits point to federal pandemic stimulus money that
California's universities have been given to help them and their
students through the crisis -- more than $785 million between the
two main systems. Attorneys representing a Sonoma State University
student suing the CSU argued "the CARES funds are intended to be
used as emergency cash grants, not as a vehicle for universities to
retain money that is not theirs to retain." [GN]


US XPRESS: Continues to Defend 2019 Independent Contractor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, 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
and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S. Xpress Leasing,
Inc., continue to defend a putative independent contractor class
action suit.

On March 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
against the Company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S.
Xpress Leasing, Inc.

The putative class includes all individuals who performed work for
U.S. Xpress, Inc. or U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. as lease drivers
from March 26, 2016 to present. The complaint alleges that
independent contractors are improperly designated as such and
should be designated as employees and thus subject to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The complaint further alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.'s pay
practices for the putative class members violated the minimum wage
provisions of the FLSA for the period from March 26, 2016 to
present.

The complaint further alleges that the Company violated the
requirements of the Truth in Leasing Act with regard to the
independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements it
entered into with the putative class members.

The complaint further alleges that the Company failed to comply
with the terms of the independent contractor agreements and lease
purchase agreements entered into with the putative class members,
that it violated the provisions of the Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act in advertising, describing and marketing the lease
purchase program to the putative class members, and that it was
unjustly enriched as a result of the foregoing allegations.

The company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on October 18,
2019. On January 17, 2020, the court granted that motion, in part,
compelling arbitration on all of the plaintiff's claims and denying
the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a
collective action. The court further stayed the matter pending
arbitration, rather than dismissing it entirely.

On March 6, 2020, the plaintiff petitioned the court to certify the
decision for an interlocutory appeal. The Company filed an
opposition to plaintiff’s motion on March 20, 2020, and plaintiff
filed her reply on April 3, 2020, purportedly relying, in part, on
a recent case from Massachusetts. In response to that newly cited
case, the Company was granted leave to file a surreply, which it
filed on April 13, 2020.

On September 3, 2020, the district court denied Plaintiff's
petition. The plaintiff has not yet initiated arbitration on the
claims.

U.S. Xpress said, "There has been no discovery in this matter, and
we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to
reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe
the allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend
to defend ourselves vigorously against the complaints relating to
such actions."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


US XPRESS: IPO Related Class Action Suits Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, 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 several class action suits related to its
initial public offering ("IPO").

Between November 2018 and April 2019, eight substantially similar
putative securities class action complaints were filed against the
Company and certain other defendants: five in the Circuit Court of
Hamilton County, Tennessee ("Tennessee State Court Cases"), two in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
("Federal Court Cases"), and one in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York ("New York State Court Case").

All of these matters are in preliminary stages of litigation. The
company is currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to
reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. The
company believes the allegations made in the complaints are without
merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters.

As to the Tennessee State Court Cases, two of five complaints were
voluntarily dismissed and the remaining three were consolidated
with a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint filed on May 10,
2019 in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against the
Company, five of the company's current and former officers or
directors, and the seven underwriters who participated in our June
2018 initial public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2)  and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act").

The putative class action lawsuit is based on allegations that the
Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO. The lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's Class A
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, and seeks, among
other things, compensatory damages, costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees) on behalf of the putative class.

On June 28, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Tennessee State Court Cases for failure to allege facts sufficient
to support a violation of Section 11, 12 or 15 of the Securities
Act, which motion remains pending. Discovery is currently stayed
pending a decision on the Motion to Dismiss.

As to the Federal Court Cases, the operative amended complaint was
filed on October 8, 2019 ("Amended Federal Complaint"), which named
the same defendants as the Tennessee State Court Cases.

The Amended Federal Complaint is made on behalf of a putative class
that consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Class A common stock of the Company between June 14, 2018 and
November 1, 2018 and who were allegedly damaged thereby.

In addition to claims for alleged violations of Section 11 and 15
of the Securities Act, the Amended Federal Complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") against the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer.

On December 23, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Federal Complaint in its entirety for failure to allege
facts sufficient to state a claim under either the Securities Act
or the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that
Motion on March 9, 2020, and the defendants filed their Reply brief
on April 23, 2020.

On June 30, 2020, the court presiding over the Federal Court Cases
issued its ruling granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Amended Federal Complaint. The
court dismissed entirely the plaintiffs' claims for alleged
violations of the Exchange Act and further held that the plaintiffs
failed to state a claim for violation of the Securities Act with
respect to the majority of statements challenged as false or
misleading in the Amended Federal Complaint.

The court, however, held that the Federal Amended Complaint
sufficiently alleged violations of the Securities Act with respect
to two statements from the June 2018 IPO registration statement and
prospectus that the plaintiffs alleged to be false or misleading,
both on theories of alleged misrepresentations and material
omissions.

Accordingly, the court allowed this action to proceed beyond the
pleading stage, but only with respect to the statements deemed
sufficient to support a Securities Act claim when assuming the
truth of the plaintiffs' allegations. The Federal Court Cases are
currently in discovery .

On September 11, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification, which remains pending.

As to the New York State Case, on March 14, 2019, a substantially
similar putative class action complaint was filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, by a different
plaintiff alleging claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act against the same defendants as in the Tennessee
State Court Cases.

The parties have stipulated to extend the time for the defendants
to respond to the complaint in this matter pending resolution of
the Motions to Dismiss filed in the remaining of the Tennessee
State Court Cases and the Federal Court Cases.

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


US XPRESS: Petition to Appeal in Cal. Wage & Hour Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, 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
petition seeking permission to file an interlocutory appeal of a
court decision on a minimum wage claim granted.

On December 23, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and its subsidiary U.S. Xpress, Inc. in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Bernardino. The Company removed the
case from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The plaintiff's initial proposed class certification (any employee
driver who has driven in California at any time since December 23,
2011) was denied by the district court under Rule 26 due to lack of
commonality amongst the putative class members.  

The Court granted the plaintiff's revised Motion for Class
Certification, and the certified class now consists of all employee
drivers who resided in California and who have driven in the State
of California on behalf of U.S. Xpress at any time since December
23, 2011.

The case alleges that class members were not paid for off-the-clock
work, were not provided duty free meal or rest breaks, and were not
paid premium pay in their absence, were not paid the California
minimum wage for all hours worked in that state, were not provided
accurate and complete itemized wage statements and were not paid
all accrued wages at the end of their employment, all in violation
of California law.

The class seeks a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties,
injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

On May 2, 2019, the district court dismissed on grounds of
preemption the claims alleging failure to provide duty free meal
and rest breaks or to pay premium pay for failure to provide such
breaks under California law.

The parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the
remaining claims, and the Company filed a motion to decertify the
class.

The court recently issued it ruling on the pending cross-motions:
(1) the court denied the Company's motion to decertify the class;
(2) the court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment on
the plaintiff's minimum wage claim for non-driving duties such as
pre-trip and post-trip inspection, fueling, receiving dispatches,
waiting to load or unload, and handling paperwork for the loads for
January 1, 2013 forward (leaving the minimum wage claim only for
the approximate one-year time period from December 23, 2011 to
December 31, 2012); (3) the court granted the plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment for the time spent taking Department of
Transportation-required 10-hour breaks while hauling high value
loads in California for solo drivers and for the designated team
driver responsible for the load; and (4) the court denied the
balance of cross-motions.

The plaintiff filed a petition for permission to file an
interlocutory appeal of the court's decision on the minimum wage
claim, which the district court and the Ninth Circuit both granted.


The company anticipates the appeal will be fully-briefed by
approximately the end of February 2021. The parties have agreed to
request the district court to stay the trial presently scheduled
for February 16, 2021 until after the appeal is decided.

The district court will still need to decide the scope of the stay
as to whether the case will be completely stayed or whether the
parties will complete expert discovery over the next several
months.

U.S. Xpress said, "We are currently not able to predict the
probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential
losses, if any. We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these
claims."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


US XPRESS: Plaintiff in Tenn. Contractor Suit Agrees to Arbitrate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, 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
plaintiff in the putative collective and class action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee has agreed to submit his claim to individual
arbitration.

On June 25, 2020, a putative collective and class action complaint
was filed against the Company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress,
Inc. and U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The putative class and collective action includes all current and
former over-the-road truck drivers classified as independent
contractors and employed by us during the applicable statute of
limitations.

The complaint alleges that independent contractors are improperly
designated as such and should be designated as employees subject to
the FLSA. The complaint alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.'s pay
practices for the putative collective and class members violated
the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA for the period from June
25, 2017 to the present.

The complaint further alleges that the company failed to pay the
plaintiff and members of the class for all miles they drove and
breached the contract between the parties and that we were unjustly
enriched as a result of the foregoing allegations.

The plaintiff agreed to submit his claim to individual arbitration.


U.S. Xpress said, "There has been no discovery in this matter, and
we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to
reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe
the allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend
to defend ourselves vigorously against the complaints relating to
such actions."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


US XPRESS: Suit Over Phishing Attack Ends Following Parties' Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, 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 reached settlements with both Plaintiffs on an individual not
class basis and the settlements resolve the litigation.

As a result, the litigation was terminated in its entirety as of
September 21, 2020.

On June 5, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee arising out of a September 2019 phishing attack on the
Company.

Plaintiffs alleged their personally identifiable information
("PII") was compromised. Plaintiffs further allege that the Company
failed to implement adequate security measures to prevent the
phishing attack and failed to provide individuals whose PII was
potentially impacted with timely and accurate notice.

Plaintiffs bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a putative
class of "all persons residing in the United States whose PII was
exposed" as a result of the phishing attack. Plaintiffs also
asserted a Florida-specific subclass.

Plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of confidence, and breach of implied contract.

U.S. Xpress said, "We believed all of the counts in the complaint
were without merit and defended ourselves vigorously in this
matter."

The Company reached settlements with both Plaintiffs on an
individual (not class) basis. The settlements resolve the
litigation, which was terminated in its entirety as of September
21, 2020.

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


WALMART INC: Johnson Slams Denied Tire Care Service
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Walmart Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-at-00727 (E.D. Cal., September 23, 2020) seeks claims for breach
of contract, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, including
equitable relief, a refund of all moneys acquired illegally,
statutory damages, actual damages, treble and punitive damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, filing fees and reasonable costs.

Walmart provides auto and tire maintenance services at their Auto
Care Centers across the nation. Johnson purchased lifetime tire
balance and rotation services offered by Walmart which includes
tire rotation and balancing services every 7,500 miles for the life
of the qualified tires.

In or around March 2020, Auto Care Centers were voluntarily closed,
and Plaintiff was refused service at multiple store locations.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
      Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
      Brian G. Lee, Esq.
      YOON LAW, APC
      One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 612-0988
      Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
      Email: kyoon@yoonlaw.com
             syasuda@yoonlaw.com
             blee@yoonlaw.com


WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Class Definition in Bitzko Suit Modified
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTY BITZKO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA, Case No. 1:17-cv-00458-BKS-DJS
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes entered an order
granting the parties' joint motion to modify the class definition
as follows:

      "all consumers to whom Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA
      mailed letters to addresses within the jurisdiction of
      the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to collect
      debts: (i) which were primarily for personal, family, or
      household purposes; and (ii) which debts were subject to
      increase based on interest and/or late fees; and (iii)
      to whom WWR sent letters failing to disclose that the
      amount of the debt was subject to increase; (iv) during
      the period from on or after a date one year prior to the
      filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days
      after the filing of this action."

The parties were directed to file a joint status report regarding
settlement by November 18, 2020.

The Court concludes a change in the anticipated number of class
members alters the superiority analysis because "[s]uch an
insignificant recovery is harmful to a putative plaintiff who might
have prosecuted his claim individually but failed to opt-out of the
class, and it is meaningless to everyone else." In support of the
present motion, the parties indicate that "it would be fair to
anticipate there to be a minimum recovery of at least $21.00 per
member, based on WWR's admitted net worth" of $9,453,130 with 1%
totaling $94,531.30. Accordingly, considerations of superiority
warrant the geographic narrowing of the class definition.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 4, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lBhe5f at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff and Class are represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530

               - and -

          Glenn M. Fjermedal, Esq.
          DAVIDSON FINK, LLP
          28 East Main Street, Suite 1700
          Rochester, NY 14614

WPX ENERGY: Allen Challenges $12-Bil. Merger Value With Devon
-------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE ALLEN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
WPX ENERGY, INC., RICHARD E. MUNCRIEF, CLAY M. GASPAR, KIMBERLY S.
LUBEL, JOHN A. CARRIG, KELT KINDICK, ROBERT, K. HERDMAN, VALERIE M.
WILLIAMS, KARL F. KURZ, D. MARTIN PHILLIPS, DOUGLAS E. SWANSON,
JR., DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION, and EAST MERGER - SUB, INC., Case
No. 656458/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Nov. 20, 2020) is
stockholder class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other
public stockholders of WPX Energy against the Defendants for
breaches of fiduciary duty arising from the Defendants' efforts to
sell the Company to Devon as a result of an proposed transaction
valued at approximately $12 billion.

The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in an
September 28, 2020, filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and
Plan of Merger. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, WPX will
become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Devon. WPX public
stockholders will receive, in exchange for each share of WPX common
stock they own, 0.5165 shares of Devon. This implies a per share
value of approximately $4.56 for WPX based on Devon's closing price
on September 25, 2020, the last full day of trading prior to the
merger announcement, of $8.82 per share.

Thereafter, on November 5, 2020, Devon filed a Registration
Statement on Form S-4 with the SEC in support of the proposed
transaction. The dubious nature of the proposed transaction is laid
bare considering the lack of
protections afforded WPX stockholders against fluctuations in
Devon's share price. Here, the Merger Consideration is composed
entirely of Devon common stock exchanged at a fixed exchange ratio
of 0.5165 which means that WPX stockholders will receive 0.5165
shares of Devon common stock as a in exchange for each of their WPX
shares, regardless of Devon's stock price at the close of the
transaction. Thus, the consideration payable to WPX's stockholders
is not insulated from fluctuations m Devon's stock price, and
stockholders are left in the precarious position of not knowing
whether the consideration payable to them will decline further.

In addition, the Proposed Transaction is unfair and undervalued for
a number of reasons. Significantly, the Registration Statement
describes an insufficient sales process in which potentially
interested third parties were contacted.

Such a sales process, or lack thereof, clearly indicates that the
only end-goal acceptable to the Defendants was an acquisition of
WPX by Devon.

The Plaintiff contends that in approving the Proposed Transaction,
the Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of
loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure by agreeing to sell
WPX without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class
members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under
the circumstances

Absent judicial intervention, the Proposed Transaction will be
consummated, resulting in irreparable injury to the Plaintiff and
the Class, says the complaint . This action seeks to enjoin the
Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Indiana and, at all times relevant
hereto, has been a WPX stockholder.

Defendant WPX an independent oil and natural gas exploration and
production company, engages in the exploitation and development of
unconventional properties in the United States.

The Individial Defendants are officers and directors of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          240 Mineola Boulevard
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 741-4977
          Facsimile: (561) 741-0626

WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Cobden Suit Hits Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Carone Cobden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wrap Technologies, Inc., David Norris,
James A. Barnes and Thomas Smith, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-08760,
(C.D. Cal., September 23, 2020), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Wrap purports to develop security products for law enforcement and
security personnel, including the BolaWrap 100, a hand-held remote
restraint device that discharges an eight-foot bola style Kevlar
tether to entangle a subject at a range of 10-25 feet. On December
3, 2019, Wrap announced that the Los Angeles Police Department had
decided to train its officers on the BolaWrap and employ 200
devices in the field for a trial, pilot program.

Wrap allegedly failed to disclose that it had concealed the results
of the LAPD BolaWrap pilot program, which demonstrated that the
BolaWrap was ineffective, expensive and sparingly used in the
field. On this news, securities of Wrap fell $2.07 per share, or
25.43% to close at $6.07 per share on September 23, 2020, damaging
investors.

Cobden purchased Wrap securities at artificially inflated prices
and lost upon revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


ZYNGA INC: Awaits Court Ruling in Bid to Transfer Oeste Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga 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 parties in the class
action suit initiated by James Oeste and Marissa Oeste, are
awaiting the court's ruling on the motion to transfer the action to
the Northern District of California.

On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had
occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of
the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and
advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist.
The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of
2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account
information and other Zynga information, and that no financial
information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to
players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where the
company believes notice was required or appropriate.

On June 9, 2020, plaintiffs James Oeste and Marissa Oeste, both
residents of Maryland, filed a fourth class action complaint in the
Northern District of Maryland.

The Plaintiffs allege they were Zynga players who were affected by
the Data Incident. The Oeste plaintiffs seek to represent a
nationwide class and generally allege that Zynga failed to
adequately or reasonably protect their personally identifiable
player information (PPI), including names, email addresses,
passwords, and more; that Zynga failed to protect their PII by
using outdated and unlawful password encryption methods; that Zynga
failed to adequately provide notice of the Data Incident; and that
they have been harmed as a result of the Data Incident.

The Oeste plaintiffs assert claims for contractual breach,
negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, and claims for
relief under California consumer protection and unfair competition
statutes.

Zynga responded to the complaint on August 31, 2020, with a motion
to transfer the action to the Northern District of California.

The briefing on the motion was completed on September 24, 2020, and
the parties are awaiting the court's ruling on the motion.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.

ZYNGA INC: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Chaudhri-Gitre Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga 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 parties are awaiting the
court's ruling on the motion to compel arbitration in the class
action suit initiated by Nasim Chaudhri and Amy Gitre.

On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had
occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of
the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and
advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist.
The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of
2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account
information and other Zynga information, and that no financial
information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to
players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where the
company believes notice was required or appropriate.

Since March 3, 2020, five consumer class action complaints have
been filed in connection with the Data Incident in federal court.
On March 3, 2020, two plaintiffs–-minor "I.C." (acting through
his parent Nasim Chaudhri) and Amy Gitre-–filed a class action
complaint arising out of the Data Incident generally alleging that
Zynga failed to reasonably safeguard certain player information,
including names, addresses, email addresses, passwords and more;
failed to provide them with timely notification of the breach; and
made unlawful representations over the safety and security of
plaintiffs’ personal information.

The Plaintiffs allege claims against Zynga under several state law
theories, including negligence, and unjust enrichment. The Chaudhri
plaintiffs seek monetary relief and damages.  

Zynga filed a motion to compel arbitration on May 8, 2020. The
hearing on the motion, originally set for August 25, 2020, was
vacated by the court and the matter deemed submitted.

The parties are awaiting the court's ruling on the motion.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.

ZYNGA INC: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Johnson-Thomas Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga 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 parties in the class
action suit initiated by Carol Johnson and Lisa Thomas, are
awaiting the court's ruling on the motion to compel arbitration.

On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had
occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of
the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and
advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist.
The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of
2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account
information and other Zynga information, and that no financial
information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to
players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where the
company believes notice was required or appropriate.

On March 23, 2020, plaintiffs Carol Johnson and Lisa Thomas filed a
class action complaint in the Northern District of California
federal court.

Similar to the Chaudhri complaint, the Johnson plaintiffs residents
of Missouri and Wisconsin, assert Zynga failed to adequately
protect their personally identifiable player information ("PII"),
including names, email addresses, passwords, password reset tokens,
and phone numbers (among other items). Plaintiffs contend that,
despite Zynga's representations in its privacy policy that
sensitive player information would be adequately protected,
plaintiffs' PII was improperly stored in plain text formatting, and
inadequate encryption methods were used to store sensitive password
information.

Plaintiffs allege that the lack of adequate security measures
caused them harm as a result of the Data Incident, and they assert
numerous state law claims against Zynga, including claims for
negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and declaratory
relief.  

The Johnson plaintiffs additionally assert claims for breach of
confidence, breach of contract and implied contract, violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL", CGL 17200, et seq.),
and state-specific violations of Missouri's Merchandising Practices
Act and Wisconsin’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiffs seek damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive
relief.

On May 26, 2020, Zynga filed a motion to compel arbitration. The
hearing on the motion, originally set for August 25, 2020, was
vacated by the court and the matter deemed submitted.

The parties are awaiting the court's ruling on the motion.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.

ZYNGA INC: Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid in Martinez-Petro Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga 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 parties in the class
action suit initiated by  Joseph Martinez IV and Daniel Petro, are
awaiting the court's ruling on the motion to compel arbitration.

On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had
occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of
the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and
advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist.
The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of
2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account
information and other Zynga information, and that no financial
information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to
players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where the
company believes notice was required or appropriate.

On April 15, 2020, plaintiffs Joseph Martinez IV and Daniel Petro,
residents of Colorado and Iowa, filed a third class action
complaint in the Northern District of California.

Plaintiffs allege they are longtime Zynga players who were affected
by the Data Incident. Similar to the Chaudhri and Johnson
plaintiffs, the Martinez plaintiffs generally allege that Zynga
failed to adequately store and protect or otherwise secure their
PII, including names, email addresses, passwords, and more; that
Zynga failed to protect their personally identifiable player
information ("PII") by using outdated and unlawful password
encryption methods; that Zynga failed to adequately provide notice
of the Data Incident; and that they have been harmed as a result of
the Data Incident.

Like Johnson and Chaudhri, the Martinez plaintiffs assert claims
for negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment, as well
as contractual claims, and claims for relief under multiple state
consumer protection statutes.

Additionally, the Martinez plaintiffs also assert misrepresentation
and omission claims under California's false advertising law and
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of a
nationwide class. Zynga responded to the Martinez complaint by
filing a motion to compel arbitration on June 19, 2020.

The hearing on the motion, originally set for August 25, 2020, was
vacated by the court and the matter deemed submitted.

The parties are awaiting the court's ruling on the motion.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.

ZYNGA INC: Continues to Defend Rosiak Data Breach Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga 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 initiated by Christopher Rosiak.

On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had
occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of
the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and
advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist.
The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of
2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account
information and other Zynga information, and that no financial
information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to
players, investors, regulators, and other third parties, where the
company believes notice was required or appropriate.

On August 13, 2020, Plaintiff Rosiak filed a fifth class action in
the Northern District of California. The Plaintiff alleges similar
and analogous claims to those in the Martinez (and other) actions,
alleging that he suffered harm as a result of Zynga's data breach.


As in those actions, Plaintiff Rosiak also alleges multiple state
law claims, including contract-based claims, negligence, and
violation of California's unfair competition, false advertising,
and consumer protection statutes.

Zynga is reviewing the complaint, and a response to the complaint
is due 30 days after the court issues its ruling on the motions to
compel arbitration that are pending in the related actions.

Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social
video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in
San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily
focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its
mission as "connecting the world through games.

[*] Ontario AG Announces Amendments to 1992 Class Proceedings Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adriana Forest, Esq. -- aforest@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy
Tetrault, reports that Ontario's Attorney General has now announced
that the amendments to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (the "CPA"),
as found in Bill 161, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act, 2020,
entered into force on October 1, 2020.

These significant changes to the CPA were proposed late last year
after extensive review of the legislation by the Law Commission of
Ontario.

Subject to specified exceptions outlined in s. 39 of the CPA, the
new rules will only apply to class proceedings commenced on or
after the amended CPA's entry into force, being October 1, 2020. As
discussed in a prior post, the key aspects of the amendments will
change class proceedings going forward:

* If a Plaintiff does not file a certification record or timetable
within one year of commencing the action, it will be dismissed for
delay (s. 29.1(1)). Pursuant to s. 39(2), the clock starts running
on October 1, 2020 to dismiss existing actions for delay.

* The test for certification now requires that common issues
predominate over individual issues in order for a class action to
be considered the preferable procedure. Furthermore, Courts are
directed to consider whether a variety of alternative proceedings
are preferable to a class action (s. 5(1.1)).

* Ontario Courts are now required to decide whether Ontario is the
preferable forum for the procedure, which can take place prior to
the motion for certification (s. 5(6), 5(8)).

* Plaintiffs must register their proceedings according to the
regulations, and serve an Ontario notice of certification on
counsel advancing parallel proceedings in other provinces (s.
2(1.1)).

* Defence motions to narrow or dispose of the proceeding will be
presumptively determined prior to the motion for certification,
overturning prior jurisprudence holding that such motions should be
delayed until at least the certification stage (s. 4.1).

* Plaintiffs are barred from making material amendments to a
proposed class action on appeal from a certification decision, and
defendants and plaintiffs now have the same direct right of appeal
from a certification decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal (s.
30(1)-(2)).

* Carriage motions should be decided faster (within 60 days of
commencement of the first action) and on a set of defined criteria,
with no appeals allowed (s. 13.1, 13.1(5)).

* The Class will only recover the costs of giving notice of
certification if the claim actually succeeds (s. 22(1.1)).

* If a Plaintiff receives third-party funding, it is now mandatory
to disclose the fee sharing arrangement and the defendant will have
a direct right of action against the funder for costs (s. 16(5)(e),
33.1, 33.1(8)).

* Class counsel is now required to make full and frank disclosure
of prescribed factors intended to assist the court in assessing the
fairness of a proposed settlement before it is approved (s.
27.1(7)) and the Court may hold back Class counsel's fees until it
is satisfied with the distribution of settlement funds (s. 32(6)).

In addition to the changes introduced by the amendments to the CPA
statute, new regulations to the amended CPA have also been brought
into force, as follows:

* A new General Regulation, which includes:

  - Details regarding the registration of proceedings commenced
    under the CPA; and

  - Technical rules related to the timing of the commencement of a
    proposed class proceeding that includes a claim under s. 138.3

    of the Securities Act (Liability for secondary market
    disclosure).

* A new Subrogated Claims Regulation, containing details necessary
to implement the new s. 27.3 of the CPA;

* Consequential amendments to O. Reg. 771/92 (Class Proceedings)
under the Law Society Act; and

* Minor amendments to R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (Rules of Civil
Procedure) under the Courts of Justice Act.

These legislative changes represent a major shift for class
proceedings in Ontario. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECONY Accrues $7MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc.'s subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company
of New York, Inc. (CECONY) had accrued liability of US$7 million
for asbestos suits at September 30, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

CECONY also deferred US$7 million as regulatory assets related to
asbestos suits at September 30, 2020.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/UNnEot


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2020, that the Company, CenterPoint Energy
Houston Electric, LLC, and CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. are
from time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants
in lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due
to exposure to asbestos.

The Company states, "Some facilities owned by the Registrants or
their predecessors contain or have contained asbestos insulation
and other asbestos-containing materials.  The Registrants are from
time to time named, along with numerous others, as defendants in
lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos, and the Registrants anticipate that
additional claims may be asserted in the future.  Although their
ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants
do not expect these matters, either individually or in the
aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on their financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/bdBjBX


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Units Still Defends Claims at Sept. 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCOR International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 27, 2020, that subsidiaries Spence Engineering
Company, Inc. and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. are
still facing asbestos-related product liability claims.

The Company states, "Asbestos-related product liability claims
continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries: Spence
Engineering Company, Inc. ("Spence"), the stock of which the
Company acquired in 1984; and CIRCOR Instrumentation Technologies,
Inc. (f/k/a Hoke, Inc.) ("Hoke"), the stock of which it acquired in
1998.  The Hoke subsidiary was divested in January 2020 through our
sale of the I&S business.  However, the Company has indemnified the
buyer for asbestos-related claims that are made against Hoke.  Due
to the nature of the products supplied by these entities, the
markets they serve and our historical experience in resolving these
claims, the Company does not expect that these asbestos-related
claims will have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity of the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/iGRQEx


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Accrues $8MM Liability at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. had accrued liability of US$8 million for
asbestos suits at September 30, 2020, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.  The Company
also deferred US$8 million as regulatory assets for
asbestos-related suits at Sept. 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State and
federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the
Utilities.  The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have
been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts
that were not, in the aggregate, material to them.  The amounts
specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of
dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are
greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims.

"At September 30, 2020, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their
estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these
suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15
years as shown in the following table.  These estimates were based
upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk
factor assessment.  Courts have begun, and unless otherwise
determined on appeal may continue, to apply different standards for
determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that
applied historically.  As a result, the Companies currently believe
that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in
excess of the liability accrued for the suits.  The Companies are
unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss.

"In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or
are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged
disability from exposure to asbestos.  CECONY is permitted to defer
as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs
incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation
claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/UNnEot


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $578MM Reserves in Sept.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC has recognized asbestos-related reserves
of US$578 million at September 30, 2020, according to Duke Energy
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized
asbestos-related reserves of US$578 million at September 30, 2020,
and US$604 million at December 31, 2019.  These reserves are
classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other
within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets.  These reserves are based upon Duke Energy Carolinas' best
estimate for current and future asbestos claims through 2040 and
are recorded on an undiscounted basis.  In light of the
uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does
not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical
costs that might be incurred after 2040 related to such potential
claims.  It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos
liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves.

"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention.  Duke Energy Carolinas'
cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insured retention in
2008.  Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by
the third-party insurance carrier.  The insurance policy limit for
potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical
cost claim payments is US$714 million in excess of the self-insured
retention.  Receivables for insurance recoveries were US$704
million at September 30, 2020, and US$742 million at December 31,
2019.  These amounts are classified in Other within Other
Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.  Duke Energy Carolinas is
not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of
insurance claims.  Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance
recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier
continues to have a strong financial strength rating."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/x6AXQt


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Estimates $101.1MM Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation has recorded US$101.1 million for possible
future liability related to asbestos matters based on the Company's
actuarial study data as of September 30, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "During the three months ended September 30,
2020, our critical accounting policies and methodology used in
determining reserves for contingent losses associated with
unasserted asbestos claims changed.  We identified accounting
errors related to the recognition of a liability for unasserted
asbestos claims.  The adjustments primarily related to an incurred
but not reported ("IBNR") liability associated with unasserted
asbestos claims, but also included adjustments related to the
associated receivables for expected insurance proceeds for asbestos
settlement and defense costs from insurance coverage and related
legal fees.

"The Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits that seek to
recover damages for personal injury allegedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos-containing products formerly manufactured
and/or distributed by heritage companies of the Company.
Historically, the Company estimated the liability for unsettled
asbestos-related claims based on known claims and on experience
during the preceding two years for claims filed, settled and
dismissed, with adjustments for events deemed unusual or unlikely
to recur.

"In October 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with two insurance companies providing coverage for one of its
heritage companies.  Given the size of the settlement, and as part
of the third quarter close process, the Company re-evaluated its
accounting for asbestos-related matters and evaluated the amount of
receivables that were currently recorded.  Additionally the Company
considered the amount of historical data available, related to
historic asbestos claims and settlements, which led the Company to
conclude that a liability for an IBNR was probable and reasonably
estimable.

"The Company initiated an actuarial study to determine the amount
of the IBNR, excluding legal fees, and evaluated all insurance
programs for all product lines for insurance recoveries.  With the
assistance of third party consultants, the Company estimates the
liability for pending and future claims not yet asserted, and which
are probable and estimable, through 2049, which represents the
expected end of our asbestos liability exposure with no further
ongoing claims expected beyond that date.  This estimate is based
on the Company's historical claim experience and estimates of the
number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be
filed based on anticipated levels of unique plaintiff
asbestos-related claims in the U.S. tort system against all
defendants, the diminished volatility and consistency of observable
claims data, the period of time that has elapsed since we stopped
manufacturing products that contained encapsulated asbestos and an
expected downward trend in claims due to the average age of our
claimants.  This estimate is not discounted to present value.  In
light of the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term
projection of the Company's total asbestos liability, as part of
our ongoing review of asbestos claims, each year we will reassess
the projected liability of unasserted asbestos claims to be filed
through 2049, and we will continually reassess the time horizon
over which a reasonable estimate of unasserted claims can be
projected.

"The Company assesses the sufficiency of its estimated liability
for pending and future claims on an ongoing basis by evaluating
actual experience regarding claims filed, settled and dismissed,
and amounts paid in settlements.  In addition to claims and
settlement experience, the Company considers additional
quantitative and qualitative factors such as changes in
legislation, the legal environment and the Company's defense
strategy.  In connection with the Company's ongoing review of its
asbestos-related claims, the Company also reviewed the amount of
its potential insurance coverage for such claims, taking into
account the remaining limits of such coverage, the number and
amount of claims on our insurance from co-insured parties, ongoing
litigation against the Company's insurers, potential remaining
recoveries from insolvent insurers, the impact of previous
insurance settlements and coverage available from solvent insurers
not party to the coverage litigation.  The Company continues to
have ongoing insurance coverage available for a significant amount
of the potential future asbestos-related claims and may have
additional insurance coverage, in the future.

"The study from the Company's actuary, based on data as of
September 30, 2020, provided for a range of possible future
liability from approximately US$80.1 million to US$131.7 million.
The Company does not believe any amount within the range of
potential outcomes represents a better estimate than another given
the many factors and assumptions inherent in the projections and
therefore the Company has recorded the liability at the actuarial
central estimate of approximately US$101.1 million.  The Company
has recorded estimated insurance receivables of approximately
US$87.5 million.  The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related
liability and the related insurance receivables are based on facts
known at the time and a number of assumptions.  However, projecting
future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each
year, the length of time it takes to defend, resolve, or otherwise
dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers and the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as well as the
numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the
United States, could cause the actual liability and insurance
recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those projected or
recorded.  Changes recorded in the estimated liability and
estimated insurance recovery based on projections of asbestos
litigation and corresponding insurance coverage, result in the
recognition of additional expense or income."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/QE3Zgp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Still Defends PI Claims at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its
predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of
cases that have been and continue to be filed in various
jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current
employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos
containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or
while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020.

The Company states, "The cases allege various injuries, including
those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer,
mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related conditions.  In
some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also
named as defendants.  In some instances, partial or full insurance
coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of
its former executive officers.  The costs to resolve cases during
the nine months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019, were immaterial
individually and in the aggregate.  The Company's estimate of
asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because
liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are
inherently difficult to predict.  Key variables include the number
and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and
federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform
legislation.  Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution
of current cases will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation
might be asserted or what information might come to light and can,
therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of
asbestos related litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/sqiZwO


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Still Defends PL Suits at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc. has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "In certain instances, the Company is
indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question.  In
the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to
establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products.
The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes
that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these
claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Fv855P


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co. Still Faces Lawsuits at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc. remains a defendant in numerous
lawsuits involving asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

Manitowoc Co. states, "The Company is involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of
numerous defendants.  After taking into consideration legal
counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political
environment with respect to asbestos related claims, and the
liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion of
management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations,
or cash flows of the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/QmqwRG


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Mexico's Consumer Case vs. J&J Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 27, 2020, that the Court has granted its motion to
dismiss the amended complaint of the State of New Mexico's consumer
protection case related to the alleged misrepresentations about the
safety of the Company's products and the presence of carcinogens,
including asbestos.  The State of New Mexico, however, was given
leave to amend its complaint.

The Company states, "In January 2020, the State of New Mexico filed
a consumer protection case alleging that the Company deceptively
marketed and sold its talcum powder products by making
misrepresentations about the safety of the products and the
presence of carcinogens, including asbestos.  The State of New
Mexico filed an Amended Complaint in March 2020.  The Company has
moved to dismiss certain of the claims in the Amended Complaint,
which was granted, but the State of New Mexico was given leave to
amend its complaint."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3gEf7J


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Still Faces Claims, Suits at Sept. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ODP Corporation's OfficeMax brand continues to defend itself
against asbestos-related claims and lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2020.

The Company states, "OfficeMax is named as a defendant in a number
of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation
of certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets
being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain
responsibility.  Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to
retain responsibility for all pending or threatened proceedings and
future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out
of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to
the closing of the sale.  The Company has made provision for losses
with respect to the pending proceedings.  Additionally, as of
September 26, 2020, the Company has made provision for
environmental liabilities with respect to certain sites where
hazardous substances or other contaminants are or may be located.
For these liabilities, our estimated range of reasonably possible
losses was approximately US$10 million to US$25 million.  The
Company regularly monitors its estimated exposure to these
liabilities.  As additional information becomes known, these
estimates may change, however, the Company does not believe any of
these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Cqo4zd


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp., Units Still Defend Suits at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries continue to face legal
proceedings on alleged exposures to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "We, and our subsidiaries, are defendants in
various other legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to our past and current business
activities.  As of September 30, 2020, December 31, 2019 and
September 30, 2019, our condensed balance sheets included accrued
liabilities for these other legal actions of US$13.0 million,
US$12.4 million and US$13.2 million, respectively.  These
liabilities do not include costs associated with legal
representation.  Based on our analysis, and considering the
inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, we do not
believe that it is reasonably possible that these other legal
actions will materially adversely affect our financial position,
cash flows or results of operations.  In connection with the
October 5, 2015 acquisition of Dow's U.S. Chlor Alkali and Vinyl,
Global Chlorinated Organics and Global Epoxy businesses, the prior
owner of the businesses retained liabilities related to litigation
to the extent arising prior to October 5, 2015."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/58HCJR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Company Defends Talcum Suits at Sept. 26
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 26, 2020, that it has several defenses against product
liability lawsuits related to talcum powder, and intends to
"aggressively defend" these lawsuits.

Perrigo states, "The Company has been named, together with other
manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in state courts in
California, Florida, Missouri, New Jersey and Illinois and in the
Southern District of Mississippi alleging that the use of body
powder products containing talcum powder causes mesothelioma and
lung cancer due to the presence of asbestos.  All but one of these
cases involve a legacy talcum powder product that has not been
manufactured by the Company since 1999.  One of the pending actions
involves a current prescription product that contains talc as an
excipient.  The Company has been named in 32 individual lawsuits
seeking compensatory and punitive damages and has accepted a tender
for a portion of the defense costs and liability from a retailer
for one additional matter.  The Company has several defenses and
intends to aggressively defend these lawsuits."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/saPdDU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Still Defends Various Lawsuits at Sept. 27
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. continues to face numerous lawsuits related to asbestos
matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 27, 2020.

The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits are pending against Pfizer
in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing
asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and
certain of its previously owned subsidiaries.

"There also are a small number of lawsuits pending in various
federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged exposure to
asbestos in facilities owned or formerly owned by Pfizer or its
subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jFqNhe


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Estimates $500K Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2020, that it currently estimates its
subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for existing
and anticipated future asbestos-related claims is approximately
US$0.5 million (excluding costs of defense).

Quaker Chemical states, "The Company previously disclosed in its
2019 Form 10-K that an inactive subsidiary of the Company that was
acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos,
primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in
numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos.

"During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2020, there
have been no significant changes to the facts or circumstances of
this previously disclosed matter, aside from on-going claims and
routine payments associated with this litigation.

"Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated
future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected
that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for
these claims is approximately US$0.5 million (excluding costs of
defense)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/osKUIC


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sempra Energy Had 275 Suits Pending at Nov. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy's subsidiaries have 275 asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits pending as of November 2, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "Certain EFH subsidiaries that we acquired as
part of the merger of EFH with an indirect subsidiary of Sempra
Energy are defendants in personal injury lawsuits brought in state
courts throughout the U.S. As of November 2, 2020, 275 such
lawsuits are pending with 182 such lawsuits having been served.
These cases allege illness or death as a result of exposure to
asbestos in power plants designed and/or built by companies whose
assets were purchased by predecessor entities to the EFH
subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for product defects,
negligence, strict liability and wrongful death.  They seek
compensatory and punitive damages.  Additionally, in connection
with the EFH bankruptcy proceeding, approximately 28,000 proofs of
claim were filed on behalf of persons who allege exposure to
asbestos under similar circumstances and assert the right to file
such lawsuits in the future.  We anticipate additional lawsuits
will be filed.  None of these claims or lawsuits were discharged in
the EFH bankruptcy proceeding.  The costs to defend or resolve
these lawsuits and the amount of damages that may be imposed or
incurred could have a material adverse effect on Sempra Energy's
cash flows, financial condition and results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/NwGPAA


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor's Appeal in Calif. Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2020, that it is still "pursuing all rights of
appeal" in an asbestos liability case in California wherein the
Company was found liable for US$7.6 million in compensatory
damages.

The Company states, "As related to our potential asbestos-related
liability, we were found liable for US$7.6 million in compensatory
damages as a defendant in a 2018 asbestos liability case in
California.  We are pursuing all rights of appeal of this case.

"In accordance with our policy to perform an annual actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year, an updated actuarial
study was performed as of August 31, 2020.  The results of the
August 31, 2020 study included an estimate of our undiscounted
liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related
damages, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from
insurance carriers, ranging from US$58.1 million to US$99.3 million
for the period through 2065.  The change from the prior year study
was a US$6.1 million increase for the low end of the range and a
US$8.7 million increase for the high end of the range.  The
increase in the estimated undiscounted liability from the prior
year study at both the low end and high end of the range reflects
certain assumptions based upon our actual experience, our
historical data and events that may occur in the future.  Based
upon the results of the August 31, 2020 actuarial study, in
September 2020, we increased our asbestos liability to US$58.1
million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental
pre-tax provision of US$8.7 million in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations.  Future legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and
reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the
accompanying statement of operations, are estimated, according to
the updated study, to range from US$51.9 million to US$89.5 million
for the period through 2065.

"We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third
quarter of each year for the foreseeable future and whenever events
or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may
be necessary.  Given the uncertainties associated with projecting
such matters into the future and other factors outside our control,
we can give no assurance that additional provisions will not be
required.  We will continue to monitor events and changes in
circumstances surrounding these potential liabilities in
determining whether to perform additional actuarial evaluations and
whether additional provisions may be necessary.  At the present
time, however, we do not believe that any additional provisions
would be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our
liquidity or consolidated financial position.

"Total operating cash outflows related to discontinued operations,
which include settlements and legal costs net of taxes, were US$4.7
million and US$6.2 million for the nine months ended September 30,
2020 and 2019, respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/YpwrlA



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Has 182 Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 182 asbestos-related cases as of September
30, 2020, for which Univar Solutions Inc. has the obligation to
defend and indemnify, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020.

Univar Solutions states, "The Company is subject to liabilities
from claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.
The claims result primarily from an indemnification obligation
related to Univar Solutions USA Inc.'s ("Univar") 1986 purchase of
McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson").
Once certain conditions have been met, Univar will have the ability
to pursue insurance coverage, if any, that may be available under
McKesson's historical insurance coverage to offset the impact of
any fees, settlements, or judgments that Univar is obligated to pay
because of its obligation to defend and indemnify McKesson.  As of
September 30, 2020, there were approximately 182 asbestos-related
cases for which Univar has the obligation to defend and indemnify;
however, this number tends to fluctuate up and down over time.
Historically, the vast majority of these asbestos cases have been
dismissed without payment or with a nominal payment.  While the
Company is unable to predict"

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/uUlZLg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warner-Lambert Still Faces Claims vs. Former Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, continues to
defend asbestos-related claims against American Optical pending in
various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged
personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly
hazardous materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2020.

The Company states, "Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned
American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured
and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety
clothing.  In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982,
Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain
liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims.
Claims against American Optical and numerous other defendants are
pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for
alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other
allegedly hazardous materials.  Warner-Lambert was acquired by
Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer.
Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will
continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/jFqNhe



                            *********

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 ***