/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201211.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, December 11, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 248

                            Headlines

5TH & TAYLOR: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
8X8 INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vasquez Suit Alleges
ADDISON WEEKS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AIKEN ELECTRIC: Santee Cooper Settlement Funds to be Distributed
AINOS CORP: Mojica Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class

ALPHABET INC: Esquivel Alleges Android Mobile App Market Monopoly
AMAZON: Fired Worker Files Class-Action Lawsuit
AMP GLOBAL: Rees-Evans Sues Over Mishandled Futures Investments
AVACEND CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Suit Alleges
BABY BREZZA: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BARBADOS: To Reactivate Economy with US$120MM IDB Loan
BMW: Angry Owner Sues Over Defective X5 Hybrid Battery
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Miller Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
CAPITAL FITNESS: Munday Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT for Managers
CAPITAL ONE: Fiorarancio FCRA Suit removed to D. New Jersey

CASTLEPOINT GREYBROOK: Suit Against Cancelled Project Dismissed
CATERPILLAR INC: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CHRISTINE FONTANA: Conditional Certification of FLSA Action Sought
CITY OF NEW YORK: Sierra Files Suit in S.D. New York
COBALT BOATS: Winegard Files Suit in E.D. New York

COOK COUNTY: $14MM Payout Ends Jail Sexual Misconduct Class Action
COVERALL NORTH: Richardson Files Cert. Petition in Franchise Suit
CREATIVE CONSUMER: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CULVER CITY, CA: Biberovic Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court
DENMARK: Residents Want Berry, DHEC Added as Defendants to Case

EMBRACE PET: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ENBRIDGE INC: Third Cir. Appeal Filed in Robertson FLSA Suit
ENT CREDIT: Underpays Solutions Representatives, Jenks Suit Says
FLAVORGOD LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FORTRESS BIOTECH: Pomerantz Law Reminds of January 26 Deadline

FOUR SEASONS: Workers Begin Legal Action to Collect Severance Pay
FRAGRANCE DIRECTORY: Misclassifies Employees, Cohen Suit Claims
GAPPSI INC: Olivia Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid Overtime
GOOGLE INC: Slapped With Suit on Excessive Data Plan Consumption
HARRIGAN LUMBER: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Millwrights, Autrey Says

HERSHA HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brooks Suit Claims
HESS BAKKEN: Fredericksburg Balks at Untimely Gas Royalty Payments
INN AT EAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mendoza Suit Alleges
J. M. SMUCKER: Faces Moser Suit Over Mislabeled Coffee Products
JMT RESTAURANT: Morales Sues Over Kitchen Staff's Unpaid Overtime

JOYY INC: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Securities Class Action
KARZ PLUS: Faces Gutierrez Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
KNAUF GIPS: Defective Drywall Causes Damage to Property, R&S Says
KNAUF GIPS: Faces McCann Suit Over Defective Gypsum Drywall
KNAUF GIPS: Faces McDonald Suit Over Defective Gypsum Drywall

KNAUF GIPS: Faces Nguyen Suit Over Defective Gypsum Drywall
KNAUF GIPS: Faces Perez Suit Over Defective Gypsum Drywall
KNAUF GIPS: Faces Province Suit Over Defective Gypsum Drywall
KNAUF GIPS: Faces Van Pham Suit Over Defective Gypsum Drywall
KNAUF GIPS: Issman Says Defective Drywall Causes Damage to Property

KNAUF GIPS: Moore Says Defective Drywall Causes Damage to Property
KNAUF GIPS: Norris Says Defective Drywall Causes Damage to Property
L'ESTI DESSERTS: Gutierrez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
LA STRADA PIZZERIA: Pabon Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
MAT-MERIDIAN LLC: Boston Sues Over Tip Pooling and Unpaid Wages

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Morandi Suit Seeks to Certify Class
NPAS SOLS: 11th Cir. Rejects Incentive Awards in TCPA Suit
OHIOHEALTH CORP: Parties in "Melgard" Agree to Collective Status
PETROBRAS: Could Expand Into Guyana, CEO Says
PINE BAR: Manzano Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL

QUEENSLAND ENERGY: Locals Eligible for Instant Cash From Class Suit
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Vincent Wong Remindsof December 29 Deadline
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Gordon Seeks Class Status
SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: Floyd Seeks to Certify Unsolicited Fax Class
SERVISFIRST BANK: Judge Dismisses First-Filed PPP Agent Fee Suit

TRINITY TEEN: Sherman et al. Sue Teen Centers for Human Trafficking
USAA FEDERAL: Barrett Balks at Unfair Termination of Fund Transfers
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Massaro Suit Seeks Class Certification
WAL-MART STORES: Pearlstone Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
WORLD WRESTLING: Confirms $39 Million Class Action Settlement

XEROX STATE: Class Action Settlement Will Provide Compensation

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $185.9MM Liability Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,200 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had $335MM Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Faces 143 Individual Proceedings at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $277MM for PI Matters at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Units Still Defend Suits at Sept. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Has Claims Still Pending in Bankruptcy Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Had $295MM Liabilities at Sept.30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Had $981MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Had $203.1MM Loss Reserves at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: FCX Unit Still Defends Talc Suits at September 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had $229MM Reserves at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Still in Talks with Fireman's Fund
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Had $78MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Had 1,768 New Claims in 2020

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 119 Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Suit vs. Liggett Still Stayed at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Int'l Says Exposure Claims Not Material
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $8.2MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Faces Less Than 500 US Cases, 50 in Europe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 8 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ViacomCBS Had 31,180 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Assumes Defense on Former Unit



                            *********

5TH & TAYLOR: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAYLEIGH WALDER, ANDREA
LARSON, KAITLIN WRIGHT, and EMILY OWENS, On Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, v. 5TH & TAYLOR, L.L.C., Case
No. 3:20-cv-00828 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
      (FLSA), consisting of the following potential Opt-In
      Plaintiffs:

      "all current and former servers employed by 5th & Taylor
      at any time since September 25, 2017;" and

   2. authorizing notice of this action via U.S. Mail, e-mail,
      and Short Message Service (SMS) message to those members
      of the conditionally-certified collective action.

The Plaintiffs say granting this relief will allow this FLSA
collective action to proceed efficiently and appropriately under
this Court's supervision by ensuring that potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs receive timely notice of their right to join this action
to prevent erosion of their claims by the FLSA's statute of
limitations.

This narrowly defined collective class consists of servers who were
all tipped employees, and who worked at a single restaurant in
Nashville, during the same time period, under the same management,
and subject to common pay policies and practices. Because the
narrowly-defined class of potential Opt-In Plaintiffs (i.e.,
servers at a single restaurant) were subject to these common pay
policies and practices, the class members are clearly similarly
situated under the FLSA. Thus, conditional certification and FLSA
notice are therefore warranted, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2I1wsSC at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Christopher Anderson, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Commerce Street, Suite 1450
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 383-3033
          Facsimile: (615) 383-3323
          E-mail: chrisanderson@littler.com

8X8 INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vasquez Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
MAX VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 8X8, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. ZOCV373667 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Nov. 30, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Vasquez was employed by the Defendants as staff.

8x8, Inc. provides voice-over-Internet protocol creation platforms,
hosted Internet PBX solutions, voice and video semiconductors, and
related software. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Areen Babajanian, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259


ADDISON WEEKS: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Addison Weeks, LLC.
The case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Addison
Weeks, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05935-LDH-RML (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7,
2020).

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

Addison Weeks -- https://addisonweeks.com/ -- is a collection of
high-end, designer customized furniture hardware made from
semi-precious gemstones. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


AIKEN ELECTRIC: Santee Cooper Settlement Funds to be Distributed
----------------------------------------------------------------
thetandd.com reports that members who received power from Aiken
Electric Cooperative between Jan. 1, 2007, and Jan. 31, 2020, may
receive an unexpected bill credit or check in late November or
December.

The bill credits (for amounts less than $25) and checks (for
amounts $25 or greater) are the result of the settlement of a
class-action lawsuit involving the failed nuclear construction
project at V.C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in Fairfield
County.

The funds are being paid by Santee Cooper, which owned the project
along with SCE&G (now Dominion Energy). Aiken Electric Cooperative
did not own the project. However, because Aiken Electric buys some
of the power they deliver to members from Santee Cooper, some
members may be due bill credits or payments. Aiken Electric
Cooperative did not calculate the payments. They resulted from a
court-approved process after a settlement agreement was reached
between the parties in the class-action lawsuit.

If you have any questions regarding the administration of the
settlement, you may contact the settlement administrator. Please
include your name and your return address on all correspondence.
[GN]

AINOS CORP: Mojica Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIDAL MOJICA, NELSON E.
SANTOS, CARLOS BANOS, JORGE ORTEGA, JOSE FLORES, MARIO CAMPOS,
MATILDE GARCIA, NAPOLEON CAMPOS, JUAN LINARS, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. LEO CONSTANTATOS,
NICHOLAS KONSTANTATOS, AINOS CORP. d/b/a CANDLELIGHT DINER, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00442-RML (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying this class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
      and (b)(3) for settlement purposes:

      "all individuals employed by Candlelight Diner and paid on
      an hourly basis at any point in time from January 22, 2013
      to June 1, 2020";

   2. finally approving the Settlement Agreement; and

   3. granting any other relief that this Court deems just and
      proper.

The 14 named and opt-in Plaintiffs consist of: Jorge Morales, Jose
A. Flores, Mario A. Campos, Matilde de Jesus Garcia, Nelson Santos,
Vidal Mojica, Carlos Salinas, Juan Jose Ramirez Linares a.k.a
Rodrigo Linares, Napoleon Campos, Cheryl Karp, Diane Dolce, Jolie
Aguilar, Victoria Butto, Joseph Cordero (the Plaintiffs) on behalf
of themselves and other similarly situated employees of Defendants
allege that: (1) the Defendants' failed to pay the Plaintiffs
minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York
Labor Law (NYLL); (2) the Defendants' failed to pay the Plaintiffs
for all hours worked, including overtime hours; (3) the Defendants'
failed to pay Plaintiffs the spread of hours premium for days on
which their workday lasted longer than ten (10) hours; and the (4)
Defendants failed to provide a wage notice at the time of hiring
with accurate rates of pay under NYLL section 195(1).

On January 22, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the complaint on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former
employee of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs later filed an Amended
Complaint on May 29, 2019.

The Plaintiffs allege that Candlelight is a diner-restaurant
located at 56 Veterans Memorial Highway, Commack, New York that
employers about 25 people.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify settlement class dated
Nov. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2Jla7Ao at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Class, are:

          Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
          MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
          91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
          Hempstead, NY 11550
          Telephone (516) 280-4600


ALPHABET INC: Esquivel Alleges Android Mobile App Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLY ESQUIVEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALPHABET INC.; and GOOGLE LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 5:20-cv-08337 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Play Store's control over app
distribution on Android devices has enabled Google to begin to
require use of its in-app payment system (IAP). As a result, Google
has become the middleman between app developers and their
customers. This was not always the case as Google has allegedly
changed its stance and re-interpreted policies over time to require
more app developers to use Google Pay. Beginning in 2014, for
example, Google designated specific categories of
applications—including mobile games—that would be required to
use Google Play In-App Billing. Recently, Google has begun
insisting that a broader category of apps will be required to use
Google IAP exclusively, no longer allowing the option of a
third-party payment processor.

Google maintains a monopoly in the Google Play Market and is able
to charge supra-competitive prices for apps and in-app purchases.
Google uses anticompetitive covenants in Google's Mobile
Application Distribution Agreement ("MADA"), requiring Original
Equipment Manufacturer ("OEM") to license the entire suite of
Google applications and services to also license the Android OS.
Google also requires OEMS to pre-install Google Play on its home
page. If OEM refuse these restrictive terms and conditions, they
lose access to the Android OS.

As a result of the MADA terms and conditions, Google has
successfully prevented competition from its competitors in the
Google Play Market. Google's MADA agreements also allow Google to
charge supra-competitive prices for apps and in-app purchases,
harming Plaintiff and Class members by limiting consumer choice,
the suit says.

Similarly, Google uses its Developer Distribution Agreement ("DDA")
to contractually restrict competition in the Google Play Market.
Amongst other terms, the DDA mandated that developers comply with
Google's Developer Program Policies, including using Google's
proprietary in-app billing for in-app game payments, as well as
certain other digital in-app purchases. The DDA also requires that
developers "may not use Google Play to distribute or make available
any product that has a purpose that facilitates the distribution of
software applications and games for use on Android devices outside
of Google Play." Google has the power to eliminate any Android app
it believes has violated any portion of the DDA.

Alphabet Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through
its subsidiaries, provides Web-based search, advertisements, maps,
software applications, mobile operating systems, consumer content,
enterprise solutions, commerce, and hardware products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric M. George, Esq.
          Maribeth Annaguey, Esq.
          Carl Alan Roth, Esq.
          James L. Michaels, Esq.
          Jason Y. Kelly, Esq.
          BROWNE GEORGE ROSS
          O'BRIEN ANNAGUEY & ELLIS LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 274-7100
          Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
          E-mail: egeorge@bgrfirm.com
                  mannaguey@bgrfirm.com
                  croth@bgrfirm.com
                  jmichaels@bgrfirm.com
                  jkelly@bgrfirm.com


AMAZON: Fired Worker Files Class-Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
A fired Amazon worker has filed a class-action lawsuit against the
tech giant, alleging thousands of minority line workers were put at
risk and faced unequal protections from COVID-19 compared to white
managers.

The lawsuit accusing the company of racial bias was filed by
Christian Smalls, who is black, in US district court in the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of a slew of black and Hispanic
workers at the company's Staten Island facility and across the
country.

The lawsuit is the latest attack against Amazon, which saw business
boom in the pandemic and owner Jeff Bezos only grow richer, even as
workers felt at risk.

In October, Amazon confirmed that nearly 20,000 of its US workers
had tested positive or were presumed positive for COVID-19.

In the complaint, Smalls, who started working for Amazon in 2015,
says that he confronted his supervisors after a friend at the
facility tested positive for the virus. But, they declined to issue
a quarantine order for those who had come into contact with the
infected employee.

The facility's managers further allegedly ignored guidance from
state and federal public health officials, failed to provide
workers with protective equipment and failed to establish social
distancing guidelines in response to Small's flag of insufficient
safety measures in place, according to CNN.

In a press conference held via Zoom, Smalls said Amazon's 'white
managers were being quarantined, one by one', while line workers
were told that the managers were simply going on vacation.

Smalls was fired during the pandemic after organizing a protest
outside the JFK8 fulfillment center in Staten Island to highlight
unsafe working conditions there amid the pandemic.

Amazon tells DailyMail.com they terminated Smalls on grounds that
he put others at risk by violating his paid quarantine to join that
demonstration, even after he was exposed to a confirmed case of the
virus.

'We terminated Mr. Smalls for putting the health and safety of
others at risk and violations of his terms of his employment,' an
Amazon spokesperson said.

'Mr. Smalls received multiple warnings for violating social
distancing guidelines. He was also found to have had close contact
with a diagnosed associate with a confirmed case of COVID-19 and
was asked to remain home with pay for 14-days. Despite that
instruction to stay home with pay, he came onsite further putting
the teams at risk.'

Smalls alleged Amazon violated federal civil rights by terminating
his employment and by putting minority Amazon workers at risk
during the pandemic.

The suit calls for compensation for Smalls and improved protective
measures for Amazon workers who handle packages at the company's
facilities as the coronavirus pandemic only worsens.

Amazon spokesperson Lisa Levandowski tells DailyMail.com that the
company is dedicated to 'diversity and inclusion', but did not
comment directly on the suit.

Smalls has denounced Amazon several times following his firing,
arguing that the company failed to assure there were coronavirus
safeguards for all employees.  

Smalls claims coronavirus safety measures were only added after he
was fired.  

Amazon revealed in October that 19,816 employees have had COVID-19
between March 1 and September 19, which marks about 1.44 percent of
the 1,372,000 front-line workers employed by Amazon during that
period, as per the Washington Post.

In an October 21 update on Amazon's website the company announced
boosted safety measures to ensure employee safety including
enhanced cleaning, social distancing measures, disinfectant spray
use, personal protective gear distributions and temperature checks.
Those who catch COVID-19 will receive up to two weeks of paid time
off, according to the update.  

This isn't the first attack against the delivery giant.

Protests by Amazon employees have unfolded nationwide decrying the
work conditions during the tense, early days of the pandemic.

In March, Amazon workers in Spain and Italy joined the US and
across Europe in signing a petition demanding Amazon adopt stricter
safety guidelines.

In April, New York Attorney General Letitia James launched an
investigation, which Smalls cooperated in.

A federal judge tossed out a case alleging unsafe working
conditions at the Staten Island Amazon facility saying that courts
didn't have the place to dictate workplace safety requirements in
the pandemic.

Michael Sussman, one of Smalls' attorneys representing him in
litigation, said lawsuit is different because it alleges racial
discrimination, not workplace law.

'We would suggest that the cavalier attitude that Amazon took was
because they were black and brown people who were primarily
impacted at this facility,' CJ Hoffler, another one of Smalls'
attorneys representing him in litigation said. [GN]

AMP GLOBAL: Rees-Evans Sues Over Mishandled Futures Investments
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT REES-EVANS, BRIAND PARENTEAU, JEROME RAPHAEL SIV,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMP
GLOBAL CLEARING, LLC, AMP CLEARING, AMP FUTURES, AMP GLOBAL US, AMP
GLOBAL USA, DANIEL LEE CULP, Case No. 1:20-cv-07169 (N.D. Ill.,
Dec. 3, 2020) alleges that the Defendants engaged in acts,
practices, and a course of business that operated recklessly as a
fraud or deceit upon the Plaintiffs and the class in violation of
the Commodity Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants mishandled Plaintiff's
and Class members futures and options investments on April 20,
2020, in that they: i) failed to provide material information to
Plaintiffs regarding the possibility of the price of their NYMEX
Light Sweet May 20 Crude Oil Futures contracts and associated
contracts going to a price below zero; ii) failed to provide
Plaintiffs a way to exit, buy, trade, roll, modify or offset their
long positions in May 20 Crude Oil and associated contracts; iii)
failed to liquidate Plaintiffs' and Class members' futures and
options on futures investments in a reasonable manner on April 20,
2020 when May 20 Crude Oil fell to a price of zero and proceeded to
trade into negative prices; iv) took no steps to provide correct
price data; and, v) did not insure that their trading platforms
would be ready for negative oil prices, as a result of which it
left several of its customers trapped in market positions, while
receiving inaccurate information about their positions, the account
balances and price.

The Defendants' failure to provide its clients with material
information, and to provide a means for customers to get accurate
information about their accounts and not be trapped in positions
without any way of getting out also violated the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing contained in its Futures Client
Agreement and acted with negligence and gross negligence, the suit
says.

AMP Global Clearing LLC and AMP Futures do business as AMP
Clearing, AMP Global, AMP Global Clearing, AMP Global US, AMP
Global USA and AMP Trading. AMP acts as a commodities broker and is
registered as a futures commission merchant (FCM) with the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and is a member of the
National Futures Association (NFA). AMP conducts futures business
and is engaged in providing futures execution services to its
clients. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R Tamara de Silva, Esq.
          Cheryl Fitzpatrick-Smith, Esq.
          DE SILVA LAW OFFICES
          980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (866) 566-1849
          E-mail: tamara@desilvalawoffices.com
                  cheryl@futurescomplianceinc.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Lubin, Esq.
          8800 Bronx Ave., Suite 100H
          Skokie, IL 60077
          Telephone: (773) 954-2608
          E-mail: jonathan@lubinlegal.com

AVACEND CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
CLARISSA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVACEND CORPORATION; RAMAN KANCHANA; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV45262 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Nov. 25, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff Jones was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Avacend Corporation offers consulting and human resources services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          Michael Crosner, Esq.
          Blake R. Jones, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, PC
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496-5818
          Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
          E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
                  mike@crosnerlegal.com
                  blake@crosnerlegal.com


BABY BREZZA: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baby Brezza
Enterprises LLC. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Baby Brezza
Enterprises LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10242 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2020).

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

Baby Brezza Enterprises LLC -- https://babybrezza.com/ -- is
located in Newark, New Jersey and is part of the Wholesale Sector
Industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


BARBADOS: To Reactivate Economy with US$120MM IDB Loan
------------------------------------------------------
Barbados will strengthen its health and economic response to the
COVID-19 crisis, support household income and business liquidity,
and define a social, economic and fiscal plan to reactivate its
economy with a US$120 million loan from the Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB).

The proceeds will be used to promote macro-economic stability and
finance measures to address the pandemic, including the purchase of
medicine, medical supplies and equipment. Resources will also be
used to support temporary measures to protect household income and
provide businesses with working capital as the pandemic continues
to hurt the economy, especially tourism, one of the country's
biggest economic sectors.

The loan will also support the planning and design of fiscal and
economic measures that will help the country recover in the
post-pandemic period, including measures to simplify taxes,
increase government revenues, control spending and improve tax
management and customs enforcement capabilities.

The $120 million IDB loan is the first of a two-step program with
Barbados to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
country's public policy and fiscal management in response to
COVID-19 crisis, through the design and implementation of effective
and fiscally responsible policy measures. The IDB loan is for a
20-year term, with a 5.5-year grace period and an interest rate
based on LIBOR.

BMW: Angry Owner Sues Over Defective X5 Hybrid Battery
------------------------------------------------------
carbuzz.com  reports that BMW, like nearly all other mainstream
automakers, has heavily invested in hybrid and battery technologies
over the past several years. The move towards all-out
electrification continues but not everyone is ready to make the
change, hence the need for hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Automakers point out electrification will lead to more reliable
vehicles but this doesn't mean they're recall-free.

In fact, a new class action lawsuit has just been filed against BMW
alleging serious manufacturing defects to its batteries. The
lawsuit, filed earlier this month by a new 2021 BMW X5 Hybrid
owner, could also be a situation of that owner's anger. You see,
the guy signed a lease agreement for the SUV in early September. On
September 30, BMW issued a recall for 4,509 plug-in hybrids in the
US and another 26,000 globally.

It is possible debris could be entering the battery cells during
the production process, leading to a short circuit. In "rare cases"
this could cause a fire, but BMW isn't taking any chances. The
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration has been
fully notified as well. So far, no accidents or fires have
occurred, but BMW still doesn't have a fix. This is apparently why
the X5 owner has filed suit.

He was later notified by a BMW bulletin and immediately brought the
vehicle back to the dealership for repairs, only to be told they
didn't know how to just yet. The owner was understandably upset
because BMW highly advised owners not to charge their vehicles or
even use Sport or Manual modes. Also, the shift paddles should be
off-limits.

As of this writing, a solution has yet to be confirmed. Other
vehicles affected by the recall include the following:

--  2020-2021 BMW 530e

--  2020-2021 BMW 530e xDrive

--  2020-2021 BMW 530e iPerformance

--  2020-2021 BMW X3 xDrive30e

--  2020-2021 Mini Cooper Countryman All4 SE

--  2020 BMW i8

--  2021 BMW 330e

--  2021 BMW 330e xDrive

--  2021 BMW 745Le xDrive

No other individual owners have filed a lawsuit against the
automaker over this issue, and chances are it will be dismissed.
Still, BMW should make every effort to resolve this potentially
dangerous issue because, as of now, thousands of owners still can't
use their vehicles as intended. [GN]

CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Miller Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CAPITAL ACCOUNTS,
LLC. The case is styled as Loriann Miller, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAPITAL ACCOUNTS, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-18085-FLW-ZNQ (D.N.J., Dec. 4, 2020).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITAL FITNESS: Munday Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT for Managers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MUNDAY, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CAPITAL FITNESS, INC. d/b/a XSPORT FITNESS, Case No.
1:20-cv-07013 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 25, 2020) is an action brought by
Michael Munday, individually and as a putative representative for a
collective action and class action against the Defendant for unpaid
wages and overtime and unauthorized deductions pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiff contends that he and other fitness managers were
scheduled to work 40-45 hours per week but often worked 60-70 hours
per week. He adds that they were required to work, or often do or
did work, well beyond their scheduled hours of employment.

The Plaintiff's position did not fall within any exemption from
overtime and he further would not be exempt from the protections of
the FLSA because he was not paid on a "salary-basis" as defined
under the Act; that is, the pre-determined amount of pay which he
received was "subject to reduction because of variations in the
quality or quantity of work performed," says the complaint.

From March 2018 through December 2018, the Plaintiff was employed
by the Defendant in the position of a fitness manager.

Capital Fitness was founded in 1997. The Company's line of business
includes operating health clubs, spas, and other physical fitness
facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

CAPITAL ONE: Fiorarancio FCRA Suit removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sergio D. Fiorarancio, on behalf of himself
and those similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA) N.A., Case
No. ESX-L-007247-20, was removed from Essex County Superior Court,
Law Div., NJ, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Dec. 4, 2020.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-18103 to the
proceeding.

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

Capital One Bank (USA), National Association --
https://www.capitalone.com/ -- operates as a bank offering checking
accounts, credit and debit cards, loans, insurance, payment
protection, phone banking, bill pay, lending, and online banking
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Philip Andrew Goldstein, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          1251 Avenue Of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Phone: (212) 548-2167
          Email: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com


CASTLEPOINT GREYBROOK: Suit Against Cancelled Project Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
torontostoreys.com reports that then buyers launched a class-action
suit against a developer that cancelled a preconstruction condo
project. They argued that they should be awarded damages reflecting
the lost increase in value of their units.

But the court recently dismissed their class action case in Ritchie
v. Castlepoint Greybrook Sterling Inc, and the details of that
ruling are a good reminder that buying preconstruction is always a
"buyer beware" situation.

                              Lost Money

Most, if not all, purchase agreements include an escape clause for
the builder, which allows them to stop construction for reasons
such as being unable to secure financing.

They also include provisions for preconstruction buyers to get
their deposit back, often with interest.

But years go by between the buyer putting down a deposit and the
building being built. In that time, most buyers expect the value of
their units to go up in value. If the project is cancelled, they
lose the expected increase in value, and may also have to pay more
for a unit in another building if prices increased in the market
while they were waiting for their own condo to be built.

Up until recently, the Toronto market was so hot that it was rare
for a project to be cancelled. But in the past few years, more
projects have been cancelled, especially as construction costs
rise.

                           The Case

In the case of Ritchie v. Castlepoint, the developer cancelled the
project, saying it wasn't able to get financing in time, which was
a condition in the contract, says David Taub, a partner with Robins
Appleby Barristers and Solicitors. Specifically, the developer said
it wasn't able to obtain the necessary municipal approvals and
permits, and with rising construction costs, the project became
untenable and so not financeable.

As per the contract, the developer refunded the preconstruction
buyers' deposits with interest.

The contract also had an exclusion clause, making the developer not
liable for any damages resulting from the termination of the
agreement.

But purchasers of 179 units in the project sued for damages of more
than $10 million, representing the increased market value in their
units. They argued the exclusion clause was not enforceable,
because the developer had not done everything it reasonably could
to make the project happen, Taub explains.

The court, however, found that the exclusion clause worked to limit
the developer's liability, regardless of the specifics of how the
developer had acted.

This is a win for developers, who don't have to worry about whether
the court will analyze their stated reason for terminating the
contract, Taub says. They only have limited liability if cancelling
projects.

The case is going up for appeal, which may overturn this ruling.

So does this mean preconstruction buyers have no recourse if a
project is cancelled and they feel the developer has not acted in
good faith?

                       Class-action Not the Only Option

Peter Spiro, counsel to Goldstein Law, recalls a couple of other,
similar cases, where the class action was dismissed because of the
Tarion warranty addendum to the contract. This specifies disputes
can only go to arbitration, which does not allow for class-action
suits, but only by individuals.

This means preconstruction buyers have another route to go after
damages, through arbitration, if they believe the developer has not
acted in good faith. The developer is required to pay for
arbitration, unless the arbitrator finds the buyer has launched a
false complaint.

Still, purchasers take on greater risk when buying
preconstruction.

                            Tips for Buyers

Azin Ghorbankhani, a lawyer with Seif real-estate law firm, says
she always recommends buyers research the builder, looking for any
cancelled projects in the builder's past.

She also suggests they look at where the proposed building site is.
If there are other condos in the area, they know the city will
likely give the builder the permits they need.

Buyers have a 10-day recession period after signing a contract, so
she recommends they get a lawyer to look at it. Beyond the
exclusion clause, which is standard, a lawyer may be able to flag
some issues and try to request some adjustments to the agreement.

For instance, many buyers are shocked to find a mortgage commitment
in the agreement, or levy fees that are higher than they expect,
she says.

Sometimes contracts, which run 30-40 pages, may allow a builder to
change unit numbers or total square footage.

Bottom line, buying preconstruction has risk built into it that
buying an existing unit does not -- but for the past couple of
decades that risk has paid off for many investors. Only time will
tell if many more are willing to bet on the future again. [GN]

CATERPILLAR INC: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caterpillar Inc. The
case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Caterpillar Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05939 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 7, 2020).

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

Caterpillar Inc. -- https://www.caterpillar.com/ -- is an American
Fortune 100 corporation which designs, develops, engineers,
manufactures, markets, and sells machinery, engines, financial
products and insurance to customers via a worldwide dealer network.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


CHRISTINE FONTANA: Conditional Certification of FLSA Action Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMONT RAMSEURE and JARMAR
PAUL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
CHRISTINE M. FONTANA COMPANIES, LLC, AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC,
RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00027-GWC (W.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of this Fair Labor
      Standards Act action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   2. directing the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs with
      the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, email
      addresses, location of employment, and dates of employment
      of the potential opt-in plaintiffs within 14 days of the
      Court's Order granting the instant motion;

   3. approving the sending of the Notice of Pendency of Lawsuit
      to the Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law and the Plaintiff
      Consent to Sue Form to the Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law
      by the Plaintiffs' counsel to the Potential Opt-in
      Plaintiffs whose names and contact information can be
      obtained from the Defendants' records by email, text
      message, and U.S. Mail;

   4. requiring the Defendants to post, within 14 days of the
      Court's approval of Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and
      Consent forms, the notice and consent form in English and
      in Spanish prominently at both locations in Western New
      York where hourly employees work in the same areas where
      the Defendants are required to post FLSA notices for the
      duration of the opt-in period;

   5. requiring the Defendants to include one copy of the notice
      and consent forms in English and Spanish along with
      payment of wages to reach of its current employees within
      14 days of the Court's approval of the Plaintiffs'
      proposed Notice and Consent forms; and

   6. granting other such relief as this Court deems just and
      proper.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2JvJMQ3 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel Alba, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN & RANZENHOFER, P.C.
          74 Main Street, P.O. Box 31
          Akron, NY 14001
          Telephone: (716) 542-5444

               - and -

          Scott J. Bogucki, Esq.
          GLEICHENHAUS, MARCHESE, & WEISHAAR, P.C.
          930 Convention Tower
          43 Court Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 845-6446

Attorneys for Christine M. Fontana Companies, LLC. Are:

          Wayne I. Freid, Esq.
          FREID & KLAWON
          17 Beresford Court
          Williamsville, NY 14221
          Telephone: (716) 565-2000

Attorneys for Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC and Budget Rent A Car
System, Inc., are:

          Elizabeth Goldberg, Esq.
          Courtney J. Peterson, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104-3300
          Telephone: (212) 541-2000

CITY OF NEW YORK: Sierra Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the CITY OF NEW YORK,
et al. The case is styled as Samira Sierra, Amali Sierra, Ricardo
Nigaglioni, Alex Gutierrez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CITY OF NEW YORK, a municipal entity,
Mayor Bill de Blasio,
Dermot F. Shea, Chief Terence A. Monahan, Umid Karimov, Alfredo
Jeff, Debora Matias, Andre Jeanpierre, in their individual
capacities, Case No. 1:20-cv-10291 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2020).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael L. Spiegel, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL L. SPIEGEL
          11 Park Place, Suite 914
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 587-8558
          Fax: (212) 658-9480
          Email: mikespieg@aol.com


COBALT BOATS: Winegard Files Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cobalt Boats, LLC.
The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Cobalt Boats, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-05882 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2020).

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

Cobalt Boats -- https://cobaltboats.com/ -- is an American
manufacturer of recreational motorboats.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Segal, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
          1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 415-0100
          Email: msegal@segallegal.com


COOK COUNTY: $14MM Payout Ends Jail Sexual Misconduct Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cook County Board has signed off on a $14 million payment to
settle a class action lawsuit filed by a group of female assistant
public defenders who alleged county officials failed to protect
them from "heinous sexual misconduct" by male detainees at Cook
County jail on an almost daily basis.

County commissioners voted unanimously to approve the settlement in
Brown et al. v. Cook County et al., ending a suit brought more than
three years earlier by a group of six women attorneys in the Cook
County Public Defender's Office.

The half-dozen longtime public defenders alleged masturbation,
indecent exposure and threats were rampant. In some cases,
according to the complaint, inmates at the jail grabbed, physically
attacked or emitted bodily fluids on their female defense
attorneys.

According to the lawsuit, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, Public
Defender Amy Campenelli and other county officials incentivized
inmates to "carry out a sustained campaign of sexual assaults,
indecent exposure and masturbation incidents on female [assistant
public defenders], including by their inaction and rewarding
detainees with 'pizzas' for good behavior following masturbation
incidents."

The complaint alleged detainees who went 30 days without
masturbating in front of their attorneys were eligible for pizza
provided by the sheriff's office.

Cara Smith, Dart's chief policy advisor at the time, strenuously
denied the public defenders' pizza program allegation, calling it
"absurd and a lie."

Within weeks of the filing of the federal class action complaint,
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly issued an injunction ordering
the sheriff's office to require detainees to wear a special
jumpsuit that restricts their hands at the first report of any
indecent exposure.

Kennelly also ordered all detainees with reported incidents of
misconduct to stay handcuffed with their hands behind their back.

"[T]he detainee sexual attacks substantially abated following
implementation of these remedial measures, and the number of
reported incidents dramatically declined after January 2018,"
according to attorneys for the public defenders.

Kennelly certified a settlement class that includes "all female
assistant public defenders (not including supervisors) and female
law clerks who have worked for [Cook County] for any period of time
from November 1, 2015 through and including October 28, 2019 and
who have visited the jail and/or lockup in connection with their
employment."

The judge also noted that the evidence he had seen showed that the
pizza party described by the public defenders was "unauthorized and
was, in fact, against jail policy; it was neither funded by the
sheriff's office nor endorsed by it."

About $9.5 million of the money will be divided up among more than
530 women. The attorneys and the claims administrator are due to
receive 30 percent of the settlement fund — $4.2 million,
according to Kennelly's order approving the settlement.

Each lead plaintiff named on the case will receive an additional
$25,000, those who gave depositions $15,000, $10,000 for those who
answered questions under oath but were not deposed and $5,000 for
those who assisted and provided sworn testimony.

According to the suit and past reports, a jailhouse gang called
Savage Life had fueled the rise in sexual aggression against
attorneys at the jail. The gang awards "points" to detainees for
each incident of masturbation or assault, depending on how severe
it is and which attorney is targeted, the suit alleged.

Savage Life, mostly members of various street gangs facing lengthy
prison sentences, has in recent years been blamed for throwing
feces and urine, attacking guards and taking hostages at the jail.

Two days after the public defenders filed their complaint and
request for class action certification, a group of female guards at
Cook County Jail also filed a federal class action lawsuit.

That complaint, which remains pending, alleged that guards were
routinely groped and grabbed, with one "confronted by an entire
tier of detainees with their penises thrust through the 'chuck
holes' in their cell doors." [GN]


COVERALL NORTH: Richardson Files Cert. Petition in Franchise Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ericka Richardson, et al., filed with the Supreme Court
of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Ericka Richardson, et al. v. Coverall North America
Inc., et al., Case No. 20-763.

Response is due on January 4, 2021.

Petitioners Richardson, et al., petition for a writ of certiorari
to review the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit in the case titled ERICKA RICHARDSON, LUIS A. SILVA,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons v.
COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC., SUJOL, LLC (d/b/a Coverall of
Southern, NJ), ABC CORPS. 1-10, JANE & JOHN DOES 1-10, Case Nos.
18-3393, 18-3399. Under the Order, the Court of Appeals reversed in
part and vacated in part the District Court's Order on the
interpretation of the agreements, and remanded for further
consideration.  

The questions presented for review are:

1. Whether incorporation by reference of a separate set of
arbitration rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence of
intent to delegate the threshold question of arbitrability to an
arbitrator in a case involving an unsophisticated party presented
with an adhesive agreement; and

2. Whether state or federal law should govern the determination as
to whether an arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably
delegated the threshold question of arbitrability to an
arbitrator.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ericka
Richardson and Luis Silva each wanted to open a commercial cleaning
business. So each bought a franchise from Coverall North America
("CNA") through Sujol. But disagreements followed the signed
agreements, and Richardson and Silva filed a putative class action
alleging they are the Defendants' employees, not independent
contractors, under New Jersey law.

CNA sells commercial cleaning services.  It operates a franchise
business system through geographically designated territories.
Sujol, known as a "master franchisee," owns one of these
territories and entered into agreements with Richardson (in 2016)
and Silva (in 2005) to operate cleaning businesses.  CNA is not a
named party to either the Richardson or Silva agreement.  Rather,
CNA has an agreement with Sujol allowing Sujol to sell franchises
using CNA's trademarks and operating system.

Problems arose in 2017, as Richardson and Silva began to question
their relationship with Sujol and, as a result, the fees due under
the Agreements. So they filed a putative class action in the
Superior Court of Middlesex County, New Jersey, claiming that while
the Agreements label them as "independent contractors," they are
really employees under New Jersey law.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants had violated the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law, by allegedly misclassifying them as
independent contractors, charging them for a job, and taking
unlawful deductions from their wages.  CNA and Sujol removed the
matter to federal court, and then moved under Section 3 of the
Federal Arbitration Act to stay the proceedings in favor of
arbitration.

The District Court considered both the who and the what: whether
the parties agreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to an
arbitrator and, in Richardson's case, whether CNA could enforce the
arbitration clause.  First, the District Court found the
incorporation of the American Arbitration Association Commercial
Arbitration Rules in Silva's agreement did not satisfy the clarity
needed for delegation, at least with an "unsophisticated party."
Applying New Jersey law, the District Court also held that the
arbitration agreement did not cover Silva's NJWPL claims. Second,
the District Court found Richardson's agreement with Sujol
delegated arbitrability questions to the arbitrator. But the court
determined that CNA could not invoke the arbitration clause.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Ericka Richardson, et al. are represented
by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
          SATTIRAJU & THARNEY LLP
          50 Millstone Road, Building 300, Suite 202
          East Windsor, NJ 08520
          Telephone: (609) 642-4089
          Facsimile: (609) 799-1267
          E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony Marchetti, Esq.
          MARCHETTI LAW, P.C.
          317 Delsea Drive
          Sewell, NJ 08080
          Telephone: (856) 824-1001

CREATIVE CONSUMER: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creative Consumer
Products, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Creative Consumer Products, Inc.
D/B/A Dionis, Case No. 1:20-cv-05940 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2020).

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

Creative Consumer Products Inc. -- https://www.ccpinc.com/ --
provides cosmetic products. The Company offers different types of
moisturizers and other skin care products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


CULVER CITY, CA: Biberovic Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kenan Biberovic, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Kenan Biberovic, et al., Petitioners vs. City of Culver
City, California, et al. Case No. 20-755.

Response is due on January 4, 2021.

Petitioners Biberovic, et al., petitioned for a writ of certiorari
to review the order of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit in the case titled Kenan Biberovic, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
CULVER CITY, an incorporated public municipality; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-55512. The Court vacated the
district court's order dismissing Biberovic's complaint without
leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The questions presented for review are:

1. Has the court of appeals failed to exercise the federal
jurisdiction given it by Congress under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 &
1343(a)(3) & (4), by refusing to acknowledge that petitioner's
complaint plausibly alleged extrinsic fraud by respondents in
obtaining the state court judgment against him, allegations which
invoke the fraud exception to the Court's Rooker-Feldman doctrine
and establish subject matter jurisdiction to hear this
controversy?

2. Should this Court resolve the split of authority among the
Circuits about whether there exists a fraud exception to the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the effect of such extrinsic fraud on
the plaintiff's federal action?

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Biberovic was
convicted in state court at a trial by declaration and fined $490
under California Vehicle Code Section 21453(a) after he turned
right at a red light without first coming to a complete stop behind
the limit line. He then filed a class action against Culver City
and its mayor under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violation of the
Eighth Amendment, alleging that he was at most guilty of violating
California Vehicle Code Section 21453(b), which carries only a $290
fine, and that therefore his $490 fine was excessive.

The Ninth Circuit holds that Biberovic's suit is subject to
dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In relevant part, the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits a federal district court from
exercising subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that is a de
facto appeal from a state court judgment, unless the judgment was
obtained through extrinsic fraud that prevented a party from
presenting his claims.

Biberovic does not contest that his suit is a de facto appeal from
a state court judgment, and he had a full opportunity to argue he
was not guilty of violating California Vehicle Code Section
21453(a) before the state court. His suit is therefore barred under
Rooker-Feldman, the Court held. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Kenan Biberovic, et al., are represented
by:

          Dennis P. Derrick, Esq.
          7 Winthrop Street
          Essex, MA 01929-1203
          Telephone: (978) 768-6610  
          E-mail: dennisderrick@comcast.net

               - and -

          Rami M. Kayyali, Esq.
          12400 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 490-4515    
          E-mail: ramilaw@sbglobal.net

DENMARK: Residents Want Berry, DHEC Added as Defendants to Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
thestate.com reports that residents of a small town that injected
an unapproved chemical into their drinking water for 10 years want
the chemical manufacturer and South Carolina health regulators to
pay for exposing them to the unauthorized water additive.

Berry Systems Inc. and the S.C. Department of Health and
Environmental Control face potential liability over the use of
Halosan in the town of Denmark, a remote community that for years
has drawn complaints about the quality of its drinking water.

Lawyers for the residents asked a court to add Berry and DHEC to a
2018 class action lawsuit against Denmark over Halosan.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency didn't approve Halosan for
use in drinking water, but DHEC allowed the town to begin using the
chemical in 2008 as part of an effort to stop discoloration of the
water in the Bamberg County town.

Federal regulators suspended use of the chemical in 2018 after
discovering it had been added to Denmark's drinking water to kill
slime and make the water clearer.

Bakari Sellers, an attorney representing town residents, said Berry
and DHEC also should be held accountable, in addition to the town
of Denmark.

"It's an environmental injustice," he said. "We are going to try to
go and make our clients whole for the injustice they suffered at
the hands of the city, the state and the manufacturer."

The health effects of Halosan aren't fully known, but North
Carolina regulators banned the chemical in drinking water 14 years
ago after determining that it could create harmful pollution in
wells, The State reported in 2018. Halosan has been linked to skin
and eye irritation. It has rarely, if ever, been used in other
public water systems.

Sellers, a former state representative who now is a CNN
commentator, and co-counsel Jessica Fickling declined to speculate
on how much the case could cost Denmark, DHEC and Berry systems if
the attorneys are ultimately successful in court. But it could be a
hefty amount.

Records show thousands of customers who have paid water bills for
years were exposed to Halosan during the decade Denmark used it.
Denmark has about 3,000 residents.

Successful class action lawsuits can result in payouts of hundreds
of thousands of dollars, and in some cases millions of dollars, to
large groups of people who claim they were harmed. That would have
to be determined by a court.

Representatives of DHEC and Berry Systems, a company located in
Lugoff northeast of Columbia, declined comment when reached by The
State. But DHEC has downplayed any potential danger from Halosan in
the water.

"We do not believe that this has translated into adverse health
effects for the users," DHEC water bureau chief Mike Marcus told
The State in a November 2018 story.

Denmark, an economically depressed town about an hour's drive south
of Columbia, has been in an uproar since the Halosan discovery in
2018.

Many people have complained loudly about what they say is poor
quality water and that they were never told about the Halosan
injections. Those concerns drew national attention in 2018 and
attracted some Democratic presidential candidates to Denmark,
including Bernie Sanders.

Despite that, other residents, as well as city officials, say the
concerns are overblown and the water is clean. DHEC has said the
water is safe, even though the Denmark system has encountered
problems.

While it remains up to a judge whether to add DHEC and Berry to the
lawsuit, an amended complaint filed by Sellers and Fickling says
Berry had no experience with water treatment systems before 2003.
Until then, Berry was "solely a technological company," the
complaint says.

The complaint said Berry marketed the Halosan treatment system and
DHEC signed off on it after the system received good marks from the
National Sanitation Foundation, an independent organization that
offers certifications. Berry was a member of NSF, the complaint
said.

But the complaint, initially filed by three town residents, said
while NSF certification verifies that a product is what it claims
to be, it is not a replacement for the required EPA authorization.

The Halosan water treatment system, developed in Australia, relies
on a chemical used as a disinfectant to treat pools and spas, the
complaint said.

Had "defendant Berry operated with a modicum of due diligence, they
would have known NSF certification was not an appropriate
substitute for EPA registration," according to the complaint.

The complaint also says DHEC didn't do enough to study the effects
of Halosan before Denmark began using the material.

An agency water regulator asked Berry Systems officials in January
2007 about how Halosan would affect drinking water, but after that
initial contact, the department never analyzed the system, the
complaint said. The town of Denmark and DHEC never undertook
"reasonable measures to understand the consequences, if any, of
adding Halosan to the Denmark water system."

Deanna Miller Berry, a Denmark resident who is not connected to
Berry Systems, said city efforts have cleared up some discoloration
in the water, but plenty of problems remain in Denmark. The town
has had a history of run-ins with state regulators, aside from the
Halosan issue with federal regulators.

She still is organizing efforts to hand out bottled water to
residents concerned about what comes from their taps. People
concerned about Denmark's water also visit a spring outside town,
where they fill up jugs of water for use at home, she said.

"It's something citizens should not have to bear the burden of,"
she said. "We are paying for water we cannot use." [GN]

EMBRACE PET: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Embrace Pet Insurance
Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Embrace Pet
Insurance Agency, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10302 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7,
2020).

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

Embrace Pet Insurance -- https://www.embracepetinsurance.com/ -- is
an Ohio-based pet health insurance provider, offering
comprehensive, personalized insurance products for dogs and cats
across the US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


ENBRIDGE INC: Third Cir. Appeal Filed in Robertson FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Angel Hernandez and Opt-in Plaintiffs Scott Bridgeman and
Michael Hendrick filed an appeal from the District Court's Order
dated November 17, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled ZACHARIAH
ROBERTSON individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENBRIDGE (U.S.) INC., Defendant, Case No.
2-19-cv-01080, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from
Enbridge (U.S.) Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Robertson and the other workers like
him regularly worked for Enbridge in excess of 40 hours each week.
But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime
as required by the FLSA and PMWA, Enbridge improperly classified
Robertson and those similarly situated workers as exempt employees
and paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation.

Plaintiff Angel Hernandez and Opt-in Plaintiffs Scott Bridgeman and
Michael Hendrick are seeking an appeal to review the District
Court's Order, granting Cleveland Integrity Services, Inc. and
Cypress Environmental Management-TIR, LLC's Motion to Dismiss their
claims. Under the Order, the claims of Plaintiff Angel Hernandez
and Opt-in Plaintiffs Scott Bridgeman and Michael Hendrick are
dismissed in their entirety for forum non conveniens. Plaintiff
Angel Hernandez and Opt-in Plaintiffs Scott Bridgeman and Michael
Hendrick are hereby terminated as parties in the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Zachariah Robertson, et al. v.
Enbridge (US) Inc, et al., Case No. 20-3385, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, December 1, 2020.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ANGEL HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Matthew T. Logue, Esq.
          QUINN LOGUE
          200 First Avenue, Third Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 765-3800
          E-mail: matt@quinnlogue.com

               - and -

          John E. Quinn, Esq.
          PORTNOY & QUINN
          401 Liberty Avenue
          Three Gateway Center, Suite 2325
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 765-3800
          E-mail: jquinn@quinnlogue.com  

Amici-Appellants SCOTT BRIDGEMAN and MICHAEL HENDRICK are
represented by:

          Matthew T. Logue, Esq.
          QUINN LOGUE
          200 First Avenue, Third Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 765-3800
          E-mail: matt@quinnlogue.com

               - and -

          John E. Quinn, Esq.
          PORTNOY & QUINN
          401 Liberty Avenue
          Three Gateway Center, Suite 2325
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 765-3800
          E-mail: jquinn@quinnlogue.com   

Plaintiffs-Appellees ZACHARIAH ROBERTSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; GORDON LUNSTED,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
GREG HUGGINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          William F. Goodrich, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST
          3634 California Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 281-1455
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Logue, Esq.
          QUINN LOGUE
          200 First Avenue, Third Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 765-3800
          E-mail: matt@quinnlogue.com

Defendants-Appellees ENBRIDGE (US) INC., CLEVELAND INTEGRITY
SERVICES INC., and CYPRESS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TIR LLC are
represented by:

          Noah A. Finkel, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          E-mail: nfinkel@seyfarth.com  

               - and -

          Shelly R. Pagac, Esq.
          PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI
          301 Grant Street
          One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 263-4343
          E-mail: srp@pietragallo.com

               - and -

          Rachel B. Cowen, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
          444 West Lake Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 984-6944
          E-mail: rcowen@mwe.com

               - and -

          Ryan O. Hemminger, Esq.
          LEECH TISHMAN FUSCALDO & LAMPL
          525 William Penn Place, 28th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 261-1600
          E-mail: rhemminger@leechtishman.com

ENT CREDIT: Underpays Solutions Representatives, Jenks Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET JENKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENT CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-03490 (D. Colo., November 25, 2020) is a collective and
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Colorado Minimum Wage Order, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a member solutions
representative from approximately August 22, 2017 to August 11,
2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant employs a common policy of
failing to pay representatives for the time they spend performing
pre-shift, mid-shift, and post-shift activities for the Defendants.
The Defendant allegedly prohibits their employees to clock in prior
to the start of their scheduled shifts, to clock out past the end
of their scheduled shifts, and from being clocked in during their
60-minute meal period. As a result of the Defendant's policy, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not properly
compensated for their hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek at
a rate not less than 1.5 their regular rate of pay.

Ent Credit Union is a financial institution, committed to improving
members' financial quality of life and returning value through
better rates, lower fees and cash rewards. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lotus Cannon, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Tel: (877) 561-0000
          Fax: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  jtb@jtblawgroup.com


FLAVORGOD LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FlavorGod LLC. The
case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. FlavorGod LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10239
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2020).

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

FlavorGod -- https://flavorgod.com/ -- is a CPG brand of food
seasonings, rubs and desert toppers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


FORTRESS BIOTECH: Pomerantz Law Reminds of January 26 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Fortress Biotech, Inc.  ("Fortress" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: FBIO) and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, and docketed under 20-cv-05767, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Fortress securities between
December 11, 2019 and October 9, 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 Fortress securities during
the class period, you have until January 26, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Fortress develops and commercializes pharmaceutical and
biotechnology products.  In December 2019, the Company's
majority-controlled subsidiary, Avenue Therapeutics, Inc.
("Avenue"), which Fortress founded in 2015, submitted a New Drug
Application ("NDA") for its intravenous ("IV") Tramadol product to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for the management of
moderate to moderately severe pain in adults in a medically
supervised health care setting.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) IV Tramadol was not safe for
the intended patient population; (ii) as a result, it was
foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the NDA for IV Tramadol;
and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 12, 2020, Avenue disclosed receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding the NDA for its IV
Tramadol product.  Specifically, the FDA advised Avenue that "it
cannot approve the application in its present form" because "IV
tramadol, intended to treat patients in acute pain who require an
opioid, is not safe for the intended patient population."
Specifically, the CRL stated: "[I]f a patient requires an analgesic
between the first dose of IV tramadol and the onset of analgesia, a
rescue analgesic would be needed.  The likely choice would be
another opioid, which would result in opioid 'stacking' and
increase the likelihood of opioid-related adverse effects."

On this news, Fortress's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or
23.98%, to close at $3.17 per share on October 12, 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]


FOUR SEASONS: Workers Begin Legal Action to Collect Severance Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Hayden at independent.com reports that a Santa Barbara law
firm announced it is now representing 150 employees of Montecito's
Four Seasons Resort The Biltmore who are demanding severance pay as
the luxury resort remains closed for an extensive renovation that
corporate executives say could last through 2022.

The employees have stopped short of suing the company -- their
contract prohibits class-action lawsuits -- but Anticouni &
Associates said in a press statement the firm is pressing for
mediation and, if unsuccessful, arbitration, for each person it
represents. "We contend the furlough caused by the pandemic became
a layoff when corporate Four Seasons decided to prevent employees
from returning to work while it remodels the hotel," the statement
read.

The Biltmore originally shut its doors in March amid the COVID
pandemic and placed all 450 of its employees, some of whom have
been with the hotel for decades, on furlough. But the temporary
closure turned into an extended one when the hotel announced a few
months later it was overhauling the property and would no longer
pay employees' health insurance.

The amount of severance allegedly owed is substantial. Per their
contract, a person who has worked for the hotel for 10 years with
an average hourly rate of $25 per hour is entitled to $16,000, the
firm said. An employee who has worked for 20 years with an average
annual salary of $75,000 would be entitled to $37,500.

Attempts to reach Four Seasons corporate representatives for
comment have not been successful. [GN]

FRAGRANCE DIRECTORY: Misclassifies Employees, Cohen Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SUSANE E. COHEN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCOTT A. NEUMAN, FRAGRANCE
DIRECTORY, INC. d/b/a DIRECT FRAGRANCES, and MONARCH SALES, LTD.,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-24876-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November
25, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked full time for the corporate Defendants from
the office in her home for over 17 years until October 23, 2020.
The Plaintiff was summarily terminated without cause.

According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as "salaried",
exempt employees. The Defendants allegedly had a policy of avoiding
to pay their employees lawfully earned overtime compensation at one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Despite working more
than 40 hours per week, the Defendants paid them the same flat
amount every week. Moreover, the Defendants failed to keep records
of time worked by their employees, including the Plaintiff.

The corporate Defendants are sellers and distributors of women's
perfume and men's fragrance. Scott A. Neuman owns and controls the
Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
          SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
          2751 South Dixie Highway, Suite 400
          West Palm Beach, FL 33405
          Telephone: (561) 659-3300
          Facsimile: (561) 693-4540
          E-mail: steve@schwarzberglaw.com
                  mail@schwarzberglaw.com


GAPPSI INC: Olivia Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO OLIVIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. GAPPSI INC (DBA GAPPSI) GIUSEPPE ABBRANCATI, Case No.
0:20-cv-05751 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020), seeks to recover overtime
compensation for Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers who
have been employed as construction workers, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that he regularly works for the Defendant in
excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving appropriate overtime
compensation for any of the hours that he worked.

In connection with the allegations and claims, the Plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages as well as applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorney’s fees and costs.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant who was
ostensibly employed as construction worker.

Gappsi, Inc. is an all inclusive home improvement company that
services clients in the Nassau and Suffolk County, Long Island, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          Aygul Charles, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          www.FightForUrRights.com
          42 Broadway, 12t Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417

GOOGLE INC: Slapped With Suit on Excessive Data Plan Consumption
----------------------------------------------------------------
Late last month, the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) filed an
antitrust lawsuit against Google over accusations of stifling
competition with their search and advertising businesses. Now it
appears that the advertising arm of Google allegedly was not only
stifling competition but affecting customers as well. In a new
class-action lawsuit against Google, plaintiff Joseph Taylor et. al
claims Google is stealing property, specifically cellular data.

According to the suit's introduction, "Defendant Google LLC
("Google") has a dirty little secret," where Android is collecting
data about its users and reporting back home regularly. While there
are privacy implications which could be a concern, the main issue
is that "in the course of mobile surveillance, there is also an
unlawful taking of Android users' property -- namely, their
cellular data." Users cannot turn off Android surveillance, which
uses "valuable cellular data users have purchased." Moreover,
Taylor claims, "Google does this, in large measure, for its own
financial benefit, and without informing users or seeking their
consent."

Taylor et al. could be barking up the wrong tree with
misappropriated cellular data for surveillance, but it could be a
legitimate concern for some. The complaint alleges that devices
transfer data throughout the day without "any action of the user
and are performed without their knowledge." Typically, devices try
to use WiFi before using cellular connections for data transfers,
but the Google data transfers do not seem to. Through the
plaintiff's research, it was found that a new Android device left
in an idle state with a brand-new Google account would transfer
8.88/MB of data a day. In comparison, an iPhone with Safari open
sent no data to Google, and what was sent to Apple was only a
1/10th of what was sent to Google. If a user was actively using a
device, "the Android device passively transferred to Google servers
11.6 MB of data each day, or around 350MB each month, while the
iPhone device transferred around half that amount to Google
servers."

Ultimately, the whole case comes down to the claim being made that
Android "mobile device users do not consent to Google's use of
their cellular data allowances when they are not using Google's
products." Perhaps the constant surveillance is more of a problem,
but it makes sense where the plaintiffs are coming from if users
have minimal data budgets for cost reasons. Doing calculations from
Tracfone's 1GB of data for $10, the monthly cost of Google's
transfers could be $3.50 a month, or $42 a year. Moreover, this
data transfer could stretch back many years, so this could be a
large case if it goes through. Regardless, we will have to see how
this all pans out in the coming months. Alongside the backorder of
court cases due to COVID-19, class action suits involving large
companies such as Google are not quick to resolve. In the meantime,
let us know what you think of this lawsuit in the comments below.
[GN]

HARRIGAN LUMBER: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Millwrights, Autrey Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ETHAN AUTREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARRIGAN LUMBER CO., INC., WILLIAM HARRIGAN
III and J. PATRICK HARRIGAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00572-WS-M (S.D. Ala., November 25, 2020) brings this
complaint as a collective action complaint against the Defendants
for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
maintenance millwright from April 2020 to August 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff
as non-exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. However,
the Defendant failed to properly pay the Plaintiff's overtime
compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay.
Although the Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours per week for
the Defendants, the Defendant paid an improper overtime rate
because it failed to include the value of the nondiscretionary
bonuses, which the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff and other
bonusing employees, in determining their regular rate of pay.

Harrigan Lumber Co., Inc. operates a sawmill in Monroeville. The
Individual Defendants are owners of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney Lowery, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          10800 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com


HERSHA HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brooks Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATILDA BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HERSHA HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, L.P.; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CV373660 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 25, 2020) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Brooks was employed by the Defendants as staff.

Hersha Hospitality Management L.P. (HHM) provides hotel management,
investment, and development services. The Company offers asset
management, operations, sales and marketing, centralized accounting
and reporting, project management, facility, utilities support, and
asset protection services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          David  Keledjian, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
          Beveriy Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  david@setarehlaw.com


HESS BAKKEN: Fredericksburg Balks at Untimely Gas Royalty Payments
------------------------------------------------------------------
FREDERICKSBURG ROYALTY, LTD., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HESS BAKKEN INVESTMENTS II,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-04022 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 25, 2020)
is a class action arising from the Defendant's willful and ongoing
violations related to the payment of oil-and-gas royalties.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant does not
automatically pay mineral owners the interest it owes on untimely
royalty payments. Instead, it has a policy of only paying statutory
interest when mineral owners demand it, despite the fact that the
statute expressly disclaims a demand requirement.

Further, the Defendant violates the leases it entered into with
royalty interest owners by "paying" negative royalty on natural gas
or its constituent parts. As opposed to other sorts of interest
owners, royalty interest owners are not required to contribute to
the upfront costs to drill or complete a well and they do not share
in the downside (i.e., the risk) of a well not being profitable. In
short, royalty interest owners are only to be paid royalty on the
proceeds of production and are never to be charged for the sale of
oil or natural gas at a negative rate.

Despite this fundamental concept of a royalty interest, the
Defendant wrongfully charges its royalty interest owners negative
royalty on natural gas produced as a byproduct to oil in North
Dakota, the suit says.

American Oil & Gas Inc, is the combination of Tower Columbia North
Corporation and North Finn LLC. The Company holds prospects with
potential for oil and gas recovery from both conventional and
non-conventional sources. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
          BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
          431 W. Main Street, Suite D
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 698-2770
          Facsimile: (405) 234-5506
          E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
                  ryan@bradwil.com

               – and –

          John Paul Albert, Esq.
          Brady L. Smith, Esq.
          NEEDHAM & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          410 N. Walnut Avenue, Suite 110
          Oklahoma City, OK 73104
          Telephone: (405) 297-0176
          Facsimile: (405) 297-0173
          E-mail: jpalbert@theneedhamcompanies.com
                  brady@theneedhamcompanies.com


INN AT EAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mendoza Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
OLGA MENDOZA CARRANZA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE INN AT EAST WIND LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-05774 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2020) seeks
to recover from the Defendant's unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Mendoza was employed by the Defendant as a housekeeper.

The Inn At East Wind LLC operates as a hotel. The Company offers
inn, spa, conference center, banquet, wedding and occasions, and
restaurants facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740-1000
          Facsimile: (718) 355-9668
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


J. M. SMUCKER: Faces Moser Suit Over Mislabeled Coffee Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELLEN MOSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY; THE FOLGER COFFEE
COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-07074 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 30, 2020) is an action alleging that
the Defendants falsely and deceptively labeled the Folgers ground
coffee products.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have grossly exaggerated
the number of cups of coffee that the Folgers ground coffee
products can make in order to induce consumer purchases and to
charge consumers more for these products. The Defendants have sold
the Folgers ground coffee products to consumers based on the
representation that they contain enough ground coffee to make up to
a specific number of servings, e.g., "240 6 fl oz cups." However,
by following the Defendants' own definitions and instructions, the
Folgers ground coffee products do not contain nearly enough ground
coffee to make the number of servings represented.

The J.M. Smucker Company manufactures and markets food products on
a worldwide basis. The Company's principal products include peanut
butter, shortening and oils, fruit spreads, canned milk, baking
mixes and ready-to-spread frostings, flour and baking ingredients,
juices and beverages, frozen sandwiches, dessert toppings, syrups,
pickles and condiments, and potato side dishes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle Shamberg, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          111 W. Washington St., Ste. 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
                  kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com

               -and-

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Scott G. Braden, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  sbraden@carlsonlynch.com


JMT RESTAURANT: Morales Sues Over Kitchen Staff's Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO DAVID MORALES MEDINA, on behalf of himself, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. JMT RESTAURANT
CORP., d/b/a LOUIE'S PIZZERIA, and JOHN M. TUCCILLO, individually,
Case No. 2:20-cv-05753 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020) alleges that the
Defendants willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards (FLSA) by
failing to pay the Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs their overtime pay
for all hours worked per week in excess of 40 at the rate of one
and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay.

The Plaintiff and FLSA Plaintiffs are also entitled to liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees for the Defendants' violations of the
FLSA's overtime provisions, says the complaint.

On September 27, 2017, Defendant Tuccillo hired the Plaintiff to
work at the Defendants' restaurant, where Plaintiff worked as a
non-managerial kitchen staff worker until August 13, 2020. As a
kitchen staff worker, the Plaintiff's primary job duties consisted
of washing dishes, preparing food, and maintaining the cleanliness
of the kitchen.

Defendant Louie’s Pizzeria is a New York corporation that
operates an Italian restaurant / pizzeria located at 39 Old Country
Road, Carle Place, New York. Defendant Tuccillo is Defendant
Louie’s Pizzeria's owner and day-to-day general manager, who
oversaw and oversees the daily operation of the restaurant and who
controls the terms and conditions of employment for all of its
employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          55 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 679-5005

JOYY INC: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of investors that
purchased the American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") of JOYY Inc.
("JOYY" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: YY) during the period from April
28, 2016 through November 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

All investors who purchased the ADRs of JOYY Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the ADRs of JOYY Inc., you may, no
later than January 19, 2021, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
ADRs of JOYY Inc.

On November 18, 2020, Muddy Waters Research published a report
entitled "YY: You Can't Make This Stuff Up. Well . . . Actually You
Can," alleging that the Company "is a multibillion-dollar fraud."
The report concluded "that YY's component businesses are a fraction
of the size it reports, and that the company's reported user
metrics, revenues, and cash balances are predominantly
fraudulent[,]" and that "[a]pproximately 84% of YY's reported
consolidated revenue appears to be fraudulent."

On this news, JOYY ADRs fell $26.53 per ADR, or 26%, to close at
$73.66 per ADR on November 18, 2020.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.  [GN]

KARZ PLUS: Faces Gutierrez Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KARZ PLUS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-02335-MMA-LL (S.D. Cal., Nov. 30, 2020) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Karz Plus, LLC own and operate a Website offering car
dealerships.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



KNAUF GIPS: Defective Drywall Causes Damage to Property, R&S Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
R&S PROPERTIES, LLC v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD
TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-03205 (E.D. La., Nov. 24, 2020)
is a class action brought by the Plaintiff related to Plaintiff's
real property containing defective Chinese manufactured drywall
that was designed, manufactured, imported, exported, distributed,
delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by
the the Defendants.

The Defendants' drywall is predominantly composed of gypsum. The
gypsum and other components of the product react, break down, and
release sulfur compounds and other noxious gasses from the drywall.
The sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide,
and carbon disulfide, exit the Defendants' drywall and cause rapid
sulfidation and damage to personal property (such as air
conditioning and refrigerator coils, faucets, utensils, electrical
wiring, copper, electronic appliances and other metal surfaces and
property), says the complaint.

The R&S Suit has been consolidated in MDL-2047 IN RE:
CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Plaintiff R&S Properties owns a property in the State of Alabama
that contains drywall manufactured by the Knauf Defendants that is
alleged to be defective that has a street address of: 9810 Bay Road
North, Foley, Aalabama.

Knauf Gips together with Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd,
provides building materials and systems to customers in over 50
countries, including the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 533-9500
          Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
          E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com

KNAUF GIPS: Faces McCann Suit Over Defective Gypsum Drywall
-----------------------------------------------------------
KERRY MCCANN and KAREN MCCANN v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF
PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-03218 (E.D. La.,
Nov. 24, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs related
to their real property containing defective Chinese manufactured
drywall that was designed, manufactured, imported, exported,
distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or
installed by the the Defendants.

The Defendants' drywall is predominantly composed of gypsum. The
gypsum and other components of the product react, break down, and
release sulfur compounds and other noxious gasses from the drywall.
The sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide,
and carbon disulfide, exit the Defendants' drywall and cause rapid
sulfidation and damage to personal property (such as air
conditioning and refrigerator coils, faucets, utensils, electrical
wiring, copper, electronic appliances and other metal surfaces and
property), says the complaint.

The McCann Suit has been consolidated in MDL-2047 IN RE:
CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Plaintiffs Kerry McCann and Karen McCann own a property in the
State of Louisiana that contains drywall manufactured by the
Defendants that is alleged to be defective that has a street
address of: 73244 Penn Mill Road, Covington, Louisiana (Affected
Property).

Knauf Gips, together with Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd,
provides building materials and systems to customers in over 50
countries, including the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 533-9500
          Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
          E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com

KNAUF GIPS: Faces McDonald Suit Over Defective Gypsum Drywall
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARDECHRIA CHARLES MCDONALD v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF
PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-03214 (E.D. La.,
Nov. 24, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff related
to her real property containing defective Chinese manufactured
drywall that was designed, manufactured, imported, exported,
distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or
installed by the the Defendants.

The Defendants' drywall is predominantly composed of gypsum. The
gypsum and other components of the product react, break down, and
release sulfur compounds and other noxious gasses from the drywall.
The sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide,
and carbon disulfide, exit the Defendants' drywall and cause rapid
sulfidation and damage to personal property (such as air
conditioning and refrigerator coils, faucets, utensils, electrical
wiring, copper, electronic appliances and other metal surfaces and
property), says the complaint.

The McDonald Suit has been consolidated in MDL-2047 IN RE:
CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Plaintiff Mardechria Charles McDonald owns a property in the State
of Louisiana that contains drywall manufactured by the Knauf
Defendants that is alleged to be defective that has a street
address of: 116 Dufesne Drive, Vacherie, Louisiana ("Affected
Property").

Knauf Gips, together with Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd,
provides building materials and systems to customers in over 50
countries, including the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 533-9500
          Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
          E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com

KNAUF GIPS: Faces Nguyen Suit Over Defective Gypsum Drywall
-----------------------------------------------------------
DUNG NGUYEN, individually v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD
TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-03204 (E.D. La., Nov. 24, 2020)
is a class action brought by the Plaintiff related to Plaintiff's
real property containing defective Chinese manufactured drywall
that was designed, manufactured, imported, exported, distributed,
delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by
the the Defendants.

The Defendants' drywall is predominantly composed of gypsum. The
gypsum and other components of the product react, break down, and
release sulfur compounds and other noxious gasses from the drywall.
The sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide,
and carbon disulfide, exit the Defendants' drywall and cause rapid
sulfidation and damage to personal property (such as air
conditioning and refrigerator coils, faucets, utensils, electrical
wiring, copper, electronic appliances and other metal surfaces and
property), says the complaint.

The Nguyen Suit has been consolidated in MDL-2047 IN RE:
CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Plaintiff Dung Nguyen owns a property in the State of Mississippi
that contains drywall manufactured by the Knauf Defendants that is
alleged to be defective that has a street address of: 3 Laudeac
Court, Long Beach, Mississippi ("Affected Property").

Knauf Gips, together with Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd,
provides building materials and systems to customers in over 50
countries, including the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 533-9500
          Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
          E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com

KNAUF GIPS: Faces Perez Suit Over Defective Gypsum Drywall
----------------------------------------------------------
MARK PEREZ and KIMBERLIE PEREZ v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF
PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-03220 (E.D. La.,
Nov. 24, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs related
to their real property containing defective Chinese manufactured
drywall that was designed, manufactured, imported, exported,
distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or
installed by the the Defendants.

The Defendants' drywall is predominantly composed of gypsum. The
gypsum and other components of the product react, break down, and
release sulfur compounds and other noxious gasses from the drywall.
The sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide,
and carbon disulfide, exit the Defendants' drywall and cause rapid
sulfidation and damage to personal property (such as air
conditioning and refrigerator coils, faucets, utensils, electrical
wiring, copper, electronic appliances and other metal surfaces and
property), says the complaint.

The Perez Suit has been consolidated in MDL-2047 IN RE:
CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Plaintiffs Mark Perez and Kimberlie Perez own real property in the
State of Louisiana that contains drywall manufactured by Defendants
that is alleged to be defective that has a street address of: 3036
Whitty Drive, Slidell, Louisiana.

Knauf Gips, together with Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd,
provides building materials and systems to customers in over 50
countries, including the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 533-9500
          Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
          E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com

KNAUF GIPS: Faces Province Suit Over Defective Gypsum Drywall
-------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE PROVINCE and KRISTAL PROVINCE v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF
PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-03222 (E.D. La.,
Nov. 24, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs related
to their real property containing defective Chinese manufactured
drywall that was designed, manufactured, imported, exported,
distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or
installed by the the Defendants.

The Defendants' drywall is predominantly composed of gypsum. The
gypsum and other components of the product react, break down, and
release sulfur compounds and other noxious gasses from the drywall.
The sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide,
and carbon disulfide, exit the Defendants' drywall and cause rapid
sulfidation and damage to personal property (such as air
conditioning and refrigerator coils, faucets, utensils, electrical
wiring, copper, electronic appliances and other metal surfaces and
property), says the complaint.

The Province Suit has been consolidated in MDL-2047 IN RE:
CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Plaintiffs Wayne Province and Kristal Province own real property in
the State of Louisiana that contains a structure with drywall
manufactured by Defendants that is alleged to be defective that has
a street address of: 86048 Highway 450, Franklinton, Louisiana.

Knauf Gips together with Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd,
provides building materials and systems to customers in over 50
countries, including the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 533-9500
          Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
          E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com

KNAUF GIPS: Faces Van Pham Suit Over Defective Gypsum Drywall
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHIEN VAN PHAM and BICH NGUYEN v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF
PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-03223 (E.D. La.,
Nov. 24, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs related
to their real property containing defective Chinese manufactured
drywall that was designed, manufactured, imported, exported,
distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or
installed by the the Defendants.

The Defendants' drywall is predominantly composed of gypsum. The
gypsum and other components of the product react, break down, and
release sulfur compounds and other noxious gasses from the drywall.
The sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide,
and carbon disulfide, exit the Defendants' drywall and cause rapid
sulfidation and damage to personal property (such as air
conditioning and refrigerator coils, faucets, utensils, electrical
wiring, copper, electronic appliances and other metal surfaces and
property), says the complaint.

The Van Pham Suit has been consolidated in MDL-2047 IN RE:
CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Plaintiffs Chien Van Pham and Bich Nguyen own real property in the
State of Louisiana that contains a structure with drywall
manufactured by the Defendants that is alleged to be defective that
has a street address of: 9549 Homestead Drive, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana ("Affected Property").

Knauf Gips together with Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd,
provides building materials and systems to customers in over 50
countries, including the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 533-9500
          Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
          E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com


KNAUF GIPS: Issman Says Defective Drywall Causes Damage to Property
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW L. ISSMAN and SUSAN ISSMAN v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF
PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-03217 (E.D. La.,
Nov. 24, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs related
to their real property containing defective Chinese manufactured
drywall that was designed, manufactured, imported, exported,
distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or
installed by the the Defendants.

The Defendants' drywall is predominantly composed of gypsum. The
gypsum and other components of the product react, break down, and
release sulfur compounds and other noxious gasses from the drywall.
The sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide,
and carbon disulfide, exit the Defendants' drywall and cause rapid
sulfidation and damage to personal property (such as air
conditioning and refrigerator coils, faucets, utensils, electrical
wiring, copper, electronic appliances and other metal surfaces and
property), says the complaint.

The Issman Suit has been consolidated in MDL-2047 IN RE:
CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Plaintiffs are Louisiana residents. They own a property in the
State of Louisiana that contains drywall manufactured by the
Defendants that is alleged to be defective.

Knauf Gips, together with Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd,
provides building materials and systems to customers in over 50
countries, including the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 533-9500
          Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
          E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com

KNAUF GIPS: Moore Says Defective Drywall Causes Damage to Property
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARL MOORE and ELLEN MOORE v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD
TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-03212 (E.D. La., Nov. 24, 2020)
is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs related to their real
property containing defective Chinese manufactured drywall that was
designed, manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered,
supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the the
Defendants.

The Defendants' drywall is predominantly composed of gypsum. The
gypsum and other components of the product react, break down, and
release sulfur compounds and other noxious gasses from the drywall.
The sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide,
and carbon disulfide, exit the Defendants' drywall and cause rapid
sulfidation and damage to personal property (such as air
conditioning and refrigerator coils, faucets, utensils, electrical
wiring, copper, electronic appliances and other metal surfaces and
property), says the complaint.

The Moore Suit has been consolidated in MDL-2047 IN RE:
CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Plaintiffs Carl Moore and Ellen Moore own a property in the State
of Florida that contains drywall manufactured by Defendants that is
alleged to be defective that has a street address of: 5427
Kedgewick Lane, North Port, Florida (Affected Property).

Knauf Gips, together with Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd,
provides building materials and systems to customers in over 50
countries, including the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 533-9500
          Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
          E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com

KNAUF GIPS: Norris Says Defective Drywall Causes Damage to Property
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NORRIS and NICOLE NORRIS, v. KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF
PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No. 2:20-cv-03219 (E.D. La.,
Nov. 24, 2020), is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs related
to their real property containing defective Chinese manufactured
drywall that was designed, manufactured, imported, exported,
distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or
installed by the the Defendants.

The Defendants' drywall is predominantly composed of gypsum. The
gypsum and other components of the product react, break down, and
release sulfur compounds and other noxious gasses from the drywall.
The sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide,
and carbon disulfide, exit the Defendants' drywall and cause rapid
sulfidation and damage to personal property (such as air
conditioning and refrigerator coils, faucets, utensils, electrical
wiring, copper, electronic appliances and other metal surfaces and
property), says the complaint.

The Norris Suit has been consolidated in MDL-2047 IN RE:
CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Plaintiffs Michael Norris and Nicole Norris own real property in
the State of Louisiana that contains drywall manufactured by the
Defendants that is alleged to be defective that has a street
address of: 700 Arctic Fox Run, Madisonville, Louisiana ("Affected
Property").

Knauf Gips, together with Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd,
provides building materials and systems to customers in over 50
countries, including the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
          DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
          2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 533-9500
          Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
          E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com


L'ESTI DESSERTS: Gutierrez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
APOLINAR GUTIERREZ; and JULIAN LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L'ESTI DESSERTS, INC.
(D/B/A LESTIS DESSERTS); L'ESTI'S DESSERTS ENTERPRISES, CORP.
(D/B/A LESTIS DESSERTS); PETER M ABOKHIYAYEV; TANIA DOE; and SILVIA
DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05754 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Gutierrez and Lopez were employed by the Defendants as
kitchen staffs.

L'esti Desserts, Inc. owns, operates, or controls a Kosher bakery,
located at 180 27th St, Brooklyn, NY 11232 under the name "Lestis
Desserts". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LA STRADA PIZZERIA: Pabon Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO LILA PABON, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA STRADA PIZZERIA LLC (D/B/A LA
STRADA PIZZERIA); SALVATORE MUSSO; and GIOVANNI CONIGLIARO,
Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-05772 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2020) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, and provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Pabon was employed by the Defendants as cook.

La Strada Pizzeria LLC own, operate, or control an Italian
Restaurant/pizzeria, located at 5023 10th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY
11219 under the name La Strada Pizzeria. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MAT-MERIDIAN LLC: Boston Sues Over Tip Pooling and Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
IVORY BOSTON and CAMRON WELLS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAT-MERIDIAN, LLC, an
Idaho limited liability company; MATT-BOISE, LLC, d/b/a The
Matador, an Idaho limited liability company, OPPER MELANG 5410,
LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00541-REB (D. Idaho, November 25, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
unlawful treatment to their employees in violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were employed by the
Defendants as tipped employees at the Defendants' Matador in
Meridian, Idaho. Plaintiff Boston was hired as a server since
November 2017, while Plaintiff Wells has worked for the Defendants
since it opened on August 1, 2015 as a busser and more recently as
an expo, server, and bartender.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant wrongfully forced them and
other similarly situated tipped employees to pool and share their
tips with non-tipped employees. As a result, the Defendants failed
to pay their tipped employees the applicable minimum wage rate for
regular hours they worked.

The Plaintiffs bring this complaint on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated tipped employees, including servers,
bartenders, hosts, and bussers in the Matador's Meridian and Boise
restaurants and Matadors' other locations, to recover the sum of
any tip credit taken by Matador, tip reimbursement, an equal amount
of liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

The Corporate Defendants operate numerous restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremiah Hudson, Esq.
          Anthony Shallat, Esq.
          Jennifer Hanway, Esq.
          FISHER HUDSON SHALLAT
          950 W. Bannock St., Ste. 630
          Boise, ID 83702
          Tel: (208) 345-7000
          Fax: (208) 514-1900
          E-mail: jeremiah@fisherhudson.com
                  anthony@fisherhudson.com
                  jennifer@fisherhudson.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Morandi Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEN MORANDI and BLANCA
MERCADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, d/b/a MR. COOPER, et al.,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06334-MCS-MAA (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will
move the Court on January 25, 2021, for an order certifying a class
of:

   "all individuals in the state of California, who, during the
   applicable limitations period, paid a convenience fee to Mr.
   Cooper for paying over the phone in connection with any
   residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by Mr. Cooper."

   All employees of the Court and Plaintiff's counsel are
   excluded from this class.

Nationstar, doing business as Mr. Cooper, offers mortgage services.
The company provides mortgages loan, re-financing, and home equity
loans. Mr. Cooper serves client in the state of Texas.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2JJy18w at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Wheeler-Berliner, Esq.
          Dargan M. Ware, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
          2154 Highland Avenue S.
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205 765-7324
          E-mail: Andrew@davisnorris.com
                  dware@davisnorris.com

               - and -

          Robert Salgado, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
          5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: 858 333-4103
          Facsimile: 205 930-9989
          E-mail: rsalgado@davisnorris.com


NPAS SOLS: 11th Cir. Rejects Incentive Awards in TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, No. 18-12344 (11th Cir. Sep. 17,
2020), the Eleventh Circuit invalidated the use of incentive awards
for named plaintiffs in a TCPA class action as inconsistent with
the Federal Rules. This is a significant development that may
further stifle the filing of TCPA lawsuits nationwide. Plaintiff
attorneys rely on class representatives to bring cases suitable for
class treatment. When successful, class representatives stand to
make five figures on an incentive award. Now, in at least one
Circuit, the practice has been deemed unlawful. If this holding
becomes a trend, class representatives will become much harder to
come across.

Relying on a pair of Supreme Court cases from the 1880s -- Trustees
v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527, 26 L. Ed. 1157 (1882), and Central
Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116, 5 S. Ct. 387, 28 L.
Ed. 915 (1885) -- the Johnson Court held, "A plaintiff suing on
behalf of a class can be reimbursed for attorneys' fees and
expenses incurred in carrying on the litigation, but he cannot be
paid a salary or be reimbursed for his personal expenses." Although
it noted that incentive awards are commonplace in class actions,
the Eleventh Circuit found them to be unlawful and reversed the
district court's approval of a $6,000 payment to the class
representative.

The Court's ruling presents a major change in class action
litigation. Courts outside the Eleventh Circuit, however, have
recently rejected the holding in Johnson, paving the way for a
circuit split that could demand Supreme Court review. Somogyi v.
Freedom Mortgage Corp., 2020 WL 6146875, *9 (Oct. 20, 2020) ("Until
and unless the Supreme Court or Third Circuit bars incentive awards
or payments to class plaintiffs, they will be approved by this
Court if appropriate under the circumstances. Here the incentive
payments to the class plaintiffs is appropriate given their
substantial contribution to the successful settlement of the
case.")

Incentive payments are awarded to class representatives in nearly
all class action settlements. Since the ruling, the named plaintiff
has filed a petition for rehearing en banc that has not yet been
decided. We will continue to monitor both the outcome of the
petition for rehearing and how the decision is received across the
country, as the propriety of incentive awards is sure to be
challenged in other circuits. [GN]

OHIOHEALTH CORP: Parties in "Melgard" Agree to Collective Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANE MELGARD, On behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. OHIOHEALTH CORPORATION,
Case No. 2:20-cv-05322-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Parties, pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(d) and 83(b), and Section
16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), jointly agree to
conditionally certify the FLSA collective action and provide notice
to the putative class members.

The Parties agree that:

   1. The Parties jointly submit the proposed Notice and Consent
      to Join forms to be authorized by the Court.

   2. The Defendant will provide the Plaintiff's counsel with a
      list (in Microsoft Office Excel format) containing the
      names and last known addresses (including zip code),
      telephone number, personal email address, dates of
      employment, and location of employment of the class of
      employees (the "Class List") within 14 days of the Court's
      entry of an Order approving the Parties' Joint
      Stipulation, or within 14 days of the Court's entry of a
      stipulated protective order, whichever is longer.

      The Class List shall include:

           "all current and former hourly protective services
           officers who were scheduled to work 40 or more hours
           in at least one workweek employed by the Defendant at
           any of its locations within the three years preceding
           this action (Putative Collective Class Members)."

   3. The Plaintiff's counsel will, by First Class U.S. Mail and
      personal email only, send notice to the Putative
      Collective Class Members within 7 days of receipt of the
      Class List. The Putative Collective Class Members shall
      have 90 days from the date the Notice Packet is mailed to
      return their Consent to Join form and opt-in to this case.

   4. None of the parties, including the opt-in plaintiffs,
      shall initiate contact with any of the Putative Collective
      Class Members for the purpose of discussing the subject
      matter of or their participation in this lawsuit through
      the end of the opt-in period, except that parties,
      including opt-in plaintiffs, may respond to inquiries from
      the Putative Collective Class Members during this time.

   5. Plaintiff's Counsel may contact the Putative Collective
      Class Members after they have opted in. Nothing herein
      shall be construed as a prohibition on Defendant's
      interactions with any of the Putative Collective Class
      Members in the normal course of their business.

OhioHealth is a not-for-profit system of hospitals and healthcare
providers located in Columbus, Ohio and surrounding areas.

A copy of the joint stipulation to pre-discovery conditional class
certification dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mzb469 at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated are:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Manuel J. Asensio, Esq.
          Samuel E. Endicott, Esq.
          BAKERHOSTETLER
          200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 1200
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 462-2614
          Facsimile: (614) 462 2616
          E-mail: masensio@bakerlaw.com
                  sendicott@bakerlaw.com

PETROBRAS: Could Expand Into Guyana, CEO Says
---------------------------------------------
Gram Slattery at Reuters reports that Brazilian state-controlled
oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras) could expand its
exploration and production operations into neighboring Guyana, if
the regulatory environment does not improve in Brazil, Chief
Executive Roberto Castello Branco said.

Petroleo Brasileiro SA, as the company is formally known, has
exploration interests off Brazil's northern coast, according to
Reuters.

There is speculation among geologists that parts of that area could
share a similar geology with Guyana, which has emerged as one of
the world's hottest frontier oil provinces, the report notes.

                      About Petrobras

Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. or Petrobras (in English, Brazilian
Petroleum Corporation - Petrobras) is a semi-public Brazilian
multinational corporation in the petroleum industry headquartered
in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  Petrobras control significant oil and
energy assets in 16 countries in Africa, the Americas, Europe and
Asia.  But, Brazil represents majority of its production.

The Brazilian government directly owns 54% of Petrobras' common
shares with voting rights, while the Brazilian Development Bank and
Brazil's Sovereign Wealth Fund (Fundo Soberano) each control 5%,
bringing the State's direct and indirect ownership to 64%.

A corruption scandal was uncovered in 2014 that involved
Petrobras.

The scandal related to money laundering that involved Petrobras
executives.  The executives were alleged to get received kickbacks
from overpriced contracts, to the tune of about $3 billion in
total.

As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter-Latin America on Feb.
25, 2019, S&P Global Ratings raised the stand-alone credit profile
(SACP) on Petrobras to 'bb' from 'bb-'. S&P also affirmed its
global scale ratings on the company at 'BB-' and its Brazilian
national scale rating at 'brAAA'.

PINE BAR: Manzano Seeks Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
RENE MANZANO TIBURCIO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. PINE BAR & GRILL LLC (D/B/A PINE BAR +
GRILL), A & A RESTAURANT INC. (D/B/A PINE BAR + GRILL), ANTHONY
BASTONE, ALBERTO BERACHA, and FRANK DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-09922
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage 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.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime
and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping
of the hours he worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff
Manzano to all other similarly situated employees, the suit says.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cook at the Defendants' restaurant.


Defendants own, operate, or control a bar and grill restaurant,
located at 1634 Eastchester Road, Bronx, New Yorkunder the name
"Pine Bar + Grill". The individual Defendants are the owners,
managers, principals, or agents of the 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
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com

QUEENSLAND ENERGY: Locals Eligible for Instant Cash From Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Baxter at 9news.com.au reports that thousands of
Queenslanders are eligible to apply for hundreds of dollars in
instant cash paid direct to your account, but the clock is ticking
to sign up.

It's all part of the country's largest-ever class action against
two major power generators accused of deliberately inflating energy
prices.

Piper Alderman Partner Greg Whyte told 9News more than 30,000
Queenslanders have already signed up to the Queensland Energy Class
Action which launched earlier this year.

However, 1.2 million Queenslanders are still eligible.

"All consumers have been affected," Mr Whyte said.

The state's largest power generators Stanwell Corporation and CS
Energy are accused of deliberately inflating power prices for
profit.

The action, if successful, could mean upwards of $600 instant
cashback to consumers who sign up.

"Anything back in my pocket is better than in somebody else's
pocket especially you know when you're running on a single income,"
Gold Coast single dad Jason Burn told 9News.

Mr. Burn said he's already signed up to the action and wants to
spread the word.

"I've passed it onto my parents, my family, you know I've got four
other siblings."

Mr Whyte said the amount of compensation will depend on the
customer's consumption of electricity.

Businesses will likely have more and are also urged to apply.

Consumer Network One Big Switch recently jumped on board and is
also encouraging its members to sign up.

"It's cost and obligation-free to join this campaign you're not
losing anything," One Big Switch's David Liston said.

But time is running out with the firm currently finalising the
statement of claim document to start the action in the next couple
of weeks.

In a statement, both companies strongly refute the claims and say
Queenslanders have had the lowest wholesale power prices on the
National Electricity Market for the last three years.

"These allegations have previously been investigated by the
Australian Energy Regulator and the ACCC and found that elevated
price were not the result of "identifiable uses or abuses of market
power (for example, conduct of particular generators to 'spike' the
price)," the CS Energy statement read.

Stanwell Corporation claims Queensland taxpayers will bear the cost
of defending the class action which translates to reduced dividends
to find health, education and police services. [GN]

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Vincent Wong Remindsof December 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain Raytheon Technologies Corporation
shareholders. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE:RTX)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/raytheon-technologies-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11256&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 29, 2020
Class Period: February 10, 2016 - October 27, 2020

Allegations against RTX include that: (1) Raytheon had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and inadequate internal control
over financial reporting; (2) Raytheon had faulty financial
accounting; (3) as a result, Raytheon misreported its costs
regarding Raytheon Company's Missiles & Defense business since
2009; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Raytheon was at risk of
increased scrutiny from the government; (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Raytheon would face a criminal investigation by the U.S.
Department of Justice; and (6) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

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

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



ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Gordon Seeks Class Status
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISAAC GORDON, an
individual, and all those similarly situated, v. ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
2:19-cv-00390-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying this case as a class action under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.

The class is defined as:

   "all persons, as that term is defined in RCW 19.190.010(11)
   and RCW 19.86.010(1); who are Washington residents; to whom
   the Defendant initiated or assisted in the transmission or
   one or more commercial electronic text messages; to a
   cellular phone or pager service that is equipped with short
   message capability or any similar capability allowing the
   transmission of text messages; without obtaining the
   recipients' clear and affirmative consent to receive such
   messages in advance; within the previous four years; through
   the date that the class is certified."

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Washington's
Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) and in turn the Washington's
Consumer Protection Act (CPA) by recruiting existing customers to
act as its agents and intermediaries in transmitting commercial
advertisements -- which are composed, designed, and provided by the
Defendant -- to third-party recipients who have never consented to
receive such unsolicited "spam" messages.

The Plaintiff seeks statutory and exemplary damages, costs and
attorney fees, and declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of
himself and the putative class.

The Plaintiff is a Washington individual who regularly uses a
cellular telephone or similar device with the capacity to send and
receive transmissions of electronic text messages.

The Defendant operates an online investment brokerage service and
conduct related business activities serving consumers, businesses,
and other organizations throughout Washington and the United
States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
          KIRK D. MILLER, P.S.
          421 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 660
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 413-1494
          E-mail: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com

               - and -

          Brian G. Cameron, Esq.
          CAMERON SUTHERLAND, PLLC
          421 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 660
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 315-4507
          E-mail: bcameron@cameronsutherland.com


SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: Floyd Seeks to Certify Unsolicited Fax Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS FLOYD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SARATOGA
DIAGNOSTICS, INC., a California corporation, and THOMAS PALLONE, an
individual, Case No. 5:20-cv-01520-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this Unsolicited Fax Class:

      "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to
      filing of this action, (2) were sent, by the Defendants or
      on the Defendants' behalf, (3) a telephone facsimile
      messages substantially similar to Exhibit A, (4) from whom
      the Defendants claim they obtained prior express
      permission or invitation to send those faxes in the same
      manner as the Defendants claim they obtained prior express
      permission or invitation to fax the Plaintiff and (5) for
      whom Defendants had no prior business relationship;"

   2. appointing Patrick H. Peluso and Taylor T. Smith of
      Woodrow & Peluso, LLC as Class Counsel;

   3. appointing himself as Class Representative; and

   4. awarding additional relief as it deems necessary,
      reasonable, and just.

This case challenges the Defendants' serial violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act -- specifically, its bar against sending unsolicited
facsimile messages. The Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint
on March 1, 2020.

Saratoga Diagnostics offers the finest aesthetic systems, skin care
products, and lasers for cosmetic surgeries. The Defendant Pallone
is the president of Saratoga.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2VtuA8l at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Classes, are:

          Steven L. Weinstein, Esq.
          PO Box 27414
          Oakland, CA 94602
          Telephone: (510) 336-2181
          E-mail: steveattorney@comcast.net

               - and -

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0676
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


SERVISFIRST BANK: Judge Dismisses First-Filed PPP Agent Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a landmark decision, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida dismissed a putative class action
involving "agent fees" for Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP")
loans under the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security ("CARES") Act. This lawsuit, Sport & Wheat CPA, PA v.
Servisfirst Bank et al., No. 3:20-cv-05425-TKW-HTC (N.D. Fla.)
claimed to represent a class of accounting firms and other
consultants that allegedly worked as agents on behalf of applicants
for PPP loans - typically small business clients. Plaintiff
contended the CARES Act and implementing regulations required
lenders to pay them "agent fees" for preparing loan applications.

This lawsuit was the first of its kind. Sixty copy-cat lawsuits
followed in more than a dozen federal courts across the country. On
August 6, 2020, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
denied consolidation of these lawsuits in a multidistrict
litigation ("MDL"). We reported on that decision here. In all of
these cases, Plaintiffs attempt to twist regulatory language
establishing caps on agent compensation (a one percent fee for
loans of $350,000 or less, a .50 percent fee for loans of more than
$350,000 and up to $2 million, and a .25 percent fee on loans over
$2 million) into an ironclad obligation for banks to pay agents -
even if the bank never heard of the agent, did not know the agent
was preparing a borrower's application, or did not ask for the
agent's assistance.

The Court correctly held neither the CARES Act nor its implementing
regulations require lenders to pay agent fees absent a specific
agreement to do so.

Hon. T. Kent Wetherell, II, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Florida - Pensacola Division correctly held
neither the CARES Act nor its implementing regulations require
lenders to pay agent fees absent a specific agreement to do so. The
Court held preexisting Small Business Administration ("SBA")
regulations were applicable to the PPP, and these regulations
required execution of an SBA Form 159 before an agent can receive
any compensation. 13 C.F.R. § 103.5(a). Form 159 is the SBA's form
compensation agreement. It is used to identify agents and the fees
or compensation to be paid on behalf of a small business applicant.
It is signed by the lender, the borrower, and the agent. Form 159
serves to prevent fraud and abuse by requiring agents to certify
that they have not been otherwise paid for these services, that
they have "actually performed" these services "on the Applicant's
behalf," that all information is accurate, and itemize services if
the amount claimed is over $2,500. The Court held this
indispensable requirement for SBA Section 7(a) loans was equally
applicable to the PPP, which was enacted as a Section 7(a) loan
product. See Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 1102(a). We predicted such a
ruling was the only way to harmonize any fees permitted by the PPP
with SBA's existing regulatory structure. Many defendants have
argued the Form 159 was required under this exact logic. Plaintiffs
have resisted filling out the Form, arguing it conflicted with PPP
requirements. But the Court correctly held nothing about the PPP
conflicted with Form 159; if anything, the PPP only sets lower fee
caps than those preexisting SBA regulations consider presumptively
reasonable.

It was undisputed in Sport & Wheat that Plaintiff did not complete
a Form 159. Consequently, the Court held the Defendant banks "ha[d]
no legal obligation under the CARES Act or the [PPP] to pay
Plaintiff an 'agent fee' for helping the borrowers get PPP
loans[,]" and dismissed Plaintiff's claim for a judicial
declaration it was entitled to agent fees under federal law. The
Court dismissed Plaintiff's state law conversion claim for a
similar reason: Plaintiff had no right to the agent fees it claimed
it was owed. Finally, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's unjust
enrichment and breach of implied contract claims as duplicative and
insufficient under state law because Plaintiff's alleged work as
agent only directly benefitted PPP borrowers - not the lenders that
were sued. Thus, no equitable principles required lenders to
compensate Plaintiff for work on PPP loans. The Court dismissed the
lawsuit in its entirety.

This ruling has significant implications in the Sport & Wheat case
and beyond. Judge Wetherell's was the first opinion in the country
to affirmatively require the Form 159 and dismiss a case for
failure to complete the Form. This opinion is already being filed
in courts across the country where agent fee cases are currently
pending.

Despite two big wins in the last weeks, banks should still remain
vigilant.

Banks have scored big wins in the last weeks in defeating the MDL
and obtaining this favorable opinion in the first-filed case, they
should still remain vigilant. Though this opinion may discourage
new PPP agent fee class actions, it is by no means final: The Court
granted Plaintiff leave to file another Amended Complaint if it had
some good faith basis for pursuing other claims. It is difficult to
imagine how Plaintiff could meet this standard in light of the
Court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion (even if the opinion
stopped short of affirmatively holding there is no right of action
under the CARES Act, as a federal court in Maryland previously held
in a PPP loan priority case). Alternatively, Plaintiff could appeal
this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit and seek reversal. It is also seems unlikely that
an any appellate court would review the plain language of the CARES
Act, the PPP, and SBA regulations and come to the contrary
conclusion Form 159 is not required. Nevertheless, other hearings
on motions to dismiss taking place and those scheduled in the near
future may present the opportunity for contrary rulings on the
merits of the claim the PPP requires payment of agent fees.
Additionally, some states' laws may be more favorable for
quasi-contract and conversion claims than Florida law. [GN]


TRINITY TEEN: Sherman et al. Sue Teen Centers for Human Trafficking
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLIE SHERMAN, ANNA GOZUN, AMANDA NASH, and JOHN DOE on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated persons, v. TRINITY TEEN
SOLUTIONS, INC., a Wyoming corporation; TRIANGLE CROSS RANCH, LLC,
a Wyoming limited liability corporation; MONKS OF THE MOST BLESSED
VIRGIN MARY OF MOUNT CARMEL, d/b/a MYSTIC MONK COFFEE, a Wyoming
corporation; GERALD E. SCHNEIDER; MICHAELEEN P. SCHNEIDER; ANGELA
C. WOODWARD; JERRY D. WOODWARD; DANIEL SCHNEIDER; MATHEW SCHNEIDER;
MARK SCHNEIDER; KARA WOODWARD; KYLE WOODWARD; THOMAS GEORGE; JUDITH
D. JEFFERIS; DALLY-UP, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability
corporation; ROCK CREEK RANCH, INC., a Delaware corporation;
DIOCESE OF CHEYENNE, a Wyoming corporation; and the SOCIETY OF OUR
LADY OF THE MOST HOLY TRINITY, a Texas corporation; and NEW MOUNT
CARMEL FOUNDATION, INC., a Wyoming corporation, Case No.
0:20-cv-00215-SWS (D. Wyo., Nov. 25, 2020), is an action brought by
the Plaintiffs on behalf of human trafficking victims in the
troubled teen industry.

According to the complaint, the Defendant owners and their
recruitment agents defrauded the Plaintiffs, other putative class
members, and their parents throughout the recruitment process,
inducing them into paying substantial fees for residential
treatment, under promises of receiving full-time cutting edge
therapies and while maintaining proper education towards high
school graduation. The Defendant owners actually forced Plaintiffs
and putative class members to work without pay for periods of time
lasting between months and years. The Defendant owners and/or their
agents caused Plaintiffs and the putative class members to believe
that if they did not work for the Defendants, they would suffer
physical or emotional abuse and prolonged confinement.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct, the
Plaintiffs and members of the putative class suffered emotional and
physical pain and suffering for which they should be compensated.

Human trafficking remains a shockingly prevalent practice
throughout the world. It has become an epidemic in the United
States. Human trafficking victimizes vulnerable persons by forcing,
defrauding, or otherwise coercing them into sexual or labor
exploitation. In 2000, Congress first enacted the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act to combat the exploitation of individuals,
especially women and children, coerced into the sex trade, slavery,
and involuntary servitude.

The "troubled teen industry" is a predatory industry that operates
across the United States, especially in rural areas where the
oversight of mental health facilities and residential facilities
for minors is difficult or impracticable. These companies promise
the parents of teens with mental and emotional disturbances,
problems with delinquency, and addiction issues respite from the
challenges of treatment and parenting their children with
too-good-to-be-true promises of cutting-edge therapies and
education in a residential setting.

Defendants Gerald Schneider and Michaeleen P. Schneider have owned
the property now operated as the Triangle Cross Ranch, Inc. since
1973.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Rosenthal, Esq.
          Nathan Nicholas, Esq.
          HATHAWAY & KUNZ, LLP
          P.O. Box 1208
          Cheyenne, WY 82003-1208
          Telephone: (307) 634-7723
          Facsimile: (307) 634-0985
          E-mail: mike@hkwvolaw.com
                  nnicholas@hkwvolaw.com

               - and -

          Brice M. Timmons, Esq.
          Bryce Ashby, Esq.
          Craig Edgington, Esq.
          DONATI LAW, PLLC
          1545 Union Ave.
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Telephone: (901)209-5500
          Facsimile: (901)278-3111
          E-mail: brice@donalilaw.com
                  brvce@donatilaw.com
                  craig@donatilaw.com

               - and -

          Frank L. Watson, III, Esq.
          WATSON BUMS, PLLC
          253 Adams Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Telephone: (901) 529-7996
          Facsimile: (901) 529-7998
          E-mail: fwatson@watsonbums.com

USAA FEDERAL: Barrett Balks at Unfair Termination of Fund Transfers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL J. BARRETT, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-12118-NMG (D. Mass., November 25, 2020) is brought by
the Plaintiff against the Defendant to challenge its alleged
unlawful business practice that violated the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act (EFTA).

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant of violation of improperly
limiting consumers' rights to terminate preauthorized electronic
fund transfers by using standardized "Authorization for
Preauthorized Loan Payments" that require a minimum of five
business days' notice instead of three business days.

To finance his purchase of an automobile, the Plaintiff has
obtained a loan from the Defendant in September 2020 wherein he
signed a Note, Disclosure, and Security Agreement with the
Defendant, including an Authorization Agreement for Preauthorized
Loan Payments that provides the Defendant permission to
automatically withdraw the Plaintiff's monthly loan payments from
his checking account with Rockland Federal Credit Union. However,
the Defendant will not honor a termination request for the upcoming
preauthorized electronic fund transfer in less than 5 days but will
instead apply that request to the next scheduled transfer, thereby
violating 15 U.S.C Section 1693e(a) and 12 C.F.R. pt.
1005.10(c)(1).

USAA Federal Savings Bank offers a variety of banking and financial
services to consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin V.K. Crick, Esq.
          RIGHTS PROTECTION LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Cambridge St., Suite 1400
          Boston, MA 02114
          Tel: (844) 574-4487
          Fax: (888) 622-3715
          E-mail: k-crick@rightsprotect.com

                - and –

          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Tel: (561) 826-5477
          Fax: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Massaro Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC MASSARO, BENJAMIN
BERNSTEIN, AND GREG AIKENS, both individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No.
5:20-cv-01845-JFL (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying these class and subclasses:

   --  Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Act (CDCA) Class:

       "all current and former residents of Pennsylvania to whom
       Velocity has sent communications in an attempt to collect
       on a loan or account subject to the CDCA;"

   --  CDCA Subclass:

       "all current and former residents of Pennsylvania, (1) to
       whom Velocity has sent any communications in an attempt
       to to collect a loan or account subject to the CDCA and
       (2) to whom Velocity commenced litigation in an attempt
       to collect the debt;"

   --  Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Subclass:

       "all current and former residents of Pennsylvania to
       whom, between April 8, 2019 and the present, Velocity has
       sent any communications in an attempt to collect loan or
       account subject to the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Act
       (CDCA), and against whom Velocity initiated litigation
       against the Subclass member;" and

   --  Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
       Protection Law (UTPCPL) Subclass

       "all current and former residents of Pennsylvania to
       whom, between April 8, 2014 and the present, Velocity has
       sent any communications in an attempt to collect a loan
       or account subject to the CDCA, against whom Velocity
       initiated litigation against the Subclass member."

Velocity Investments is a national buyer of delinquent consumer
receivables.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/39CWuHs at no extra charge.[CC]

Attorneys for the Massaro Plaintiffs, the putative Class and the
putative Subclasses, are:

          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          DANN LAW
          P.O. Box 6031040
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Adams, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. ADAMS
          200 Highpoint Drive, Suite 211A
          Chalfont, PA 18914
          Telephone: (215) 996-9977
          E-mail: josephmadamsesq@verizon.net


WAL-MART STORES: Pearlstone Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT PEARLSTONE,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 4:17-cv-02856-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a Class for purposes of settlement under
      Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e) and (b)(3) consisting of:

      "all individuals who, during the Class Period, returned an
      item purchased from a Walmart store, Sam's Club store, or
      online from Walmart.com or Samsclub.com for pickup or
      delivery within the United States, and to whom Walmart or
      Sam's Club (hereafter, collectively "Walmart") gave a
      refund or credit, but where the amount of sales tax
      refunded or credited was less than the full amount of
      sales tax paid at the time the item was purchased";

   2. preliminary approving the class action settlement;

   3. appointing himself as representative of the Settlement
      Class;

   4. appointing Myles McGuire, Paul T. Geske, and Brendan
      Duffner of McGuire Law, P.C. as Class Counsel;

   5. approving the form and methods of the proposed notice;
      and

   6. granting such further relief as the Court deems reasonable
      and just.

The Settlement Agreement provides for these terms:

   --  The Defendant Wal-Mart Stores has agreed to pay
       $5,000,000 into a Settlement Fund to be distributed to
       Settlement Class Members who elect to participate in
       the Settlement.

   --  Each Settlement Class Member who timely submits a valid
       claim will be entitled to receive a pro rata share of
       the Settlement Fund after deductions for Court-awarded
       Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses, an Incentive
       Award to the Settlement Class Representative and the
       expenses associated with administering the Settlement.

   --  Walmart has agreed to implement an electronic solution at
       its Stores and Clubs designed to ensure that customers
       who return items to a Store or Club with a receipt
       receive complete refunds of any sales taxes paid whether
       the items were purchased at a Store or Club or online.

   --  The Parties have engaged Epiq, an industry-leading class
       action settlement administrator, to carry out the
       Settlement's Notice Plan and claims process subject to
       Class Counsel's supervision.

In this suit, the Plaintiff claims Walmart routinely and
systematically breaches the terms of its return policy by failing
to provide a full refund when accepting returns. As alleged in the
Complaint, when Walmart accepts an in-store return, its
point-of-sale system and in-store associates often underrefund the
sales taxes the customer originally paid on the returned items.
Although customers may receive a refund of the retail sale price
they paid for the returned items, they often receive only a partial
refund of the sales taxes they originally paid – or in some cases
no refund of sales taxes at all. The Plaintiff asserts that this
practice not only violates state law, but also the terms of
Walmart's own written return policy which, as explained above,
generally provides that customers who comply with Walmart's return
policy are entitled to reimbursement of the full purchase price (in
cash or store credit) for the returned items.

Defendant Walmart is the world's largest retailer, operating
thousands of retail stores across the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement dated Nov. 24, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Vukpk8 at no extra charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff Scott Pearlstone and proposed Class
Counsel, are:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Paul T. Geske, Esq.
          Brendan Duffner, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcpgpc.com
                  pgeske@mcgpc.com
                  bduffner@mcgpc.com


WORLD WRESTLING: Confirms $39 Million Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Middleton at wrestlinginc.com reports that a new SEC filing by
WWE reveals that the company has closed on a $39 million settlement
for a class action lawsuit filed by the City of Warren, Michigan
Police & Fire Retirement System.

The suit alleged that WWE executives deceived investors over their
business dealings in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, inflating the
company stock and selling more than $280 million worth of shares at
fraudulently inflated prices.

The suit, originally filed in March, had been consolidated by six
different law firms. It alleged that WWE officials failed to
disclose how the expected business agreements with Saudi Arabia for
Middle Eastern TV deal had not been consummated, but that by
allowing investors to believe otherwise, the company had caused the
stock to rise when it should not have.

WWE included the following statement in the filing:

"The Company believes that resolving the matter is the right
business decision and that it is prudent to end the protracted and
uncertain class action process."

The filing, signed by new WWE Chief Financial Officer Kristina
Salen, included the following:

On November 18, 2020, World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (the
"Company") entered into a term sheet (the "Term Sheet") to settle
the previously disclosed action titled City of Warren Police and
Fire Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent
K. McMahon, George A. Barrios, and Michelle D. Wilson, No.
1:20-cv-02031-JSR, currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court").
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged securities law violations by the
Company, its current Chief Executive Officer and its former
Co-Presidents, related to certain disclosures concerning the
Company's business relationship in and with the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. The Term Sheet was reached in connection with a voluntary
mediation which involved the Plaintiffs and their counsel, the
Company and its counsel, and the Company's insurance carriers.
Aside from the Term Sheet, there will be other standard and
customary terms of class action settlements in the stipulation of
settlement. The settlement is subject to notice to the class and
preliminary and final approval by the Court.
The settlement will include a full release of all Defendants in
connection with the allegations made in the lawsuit, and will not
contain any admission of liability or admission as to the validity
or truth of any or all allegations or claims by any of the
Defendants.

The Term Sheet provides for a settlement payment, subject to Court
approval, of $39 million (inclusive of all Plaintiffs' attorneys
fees and expenses and settlement costs), all of which the Company
expects will be paid by the Company's insurance carriers.

The Company believes that resolving the matter is the right
business decision and that it is prudent to end the protracted and
uncertain class action process. [GN]


XEROX STATE: Class Action Settlement Will Provide Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in litigation involving Medicaid providers in Alaska
announce a class action settlement that resolves a case pending in
federal court in Anchorage, Alaska. The court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement in South Peninsula Hospital, et al. v.
Xerox State Healthcare, LLC (n/k/a Conduent State Healthcare, LLC),
No. 3:15-cv-00177-JMK (D. Alaska), and authorized a settlement
administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, to begin issuing notice to
settlement class members and accepting claims.

This lawsuit is brought by plaintiff South Peninsula Hospital and
alleges that the State of Alaska's Medicaid Management Information
System, known as Health Enterprise, was not properly implemented
for rollout on October 1, 2013. The lawsuit alleges that this
caused Alaska Medicaid providers to incur economic losses as a
result of not having their Medicaid reimbursements processed on a
timely basis. This allegation relates to the 2013-2016 time period,
when Conduent was owned by a predecessor company. Conduent denies
the allegations but agreed to the settlement to avoid further
litigation costs.

The settlement applies to all Alaska Medicaid authorized billing
providers that submitted a Medicaid claim via or to be processed by
Health Enterprise during the period from October 1, 2013 through
and including December 31, 2016, including claims for Medicaid
reimbursable services arising on or before December 31, 2016, even
if such claims for payment were submitted for payment via or to be
processed by Health Enterprise after December 31, 2016. This group
of Alaska Medicaid providers constitutes the Settlement Class who
are eligible to submit claims for payments under the settlement.

Medicaid providers can visit the settlement website,
www.healthprovidersettlement.com, or call the settlement toll-free
number: (855) 201-9818, to obtain further details about the
settlement. The settlement website includes a description of the
Medicaid providers covered by the settlement, all relevant dates
and deadlines, access to relevant court documents, and answers to
frequently asked questions. Claim forms are available at and can be
submitted to www.healthprovidersettlement.com, or by email to
info@healthprovidersettlement.com, or by mail to Health Provider
Settlement, Attn: Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite
2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Claims must be submitted or
postmarked by February 10, 2021 to be considered timely filed.
[GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $185.9MM Liability Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has US$185,934,000 reserve at
September 30, 2020, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or
projected to be asserted through 2052, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "In 2006, the Corporation retained a nationally
recognized expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities to
assist it in estimating the potential liability for pending and
unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability.  Based on this
analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos Liability
claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 as of
December 31, 2006.  This analysis has been periodically updated
since that time.  In 2018, the Corporation engaged Nathan
Associates Inc. ("Nathan") to update the liability valuation, and
additional reserves were established by the Corporation as of
December 31, 2018, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or
projected to be asserted through 2052.

"Nathan estimated in 2018 the number of future claims for Asbestos
Liability that would be filed through the year 2052, as well as the
settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve
both pending and future unasserted claims through 2052.  This
methodology has been accepted by numerous courts.

"In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its Asbestos Liability.  In developing the estimate,
the Corporation considered Nathan's projection for settlement or
indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and management's projection
of associated defense costs (based on the current defense to
indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors included the Settlement Agreements in
effect, policy exclusions, policy limits, policy provisions
regarding coverage for defense costs, attachment points, prior
impairment of policies and gaps in the coverage, policy
exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the insurance carriers,
and the nature of the underlying claims for Asbestos Liability
asserted against the subsidiaries and the Corporation as reflected
in the Corporation's asbestos claims database, as well as estimated
erosion of insurance limits on account of claims against Howden
arising out of the Products.  In addition to consulting with the
Corporation's outside legal counsel on these insurance matters, the
Corporation consulted with a nationally recognized insurance
consulting firm it retained to assist the Corporation with certain
policy allocation matters that also are among the several factors
considered by the Corporation when analyzing potential recoveries
from relevant historical insurance for Asbestos Liability.  Based
upon all of the factors considered by the Corporation, and taking
into account the Corporation's analysis of publicly available
information regarding the credit-worthiness of various insurers,
the Corporation estimated the probable insurance recoveries for
Asbestos Liability and defense costs through 2052.

"The Corporation's reserve at December 31, 2018, for the total
costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims
pending or projected to be asserted through 2052, was US$227,922
thousand.  The reserve at September 30, 2020, was US$185,934
thousand.  Defense costs are estimated at 80% of settlement costs.
The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2018, for insurance
recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's
Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the
portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement
Agreements in effect through December 31, 2018, and the probable
payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and
defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability
claims, was US$152,508 thousand (US$121,584 thousand at September
30, 2020)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/OWDOmI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,200 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., is still facing
approximately 1,200 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits at
September 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended September 27, 2020.

The Company states, "ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a predecessor of
Meritor, along with many other companies, has also been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
products many years ago.  Liability for these claims was
transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business
from Rockwell in 1997.  Rockwell had approximately 1,200 and 1,400
pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM as a
defendant at September 30, 2020 and 2019, respectively.

"A significant portion of the claims do not identify any of
Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were
exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and past
experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants will
likely never identify any of Rockwell's products.  Historically, AM
has been dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed
in the past with no payment to claimants.  For those claimants who
do show that they worked with Rockwell's products, management
nevertheless believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial
part due to the integrity of the products involved and the lack of
any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/4QBLjZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Had $335MM Reserves at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2020, that the total reserves for asbestos
claims were US$335 million at September 30, 2020 compared to US$352
million at September 30, 2019.

The Company states, "The claims alleging personal injury caused by
exposure to asbestos asserted against Ashland result primarily from
indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with
the sale of Riley, a former subsidiary.  The amount and timing of
settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate from period to
period.  A summary of Ashland asbestos claims activity, excluding
Hercules claims, follows.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated,
non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the
assistance of Nathan.

"During the most recent update completed during 2020, it was
determined that the liability for Ashland asbestos-related claims
should be increased by US$13 million.  Total reserves for asbestos
claims were US$335 million at September 30, 2020 compared to US$352
million at September 30, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/lAjHZW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Faces 143 Individual Proceedings at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Natura & Co Holding S.A.'s subsidiary, Avon Products, Inc., is
facing 143 individual asbestos-related proceedings on September 30,
2020, according to the Company's Form 6-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2020, for the
month of November 2020.

The Company states, "Avon was named defendant in several
proceedings for personal damages filed in U.S. courts, claiming
that certain powder products that Avon sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos.  Many such actions involve several
co-defendants of a range of different industries, including
cosmetics manufacturers and manufacturers of other products that,
unlike the Company's products, were designed to include asbestos.
On 30 September 2020, there were 143 individual proceedings pending
against the subsidiary.  During the nine-month period ending on 30
September 2020, 17 new proceedings were shelved and thirteen others
were shelved, settled or otherwise concluded.  The amount of our
records in this area so far has not been significant.

"The claims against us in such cases have no grounds.  We are
defending ourselves against these claims and until this date, the
subsidiary has not been sued in any case filed against it and there
were no findings of enforceable liability against the subsidiary.
However, the results of testing throughout the country in similar
cases filed against other manufacturers of cosmetic powder products
vary from direct employment terminations to very large jury-led
indemnifications for compensatory and punitive damages.  Due to the
uncertainties inherent to litigation, we cannot predict the results
of all individual cases pending against the subsidiary, and we may
only make a reasonable estimate for a small number of individual
cases that have progressed to the later stages of court
proceedings.  For the remaining cases, we supply an aggregate and
continuous exposure estimate, which considers the historic results
of all cases we have settled so far.  Any additions currently
recorded in the subsidiary's balance sheet in relation to these
cases are not relevant.  Other than those, currently, we may not
estimate our reasonably possible or probable losses.  However, any
adverse results, whether in an individual case or jointly, may be
relevant.  The future costs to litigate such cases, which we fund
when incurred, are unknown, but may be significant, although some
costs are covered by insurance."

A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at
https://is.gd/Lt4UBZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $277MM for PI Matters at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC ("BNSF") has accrued US$277
million at September 30, 2020, for personal injury matters,
including asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "BNSF's personal injury liability includes the
cost of claims for employee work-related injuries, third-party
claims, and asbestos claims.  BNSF records a liability for asserted
and unasserted claims when the expected loss is both probable and
reasonably estimable.  Because of the uncertainty of the timing of
future payments, the liability is undiscounted.  Defense and
processing costs, which are recorded on an as-reported basis, are
not included in the recorded liability.  Expense accruals and
adjustments are classified as materials and other in the
Consolidated Statements of Income.

"Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are subject to
the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
rather than state workers' compensation laws.  Resolution of these
cases under the FELA's fault-based system requires either a finding
of fault by a jury or an out of court settlement.  Third-party
claims include claims by non-employees for compensatory damages and
may, from time to time, include requests for punitive damages or
treatment of the claim as a class action.

"BNSF estimates its personal injury liability claims and expense
using standard actuarial methodologies based on the covered
population, activity levels and trends in frequency, and the costs
of covered injuries.  The Company monitors actual experience
against the forecasted number of claims to be received, the
forecasted number of claims closing with payment, and expected
claim payments and records adjustments as new events or changes in
estimates develop.

"BNSF is party to asbestos claims by employees and non-employees
who may have been exposed to asbestos.  Because of the relatively
finite exposed population, the Company has recorded an estimate for
the full amount of probable exposure.  This is determined through
an actuarial analysis based on estimates of the exposed population,
the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that
will likely require payment, and the cost per claim.  Estimated
filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are
determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.

"The amount recorded by the Company for the personal injury
liability is based upon the best information currently available.
Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of
personal injury claims, it is reasonably possible that future costs
to resolve these claims may be different from the recorded amounts.
The Company estimates that costs to resolve the liability may
range from approximately US$235 million to US$330 million.

"Although the final outcome of these personal injury matters cannot
be predicted with certainty, it is the opinion of BNSF that none of
these items, when finally resolved, will have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position or liquidity.  However,
the occurrence of a number of these items in the same period could
have a material adverse effect on the results of operations in a
particular quarter or fiscal year."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/IIhEtR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Units Still Defend Suits at Sept. 26
------------------------------------------------------------------
CarParts.com, Inc.'s subsidiaries remain defendants in lawsuits
involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes with
asbestos, 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, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are
named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages
caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early
1970's that contained asbestos.  WAG marketed certain brakes, but
did not manufacture any brakes.  WAG maintains liability insurance
coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses
arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an
occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not
expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection
with this matter that would be material to its consolidated
financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/MPERJs


ASBESTOS UPDATE: D/C Has Claims Still Pending in Bankruptcy Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC's former subsidiary, D/C Distribution, LLC,
continues to face asbestos-related claims in its bankruptcy
proceedings, 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, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to
other entities, and D/C have been named as defendants in personal
injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos.  While
there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were
a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the
U.S. mainland (primarily in California).  Cases against Kaanapali
Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos cases") are allegedly
based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against
D/C are allegedly based on sale of asbestos-containing products by
D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in
California.  Each entity defending these cases believes that it has
meritorious defenses against these actions, but can give no
assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these cases.  The defense
of these cases has had a material adverse effect on the financial
condition of D/C as it has been forced to file a voluntary petition
for liquidation.  Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has
liability, directly or indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those
cases.  Kaanapali Land does not presently believe that the cases in
which it is named will result in any material liability to
Kaanapali Land; however, there can be no assurance in that regard.

"On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled
American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac
Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central
Justice Center.  No other purported party was served.  In the
eight-count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and
recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief
as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an insurance
company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity various
personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to asbestos
containing products.  Plaintiff alleged that because none of the
parties have been able to produce a copy of the policy or policies
in question, a judicial determination of the material terms of the
missing policy or policies is needed.  Plaintiff sought, among
other things, a declaration: of the material terms, rights, and
obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or
policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff is not
obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the
amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred
unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and
reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for defense
and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation of
cooperation with plaintiff.  D/C filed an answer and an amended
cross-claim.  D/C believed that it had meritorious defenses and
positions, and intended to vigorously defend.  In addition, D/C
believed that it was entitled to amounts from plaintiffs for
reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by D/C on the
lawsuits previously tendered.  In order to fund such action and its
other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit continued, D/C entered
into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement with Kaanapali Land,
in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali Land provided certain advances
against a promissory note delivered by D/C in return for a security
interest in any D/C insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit.

"In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by
plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618 thousand.  Such settlement
amount was paid to Kaanapali Land in partial satisfaction of the
secured indebtedness.

"Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under
Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July
2007, Case No. 07-12776.  Such filing is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially
without assets at the time of the filing.  Kaanapali Land filed
claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately
US$26,800 thousand, relating to both secured and unsecured
intercompany debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land.  In addition, a
personal injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents
clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on
behalf of approximately two thousand claimants.  While it is not
likely that a significant number of these claimants have a claim
against D/C that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown
how the trustee will deal with these claims.  It is not expected,
however, that the Company will receive any material additional
amounts in the liquidation of D/C.

"On January 21, 2020, certain asbestos claimants filed a Stay
Relief Motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 07-12776 ("motion to lift
stay") in connection with the D/C bankruptcy proceeding.  The
motion seeks the entry of an order, among other things, modifying
the automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy to permit those claimants
to prosecute various lawsuits in state courts against D/C
Distribution, LLC, and to recover on any judgment or settlement
solely from any available insurance coverage.  Various oppositions
to the motion to lift stay have been filed, and the matter was
heard and taken under advisement in April 2020.

"On July 21, 2020, the bankruptcy court issued an order granting
the motion to lift stay to permit the movants to pursue their
claims and to recover any judgment or settlement from and to the
extent of any available insurance coverage of D/C Distribution,
LLC, only.

"The parties in the D/C and in the prior pending Oahu Sugar
bankruptcy have reached out to each other to determine if there is
any interest in pursuing settlements of the claims in the prior
Oahu Sugar bankruptcy and the D/C bankruptcy insofar as the
Fireman's Fund insurance policies are concerned.  Such discussions
are taking place.  There are no assurances that a settlement of any
or all claims and controversies as relating to Waipio can be
reached."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/8zp3wF


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Emerson Electric Had $295MM Liabilities at Sept.30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Electric Co. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2020, that it has liabilities of US$295 million for
asbestos litigation, included in Other Liabilities, at September
30, 2020, compared to US$313 million at September 30, 2019.

The Company also recorded US$100 million for asbestos-related
insurance receivables, included in Other Noncurrent Assets, at
September 30, 2020, compared to US$115 million at September 30,
2019.

Emerson Electric said, "The Company is a party to a number of
pending legal proceedings and claims, including those involving
general and product liability (including asbestos) and other
matters, several of which claim substantial amounts of damages.
The Company accrues for such liabilities when it is probable that
future costs (including legal fees and expenses) will be incurred
and such costs can be reasonably estimated.  Accruals are based on
developments to date; management's estimates of the outcomes of
these matters; and the Company's experience in contesting,
litigating and settling similar matters.  The Company engages an
outside expert to develop an actuarial estimate of its expected
costs to resolve all pending and future asbestos claims, including
defense costs, as well as its related insurance receivables.  The
reserve for asbestos litigation, which is recorded on an
undiscounted basis, is based on projected claims through 2065.

"Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
these matters, the Company historically has been largely successful
in defending itself against claims and suits that have been brought
against it, and will continue to defend itself vigorously in all
such matters.  While the Company believes a material adverse impact
is unlikely, given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a remote
possibility exists that a future development could have a material
adverse impact on the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/fCEOeQ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Had $981MM Liability at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited recorded Defendant Asbestos Liabilities of
US$980,678,000 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, "We acquired DCo LLC ("DCo") on December 30,
2016, and Morse TEC on October 30, 2019.  DCo and Morse TEC hold
liabilities associated with personal injury asbestos claims and
environmental claims arising from their legacy manufacturing
operations.  These companies continue to process asbestos personal
injury claims in the normal course of business.  Defendant asbestos
liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets include amounts for
loss payments and defense costs for pending and future
asbestos-related claims, determined using standard actuarial
techniques for asbestos exposures.  Defendant environmental
liabilities include estimated clean-up costs associated with the
acquired companies' former operations based on engineering
reports.

"Insurance balances recoverable on our consolidated balance sheets
include estimated insurance recoveries relating to these
liabilities.  The recorded asset represents our assessment of the
capacity of the insurance agreements to indemnify our subsidiaries
for the anticipated defense and loss payments for pending claims
and projected future claims.  The recognition of these recoveries
is based on an assessment of the right to recover under the
respective contracts and on the financial strength of the insurers.
The recorded asset does not represent the limits of our insurance
coverage, but rather the amount we would expect to recover if the
accrued and projected loss and defense costs were paid in full."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/XCmbGn


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Had $203.1MM Loss Reserves at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd. had net asbestos loss reserves of $203.1
million, or 97.9%, of total net A&E reserves, 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 states, "In 2015, we sold Mt. McKinley to Clearwater
Insurance Company.  Concurrently with the closing, we entered into
a retrocession treaty with an affiliate of Clearwater.  Per the
retrocession treaty, we retroceded 100% of the liabilities
associated with certain Mt. McKinley policies, which had been
reinsured by Bermuda Re.  As consideration for entering into the
retrocession treaty, Bermuda Re transferred cash of US$140.3
million, an amount equal to the net loss reserves as of the closing
date.  Of the US$140.3 million of net loss reserves retroceded,
US$100.5 million were related to A&E business.  The maximum
liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty will be US$440.3
million, equal to the retrocession payment plus US$300.0 million.
We will retain liability for any amounts exceeding the maximum
liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty.  

"On December 20, 2019, the retrocession treaty was amended and
included a partial commutation.  As a result of this amendment and
partial commutation, gross A&E reserves and correspondingly
reinsurance receivable were reduced by US$43.4 million.  In
addition, the maximum liability permitted to be retroceded
increased to US$450.3 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Fb7npZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FCX Unit Still Defends Talc Suits at September 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX) disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that its indirectly wholly owned
subsidiary is still facing cases related to asbestos contamination
matters.

The Company states, "There has been a significant increase in the
number of cases alleging the presence of asbestos contamination in
talc-based personal care products and in cases alleging exposure to
talc products that are not alleged to be contaminated with
asbestos.  The primary targets have been the producers of those
products, but defendants in many of these cases also include talc
miners.  Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (CAMC), an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of FCX, and Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus
Mines), a wholly owned subsidiary of CAMC, are among those targets.
Cyprus Mines was engaged in talc mining from 1964 until 1992 when
it exited its talc business by conveying it to a third party in two
related transactions.  Those transactions involved (i) a transfer
by Cyprus Mines of the assets of its talc business to a newly
formed subsidiary that assumed all pre-sale and post-sale talc
liabilities, subject to limited reservations, and (ii) a sale of
the stock of that subsidiary to the third party.  In 2011, the
third party sold that subsidiary to Imerys Talc America (Imerys),
an affiliate of Imerys S.A."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ffYkbb


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hercules LLC Had $229MM Reserves at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2020, that wholly-owned subsidiary Hercules
LLC's total reserves for asbestos claims were US$229 million at
September 30, 2020 compared to US$252 million at September 30,
2019.

The Company states, "Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos.  Such claims
typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin
encapsulated pipe and tank products which were sold by one of
Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.  The
amount and timing of settlements and number of open claims can
fluctuate from period to period.

"From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results.  Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated,
non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the
assistance of Nathan.  As a result of the most recent annual update
of this estimate, completed during 2020, it was determined that the
liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims should be decreased
by US$3 million.  Total reserves for asbestos claims were US$229
million at September 30, 2020 compared to US$252 million at
September 30, 2019."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/lAjHZW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Still in Talks with Fireman's Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC remains in talks with Fireman's Fund regarding
insurance coverage on pending asbestos lawsuits involving the
Company, 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, "On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's
Fund, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and
settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it
would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the
Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and
Oahu Sugar bankruptcies.

"In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman's Fund
expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C
bankruptcy case bars Fireman's Fund from making any payments to
resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C Distribution
is also alleging a right to coverage under those policies for
asbestos claims against it.  However, in the interim, Fireman's
Fund advised that it presently intends to continue to pay defense
costs for those cases, subject to whatever reservations of rights
may be in effect and subject further to the policy terms.

"Fireman's Fund has also indicated that to the extent that
Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman's Fund in addressing
settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through
coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman's Fund's present
intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land,
subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order,
the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and
prior approval of the settlements.

"Kaanapali Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's Fund
in an attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land is
unable to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or
judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by
insurance."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/8zp3wF


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc. Had $78MM Liabilities at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 27, 2020, that it recognized a liability for pending and
future claims of US$78 million as of September 30, 2020.

Meritor states, "The company engaged a third-party advisor with
extensive experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to
conduct a study to estimate its potential undiscounted liability
for pending and future asbestos-related claims as of September 30,
2020.  On a continual basis, management monitors the underlying
claims data and experience, for the purpose of assessing the
appropriateness of the assumptions used to estimate the liability.

"As of September 30, 2020, the best estimate of the company's
obligation for asbestos-related claims over the next 38 years is
US$78 million.  The company recognized a liability for pending and
future claims of US$78 million as of September 30, 2020 and US$91
million as of September 30, 2019.  The ultimate cost of resolving
pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of
claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in
jurisdictions with an established history with Rockwell."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/4QBLjZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Had 1,768 New Claims in 2020
----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
received approximately 1,768 new asbestos-related claims for the
nine months ended 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, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages.  MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.  The lawsuits principally
have focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees
during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's
and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain
health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly
publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.  MLIC believes
that it should not have legal liability in these cases.  The
outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain
and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in
legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged
injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the
claims asserted against MLIC.  MLIC employs a number of resolution
strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking
resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling
individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate
circumstances.

"Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos.  MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the
plaintiffs— it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs
and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos
products that allegedly injured plaintiffs, (ii) plaintiffs did not
rely on any actions of MLIC, (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause
of the plaintiffs' injuries, (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred
after the dangers of asbestos were known, and (v) the applicable
time with respect to filing suit has expired.  During the course of
the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions
dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have
denied MLIC's motions.  There can be no assurance that MLIC will
receive favorable decisions on motions in the future.  While most
cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to
defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure,
including defending claims at trials.

"As reported in the 2019 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately
3,187 asbestos-related claims in 2019.  For the nine months ended
September 30, 2020 and 2019, MLIC received approximately 1,768 and
2,493 new asbestos-related claims, respectively.  The number of
asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any
liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in
settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.

"The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change.  The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates,
including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims,
the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future
claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a
particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

"The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future.  In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary.  While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.

"The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims.  MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not yet
paid, (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion, and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims.  Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i)
the number of future claims, (ii) the cost to resolve claims, and
(iii) the cost to defend claims.

"MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in
asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending.  Based upon its regular
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
September 30, 2020."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/8bP9kW


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Faces 119 Suits at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. remains a co-defendant in approximately
119 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 221
plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are four asbestos cases, involving 20 plaintiffs, that plead
specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the four
cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action.  In
two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at US$3.0 million
compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at US$3.0 million
compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive damages; one count at
US$1.0 million.  In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$20.0
million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0 million
compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.  In the fourth
case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages,
each in the amount of US$10.0 million, for ten separate causes of
action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.  We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against
one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual
defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts
claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of
our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear
no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/rRqdJw


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Suit vs. Liggett Still Stayed at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
A stay remains in effect for the asbestos-related class action case
styled, Parsons v. AC & S Inc., wherein Vector Group Ltd.'s
subsidiary Liggett Group LLC is a defendant, according to Vector
Group'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 February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a
purported class action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia
residents who allegedly have claims arising from their exposure to
cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers.  The operative complaint seeks
to recover unspecified compensatory and punitive damages on behalf
of the putative class.  The case is stayed as a result of the
December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/kDQ7cG


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Int'l Says Exposure Claims Not Material
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reading International, 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 it is facing claims related
to asbestos exposure.

The Company states, "From time to time, there are claims brought
against us relating to the exposure of former employees of our
railroad operations to asbestos and coal dust.  These are generally
covered by an insurance settlement reached in September 1990 with
our insurance providers.  However, this insurance settlement does
not cover litigation by people who were not our employees and who
may claim second-hand exposure to asbestos, coal dust and/or other
chemicals or elements now recognized as potentially causing cancer
in humans.  Our known exposure to these types of claims, asserted
or probable of being asserted, is not material."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/m4IwNi


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regency Centers Has $8.2MM Liability at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Centers Corporation had accrued liabilities of US$8.2
million for its pro-rata share of environmental remediation, which
includes the existence of asbestos in older shopping centers,
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 are subject to numerous environmental laws
and regulations as they apply to our shopping centers pertaining
primarily to chemicals historically used by certain current and
former dry cleaning tenants, the existence of asbestos in older
shopping centers, and older underground petroleum storage tanks.
We believe that the few tenants who currently operate dry cleaning
plants or gas stations do so in accordance with current laws and
regulations.  Generally, we endeavor to cause tenants to remove dry
cleaning plants from our shopping centers or convert them to more
environmentally friendly systems, in accordance with the terms of
our leases.  We have a blanket environmental insurance policy for
third-party liabilities and remediation costs on shopping centers
that currently have no known environmental contamination.  We have
also placed environmental insurance, where appropriate, on specific
properties with known contamination, in order to mitigate our
environmental risk.  We monitor the shopping centers containing
environmental issues and in certain cases voluntarily remediate the
sites.  We also have legal obligations to remediate certain sites
and we are in the process of doing so.

"As of September 30, 2020, we had accrued liabilities of US$8.2
million for our pro-rata share of environmental remediation,
including our Investments in real estate partnerships.  We believe
that the ultimate disposition of currently known environmental
matters will not have a material effect on our financial position,
liquidity, or results of operations.  We can give no assurance that
existing environmental studies on our shopping centers have
revealed all potential environmental contamination; that our
estimate of liabilities will not change as more information becomes
available; that any previous owner, occupant or tenant did not
create any material environmental condition not known to us; that
the current environmental condition of the shopping centers will
not be affected by tenants and occupants, by the condition of
nearby properties, or by unrelated third parties; or that changes
in applicable environmental laws and regulations or their
interpretation will not result in additional environmental
liability to us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/dTRDj8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Resolute Forest Still Defends Suits at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Resolute Forest Products Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2020, that it is involved in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts,
including certain cases involving multiple defendants.

The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or
indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing premises.  While we dispute the plaintiffs'
allegations and intend to vigorously defend these claims, the
ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this
time.  These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and we are unable to reasonably
estimate a range of possible losses.  However, unfavorable rulings,
judgments or settlement terms could materially impact our
Consolidated Financial Statements.  Hearings for certain of these
matters are scheduled to occur in the next twelve months."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/E2dhj8


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2020, that "currently there are a few thousand
claimants" in asbestos-related lawsuits that name the Company as
defendants, together with hundreds of other companies.

The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago, including products from divested
businesses for which we have agreed to defend and indemnify claims.
Currently there are a few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name
us as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies.  But
in all cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with
our products or products of divested businesses for which we are
responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses,
in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the
encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the
lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many
claimants.  We defend those cases vigorously.  Historically, we
have been dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no
payment to claimants.

"Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for many of these claims.  We believe these
arrangements will provide substantial coverage for future defense
and indemnity costs for these asbestos claims throughout the
remaining life of asbestos liability.  The uncertainties of
asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to predict accurately
the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.  That uncertainty is
increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation
affecting asbestos claim litigation or the settlement process.
Subject to these uncertainties and based on our experience
defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will
have a material effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://is.gd/UIIYe1


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Faces Less Than 500 US Cases, 50 in Europe
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. has less than 500 active and inactive asbestos-related
cases in the United States and less than 50 in Europe, 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, "For many years, the Company has been and
continues to be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging
health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos.  The Company's
current docket of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases
in the United States and less than 50 in Europe.

"With respect to the claims filed in the United States, the
substantial majority of the claims are related to alleged exposure
to asbestos in the Company's line of Walker(R) exhaust automotive
products although a significant number of those claims appear also
to involve occupational exposures sustained in industries other
than automotive.  A small number of claims have been asserted
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars.  The
Company believes, based on scientific and other evidence, it is
unlikely that U.S. claimants were exposed to asbestos by the
Company's former products and that, in any event, they would not be
at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work
with these products.  Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants.  Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do
not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages.

"With respect to the claims filed in Europe, the substantial
majority relate to occupational exposure claims brought by current
and former employees of Federal-Mogul facilities in France and
amounts paid out were not material.  A small number of occupational
exposure claims have also been asserted against Federal-Mogul
entities in Italy and Spain.

"As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of
business or file for bankruptcy, the Company may experience an
increased number of these claims.  The Company vigorously defends
itself against these claims as part of its ordinary course of
business.  In future periods, the Company could be subject to cash
costs or charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved
unfavorably to the Company.  To date, with respect to claims that
have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, the
Company has regularly achieved favorable resolutions.  Accordingly,
the Company presently believes that these asbestos-related claims
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's annual
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/WdNsTx


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Still Face 8 Claims at Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2020, that eight plaintiffs have asbestos-related
claims pending in Louisiana against the Company's subsidiaries at
September 30, 2020.

The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in
complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi,
and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were filed in Louisiana.
The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants,
generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos
containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with
drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability,
strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general
maritime law.  The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-appointed special
master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us,
cannot be sued for punitive damages.

"At September 30, 2020, eight plaintiffs have claims pending in
Louisiana, in which we have or may have an interest.  We intend to
defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no
assurance as to the outcome.  We historically have maintained broad
liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance
will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims.
Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect
the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a
material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of
financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/aWr2GN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ViacomCBS Had 31,180 Pending Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. had approximately 31,180 pending asbestos claims as
of September 30, 2020, as compared with approximately 30,950 as of
December 31, 2019, 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 are a defendant in lawsuits claiming
various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials,
which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s.  Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos.  We are typically named as one of a
large number of defendants in both state and federal cases.  In the
majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified
which of our products is the basis of a claim.  Claims against us
in which a product has been identified most commonly relate to
allegations of exposure to asbestos-containing insulating material
used in conjunction with turbines and electrical equipment.

"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period.  We do not report as pending those claims on inactive,
stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some jurisdictions have
established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment.  As
of September 30, 2020, we had pending approximately 31,180 asbestos
claims, as compared with approximately 30,950 as of December 31,
2019.  During the third quarter of 2020, we received approximately
830 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket
approximately 840 claims.  We report claims as closed when we
become aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or
when we have reached agreement with the claimants on the material
terms of a settlement.  Settlement costs depend on the seriousness
of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of
evidence supporting the claims and other factors.  Our total costs
for the years 2019 and 2018 for settlement and defense of asbestos
claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately
US$58 million and US$45 million, respectively.  Our costs for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and
insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as
the insured portion of the expenses.

"Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly
asbestos-related disease.  The predominant number of pending claims
against us are non-cancer claims.  It is difficult to predict
future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may impact
the estimate of our asbestos liabilities, including, among others,
the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such
claims.  We record an accrual for a loss contingency when it is
both probable that a liability has been incurred and when the
amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.  We believe that
our accrual and insurance are adequate to cover our asbestos
liabilities.  Our liability estimate is based upon many factors,
including the number of outstanding claims, estimated average cost
per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim
filings, costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new
claims, as well as consultation with a third party firm on trends
that may impact our future asbestos liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Nqj41u


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Assumes Defense on Former Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Industrial Services Group 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 has assumed
defense of an asbestos personal injury lawsuit involving a former
operating unit, subject to a reservation of rights and objection to
the claim for indemnification.

The Company states, "The acquiror of certain assets from a former
operating unit of the Company has been named as a defendant in an
asbestos personal injury lawsuit and has submitted a claim for
indemnification and tendered defense of the matter to the Company.
The Company has assumed defense of the matter subject to a
reservation of rights and objection to the claim for
indemnification.  Neither the Company nor its predecessors ever
mined, manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the
material that allegedly caused the injury underlying this action.
The Company does not expect that this claim will have a material
adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or
liquidity."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/NjMmvX



                            *********

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 ***