/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210723.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 23, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 141

                            Headlines

11000 REEDER: Faces Vera Suit Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages
20/20 EYE CARE: Hoffman-Mock Sues Over Data Breach
360 DIGITECH: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 13 Deadline
360 DIGITECH: Kirby McInerney Reminds of September 13 Deadline
360 DIGITECH: Thornton Law Discloses Securities Class Action

367 BAKE CORP: Underpays Delivery Workers, Gils Suit Claims
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Faces Suit Over Civil, Voting Rights Violations
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Opioid Marketing
APPLE VALLEY: Smithburg Personal Injury Suit Removed to D. Minn.
ATHIRA PHARMA: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Aug. 24 Deadline

ATHIRA PHARMA: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of August 24 Deadline
ATHIRA PHARMA: Slyne Balks at Misleading Registration Statements
AUSTRALIA: Settlement of Youth Detention Class Action Discussed
BINANCE: Discusses Initiatives to Protect Binance Customers
CARLOTZ INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline

CARLOTZ INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of September 7 Deadline
CARLOTZ INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 7 Deadline
CASHCALL INC: Appeals Order Enforcing Arbitration Award in Kim Case
CBRE ACQUISITION: Monteverde & Associates Probes Proposed Merger
CHATTEM INC: Fuller Consumer Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Cal.

CITIZENS BANK: Faces Conti Suit for Breach of Contract
CONCRETE INDUSTRIES: Underpays Concrete Workers, Espinal Claims
CREDIT BUREAU: Kang Suit Seeks to Certify FCRA & CCRAA Classes
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims
DIDI GLOBAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of September 7 Deadline

DIDI GLOBAL: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Sept. 7 Deadline
DIDI GLOBAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DIDI GLOBAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DIGITECH INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 13 Deadline
DIGITECH INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of September 13 Deadline

DRAFTKINGS INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of August 31 Deadline
DRAFTKINGS INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of August 210 Deadline
DYNAGAS LNG: Entwistle & Cappucci Disclosed Proposed Settlements
FACEBOOK INC: Denver Judge Questions Facts in Dismissed Lawsuit
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Class Cert. Deadline Extension Sought

FORD MOTOR: Tershakovec Asks Ct. to Reconsider Certification Order
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Loses Bid to Junk Hodgkins Class Certification
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Staff's Discrimination Lawsuit Will Proceed
FULL TRUCK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of September 10 Deadline

FULL TRUCK: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 10 Deadline
GETTY IMAGES: Angeles Sues Over Blind-Inaccesible Website
GUIDANCE CENTER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Enriquez Suit Says
HAROLD & SQUEAKY'S: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Seaberry Claims
HARTFORD CASUALTY: J Bells Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal

HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Huston Sues Over Personal Info Disclosure
HOME POINT: Vincent Wong Reminds of August 20 Deadline
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Kaleida Health Hits Surgical Robot Monopoly
JAGUAR LAND: Extension of Briefing Sched. in Block Suit Tossed
JAMES RIVER: Kirby McInerney Reminds of September 7 Deadline

JAMES RIVER: Klein Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suit Over Neutrogena and Aveeno Products
JUUL LABS: Bay City School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Cumberland Suit Claims Deceptive E-Cigarette Advertising
JUUL LABS: Faces School District Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis

JUUL LABS: Liable to Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, School District Says
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Oklahoma School Alleges
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, Ohio School District Says
JUUL LABS: Putnam County Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Addiction in Okla.

JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Tenn.
JUUL LABS: Tenn. School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Wayne County Suit Alleges E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
LEE ENTERPRISES: Goldsmith Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses

LONG ISLAND CONCRETE: Appeals Ruling in Perez Labor Class Action
LOS ANGELES, CA: Lawyer Discusses DWP's Suit Over Billing System
MANDARICH LAW: Parker Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in FDCPA Suit
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Bohnak, Smith Sue Over Data Breach
O'CHARLEY'S LLC: Hawley Seeks Servers' Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages

OCUGEN INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of August 17 Deadline
OPENMED INC: Faces Katz Suit Over Unsolicited Facsimile Ads
OREGON: Seeks to Stay Thomas Case Pending Resolution in Maney
ORPHAZYME A/S: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
ORPHAZYME A/S: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 7 Deadline

OSSA LLC: Faces Francois Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
PARKMOBILE LLC: Kurmangaliyev Slams Data Breach in Parking App
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Callahan Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
PETROQUEST ENERGY: Lee PRSA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: August 10 Deadline for Joining Parties

POLK STATE COLLEGE: Faces Suit Over COVID-19 Related Restrictions
PURDUE PHARMA: Johnston Town Council Votes to Approve Settlement
RASELL REALTY: Boothman Shareholder Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
REHOBOTH MCKINLEY: Charlie Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to D.N.M.
RENOVACARE INC: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action

RESET STAFFING: Fails to Pay Merchandisers' OT, Gonzales Claims
ROCKET COMPANIES: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Class Certification Hearing Reset for Oct. 6
STABLE ROAD: Faces Jensen Suit Over False and Misleading Statements
STABLE ROAD: The Schall Law Reminds of September 13 Deadline

TARGET CORP: Bowen Appeals Class Cert. Bid Ruling in Labor Suit
TD AMERITRADE: Must Respond to Renewed Class Cert. Bid by August 16
TD AMERITRADE: Seeks Extension to File Opposition to Class Cert.
UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT: French Tech Union Files Class-Action Lawsuit
UNITED AUTOMOBILE: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs MSP Recovery

UNITED STATES: Memmer Appeals Rulings in Rails-to-Trails Suit
VERMONT AGENCY: Gray-Rand Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
VILLA HEALTHCARE: Johnson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
VIRGINIA: Stinnie Appeals Denial of Atty's. Fees and Expenses
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Hajny Sues Over Data Breach

WAL-MART: Hearing on Alvarado Class Cert Bid Set for Oct. 1
[*] ISS Says Class-action Settlements Up, New Filings Down

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GTA Co. Faces Suit Over Illegal Asbestos Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSP Recovery Targets Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts


                            *********

11000 REEDER: Faces Vera Suit Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTAL VERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 11000 REEDER, LLC d/b/a BUCKS WILD and
CURTIS WISE, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00787-P (N.D. Tex., June
25, 2021) seeks damages due to Defendants' conduct of evading the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, illegally absconding with Plaintiff's tips and
demanding illegal kickbacks including in the form of "House Fees."

The causes of action in this case arise from Defendants' willful
actions while Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in the preceding
three-year period to the filing of the complaint. During their time
being employed by the Defendants, Plaintiff asserts that she was
denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of
Defendants' scheme to classify her and other exotic
dancers/entertainers as independent contractors.

The Plaintiff brings this collective action to recover the unpaid
overtime compensation and minimum wage owed to them individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, current
and former, of the Defendants.

Ms. Vera worked as a dancer/entertainer for Defendants between
September 2019 and March 2020.

The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located in Fort Worth, Texas under the name "Bucks Wild."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
          ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
          E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
                  leigh@ellzeylaw.com

20/20 EYE CARE: Hoffman-Mock Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Kristi Hoffman-Mock, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 20/20 Eye Care Network, Inc. and
iCare health solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-61406 (S.D.
Fla., July 8, 2020), seeks to provide relief to 3.2 million
similarly situated people harmed by Defendants' failure to secure
personally identifiable information and private health information
and for failure to implement reasonably adequate cyber-security
measures to protect them under the Florida Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.

20/20 Eye Care Network, Inc. is a vision care company that offers
third party administrative services. It  contracts with
optometrists, ophthalmologists, ambulatory surgical centers, and
retail vision centers to provide a full spectrum of eye care needs.
Its management services include claims processing, credentialing,
management utilization, and network leasing. It owns 20/20 Hearing
Care Network, Inc., which is a health care provider for audiology
and related administrative work. iCare Health Solutions, LLC is an
integrated specialty network and administrator of comprehensive
ocular care services. It contracts with health plans and
multispecialty clinics to deliver comprehensive ocular health
solutions through a network of optometrists and ophthalmologists.

Mock received medical services from 20/20 Eye Care Network, Inc.
and 20/20 Hearing Care Network, Inc. In May 2021, she received a
letter dated May 28, 2021 that stated that in January 2021,
personal data that was on 20/20's systems had been viewed, seen, or
accessed by unauthorized third parties and that hackers gained
unauthorized access to 20/20’s system and deleted files. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Robert J. Kuntz Jr., Esq.
      DEVINE GOODMAN & RASCO, LLP
      2800 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1400
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 374-8200
      Email: rkuntz@devinegoodman.com

             - and -

      M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
      Alex Sauerwein, Esq.
      CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
      865 Howe Avenue
      Sacramento, CA 95825
      Tel: (916) 777-7777
      E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
              asauerwein@justice4you.com


360 DIGITECH: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against 360
DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN) ("360 DigiTech") on behalf of those
who purchased or acquired 360 DigiTech securities between April 30,
2020 and July 7, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired 360 DigiTech
securities during the Class Period may, no later than September 13,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/360-digitech-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=360_digitech

360 DigiTech, through its subsidiaries, operates a digital consumer
finance platform under the 360 Jietiao brand in the People's
Republic of China ("PRC"). Its platform provides online consumer
finance products to the borrowers funded by institutional funding
partners. 360 DigiTech also provides incremental credit assessment,
collection, and other services, as well as guarantee for defaulted
loans. 360 DigiTech was formerly known as 360 Finance, Inc. and
changed its name to 360 DigiTech, Inc. in September 2020.

The Class Period commences on April 30, 2020, when 360 DigiTech
filed an Annual Report on a Form 20-F reporting its financial and
operating results for the year ended December 31, 2019. In the
Annual Report and throughout the Class Period, the defendants
touted 360 DigiTech's customer data protection practices and
security systems that protect user information and abide by other
network security requirements under such laws and regulations.

The truth was revealed on July 8, 2021, when reports circulated on
social media to the effect that 360 DigiTech's core product, the
360 IOU app, had been removed from major app stores. The reports
came on the heels of the removal of other companies' apps as
Chinese regulators investigated their customer data protection
practices. For example, an article published by the 21st Century
Business Herald on July 8, 2021 indicated that "[t]he reason for
the removal may be related to the discussion with the central bank
and other financial regulators on April 29 this year about 13
Internet financial platforms and requesting rectification."

Following this news, 360 DigiTech's stock price fell $7.12 per
share, or 21.48%, to close at $26.02 per share on July 8, 2021.

On July 9, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that 360 DigiTech confirmed
the removal of its 360 IOU app from the Android app store and
quoted a 360 DigiTech spokesperson, who disclosed that 360 DigiTech
had "submitted a new rectification plan and stepped up the whole
process."

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) 360 DigiTech had been collecting personal
information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations; (2)
accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of
regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; and (3) as a result,
360 DigiTech's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

360 DigiTech investors may, no later than September 13, 2021, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class
members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to
share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]

360 DIGITECH: Kirby McInerney Reminds of September 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who acquired 360 DigiTech,
Inc. ("360 DigiTech" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: QFIN) securities
from April 30, 2020 through July 7, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until September 13, 2021 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

360 DigiTech, through its subsidiaries, operates a digital consumer
finance platform under the 360 Jietiao brand in the People's
Republic of China ("PRC"). Its platform provides online consumer
finance products to the borrowers funded by institutional funding
partners. The Company also provides incremental credit assessment,
collection, and other services, as well as guarantee for defaulted
loans. The Company was formerly known as 360 Finance, Inc. and
changed its name to 360 DigiTech, Inc. in September 2020.

On July 8, 2021, reports circulated on social media to the effect
that the Company's core product, the 360 IOU app, had been removed
from major app stores. The reports came on the heels of the removal
of other companies' apps as Chinese regulators investigated their
customer data protection practices. On this news, 360 DigiTech's
stock price declined by $7.12 per share, or approximately 21.48%,
from $33.14 per share to close at $26.02 per share on July 8,
2021.

Then, on July 9, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that 360 DigiTech
confirmed the removal of its 360 IOU app from the Android app store
and quoted a Company spokesperson, who disclosed that the Company
had "submitted a new rectification plan and stepped up the whole
process."

The lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company had been collecting personal
information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations; (ii)
accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of
regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired 360 DigiTech securities,
have information, or would like to learn more about these claims,
please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at
212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling
out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with
respect to these matters without any cost to you.

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

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

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210715005789/en/ [GN]

360 DIGITECH: Thornton Law Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of 360 DigiTech, Inc.
(NASDAQ: QFIN). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage.
Investors who purchased QFIN stock or other securities between
April 30, 2020 and July 7, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's
investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/360DigiTech for more information. Investors
may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.

The case alleges that 360 DigiTech and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
360 DigiTech had been collecting personal information in violation
of relevant People's Republic of China laws and regulations; and
(ii) accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of
regulatory scrutiny or enforcement action.

Interested 360 DigiTech investors have until September 13, 2021 to
retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are
interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do
not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If
investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class
member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification
occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law
Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a
complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors
interested in being a lead plaintiff.

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]

367 BAKE CORP: Underpays Delivery Workers, Gils Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO M. RAMIREZ GIL, GUSTAVO ADRIAN CRUZ LOPEZ, RENE PADILLA
VALDEZ and PATRICIO RAMOS GARCIA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 367 BAKE CORP. (D/B/A
TASTY CATERING), 126 BAKE CORP. (D/B/A TASTY CAFE), KAMAL KHADIR
A.K.A. KENNY, and SAMY EL FOULY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05574
(S.D.N.Y., June 25, 2021) arises from the Defendants' policy and
practice of unlawfully appropriating Plaintiffs' and other tipped
employees' tips and making unlawful deductions in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs
the FLSA Class members minimum and overtime wages, failed to pay
spread-of-hours premium for all hours worked in excess of 10 hours
in a day, failed to furnish a wage notice upon hiring, and failed
to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers and as an
assistant manager of the Defendants' catering services in New
York.

The Defendants operate two catering services located in multiple
neighborhoods in Manhattan, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Faces Suit Over Civil, Voting Rights Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
koat.com reports that the fight for Albuquerque's top job gets even
more contentious. Supporters of Candidate Manny Gonzalez filed a
complaint towards the Albuquerque City Clerk Ethan Watson, alleging
the clerk violated civil and voting rights by denying Gonzalez
public financing.

The complaint is also filed against the City of Albuquerque and the
City Clerk's office in the Second Judicial District court.

KOAT reached out to City Attorney Esteban Aguilar Jr. for comment.
In a statement, he said, "politically motivated lawsuits are a
waste of taxpayer dollars and judicial resources, and we look
forward to defending these claims."

Separate from the class action complaint, the city's board of
ethics met to discuss a complaint made by the Mayor Tim Keller
campaign, alleging Gonzalez broke the law by submitting forged
signatures to the city clerk's office.

The city's board of ethics rescheduled the discussion to August.
[GN]

AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Opioid Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------------
MAP TO HEALTH d/b/a Recovery Unplugged, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; PURDUE
PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY,
INC.; RICHARD SACKLER; BEVERLY SACKLER; DAVID SACKLER; ILENE
SACKLER LEFCOURT; JONATHAN SACKLER; KATHE SACKLER; JOHN STEWART;
MARK TIMNEY; CRAIG LANDAU; RUSSELL GASDIA; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER;
THERESA SACKLER; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; SPECGX LLC; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. f/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS
INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a
ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS
PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC.; MALLINCKRODT PLC;
MALLINCKRODT LLC; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; THE KROGER CO.; RITE-AID
OF MARYLAND, INC.; ABBOTT LABORATORIES; ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.;
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; ANDA, INC.; H.D. SMITH, LLC f/k/a H.D.
SMITH WHOLESALE DRUG CO.; HENRY SCHEIN, INC.; DEPOMED, INC.;
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WAL-MART, INC.; and DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-op-45093-DAP (N.D. Ohio, July 15, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, nuisance,
unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit, civil conspiracy, and
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act and statutes prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts in trade or
commerce.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and unfair marketing of opioids through multiple
channels, including continuing medical education programs, which
causes a public health epidemic in the U.S. The Defendants made
materially deceptive statements and concealed material facts about
opioids including but not limited to: (1) the risk of addiction
from chronic opioid therapy is low; (2) to the extent there is a
risk of addiction, it can be easily identified and managed; (3)
signs of addictive behavior are pseudo addiction requiring more
opioids; (4) blaming addicted patients as untrustworthy abusers;
(5) opioid withdrawal can be avoided by tapering; (6) opioid doses
can be increased without limit or greater risk; (7) long-term
opioid use improves functioning; (8) alternative forms of pain
relief pose greater risks than opioids; (9) OxyContin provides 12
hours of pain relief; and (10) new formulations of certain opioids
successfully deter abuse. As a result of the Defendants' alleged
deceptive and misleading promotions of opioids, the prescription
and use of opioids have expanded and fueled the opioid epidemic.

Map to Health, doing business as Recovery Unplugged, is an
addiction treatment organization based in Florida.

AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation is a pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania.

Cardinal Health, Inc. is an American multinational health care
services company, headquartered in Dublin, Ohio.

McKesson Corporation is a health care coverage and access company
based in Irving, Texas.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in
Stamford, Connecticut.

Purdue Pharma, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in
Stamford, Connecticut.

The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. is a global pharmaceutical
company, with headquarters in Petah Tikva, Israel.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company
headquartered in North Wales, Pennsylvania.

Cephalon, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company based in Frazer,
Pennsylvania.

Johnson & Johnson is a medical device company headquartered in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Beerse, Belgium.

Specgx LLC a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Webster
Groves, Missouri.

Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known as
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Beerse,
Belgium.

Noramco, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Athens,
Georgia.

Endo Health Solutions Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Pennsylvania.

Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Pennsylvania.

Insys Therapeutics, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
based in Chandler, Arizona.

Allergan PLC, formerly known as Actavis PLC, is a pharmaceutical
company headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. now known as Actavis, Inc. is a
pharmaceutical company headquartered in New Jersey.

Watson Laboratories, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company headquartered
in New Jersey.

Actavis LLC is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in New
Jersey.

Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as Watson Pharma, Inc., is a
pharmaceutical company headquartered in New Jersey.

Mallinckrodt PLC is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in
United Kingdom.

Mallinckrodt LLC is a pharmaceutical company based in Missouri.

CVS Health Corporation is an American healthcare company
headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

The Kroger Co. is an American retail company headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio.

Rite-Aid of Maryland, Inc. is an operator of a chain of drugstores,
headquartered in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.

Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices
and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park,
Illinois.

Abbott Laboratories, Inc. is an American multinational medical
devices and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park,
Illinois.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC is an American publicly traded generics
and specialty pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey.

Anda, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in Florida.

H.D. Smith, LLC, formerly known as H.D. Smith Wholesale Drug Co. is
a wholesaler of healthcare products based in Pennsylvania.

Henry Schein, Inc. is a worldwide distributor of medical and dental
supplies, headquartered in New York.

Depomed, Inc. is an American specialty pharmaceutical company,
headquartered in Newark, California.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a pharmaceutical holding company,
headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.

Wal-Mart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         John Arthur Eaves, Jr., Esq.
         EAVES LAW FIRM, LLC
         101 North State Street
         Jackson, MS 39201
         Telephone: (601) 355-7961
         Facsimile: (601) 355-0530
         E-mail: johnjr@eaveslawmail.com

APPLE VALLEY: Smithburg Personal Injury Suit Removed to D. Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT SMITHBURG, THOMAS LINDSAY, and ROBIN
GUERTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APPLE VALLEY MEDICAL CLINIC, LTD., ALLINA HEALTH
SYSTEM, SANDHILLS MEDICAL FOUNDATION, INC., and NETGAIN TECHNOLOGY,
LLC, Case No. 27-cv-21-7655, was removed from the District Court,
Fourth Judicial District, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July
15, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Minnesota assigned Case No.
0:21-cv-01622-NEB-HB to the proceeding.

The complaint seeks monetary damages due to personal injury
sustained by the Plaintiffs as a result of the Defendants'
misconduct.

Apple Valley Medical Clinic, Ltd. is a medical clinic in Apple
Valley, Minnesota.

Allina Health System is a not-for-profit health care system based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Sandhills Medical Foundation, Inc. is a medical practice company
based in South Carolina.

Netgain Technology, LLC is an information technology services
company based in Minnesota. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                            
         Paul R. Smith, Esq.
         R. Henry Pfutzenreuter, Esq.
         Christopher A. Young, Esq.
         LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
         8300 Norman Center Drive, Suite 1000
         Minneapolis, MN 55437
         Telephone: (952) 896-3340
         Facsimile: (952) 896-3333
         E-mail: psmith@larkinhoffman.com
                 hpfutzenreuter@larkinhoffman.com
                 cyoung@larkinhoffman.com

ATHIRA PHARMA: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Aug. 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Athira Pharma, Inc. (ATHA)
Class Period: 9/18/2020 - 6/17/2021, or purchase of shares issued
either in or after the September 2020 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 24, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-athira-pharma-inc-securities-litigation

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

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

                      About ClaimsFiler

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


ATHIRA PHARMA: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of August 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Athira Pharma, Inc.
("Athira" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATHA) and reminds investors of
the August 24, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in
a federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Athira stock
purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted in September 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering");
and/or between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021 (the "Class
Period") and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi &
Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330
(Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/ATHA.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.

The lawsuits allege that defendants issued materially false and
misleading information and failed to disclose: (1) that CEO Dr.
Leen Kawas had published research papers containing improperly
altered images while she was a graduate student; (2) that this
purported research was foundational to Athira's efforts to develop
treatments for Alzheimer's because it laid the biological
groundwork that Athira was using in its approach to treating
Alzheimer's; (3) that, as a result, Athira's intellectual property
and product development for the treatment of Alzheimer's were based
on invalid research; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

On June 18, 2021, Athira shares plummeted 39% to $11.15, well below
the $17.00 IPO price, after the Company disclosed that its Board
decided to place Chief Executive Kawas on leave pending a review of
actions stemming from research Dr. Kawas conducted while at
Washington State University.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Athira's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]

ATHIRA PHARMA: Slyne Balks at Misleading Registration Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY SLYNE and TAI SLYNE, Plaintiffs v. ATHIRA PHARMA, INC.,
LEEN KAWAS, Ph.D., GLENNA MILESON, TADATAKA YAMADA, M.D., JOSEPH
EDELMAN, JOHN M. FLUKE, JR., JAMES A. JOHNSON, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.
LLC, JEFFERIES LLC, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, and
JMP SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00864 (W.D. Wash.,
June 25, 2021) is a securities class action brought by the
Plaintiffs, on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock of
Athira in or traceable to the Company's registration statement
issued in connection with the Company's September 2020 initial
public offering priced at $17.00 per share, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act against Athira, certain of
Athira's officers and directors, and the underwriters of the IPO.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading registration statements. Most significantly, the
Defendants in the registration statement completely conceal and
materially omit any mention of the truth, namely that Dr. Kawas
repeatedly falsified images in her scientific research or at best
had been accused of falsifying her research as early as June 2016.
In fact, the Registration Statement and Prospectus lists "risk
factors" for investors in a substantial section containing over
thirty pages of risks to business success and investor revenue, but
omits the critical risk stemming from Dr. Kawas's alleged
falsifications, the suit contends.

On June 18, 2021, Athira shares plummeted 39% to $11.15, well below
the $17.00 IPO price, after the Company disclosed that its Board
decided to place Chief Executive Kawas on leave pending a review of
actions stemming from research Dr. Kawas conducted while at
Washington State University, added the suit.

The Plaintiffs purchased Athira common stock in or traceable to the
IPO.

Athira describes itself as a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on developing potential treatments for patients
with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease dementia and other
central nervous system disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Juli Farris, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: jfarris@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Howard T. Longman, Esq.
          LONGMAN LAW, P.C.
          354 Eisenhower Pkwy., Suite 1800
          Livingston, NJ 07039
          Telephone: (973) 994-2315
          Facsimile: (973) 994-2315
          E-mail: hlongman@longman.law

AUSTRALIA: Settlement of Youth Detention Class Action Discussed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felicity James at abc.net.au reports that the Northern Territory
government has agreed to compensate up to 1,200 former detainees
who were mistreated in youth detention facilities, the Federal
Court has been told.

Lawyers for the detainees and the NT government revealed during a
hearing they had resolved a class action that was launched in 2016
after the revelations of abuse in Darwin's Don Dale youth detention
centre.

The court heard that the next step in the class action would be the
judge's approval of the settlement terms agreed on by the parties.

But the NT government's legal team also made an application to
suppress publication of the compensation amount it has agreed to
pay.

Lawyers for the detainees opposed the suppression bid, with Justice
Debra Mortimer now expected to make a ruling on that question
shortly.

Case alleged assault, false imprisonment
The class action was launched by two former detainees on behalf of
all detainees who were held in detention centres in Darwin or Alice
Springs from August 2006 until November 2017, when the NT youth
detention royal commission began its inquiry.

The detainees' lawyers, Maurice Blackburn, claimed they had been
assaulted, battered and falsely imprisoned while in Darwin's Don
Dale facility or at the Alice Springs detention centre.

Examples of the alleged mistreatment included strip-searching,
handcuffing, restraints and the use of lengthy isolation, which the
lawyers said resulted in physical and mental harm.

"Maurice Blackburn can confirm that a conditional settlement has
been reached in the NT youth justice class action," the lawyers
said in a statement after hearing.

"We await Justice Mortimer's decision [about the suppression
request]."

In a statement, a spokeswoman for the NT government said it had
been "cooperating fully" during the class action but could not yet
comment on the case.

"As this matter is before the Federal Court and subject to
confidentiality orders, it is not appropriate to comment at this
time," the statement said. [GN]

BINANCE: Discusses Initiatives to Protect Binance Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------
If anyone has incurred losses using the Binance platform (e.g. due
to its malfunction or for other reasons attributable to Binance)
they can register and join the initiatives promoted by the Swiss
Blockchain Consortium through the dedicated website:
TOKENCLASSACTION.

TOKENCLASSACTION have received important certificates of gratitude
from numerous operators in the fintech market for the initiative
launched by the Swiss Blockchain Consortium with the legal
assistance of Lexia Avvocati.

This initiative, launched following the reports of a large group of
Italian investors, has received positive feedback from investors in
the crypto sector, not only Italian but also foreign, reflecting
the seriousness of the affair and its global reach.

Michele Ficara, Director of The Swiss Blockchain Consortium said:
"In such a complex moment for the crypto world it is right that
important players such as crypto exchanges have an impeccable
attitude towards their stakeholders. We are therefore happy to have
given way to numerous investors damaged by the behavior of Binance
to be able to efficiently request compensation for damages suffered
as a result, among other things, of the continuous and significant
malfunctions of the platform and the API."

Francesco Dagnino, Managing Partner of Lexia Avvocati, said: "It is
an honor and a pleasure for us to support the Swiss Blockchain
Consortium and make ourselves available to investors who have
suffered losses attributable to Binance. We also believe that this
initiative is necessary - especially in consideration of the
founding values of our study - to preserve trust in the crypto
market and to guarantee the centrality and protection of the
individual investor, trying to preserve the security for those for
whom it is this market was created and they have always tried to
support it".

"This initiative" - added Angelo Messore, Head of the Financial
Services practice at Lexia Avvocati - "signals the need to continue
developing innovative projects linked to fintech and blockchain,
while ensuring compliance with transparency towards the investor
and guarantee the same protection equivalent to that offered by
traditional operators". [GN]

CARLOTZ INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

CarLotz, Inc. (LOTZ, LOTZW)
Class Period: 12/30/2020 - 5/25/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 7, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-carlotz-inc-securities-litigation

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

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

                     About ClaimsFiler

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

CARLOTZ INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of CarLotz, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOTZ)
alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: December 30, 2020 and May 25, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 7, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in LOTZ:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/carlotz-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17727&from=5

CarLotz, Inc. NEWS - LOTZ NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
CarLotz, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) due to a surge in inventory
during the second half of fiscal 2020, CarLotz was experiencing a
"logjam" resulting in slower processing and higher days to sell;
(2) as a result, the Company's gross profit per unit would be
negatively impacted; (3) to minimize returns to the corporate
vehicle sourcing partner responsible for more than 60% of CarLotz's
inventory, the Company was offering aggressive pricing; (4) as a
result, CarLotz's gross profit per unit forecast was likely
inflated; (5) this Company's corporate vehicle sourcing partner
would likely pause consignments to the Company due to market
conditions, including increasing wholesale prices; and (6) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in CarLotz you have until September 7, 2021 to petition the
court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased CarLotz securities during the
relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the LOTZ lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link.

                    About Klein Law Firm

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]

CARLOTZ INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased CarLotz,
Inc. (NASDAQ: LOTZ) ("CarLotz") between December 30, 2020 and May
25, 2021.

If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/carlotz-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17710&wire=5

Allegations against LOTZ include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) due to a surge in inventory during the second half of fiscal
2020, CarLotz was experiencing a "logjam" resulting in slower
processing and higher days to sell; (2) as a result, the Company's
gross profit per unit would be negatively impacted; (3) to minimize
returns to the corporate vehicle sourcing partner responsible for
more than 60% of CarLotz's inventory, the Company was offering
aggressive pricing; (4) as a result, CarLotz's gross profit per
unit forecast was likely inflated; (5) this Company's corporate
vehicle sourcing partner would likely pause consignments to the
Company due to market conditions, including increasing wholesale
prices; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you suffered a loss in CarLotz you have until September 7, 2021
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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

CASHCALL INC: Appeals Order Enforcing Arbitration Award in Kim Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Cashcall, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Johnny Kim, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Cashcall, Inc., Case No.
8:17-cv-00076-DOC-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.

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

The Defendant seeks a review the Court's Order dated June 11, 2021,
granting Claimant's motion to enforce arbitration award. The order
stated that Judgment is entered in favor of Kim and against
CashCall in the amount of $294,869 in total principal attorneys'
fees and $2,719 in total principal amount of costs and expenses.

The appellate case is captioned as Johnny Kim, et al. v. Cashcall,
Inc., Case No. 21-55729, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 12, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Cashcall, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due July
19, 2021;

   -- Appellant Cashcall, Inc. opening brief is due on September 7,
2021;

   -- Appellee Johnny Kim answering brief is due on October 7,
2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant CASHCALL, INC. is represented by:

          Esra Acikalin Hudson, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000
          E-mail: ehudson@manatt.com  

               - and -

          Benjamin G. Shatz, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          2049 Century Park, E, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 312-4383
          E-mail: bshatz@manatt.com

Plaintiff-Appellee JOHNNY KIM, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated employees, is represented by:

          Mark Boling, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK BOLING
          21986 Cayuga Lane
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 588-9222
          E-mail: maboling@earthlink.net

               - and -

          Dale Michael Fiola, Esq.
          200 North Harbor Blvd.
          Anaheim, CA 92805
          Telephone: (714) 635-7888  
          E-mail: fiolaw1@aol.com

CBRE ACQUISITION: Monteverde & Associates Probes Proposed Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &
Associates PC, a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the
2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating CBRE Acquisition Holdings, Inc. ("CBAH" or the
"Company") (CBAH) relating to its proposed merger with Altus Power.
Under the terms of the agreement, CBAH will acquire Altus through a
reverse merger, with Altus emerging as a publicly traded company.

The investigation focuses on whether CBRE Acquisition Holdings,
Inc. and its Board of Directors violated securities laws and/or
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by 1) failing to
conduct a fair process, and 2) whether the transaction is properly
valued.

Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/cbre-acquisition-holdings-inc.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.


               About Monteverde & Associates

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is
committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoingIf
you own common stock in the Company and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via
e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212)
971-1341. [GN]

CHATTEM INC: Fuller Consumer Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EDWARD FULLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CHATTEM, INC., Case No. 7:21-cv-03386,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on July 15, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-05436-KAW to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, violation of the New
York General Business Law, and breaches of express warranty,
implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act
by engaging in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising,
labeling and marketing of external analgesic patches under the
IcyHot brand.

Chattem, Inc. is a manufacturer of over-the-counter healthcare
products, toiletries, dietary supplements, topical analgesics, and
medicated skin care products, with its principal place of business
in Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                            
         Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
         SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 Cutter Mill Rd Ste 409
         Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
         Telephone: (516) 268-7080
         Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
         E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

CITIZENS BANK: Faces Conti Suit for Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CONTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. CITIZENS BANK, N.A. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
1:21-cv-00296-MSM-PAS (D.R.I., July 15, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's violation of Rhode Island General Law section
19-9-2(a), which requires a mortgage lender making a loan secured
by an owner-occupied residential property of one-to-four living
units located in Rhode Island to pay the borrower interest for
money received in advance from the borrower for tax and insurance
that is held by the lender in an "escrow" account until payment is
due. Plaintiff and the Class seek damages, restitution, and
reimbursement, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief,
pursuant to claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered
into the Mortgage Agreement, wherein Plaintiff was required to
deposit funds into an escrow account and Defendant was expressly
required to comply with all applicable state and federal laws in
connection with the Mortgage Agreement. In reliance on Defendant's
express agreement to comply with all applicable federal and state
laws, Plaintiff continuously made payments into his escrow account,
as he was required to do by the Mortgage Agreement. Plaintiff never
received from Defendant -- through direct payment, credit to future
payments or otherwise -- any interest accrued on the funds
maintained in the escrow account on his behalf, in direct violation
R.I. Gen. Laws section 19-9-2(a). Class Members also did not
receive interest on their escrow accounts, in violation of uniform
agreements Defendant had with members of the Class. Because
Defendant did not pay interest to Plaintiff on funds paid into his
escrow account, Defendant violated applicable state law and
therefore was and is in breach of the Mortgage Agreement, says the
complaint.

Defendant Citizens Bank, N.A. offers a wide range of loan products,
including fixed- and adjustable-rate mortgages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Patrick Dowling, Jr., Esq.
         D'AMICO BURCHFIELD, LLP
         536 Atwells Avenue
         Providence, RI 02909
         Phone: (401) 454-1212, Ext. 112
         Fax: (401) 490-4812
         Email: PFD@DBLawRI.com

                  - and -

         David J. George, Esq.
         Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
         GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
         9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite #302
         Lake Worth, FL 33467
         Phone: (561) 232-6002
         Fax: (888) 421-4173
         Email: DGeorge@4-Justice.com
         E-Service: eService@4-Justice.com

                  - and -

         Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
         GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
         102 Half Moon Bay Drive
         Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
         Phone: (917) 983-9321
         Fax: (888) 421-4173
         Email: LFeldman@4-justice.com
         E-Service: eService@4-Justice.com

                  - and -

         Michael Liskow, Esq.
         Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
         CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
         1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: (917) 899-1765
         Fax: (332) 206-2073
         Email: mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com
         Email: jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com


CONCRETE INDUSTRIES: Underpays Concrete Workers, Espinal Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ESPINAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONCRETE INDUSTRIES ONE CORP., EVERGREEN
SERVICES ENTERPRISES INC., and MARK FURER and SALVADOR LACHICA,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03958 (E.D.N.Y., July
13, 2021) alleges the Defendants of violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a concrete worker
from on or about 2013 through the present.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendants failed to pay their concrete workers'
prevailing wage and supplemental benefits rate for any and all
hours worked on publicly financed construction projects at any time
during the six years prior to the filing of this case;

     -- The Defendants failed to keep true and accurate time
records for all hours worked by their concrete workers;

     -- The Defendants failed to pay them overtime in accordance
with the FLSA and NYLL;

     -- The Defendants failed to post and/or keep posted a notice
explaining employees' rights under the NYLL; and

     -- The Defendants failed to provide them with wage notices and
with accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs also claims that the Defendants were unjustly
enriched for work and services of their concrete workers, including
the Plaintiff, as a result of their failure to pay wages.

The Corporate Defendants provide cement and concrete services as
both as both a subcontractor on numerous public works projects in
New York City. Mark Furer is the owner, officer and/or agent of
Concrete Industries. Salvador Lachica is the owner, officer, and/or
agent of Evergreen Services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACO ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel: (212) 323-6980

CREDIT BUREAU: Kang Suit Seeks to Certify FCRA & CCRAA Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUNG GON KANG,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CREDIT
BUREAU CONNECTION, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01359-AWI-SKO (E.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
the following classes:

   -- Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class of people

      "All individuals about whom Defendant prepared a report
      that (1) included an OFAC "Hit;" (2) was published to a
      third party from October 2, 2013 to the date of judgment;
      and (3) included a U.S. address (including U.S.
      Territories) for that individual. Plaintiff also moves to
      certify the following CCRAA class: All individuals about
      whom Defendant prepared a report that (1) included an OFAC
      "Hit;" (2) was published to a third party from October 2,
      2011 to the date of judgment; and (3) included a U.S.
      address (including U.S. Territories) for that individual.

   -- The California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
      (CCRAA) class:

      All individuals about whom Defendant prepared a report
      that (1) included an OFAC "Hit;" (2) was published to a
      third party from October 2, 2011 to the date of judgment;
      and (3) included a U.S. address (including U.S.
      Territories) for that individual. Plaintiff also moves
      this Court to appoint him as class representative and his
      attorneys as counsel for the classes. Given that
      Plaintiff's class definitions limit the classes only to
      those about whom a misleading report was sold to a third
      party, Ramirez II further reinforces the appropriateness
      of granting class-wide statutory and punitive damages
      relief to this population of consumers.

The Plaintiff also moves this Court to appoint him as class
representative and his attorneys as counsel for the classes. Given
that Plaintiff's class definitions limit the classes only to those
about whom a misleading report was sold to a third party, Ramirez
II further reinforces the appropriateness of granting class-wide
statutory and punitive damages relief to this population of
consumers.

The CBC's" long-time practice of selling consumer reports that
misidentify innocent Americans like Plaintiff as Office of Foreign
Assets Control ("OFAC") criminals based upon little more than
"similar name" is a violation of the maximum possible accuracy
reporting requirements of section 1681e(b) of the FCRA and section
1785.14(b) of the CCRAA. The U.S. Supreme Court has now weighed in,
recently finding that consumers like Plaintiff about whom a
consumer reporting agency like Defendant reports misleading OFAC
information to a third party have had their reputations harmed, and
thus have standing to recover the types of FCRA statutory and
punitive damages that Plaintiff seeks here.

A copy of Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 14, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kMPQUr at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          P.O. Box 1311
          Monterrey CA 93942
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                  cbc@caddellchapman.com
                  aet@caddellchapman.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com

DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of
Danimer Scientific, Inc.  ("Danimer" or the "Company") (NYSE: DNMR)
against certain of its officers and directors.

Recently a class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against
the Company on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Danimer
from October 5, 2020 and May 4, 2021 (the "Class Period").

According to the filed complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) the defendants overstated and misstated the
biodegradability and environmentally-friendly nature of its Nodax
product; (2) the defendants misrepresented the size of Danimer's
facilities, production capacity, and actual production amounts, and
costs; (3) the defendants misrepresented Danimer's growth,
financial results, and financial projections; (4) Danimer had
deficient internal controls; and (5) as a result, Danimer's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you are a current, long-term shareholder of Danimer, holding
shares before October 5, 2020, you may have standing to hold
Danimer harmless from the alleged harm caused by the officers and
directors of the Company by making them personally responsible. You
may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate
governance to prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are interested in learning more about the investigation,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.

Additionally, if you are a current, long-term shareholder of
Danimer, holding shares before October 5, 2020, you can [Click here
to join this action]. There is no cost or obligation to you.

About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]

DIDI GLOBAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against DiDi Global Inc. f/k/a Xiaoju
Kuaizhi Inc. ("DiDi" or "the Company") (NYSE: DIDI) and certain of
its directors on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering conducted in June 2021 (the "IPO"), and/or
(2) securities between June 27, 2021 and July 6, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/didi.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) DiDi "had the problem of collecting personal
information in violation of relevant PRC [People's Republic of
China] laws and regulations"; (2) DiDi's app, DiDi Chuxing
(Travel), would face an imminent cybersecurity review by the
Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC"); (3) the CAC would
require all Chinese app stores to remove DiDi Chuxing; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/didi or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in DiDi you
have until September 7, 2021, to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

DIDI GLOBAL: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of Sept. 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

DiDi Global Inc. (DIDI)
Class Period: 6/30/2021 - 7/2/2021, or shares issued pursuant
and/or traceable to the June 2021 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 7, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-didi-global-inc-securities-litigation-

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

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

                      About ClaimsFiler

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


DIDI GLOBAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of September 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors of the
upcoming September 7, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired DiDi Global Inc. ("DiDi" or the "Company")
(NYSE: DIDI): (a) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares")
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public offering
("IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (b) securities between June 30,
2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

DiDi purports to be the world's largest mobility technology
platform. The Company claims to be the "go-to brand in China for
shared mobility," offering a range of services including ride
hailing, taxi hailing, chauffeur, and hitch.

On or about June 30, 2021, DiDi sold about 316.8 million ADSs in
its IPO for $14 per share, raising nearly $4.5 billion in new
capital.

On July 2, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC")
stated that it had launched an investigation into DiDi to protect
national security and the public interest. It also reported that it
had asked DiDi to stop new user registrations during the course of
the investigation. On this news, the Company's ADS price declined
by $0.87 per ADS, or approximately 5.3%, from $16.40 per ADS on
July 1, 2021 to close at $15.53 per ADS on July 2, 2021.

Then, on July 4, 2021, DiDi reported that the CAC ordered
smartphone app stores to stop offering the "DiDi Chuxing" app
because it "collect[ed] personal information in violation of
relevant PRC laws and regulations." Though users who previously
downloaded the app could continue to use it, DiDi stated that "the
app takedown may have an adverse impact on its revenue in China."

On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CAC had
asked the Company as early as three months prior to the IPO to
postpone the offering because of national security concerns and to
"conduct a thorough self-examination of its network security." On
this news, the Company's ADS declined by $3.04 per ADS, or
approximately 19.6%, from $15.53 per ADS on July 2, 2021, to close
at $12.49 per ADS on July 6, 2021.

The lawsuit alleges that the Registration Statement was materially
false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws
and regulations governing privacy protection and the collection of
personal information; (2) that, as a result, the Company was
reasonably likely to incur scrutiny from the CAC; (3) that the CAC
had already warned DiDi to delay its IPO to conduct a
self-examination of its network security; (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, DiDi's apps were reasonably likely to be taken down
from app stores in China, which would have an adverse effect on its
financial results and operations; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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


DIDI GLOBAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following
companies. 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.

Didi Global Inc. F/K/A Xiaoju Kuaizhi Inc. (NYSE:DIDI)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/didi-global-inc-f-k-a-xiaoju-kuaizhi-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17734&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 7, 2021
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired DiDi: (a) American Depositary Shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public
offering; and/or (b) securities between June 30, 2021 and July 2,
2021, inclusive.

Allegations against DIDI include that: (1) DiDi's apps did not
comply with applicable laws and regulations governing privacy
protection and the collection of personal information; (2) as a
result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur scrutiny from
the Cyberspace Administration of China; (3) the CAC had already
warned DiDi to delay its IPO to conduct a self-examination of its
network security; (4) as a result of the foregoing, DiDi's apps
were reasonably likely to be taken down from app stores in China,
which would have an adverse effect on its financial results and
operations; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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]

DIGITECH INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against 360
DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN) ("360 DigiTech") on behalf of those
who purchased or acquired 360 DigiTech securities between April 30,
2020 and July 7, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired 360 DigiTech
securities during the Class Period may, no later than September 13,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/360-digitech-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=360_digitech

360 DigiTech, through its subsidiaries, operates a digital consumer
finance platform under the 360 Jietiao brand in the People's
Republic of China ("PRC"). Its platform provides online consumer
finance products to the borrowers funded by institutional funding
partners. 360 DigiTech also provides incremental credit assessment,
collection, and other services, as well as guarantee for defaulted
loans. 360 DigiTech was formerly known as 360 Finance, Inc. and
changed its name to 360 DigiTech, Inc. in September 2020.

The Class Period commences on April 30, 2020, when 360 DigiTech
filed an Annual Report on a Form 20-F reporting its financial and
operating results for the year ended December 31, 2019. In the
Annual Report and throughout the Class Period, the defendants
touted 360 DigiTech's customer data protection practices and
security systems that protect user information and abide by other
network security requirements under such laws and regulations.

The truth was revealed on July 8, 2021, when reports circulated on
social media to the effect that 360 DigiTech's core product, the
360 IOU app, had been removed from major app stores. The reports
came on the heels of the removal of other companies' apps as
Chinese regulators investigated their customer data protection
practices. For example, an article published by the 21st Century
Business Herald on July 8, 2021 indicated that "[t]he reason for
the removal may be related to the discussion with the central bank
and other financial regulators on April 29 this year about 13
Internet financial platforms and requesting rectification."

Following this news, 360 DigiTech's stock price fell $7.12 per
share, or 21.48%, to close at $26.02 per share on July 8, 2021.

On July 9, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that 360 DigiTech confirmed
the removal of its 360 IOU app from the Android app store and
quoted a 360 DigiTech spokesperson, who disclosed that 360 DigiTech
had "submitted a new rectification plan and stepped up the whole
process."

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) 360 DigiTech had been collecting personal
information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations; (2)
accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of
regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; and (3) as a result,
360 DigiTech's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

360 DigiTech investors may, no later than September 13, 2021, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class
members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to
share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]

DIGITECH INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of September 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who acquired 360 DigiTech,
Inc. ("360 DigiTech" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: QFIN) securities
from April 30, 2020 through July 7, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until September 13, 2021 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

360 DigiTech, through its subsidiaries, operates a digital consumer
finance platform under the 360 Jietiao brand in the People's
Republic of China ("PRC"). Its platform provides online consumer
finance products to the borrowers funded by institutional funding
partners. The Company also provides incremental credit assessment,
collection, and other services, as well as guarantee for defaulted
loans. The Company was formerly known as 360 Finance, Inc. and
changed its name to 360 DigiTech, Inc. in September 2020.

On July 8, 2021, reports circulated on social media to the effect
that the Company's core product, the 360 IOU app, had been removed
from major app stores. The reports came on the heels of the removal
of other companies' apps as Chinese regulators investigated their
customer data protection practices. On this news, 360 DigiTech's
stock price declined by $7.12 per share, or approximately 21.48%,
from $33.14 per share to close at $26.02 per share on July 8,
2021.

Then, on July 9, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that 360 DigiTech
confirmed the removal of its 360 IOU app from the Android app store
and quoted a Company spokesperson, who disclosed that the Company
had "submitted a new rectification plan and stepped up the whole
process."

The lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company had been collecting personal
information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations; (ii)
accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of
regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired 360 DigiTech securities,
have information, or would like to learn more about these claims,
please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at
212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling
out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with
respect to these matters without any cost to you.

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

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

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210716005474/en/ [GN]

DRAFTKINGS INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of August 31 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against DraftKings Inc.
("DraftKings" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DKNG) and reminds
investors of the August 31, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in DraftKings
stock or options between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021 and
would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/DKNG.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California, and Georgia.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
SBTech had a history of unlawful operations; (2) accordingly,
DraftKings' merger with SBTech exposed the Company to dealings in
black-market gaming; (3) the foregoing increased the Company's
regulatory and criminal risks with respect to these transactions;
(4) as a result of all the foregoing, the Company's revenues were,
in part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (5)
accordingly, the benefits of the Business Combination were
overstated; and (6) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Specifically, on June 15, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg")
published a report addressing DraftKings, alleging that the
Company's merger with SBTech exposed DraftKings to dealings in
black-market gaming. Citing "conversations with multiple former
employees, a review of SEC and international filings, and
inspection of back-end infrastructure at illicit international
gaming websites," Hindenburg alleged that "SBTech has a long and
ongoing record of operating in black markets," estimating that 50%
of SBTech's revenue is from markets where gambling is banned.

Following publication of the Hindenburg report, DraftKings' stock
price fell $2.11 per share, or 4.17%, to close at $48.51 per share
on June 15, 2021.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding DraftKings' conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]

DRAFTKINGS INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of August 210 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following
companies. 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.

DraftKings Inc. f/k/a Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp.
(NASDAQ:DKNG)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/draftkings-inc-f-k-a-diamond-eagle-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=17734&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 31, 2021
Class Period: December 23, 2019 - June 15, 2021

Allegations against DKNG include that: (i) SBTech Global Limited
("SBTech"), a company acquired by DraftKings, had a history of
unlawful operations; (ii) accordingly, DraftKings' merger with
SBTech exposed the Company to dealings in black-market gaming;
(iii) the foregoing increased the Company's regulatory and criminal
risks with respect to these transactions; (iv) as a result of all
the foregoing, the Company's revenues were, in part, derived from
unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (v) accordingly, the
benefits of the Business Combination were overstated; and (vi) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
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]

DYNAGAS LNG: Entwistle & Cappucci Disclosed Proposed Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE DYNAGAS LNG PARTNERS LP

SECURITIES LITIGATION

No. 19-cv-04512 (AJN)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION
EXPENSES

TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the securities of Dynagas LNG Partners LP ("Dynagas"), purchased or
otherwise acquired call options on Dynagas securities, or sold or
otherwise transferred put options on Dynagas securities during the
period from December 21, 2017 through March 21, 2019, inclusive
(the "Settlement Class").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been provisionally certified as a
class action for settlement purposes only on behalf of the
Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are
excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in
the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $4,500,000 in cash (the
"Settlement") to be paid on Defendants' behalf, that, if approved,
will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on November 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Alison J. Nathan at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S.
Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, Courtroom 906, New York, New York
10007, to determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (ii) the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated May 21, 2021 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved
as fair and reasonable; and (iv) Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses
should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and claim form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at
In re Dynagas LNG Partners LP Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data,
Ltd., P.O. Box 173132, Milwaukee, WI 53217, Telephone: (877)
235-9861, Email: info@DynagasSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of
the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website
maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.DynagasSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must either: (1) submit a Claim Form by First-Class Mail, addressed
in accordance with the instructions thereon and postmarked no later
than November 5, 2021; or (2) if specifically permitted by the
Claims Administrator, submit all required information
electronically in accordance with the Claims Administrator's
instructions no later than November 5, 2021. If you are a member of
the Settlement Class and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you
will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net
proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than October 15, 2021,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that
they are received no later than October 15, 2021, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, the Defendants
or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel: Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. and
Robert N. Cappucci, Esq., ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP, 230 Park
Avenue, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10169, Telephone: (212) 894-7200,
Facsimile: (212) 894-7272, Email: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com and
rcappucci@entwistle-law.com. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form
should be made to: In re Dynagas LNG Partners LP Securities
Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173132, Milwaukee, WI
53217, Telephone: (877) 235-9861, Email:
info@DynagasSecuritiesLitigation.com. Additional information may be
made available at the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator: www.DynagasSecuritiesLitigation.com. [GN]

FACEBOOK INC: Denver Judge Questions Facts in Dismissed Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joey Bunch at 9news.com reports that a federal judge in Denver
pressed lawyers about whether they were relying on political
talking points more than facts when seeking to question the outcome
in the November presidential election.

U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter asked Denver
lawyers Gary D. Fielder and Ernest J. Walker, who filed a
class-action case against Dominion Voting Systems, Facebook and
elected officials in four states in December. The same judge
dismissed the class-action lawsuit in April.

The hearing was about whether the plaintiffs' lawyers should face
sanctions.

Neureiter pressed Fielder and Walker about whether they
investigated whether Denver-based Dominion Voting System was
designed to throw the election with the help of foreign entities,
including China.

The suit also names Facebook and elected officials in four states
(not including Colorado) and others. The class-action lawsuit in
Denver is among a spate of overlapping and counter litigation that
has resulted from the presidential election, as the president has
falsely claimed he was cheated but has not provided proof that's
gotten traction in any court so far. [GN]

FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Class Cert. Deadline Extension Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. SHIELDS, MICHAEL
C. ANDREW, and KATINKA HOSSZÚ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE
NATATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-07393-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, ask the Court to enter an
order that the deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply In Support of
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, currently set for July
30, 2021, shall be extended to September 1, 2021, subject to the
approval of this Court.

On May 21, 2021, the Court issued an Order adopting the parties'
stipulated On June 29, 2021, Defendant filed its Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Due to Dr. Rascher's
and counsel's schedules, the parties require further extension of
the Reply deadline. The parties conferred and agreed to extend the
deadline for the Reply to September 1, 2021.

The parties defer to the Court regarding a new date for the motion
hearing, currently set for August 12, 2021. This stipulated
extension should not otherwise materially impact the case schedule,
the parties contend.

A copy of the Parties motion dated July 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3y131VB at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Nelson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
          BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: 415.956.1000
          Facsimile: 415.956.1008
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  efastiff@lchb.com
                  cnelson@lchb.com


FORD MOTOR: Tershakovec Asks Ct. to Reconsider Certification Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE TERSHAKOVEC, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 1:17-cv-21087-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order reconsidering its
Certification Order regarding the length of the Class Period and
identify either September 30, 2016, March 22, 2017 or May 16, 2017
as the last day of the Class Period as these dates coincide with
similar levels of consumer knowledge of the Shelby Defect.

In the alternative, the Class Period should be extended to at least
April 27, 2016 as this was the date of Ford's first disclosure of
the Defect to its dealer network.

According to the complaint, reconsideration is warranted to correct
a narrow but important aspect of the July 1, 2021 summary judgment
and class certification order. In its Order, the Court identified a
class period end date of April 1, 2016 (Class Period). But due to
the compressed production and delivery schedule for the Shelbys, a
large portion of the Class Vehicles were delivered to Class Members
during the month of April 2016 and the three months thereafter.
Hence, the current Class Period would unfairly exclude six of the
newly-appointed Class Representatives. The current Class Period
also leaves four of the nine recently-certified State Classes
without a class representative, and could exclude approximately 70%
of otherwise-eligible Class members across the nine State Classes.

Ford Motor is an American multinational automaker that has its main
headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was
founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zhWrKy at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes, are:

          Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq.
          Rachel Furst, Esq.
          GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (888) 296-1681
          Facsimile: (305) 285-1668
          E-mail: szg@grossmanroth.com
                  rwf@grossmanroth.com

               - and -

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

FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Frequency Therapeutics, Inc.
("Frequency" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FREQ) and reminds investors
of the August 2, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff
in a federal securities class action that has been filed against
the Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Frequency
stock or options between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021 and
would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/FREQ.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California, and Georgia.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's Phase 2a study
of FX-322, a potential therapy designed to improve hearing
function.

Specifically, before the market opened on March 23, 2021, Frequency
disclosed in a press release deeply disappointing interim Phase 2a
results, revealing that subjects with mild to moderate SNHL did not
demonstrate improvements in hearing measures versus placebo.

These results dramatically undercut the narrative the Company had
spun since Frequency's IPO and investors reacted accordingly. That
day, Frequency's shares fell from $36.29 to $7.99, a 78% drop,
representing a decline in the Company's market capitalization of
approximately $955 million.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Frequency's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/90523 [GN]

FRONTIER AIRLINES: Loses Bid to Junk Hodgkins Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA HODGKINS, et al.,
v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-03469-RM-MEH
(D.Colo.), the Hon. Judge Raymond P. Moore entered an order denying
Frontier's motion to dismiss class certification.

The Court finds Frontier has not shown it is impossible to certify
the classes alleged in the complaint. See e.g., Friedman v. Dollar
Thrifty Auto. Grp., Inc., No. 12-CV-02432-WYD-KMT, 2013 WL 5448078,
(D. Colo. Sept. 27, 2013) (declining to strike class allegations on
the pleadings because defendant had "not shown that the claims at
issue [were] impossible to certify). Accordingly, Frontier's motion
to dismiss with respect to the class claims is denied.

As alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff will seek to certify two
classes of plaintiffs: (1) a pregnancy class and (2) a
breastfeeding class. Contrary to Frontier's argument that each
putative class is overboard because they may include plaintiffs who
were not injured by its policies, "certification requirements
neither require all class members to suffer harm or threat of
immediate harm nor Named Plaintiffs to prove class members have
suffered such harm." The Plaintiffs allege that they can meet the
requirements for class certification under Rule 23, and the facts
supporting that contention are to be viewed as true at this stage
of the proceedings.

Frontier is an American ultra low-cost carrier headquartered in
Denver, Colorado. Frontier operates flights to over 100
destinations throughout the United States and 31 international
destinations, and employs more than 3,000 staff.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hWfa8B at no extra charge.[CC]

FRONTIER AIRLINES: Staff's Discrimination Lawsuit Will Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Mulholland at cpr.org reports that a class action lawsuit
against Frontier Airlines is proceeding after a federal judge
denied the company's motion to dismiss it.

The lawsuit alleges the Denver-based airline discriminates against
pilots, flight attendants and others who are pregnant as well as
nursing mothers. Among other things, the suit claims breastfeeding
women were denied breaks or facilities to pump milk, forcing them
to give up breastfeeding or work long shifts without pumping.

"Our clients are excited to move forward and continue in that
process and move the case towards a potential resolution — not
just for them, but for the many other women that are subject to
these policies," said Juno Turner, an attorney with Towards
Justice, a law firm in Colorado representing the plaintiffs.

A spokesperson for Frontier said in an email that the company
doesn't comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit was filed in 2019 on behalf of pilot Randi Freyer and
flight attendant Stacy Rewitzer.

The case started with an earlier complaint to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, which said the airline prohibited women
from pumping breast milk on planes. [GN]

FULL TRUCK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of September 10 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a Lead Plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. ("FTA" or the "Company") (NYSE:YMM)
from June 23, 2021 through July 5, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

If you purchased FTA securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit FTA Shareholder Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
nwiesner@bernlieb.com

The complaint alleges that the statements made in the Company's
June 23, 2021 registration statement (the "Registration Statement")
were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operational and financial results, which
were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, the Registration Statement contained false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) FTA's
apps Yunmanman and Huochebang would face an imminent cybersecurity
review by the Cyberspace Administration of China (the "CAC"); (ii)
the CAC would require FTA to suspend new user registration; (iii)
FTA needed to conduct a "comprehensive self-examination of any
cybersecurity risks"; (iv) FTA needed to "continue to improve its
cybersecurity systems and technology capabilities"; and (v) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times and negligently prepared.

On July 5, 2021, the Company issued a press release entitled "Full
Truck Alliance Announces Cybersecurity Review in China" which
announced, in pertinent part, that China's Cybersecurity Review
Office ("CRO") "has initiated a cybersecurity review of FTA's
Yunmanman apps and Huochebang apps. In order to facilitate the
review and prevent the expansion of potential risks, these mobile
apps are required to suspend new user registration in China during
the review period."

On this news, FTA American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") fell $1.27
per ADS, or over 6%, to close at $17.75 per ADS on July 6, 2021,
the next trading day, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 10, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased FTA securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/fulltruckalliance-ymm-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-413/apply/
or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
nwiesner@bernlieb.com

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

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (c) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]

FULL TRUCK: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 10 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Full Truck Alliance (NYSE: YMM) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities class
action lawsuit has been filed that relates to the company's IPO
issuance of 82.5 million American Depositary Shares at $19/ADS.
Certain investors who invested in Full Truck Alliance ADRs pursuant
or traceable to the company's IPO may have valuable claims.

Class Period: June 19, 2021 - July 12, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sept. 10, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/YMM
Contact An Attorney Now: YMM@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. (YMM) Securities Class Action:

According to the lawsuit, the company's IPO materials contained
misleading statements about the risks that (1) Full Truck
Alliance's Yunmanman and Huochebang apps would face an imminent
cybersecurity review by the Cyberspace Administration of China
("CAC"), (2) the CAC would require the company to suspend new user
registrations, and (3) the CAC would require First Truck Alliance
to conduct a comprehensive review of any cybersecurity risks and
remediate its systems and technologies as necessary.

Within a month of closing the IPO, investors began to learn the
truth.

On July 5, 2021, Full Truck Alliance announced the CAC commenced a
cybersecurity review of the Yunmanman and Huochebang apps and
required the company to conduct a comprehensive review of
cybersecurity risks, remediate deficiencies, and suspend new user
registrations in China.

This news sent the price of Full Truck Alliance ADRs crashing lower
on July 6, 2021.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Full Truck Alliance
and senior management knew of the Chinese regulators' demands but
nonetheless rushed to market without first satisfying those
demands," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

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

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

                         About Hagens Berman

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

GETTY IMAGES: Angeles Sues Over Blind-Inaccesible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GETTY IMAGES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-06082 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 15, 2021) is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and
legally blind person, who cannot use a computer without the
assistance of screen-reading software. Plaintiff is, however, a
proficient NonVisual Desktop Access screen-reader user and uses it
to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited Defendant's website,
www.gettyimages.com, on separate occasions using a screen-reader.
On multiple occasions, the last occurring in May of 2021. Plaintiff
visited Defendant's website to make a purchase. Despite her
efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience
similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack
of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively
barred Plaintiff from being able to determine what specific
products were offered for sale. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the
complaint says.

Defendant is a stock photo company that owns and operates
www.gettyimages.com, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


GUIDANCE CENTER: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Enriquez Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HILDA ENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GUIDANCE CENTER OF LEA COUNTY, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00647-KRS-SMV (D.N.M., July 15, 2021) is brought against
the Defendant for not paying Plaintiff all earned overtime pay for
time worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more individual work
weeks due to Defendant's misclassification scheme which violates
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant employed Plaintiff and other
individuals in non-managerial positions in New Mexico to perform
case management functions under various job titles containing the
term "caseworker," "care manager," and "care coordinator" ("Care
Management Employees" or "CMEs"). Defendant classified CMEs as
exempt from state and federal overtime laws and did not pay them
overtime when they worked over 40 hours in an individual workweek.
Defendant's CMEs primarily performed non-exempt work, including
collecting information to document Members' medical circumstances
(data collection); inputting that information into Defendant's
computer system (data entry); and following established guidelines
to maximize utilization of plan resources through the application
of predetermined criteria (utilization review).

Plaintiff Enriquez worked for Defendant as a CME from approximately
June 3, 2019 to July 24, 2021.

Defendant is a corporation that provides case management services
for individuals enrolled in government-sponsored health insurance
plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Travis M. Hedgepeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (281) 572-0727
          Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

                    - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          5706 E Mockingbird Lane, Suite 115
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Phone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: stacy@siegellawgroup.biz  
                  jack@siegellawgroup.biz


HAROLD & SQUEAKY'S: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Seaberry Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAQUOIA SEABERRY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAROLD & SQUEAKY'S ENTERTAINMENT,
LLC d/b/a DALLAS CABARET-NORTH and DOUGLAS ERNEST, Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-01494-S (N.D. Tex., June 25, 2021) seeks damages due to
Defendants' conduct of evading the mandatory minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, illegally
absconding with Plaintiff's tips and demanding illegal kickbacks
including in the form of "House Fees."

The causes of action in this case arise from Defendants' willful
actions while Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in the preceding
three-year period to the filing of the complaint. During their time
being employed by the Defendants, Plaintiff asserts that she was
denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of
Defendants' scheme to classify her and other exotic
dancers/entertainers as independent contractors.

The Plaintiff brings this collective action to recover the unpaid
overtime compensation and minimum wage owed to them individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, current
and former, of the Defendants.

The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
under the name "Dallas Cabaret-North" in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
          ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
          E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
                  leigh@ellzeylaw.com

HARTFORD CASUALTY: J Bells Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff J Bells, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled MARIO D. CHORAK DMD PS, et al., Plaintiffs v.
HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-00627-BJR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 19, 2020, the
lawsuit alleges that the Defendants wrongfully denied claims for
coverage relating to COVID-19 pandemic and/or orders issued by
Governor Jay Inslee, other Governors, and other civil authorities.

Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the
Plaintiffs cannot provide dental orthodontic services. The
Plaintiffs intended to rely on its business insurance to keep its
business as a going concern, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs
said it filed the lawsuit to ensure that it and other
similarly-situated policyholders receive the insurance benefits to
which they are entitled and for which they paid.

J Bells, LLC, one of the Plaintiffs in this case, now seeks a
review of the Court's Order dated May 28, 2021, granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

The appellate case is captioned as J Bells, LLC, et al. v. Sentinel
Insurance Company Ltd, et al., Case No. 21-35484, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 24,
2021.

The briefing scheduled in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant J Bells, LLC Mediation Questionnaire was due July
1, 2021;

   -- Appellant J Bells, LLC opening brief is due on August 23,
2021;

   -- Appellee Sentinel Insurance Company Limited answering brief
is due on September 22, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant J BELLS, LLC, DBA Bishops Cuts and Colors, is
represented by:

          Lance Loyd, Esq.
          78 Island Blvd.
          Fox Island, WA 98333
          Telephone: (210) 213-2464

Defendant-Appellee SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED is
represented by:

          Matthew S. Adams, Esq.
          FORSBERG & UMLAUF, PS
          901 5th Avenue, Suite 1400
          Seattle, WA 98164
          Telephone: (206) 689-8500
          E-mail: madams@foum.law

               - and -

          Sarah Gordon, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-8005

HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Huston Sues Over Personal Info Disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH HUSTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-01196-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill., July 15, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's violation of Illinois' Right of Publicity Act (IRPA).

To supplement its revenues during the time period relevant to this
action, Defendant Hearst Communications, Inc. publicly used and
held out Plaintiff's and the other Class members' identities for
commercial purposes when it offered for sale and sold mailing lists
that identified, by name, address, and other personal attributes,
Plaintiff and every other Illinois subscriber to its magazine
publications, including Good Housekeeping magazine to which
Plaintiff subscribed, the complaint alleges.

Defendant's offers to sell its mailing lists were directed to the
community at large, and Defendant sold these lists to any member of
the public willing to pay for them, including data miners, data
aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, list brokers,
aggressive marketing companies, political organizations, non-profit
companies, and various other parties. Hearst's public use and
holding out of Plaintiff's identity on the mailing lists that it
sells and offers to sell (including in connection with the Good
Housekeeping magazine subscription previously sold to Plaintiff)
directly violated IRPA, states the complaint.

Defendant Hearst Communications is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business in New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Dominick Larry
          NICK LARRY LAW LLC
          8 S Michigan Ave, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Tel: (773) 694-4669
          Fax: (773) 694-4691
          E-mail: nick@nicklarrylaw.com

                    - and -

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (305) 357-2107
          Fax: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  aravindran@hedinhall.com


HOME POINT: Vincent Wong Reminds of August 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following
companies. 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.

Home Point Capital Inc. (NASDAQ:HMPT)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/home-point-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17734&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2021
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Home Point common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January 29, 2021
initial public offering.

Allegations against HMPT include that: (i) Home Point's aggressive
expansion of its broker partners would dramatically increase the
Company's expenses; (ii) the mortgage industry was anticipating
industry-wide decreased gain-on-sale margins as a result of rising
interest rates in 2021 and Home Point would be subject to the same
competitive pressures; (iii) accordingly, the Company had
overstated its business and financial prospects; and (iv) as a
result, the Offering Documents were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.

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]

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Kaleida Health Hits Surgical Robot Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaleida Health, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Defendant., Case
No. 21-cv-05266, (N.D. Cal., July 8, 2021) is an antitrust action
brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act involving the
abuse of monopoly power, including a tying and monopoly leveraging
scheme implemented by Intuitive in the sale of its "da Vinci
Surgical Robot System."

According to the complaint, Intuitive has obtained patents that
leveraged to restrict competition in the surgical robot service
aftermarket and the surgical robot instrument service aftermarket
vis-a-vis the purchaser's acceptance of Intuitive's mandatory
service contract that requires the purchaser to use Intuitive as
the sole service provider for all systems and prohibits the
purchaser from either servicing the robot itself or hiring an
independent robot repair company.

Kaleida Health is a New York not-for-profit corporation with its
principal place of business in Buffalo, New York. Kaleida leased
the "da Vinci XI" models directly from Intuitive and paid Intuitive
for service to its "da Vincis" and "EndoWrists." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Seth R. Gassman, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 633-1908
      Fax: (415) 358-4980
      E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com
              sgassman@hausfeld.com

              - and -

      Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
      Icee N. Etheridge, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
      2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 496-0300
      Fax: (215) 496-6611
      Email: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
             jspector@srkattorneys.com
             ietheridge@srkattorneys.com

             - and -

      Michael J. Boni, Esq.
      Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
      John E. Sindoni, Esq.
      BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
      15 St. Asaphs Road
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Tel: (610) 822-0200
      Fax: (610) 822-0206
      Email: mboni@bonizack.com
             jsnyder@bonizack.com
             jsindoni@bonizack.com

             - and -

      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Brian D. Clark, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      Email: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
             bdclark@locklaw.com

             - and -

      Howard Langer, Esq.
      Edward Diver, Esq.
      Peter Leckman, Esq.
      LANGER, GROGAN & Diver, P.C.
      1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 320-0876
      Fax: (215) 320-5703
      Email: hlanger@langergrogan.com
             ndiver@langergrogan.com
             pleckman@langergrogan.com

             - and -

      Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
      BERGER MONTAGUE
      1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3009
      Email: ecramer@bm.net

             - and -

      William J. Leonard, Esq.
      OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP
      Centre Square West, Suite 3400
      1500 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19102-2101
      Tel: (215) 665-3000
      Fax: (215) 665-3165
      Email: William.leonard@obermayer.com


JAGUAR LAND: Extension of Briefing Sched. in Block Suit Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLOCK v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-05957 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge
Cathy L. Waldor entered an order denying the parties' stipulation
and proposed consent order extending the briefing schedule for the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In the Court's Order adopting the parties' original, agreed-upon
briefing schedule, the Court directed that "there will be no
adjournments of this briefing schedule". The parties' extension
request is therefore denied.

The nature of suit stats Torts -- Personal Injury -- Motor Vehicle
Product Liability.

Jaguar Land is one of the world's premier manufacturers of luxury
sedans, sports cars and SUVs. Headquartered in Mahwah, New Jersey
in the United States.[CC]

JAMES RIVER: Kirby McInerney Reminds of September 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby+McInerney+LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of those who acquired James River
Group Holdings, Ltd. ("James River" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
JRVR) common stock from August 1, 2019 through May 5, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 7,
2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

On October 8, 2019, after the market closed, James River disclosed
it had delivered a notice of early cancellation of all policies
issued to its largest customer, Rasier LLC, a subsidiary of Uber.
On this news, James River's stock price declined by $11.06 per
share, or approximately 22.6% from $48.94 per share to close at
$37.88 per share on October 9, 2021.

On May 5, 2021, the Company announced its first quarter 2021
financial results, reporting $170 million of "unfavorable
development in Commercial Auto, primarily driven by a previously
canceled account that has been in runoff since 2019." On this news,
James River's stock price declined by $12.27 per share, or
approximately 26.39%, from $46.50 per share to close at $34.23 per
share on May 6, 2021.

The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) James River had not adequately reserved for its Uber
policies; (2) James River was using an incorrect methodology for
setting reserves that materially understated its true exposure to
Uber claims; (3) as a result, the Company was forced to increase
its unfavorable reserves in subsequent quarters, even after
cancelling the Uber policies; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about James River's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

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

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website:+http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kmllp.com. [GN]

JAMES RIVER: Klein Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of James River Group Holdings, Ltd.
(NASDAQ: JRVR) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.

Class Period: August 1, 2019 and May 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 7, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in JRVR:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/james-river-group-holdings-ltd-loss-submission-form?id=17733&from=5

James River Group Holdings, Ltd. NEWS - JRVR NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that James
River Group Holdings, Ltd. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) James River had not
adequately reserved for its Uber policies; (2) James River was
using an incorrect methodology for setting reserves that materially
understated the Company's true exposure to Uber claims; (3) as a
result, James River was forced to increase its unfavorable reserves
in subsequent quarters even after cancelling the Uber policies; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
James River's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in James River Group you have until September 7, 2021 to
petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share
in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased James River Group securities
during the relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket fees.

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the JRVR lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link.

                        About Klein Law Firm

J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suit Over Neutrogena and Aveeno Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical product-safety lawyers at the Beasley Allen law firm
have filed a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of consumers
who bought recalled benzene-tainted sunscreen products made by
Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) subsidiaries Neutrogena and Aveeno.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction and damages on behalf of consumers
who purchased a range of Neutrogena and Aveeno sun-care products.
An analysis by independent lab Valisure found alarming
concentrations of benzene in at least 78 sun-care products made by
Neutrogena, CVS Health, Banana Boat and other manufacturers.

"It should not have taken the publication of a third party's tests
to bring this critically important information to the public, and
J&J's response so far is not enough. We will find out how long J&J
knew about these concerns and why it took so long to take action,"
said product safety trial lawyer Andy Birchfield of the Beasley
Allen law firm.

More than seven weeks after the lab results were published, Johnson
& Johnson announced a recall of five spray products and ordered
retailers to stop selling Neutrogena's sunscreens labeled Beach
Defense, Cool Dry Sport, Invisible Daily, Ultra Sheer and Aveeno
Protect + Refresh.

The Food and Drug Administration permits traces of benzene on rare
occasions in medical products that are deemed critical, but the
chemical is not allowed in sun-care products in any amount. The
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
recommends protective equipment for those expecting to be exposed
to benzene at concentrations above 0.1 parts per million for 10
hours or 1 ppm for 15 minutes. Some Neutrogena products contained
benzene amounts of more than 6 ppm, according to Valisure.
While Valisure found benzene in both aerosol and lotion products,
J&J's voluntary recall is limited to spray products. A full list of
the risky sunscreens can be found here.

"When these kinds of safety failures occur, the American public
deserves a swift and transparent accounting of what happened and
what is being done to ensure it doesn't happen again," said Beasley
Allen attorney David Byrne. "J&J's response falls far short of
that."

The lawsuit Johanna Dominguez and Sharron Meijer et al. v. Johnson
& Johnson Consumer Inc., is filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, No. 3:21-CV-05419. In addition
to Beasley Allen, the legal team includes Walsh Law PLLC and Keller
Lenkner LLC.

Benzene is a common industrial chemical that has long been linked
to leukemia, a deadly form of blood cancer. The discovery raises
grave concerns because chemicals in sunscreen are known to be
absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream - even after only
one application. Since children's skin is more permeable than
adults, the threat of absorption of harmful chemicals is even
greater for them.

               About the Beasley Allen Law Firm 

Headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama, Beasley Allen is a national
leader in medical product liability litigation, with a staff of
experienced attorneys and expert staff committed to ensuring the
safety of consumer and medical products. For more information,
visit https://factsaboutsunscreen.com/. [GN]

JUUL LABS: Bay City School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
BAY CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05446 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit alleges.

Bay City Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 910 North Walnut Street in Bay City, Michigan.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Cumberland Suit Claims Deceptive E-Cigarette Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CUMBERLAND COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05463 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit alleges.

Cumberland County School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 368 4th Street in Crossville, Tennessee.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Faces School District Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DURAND-ARKANSAW SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05447 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Durand-Arkansaw School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 604 7th Avenue East in Durand, Wisconsin.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Liable to Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, School District Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GREENE COUNTY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-05442 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Greene County Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 910 W. Summer St. in Greeneville, Tennessee.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Oklahoma School Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHICKASHA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05443 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, alleges the suit.

Chickasha Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 900 West Choctaw Avenue in Chickasha, Oklahoma.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette to Youth, Ohio School District Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NORWAYNE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05441 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Norwayne Local School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 350 South Main Street in Creston, Ohio.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Putnam County Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Addiction
--------------------------------------------------------------
PUTNAM COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05464 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Putnam County School System is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1400 East Spring Street in Cookeville,
Tennessee.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Addiction in Okla.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JENKS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-05462 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Jenks Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 205 East B. Street in Jenks, Oklahoma.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SAVANNA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05440 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, alleges the suit.

Savanna Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at Old Highway 69 in Savanna, Oklahoma.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Tenn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ONEIDA SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05439 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Oneida Special School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 195 North Bank Street in Oneida, Tennessee.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Tenn. School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CANNON COUNTY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-05459 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Cannon County Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 301 West Main Street in Woodbury, Tennessee.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Wayne County Suit Alleges E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE COUNTY SCHOOLS CAREER CENTER, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05438 (N.D. Cal., July 15, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Wayne County Schools Career Center is a unified school district
with its offices located at 518 West Prospect Street in Smithville,
Ohio.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

LEE ENTERPRISES: Goldsmith Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN GOLDSMITH, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LEE
ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-01772-MTS (E.D. Mo.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the
following classes and subclasses:

   -- Full Payment Class

      "All subscribers to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch who,
      within the applicable period of limitations preceding the
      filing of this lawsuit to the date of class certification,
      were billed for overlapping day(s) through consecutive or
      separate bills after either (a) paying the previous bill
      in full or (b) paying less than the full amount of the
      previous bill afterreceiving a reduced rate and paying the
      full amount of that reduced rate in the next invoice;"

   -- Full Payment MMPA Subclass

      "All natural persons within the State of Missouri who are
      members of the Full Payment Class and who purchased their
      subscriptions for personal, family or household purposes;"

   -- Partial Payment Class

      "All subscribers to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch who,
      within the applicable period of limitations preceding the
      filing of this lawsuit to the date of class certification,
      were billed for overlapping day(s) through consecutive or
      separate bills after paying less than the full amount of
      the previous bill and who underpaid by less than the value
      of the overlap;" and

   -- Partial Payment MMPA Subclass

      "All natural persons within the State of Missouri who are

      members of the Partial Payment Class and who purchased
      their subscriptions for personal, family or household
      purposes."

      Excluded from the Classes and Subclasses are (a) overlaps
      where a credit was given to the subscriber within seven
      days of a complaint to the Post-Dispatch about that
      overlap and (b) overlaps that followed an increase in the
      days of service. Also excluded from both Classes are
      Defendants, their employees, and employees of any
      subsidiary, affiliate, successors, or assignees of
      Defendants, as well as the trial judge presiding over this
      case.

Lee Enterprises is a publicly-traded American media company. It
publishes 75 daily newspapers in 26 states, and more than 350
weekly, classified, and specialty publications. Lee Enterprises was
founded in 1890 by Alfred Wilson Lee and is based in Davenport,
Iowa.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eGpqQg
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
          Daniel S. Levy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-5799
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
          E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
                  dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com

LONG ISLAND CONCRETE: Appeals Ruling in Perez Labor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Long Island Concrete Inc., et al., filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JOHNNY PEREZ,
ARCADIO FRIAS, and NESTOR RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated who were employed by Long Island Concrete
Inc., the Plaintiffs, v. LONG ISLAND CONCRETE INC., THOMAS J.
PERNO, TJM CONSTRUCTION CORP., ZHL GROUP INC., LANMARK GROUP, INC.,
THE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA USA, VIGILANT INSURANCE
COMPANY, THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN DOE BONDING
COMPANIES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 654227/2018, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover prevailing wages, supplemental benefits, overtime
wages and other monies, which Plaintiffs were statutorily and
contractually entitled to receive for work they performed on behalf
of Defendants within the State of New York, at various locations,
including but not limited to, 424 Wythe Avenue, FDNY Rescue Company
Firehouse 2 and The Park Avenue Armory.

According to the complaint, ZHL and Lanmark, as the prime
contractors, entered into one or more Public Works Contracts,
containing provisions mandating that they pay and/or ensure payment
of prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits to
Plaintiffs. These prevailing wage rates and supplemental benefits
to Plaintiffs were incorporated by reference into the Public Works
Subcontracts between ZHL and LIC as well as Lanmark and LIC. The
promise to pay and ensure payment of prevailing wages and
supplemental benefits stated in the Public Works Contracts was made
for the benefit of all workers furnishing labor on the sites of the
Public Works Projects and, as such, the workers furnishing labor on
the sites of the Public Works Projects are the third-party
beneficiaries of that promise and the contracts entered into
between Defendants and government agencies.

The Defendants now seek a review of the Court's Decision and Order
dated May 24, 2021, to the extent that it denied their motion,
pursuant to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules 3211(a)(1),
(5), and (7), to: (i) dismiss Plaintiffs' first, third, fourth, and
fifth causes of action in the Amended Complaint in their entirety,
with prejudice, (ii) dismiss all of Arcadio Frias' claims with
prejudice, and (iii) dismiss Plaintiffs' second cause of action in
the Amended Complaint to the extent it seeks recovery for acts that
allegedly occurred before September 17, 2014.

The appellate case is captioned as Johnny Perez, Arcadio Frias and
Nestor Ramirez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated who were employed by Long Island Concrete Inc. v. Long
Island Concrete Inc., Regulator Construction Corp., Thomas J.
Perno, TJM Construction Corp., ZHL Group Inc., Lanmark Group, Inc.,
The Guarantee Company of North America USA, Vigilant Insurance
Company, The Ohio Causualty Insurance Company, and John Doe Bonding
Companies 1-10, Case No. 2021-02501, in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, filed on
July 9, 2021.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Long Island Concrete Inc., Thomas J. Perno,
TJM Construction Corp., ZHL Group Inc., The Guarantee Company of
North America USA, Vigilant Insurance Company, and The Ohio
Casualty Insurance Company are represented by:

          Mark Cermele, Esq.
          Benjamin M. Rattner, Esq.
          CERMELE & WOOD LLP
          2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 110
          White Plains, NY 10604
          Telephone: (914) 967-2753
          E-mail: mark@cw.legal
                  ben@cw.legal

Plaintiffs-Appellees Johnny Perez, Arcadio Frias and Nestor
Ramirez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
who were employed by Long Island Concrete Inc., are represented
by:

          Steven Arenson, Esq.
          ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN
          200 Park Avenue, Ste. 1700
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 490-3600
          E-mail: steve@adklawfirm.com

               - and -

          William A. Thomas, Esq.
          511 Avenue of the Americas, Ste. 352
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (917) 693-3981
          E-mail: wthomas@watlegal.com

LOS ANGELES, CA: Lawyer Discusses DWP's Suit Over Billing System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Latin America Times reports that Los Angeles City Atty. Mike Feuer,
who is running for mayor, railed against a 595-page report that
found that attorneys in his office took part in a scheme to settle
litigation that arose from a faulty billing system used by the
Department of Water and Power.

In a public relations blow to the city attorney's office, the
report accuses five former and current city attorneys of various
ethical transgressions in violation of the state's Rules of
Professional Conduct.

State Bar of California spokesperson Teresa Ruano told The Times on
Saturday that the agency would review the report, compiled by a
court-appointed special master.

The report concluded that attorneys for the city colluded with
opposing counsel to settle a high-profile class-action lawsuit,
defrauding the court. Opposing counsel ultimately collected $19
million in attorneys fees, an amount investigators called
"excessive, unjustified and a misappropriation of taxpayer funds."

Two former top attorneys in Feuer's office, James Clark and Thomas
Peters, were the "shot callers" for the "sham" lawsuit against the
city, investigators wrote.

Peters, Feuer's onetime chief assistant city attorney, resigned in
2019 after a Times inquiry into outside income he received, and
Clark, chief deputy city attorney, stepped down last year.

Feuer, in an interview, said he'd seen no evidence to show that
Peters and Clark "failed to act with integrity."

Feuer criticized the report as one-sided and said investigators
didn't interview the city attorneys named in it.

"It is incomplete, it contains a lot of conjecture, and many, many
errors, and omissions that are material to the outcome," Feuer
said. "It's riddled with untrue statements, it omits key facts, and
it reaches conclusions that have no factual support."

Adam Fox, attorney for Clark, criticized the report and questioned
why investigators didn't interview his client. "It wasn't fair,"
Fox said. Peters' attorney didn't respond to a request for
comment.

Several outside attorneys hired by the city are also named in the
report. There's no evidence Feuer himself knew about the scheme,
investigators concluded.

Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle sought the investigation after
a consulting firm alleged that attorneys working for the city
participated in a scheme to control a class-action lawsuit brought
by DWP customers overcharged by the utility.

Thousands of customers received inflated bills after the DWP
launched a new billing system in 2013, prompting a flurry of
lawsuits against the city. Separately, the city sued
PricewaterhouseCoopers, which implemented the billing software.
PricewaterhouseCoopers uncovered information about the class-action
lawsuit while defending itself in the case brought by the city.

Berle appointed Edward Robbins, a former federal prosecutor, as
"special master," tasking him with determining whether attorneys
committed fraud on the court, engaged in unethical behavior and
collusion and more.

Investigators studied a massive trove of documents, including
emails, depositions of city attorneys and others taken in the DWP
billing litigation, and contracts. The report took a year and a
half to complete and cost about $3.4 million, which was billed to
the city.

Robbins declined to respond to Feuer's comments.

Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at
Loyola Law School, called the alleged violations found by
investigators "very serious."

Attorneys can face disciplinary action for violating the state's
Rules of Professional Conduct.

The report will "jump-start any investigation by the state bar,"
said Levenson, adding that the findings could also be referred to
the state attorney general's office.

Levenson said not all special masters conduct interviews. A review
by the state bar would probably include more testimony and
interviews, she said.

Separate from the court-ordered investigation, the U.S. attorney's
office continues to scrutinize the city's handling of issues
stemming from the botched DWP billing system. FBI agents in 2019
raided the DWP's headquarters and city attorney's office.

Some political candidates this week seized on Robbins' report.
Marina A. Torres, who is running for city attorney in 2022 -- Feuer
faces term limits next year -- released a statement calling on
Feuer to fire the city attorneys named in the report.

"The actions by those city attorneys shake the very confidence and
trust that the public places in our public servants," said Torres,
an assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California.

Feuer's office has long denied the city was involved in or aware of
the alleged scheme and blamed two outside attorneys it hired to
work on the DWP litigation. Those attorneys have denied wrongdoing,
with one saying his work was done at the direction of the city
attorney's office.

Robbins' report challenges the city's assertion that those two
attorneys went "rogue," stating that the evidence "supports a
finding that the city directed and assisted in the city suing
itself with a sham lawsuit."

Three other city attorneys named in the report -- Eskel Solomon,
Deborah Dorny and Richard Tom -- all work in the DWP's office. The
report stated they knew of the plan but "did not protect their
client, the city; rather they let the scheme unfold before their
eyes and worked on the case thereafter."

Solomon, in an email, said that "incorrect conclusions" were
reached about himself and the two other staff attorneys at the DWP,
and that the trio didn't act improperly.

"Because neither I nor any attorney at the LADWP legal office was
contacted [by Robbins], the report is without context or
understanding, like random Cliffs Notes that purport to analyze the
true meaning of a complicated book," Solomon said. "I wish the
special master had spoken with me."

Dorny also called Robbins' conclusion about her "wrong." "I have
spent my career advising my clients honorably and am confident
that, in due time, the truth will prevail," Dorny said.

Tom's attorney referred The Times to the city attorney's office,
which said in a statement earlier this week that its staff
attorneys "acted properly."

An outside attorney representing the city in lawsuits related to
the DWP billing debacle was replaced this week as counsel of record
on those cases, a court document shows.

The attorney, Maribeth Annaguey, was named in Robbins' report as
violating ethical rules. She didn't respond to a request for
comment.

Attorneys at her firm, Browne George Ross, didn't respond to
several requests for comment about her removal from the cases.

Feuer spokesman Rob Wilcox said the city attorney's office
disagrees with the report's conclusions about Annaguey. [GN]

MANDARICH LAW: Parker Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Chardee Parker filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled CHARDEE PARKER v. MANDARICH LAW
GROUP, LLP, Case No. 19-cv-6313, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 17, 2021, the Hon.
Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order:

   -- granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment in its
entirety;

   -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and

   -- directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for defendant
and close this case.

The Plaintiff Chardee Parker brought this putative class action on
behalf of herself and individuals similarly situated, alleging
violations of various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the summary judgment ruling entered
by Judge Matsumoto.

The appellate case is captioned as Parker v. Mandarich Law Group,
LLP, Case No. 21-1693, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on July 12, 2021.[BN]

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

          Jonathan M. Cader, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600

Defendant-Appellee Mandarich Law Group, LLP is represented by:

          Luke Chamberlain, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER, LTD.
          225 West Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 334-3469
          E-mail: lchamberlain@messerstrickler.com

MARSH & MCLENNAN: Bohnak, Smith Sue Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
NANCY BOHNAK and JANET LEA SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. MARSH & MCLENNAN AGENCY, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:21-cv-06096-AKH
(S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2021) is brought against the Defendants for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive
information of (i) Defendants' current and former employees and
spouses and dependents thereof; (ii) current and former employees
of Defendants' clients, contractors, applicants, and investors; and
(iii) individuals whose information Defendants acquired through the
purchase of or merger with another business. The sensitive
information Defendants failed to properly secure, includes, without
limitation, name, Social Security or other federal tax
identification number, driver's license or other government-issued
identification, and passport information (personally identifiable
information or PII).

According to the complaint, on or before April 26, 2021, Defendants
learned that "an unauthorized actor had leveraged a vulnerability
in a third party's software since at least April 22, to gain access
to a limited set of data in its environment" (Data Breach). The
Data Breach ended on April 30, 2021, approximately one week after
it commenced. At the time of the Data Breach, the compromised set
of data stored the PII of at least 7,000 individuals. The PII was
compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and the failure to protect the PII of Plaintiffs and
Class Members. In addition to Defendants' failure to prevent the
Data Breach, after discovering the breach, Defendants waited
approximately two months to report it to various states' Attorneys
General and Class Members. Defendants have also purposefully
maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of
the breach and has not informed Plaintiffs and Class Members of
that information, adds the complaint.

Plaintiffs Bohnak and Smith received Defendants' Notice of Data
Breach, dated June 30, 2021, stating that an unauthorized actor
gained access to their respective Social Security number or other
federal tax identification number.

Defendant Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. is a corporation
organized under the laws of Delaware, headquartered at 1166 Avenue
of the Americas, New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amanda Peterson, Esq.
          90 Broad Street, Suite 1011
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          New York, NY 10004
          Tel: (212) 564-4568
          E-mail: apeterson@forthepeople.com

                    - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX BUSINESS DIVISION
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Tel: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  rmaxey@forthepeople.com


O'CHARLEY'S LLC: Hawley Seeks Servers' Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HUNTER HAWLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. O'CHARLEY'S LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00533 (M.D. Tenn., July 13, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server from
approximately October 2017 until January 2020.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did not compensate him and
other similarly situated servers at the federally mandated minimum
wage for all hours worked. Despite routinely working more than 40
hours per workweek, the Defendant failed to pay them their lawfully
earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours they have worked in excess
of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action, for
himself and other similarly situated servers, seeking to recover
the minimum wage, all unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, litigation costs and attorneys' fees, and
other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.

O'Charley's LLC is a chain restaurant with locations in several
states across the eastern U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
          2021 Richard Jones Rd., Suite 310-A
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Tel: (615) 250-2000
          Fax: (615) 250-2020
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
                  teeples@yezbaklaw.com

                - and –

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Tel: (361) 452-1279
          Fax: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com

OCUGEN INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of August 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Ocugen, Inc. ("Ocugen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OCGN) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and
docketed under 21-cv-03182, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Ocugen securities between February 2, 2021, and
June 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages for violations of the federal securities laws 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 or otherwise acquired Ocugen
securities during the Class Period, you have until August 17, 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.

Ocugen identifies itself as a biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing gene therapies to cure blindness and developing a
vaccine to save lives from COVID-19. The Company's main
developments are a modifier gene therapy platform based on nuclear
hormone receptors to generate therapies for patient with inherited
retinal diseases and dry age-related macular degeneration.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, these statements were false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the information
submitted to the FDA was insufficient to support an EUA, (ii)
Ocugen would not file an Emergency Use Authorization with the FDA,
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements, as well as Defendants' statements about Ocugen's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On February 2, 2021, Ocugen issued a press release announcing an
agreement with Bharat Biotech International Limited ("Bharat"), a
biotechnology headquartered in Hyderabad, India. Pursuant to the
agreement, Ocugen obtained an exclusive right and license under
certain of Bharat's intellectual property rights, with the right to
grant sublicenses, to develop, manufacture and commercialize
COVAXINTM, an advanced stage whole-virion inactivated vaccine
candidate/product for the prevention of COVID-19 in humans in the
United States of America.

On this news, the Company's share price rocketed from a close of
$1.81 per share of Ocugen stock on February 1, 2021, to close at
$3.26 per share on February 2, 2021, an increase of approximately
80.1 percent.

On February 5, 2021, after the market close, Ocugen filed a Form
8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Attached to the
Form 8-K as exhibit 99.1 was an investor presentation regarding the
Company's apparent new mission to "develop a vaccine to save lives
from COVID-19". The presentation described in great detail the
Covaxin vaccine characteristics, the "unmet need in the United
States" and Ocugen's plan to develop and file an Emergency Use
Authorization ("EUA") with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA").

On June 10, 2021, Ocugen issued a press release announcing that it
would pursue a "biologics license application" with the FDA instead
of the previously announced EUA.

On the release of the news, the Company's share price declined from
$9.31 per share of Ocugen stock on June 9, 2021, to close at $6.69
per share on June 10, 2021, a drop of approximately -28.14
percent.

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]


OPENMED INC: Faces Katz Suit Over Unsolicited Facsimile Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY KATZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OPENMED INC., DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05358 (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their
alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff
on his telephone facsimile number ending in -3052 beginning on or
around April 5, 2020 in an attempt to sell or solicit its products.
The Defendant purportedly did not obtain the Plaintiff's "prior
express consent" to receive calls using a telephone facsimile
machine.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons, who received
the Defendant's facsimile, were harmed as a result of the
Defendant's unsolicited facsimile advertisement by causing them to
incur certain charges or reduced telephone facsimile time for which
they had previously paid, and by invading their privacy, alleges
the suit.

On behalf of himself and other similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and treble damages, as well as an
injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant's unlawful conduct in
the future, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

OpenMed Inc. is a marketer of medical products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Tel: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com

OREGON: Seeks to Stay Thomas Case Pending Resolution in Maney
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Donald Franklin Thomas v.
Kate Brown, Kate Hendricks, Case No. 6:21-cv-00568-SB (D. Or.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying the Thomas case
pending resolution of the motion for class certification in Maney.


This motion relates to the ongoing COVID-19 litigation against the
Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) and/or related persons in
the District of Oregon. The Defendants will be seeking a brief stay
of all individual federal cases that could fit within the putative
classes of Plaintiffs in Maney pending resolution of the motion for
class certification in Maney.

A year ago, on April 6, 2020, seven AICs (the "Maney Plaintiffs")
housed at four ODOC institutions filed a civil rights action under
Section 1983 against Governor Brown and several ODOC officials (the
"Maney Defendants"). Maney et al. v. Brown et al.,
6:20-cv-00570-SB. The Maney Plaintiffs allege that the Maney
Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to their health and
safety by failing adequately to protect them from COVID-19 through
social distancing, testing, sanitizing, medical treatment, masking,
and vaccines. The Maney Plaintiffs assert allegations on behalf of
a class of similarly situated AICs, and propose three classes: (1)
the "Damages Class"; (2); the "Vaccine Class"; and (3) the
"Wrongful Death Class."

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 12, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xRYqFh at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tracy Ickes White, Esq.
          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Esq.
          Tracy Ickes White, Esq.
          SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          Trial Attorney
          Telephone: (503) 947-4700
          Facsimile: (503) 947-4791
          E-mail: Tracy.I.White@doj.state.or.us

ORPHAZYME A/S: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Orphazyme A/S ("Orphazyme" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ORPH) (a) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or
"shares") pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued
in connection with the Company's September 2020 initial public
offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (b) securities between
September 29, 2020 and June 18, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Orphazyme investors have until September 7, 2021 to file
a lead plaintiff motion.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/orphazyme-a-s/ to participate.

In September 2020, Orphazyme completed its IPO, selling
approximately 4 million ADSs at $11.00 per share. The same month,
the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for arimoclomol for NPC
was accepted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").

On March 29, 2021, the Company disclosed in a press release "its
phase 2/3 trial evaluating arimoclomol for the treatment of [IBM] .
. . did not meet its primary and secondary endpoints."

On this news, the Company's ADS price fell $3.59 per ADS, or
28.97%, to close at $8.80 per ADS on March 29, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

Then, on May 7, 2021, the Company disclosed in a press release
"topline data from pivotal trial of arimoclomol in [ALS]," stating
that the trial "did not meet its primary and secondary endpoints to
show benefit in people living with ALS."

On this news, the Company's ADS price fell $2.81 per ADS, or
32.83%, to close at $5.75 per ADS on May 7, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on June 18, 2021, the Company announced it had received a
Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA. Specifically, the
FDA had rejected the arimoclomol NDA for NPC "based on needing
additional qualitative and quantitative evidence to further
substantiate the validity and interpretation" of certain data and
"that additional data are needed to bolster confirmatory evidence
beyond the single phase 2/3 clinical trial to support the
benefit-risk assessment of the NDA."

On this news, the Company's ADS price fell $7.23 per ADS, or
49.66%, to close at $7.33 per ADS on June 18, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

Finally, on June 21, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that "Orphazyme
[was] cut to sell at Guggenheim," which noted that there is "little
optionality left in the stock" and "it might make sense to wind
down the company."

On this news, the Company's ADS price fell $0.81 per ADS, or
11.05%, to close at $6.52 per ADS on June 21, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) arimoclomol was not as effective in treating IBM as Defendants
had represented; (2) arimoclomol was not as effective in treating
ALS as Defendants had represented; (3) the arimoclomol NDA for NPC
was incomplete and/or required additional evidence and data to
support the benefit-risk assessment of that NDA; (4) as a result of
the foregoing, the FDA was unlikely to approve the arimoclomol NDA
for NPC in its present form; (5) the Company's overall business
prospects, as well as arimoclomol's commercial prospects, were
significantly overstated; and (6) as a result, the Offering
Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class
Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein.

If you purchased Orphazyme ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the
IPO and/or securities during the Class Period, you may move the
Court no later than September 7, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint
you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you
purchased Orphazyme ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO
and/or securities, have information or would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

ORPHAZYME A/S: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Orphazyme A/S ("Orphazyme" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ORPH) (a)
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with the Company's September 2020 initial public offering ("IPO" or
the "Offering"); and/or (b) securities between September 29, 2020
and June 18, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Orphazyme
investors have until September 7, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

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

In September 2020, Orphazyme completed its IPO, selling
approximately 4 million ADSs at $11.00 per share. The same month,
the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for arimoclomol for NPC
was accepted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").

On March 29, 2021, the Company disclosed in a press release "its
phase 2/3 trial evaluating arimoclomol for the treatment of [IBM] .
. . did not meet its primary and secondary endpoints."

On this news, the Company's ADS price fell $3.59 per ADS, or
28.97%, to close at $8.80 per ADS on March 29, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

Then, on May 7, 2021, the Company disclosed in a press release
"topline data from pivotal trial of arimoclomol in [ALS]," stating
that the trial "did not meet its primary and secondary endpoints to
show benefit in people living with ALS."

On this news, the Company's ADS price fell $2.81 per ADS, or
32.83%, to close at $5.75 per ADS on May 7, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on June 18, 2021, the Company announced it had received a
Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA. Specifically, the
FDA had rejected the arimoclomol NDA for NPC "based on needing
additional qualitative and quantitative evidence to further
substantiate the validity and interpretation" of certain data and
"that additional data are needed to bolster confirmatory evidence
beyond the single phase 2/3 clinical trial to support the
benefit-risk assessment of the NDA."

On this news, the Company's ADS price fell $7.23 per ADS, or
49.66%, to close at $7.33 per ADS on June 18, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

Finally, on June 21, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that "Orphazyme
[was] cut to sell at Guggenheim," which noted that there is "little
optionality left in the stock" and "it might make sense to wind
down the company."

On this news, the Company's ADS price fell $0.81 per ADS, or
11.05%, to close at $6.52 per ADS on June 21, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) arimoclomol was not as effective in treating IBM as Defendants
had represented; (2) arimoclomol was not as effective in treating
ALS as Defendants had represented; (3) the arimoclomol NDA for NPC
was incomplete and/or required additional evidence and data to
support the benefit-risk assessment of that NDA; (4) as a result of
the foregoing, the FDA was unlikely to approve the arimoclomol NDA
for NPC in its present form; (5) the Company's overall business
prospects, as well as arimoclomol's commercial prospects, were
significantly overstated; and (6) as a result, the Offering
Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class
Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Orphazyme ADSs pursuant or
traceable to the IPO and/or securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than September 7, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles
Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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


OSSA LLC: Faces Francois Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW FRANCOIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OSSA LLC d/b/a OSSA OFFSHORE CATERING and
JAMES MONCRIEF, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-01998
(W.D. La., July 13, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful policies and
practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a chef from
approximately February 2012 through October 2019.

The Plaintiff claims that despite regularly working more than 40
hours per week, the Defendant did not properly pay his overtime
compensation at the federally mandated overtime rate for all hours
he worked in excess of 40. Specifically, despite his actual hours
worked, he was only paid for 12 hours for his normal shifts, and he
was only paid 15 hours when he worked up to 24 hours in a day, the
Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages and an
additional and equal amount as liquidated damages, as well as
reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief
as the Court shall deem just and proper.

Ossa LLC d/b/a Ossa Offshore Catering provides full catering
services to onshore and offshore oil & gas job sites. James
Moncrief is the owner and operator of OSSA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          Adam R. Credeur, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
          417 W. University Avenue
          Post Office Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Tel: (337) 235-5294
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
                  adam@kwdejean.com

                - and –

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty St., 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: (212) 300-0375

PARKMOBILE LLC: Kurmangaliyev Slams Data Breach in Parking App
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sait Kurmangaliyev, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Parkmobile, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-02745, (N.D. Ga., July 8, 2021), asserts claims for
negligence, negligence per se and for declaratory and injunctive
relief.

ParkMobile is an application for smart phones and devices that
helps users find and pay for parking over their device and
additionally, offers parking reservations in communities and for
events, including concerts, sporting events, airport parking, and
campus parking. To assist users in providing its services,
ParkMobile collects a variety of sensitive data, including names,
license plate numbers, email addresses, phone numbers, vehicle
nicknames, passwords, and home addresses.

In March 2021, hackers breached ParkMobile's data environment and
accessed the sensitive data of its users. Said data reportedly
included customer email addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers,
license plate numbers, hashed passwords and mailing addresses. At
around the same time, Kurmangaliyev noticed an increase in spam
directed towards him. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
      THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
      3535 Piedmont Road
      Building 14, Suite 230
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Telephone: (404) 320-9979
      Facsimile (404) 320-9978
      Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com

             - and -

      Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
      Michael J. Laird, Esq.
      Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
      1100 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
      Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
             michael.laird@zimmreed.com
             rachel.tack@zimmreed.com

             - and -

      Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
      CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE, PA
      100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 1700
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-7300
      Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com



PEOPLECONNECT INC: Callahan Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Meredith Callahan, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled MEREDITH CALLAHAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-08437-LB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

The Plaintiffs are California residents who sued Ancestry.com --
individually and on behalf of a putative California class -- for
using their decades-old yearbook records to solicit paying
subscribers. The Plaintiffs claim (1) misappropriation of their
likenesses, in violation of California's Right of Publicity Law,
Cal. Civ. Code Section 3344, (2) unlawful and unfair business
practices, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, (3) intrusion upon seclusion,
in violation of California common law, and (4) unjust enrichment
resulting from Ancestry's selling their personal information.

The court dismissed the first complaint for lack of Article III
standing because use of data to solicit customers -- without
something more, such as an inference that the profiled persons
personally endorsed Ancestry's product -- is not injury in fact.
Also, Ancestry did not create the third-party content and thus was
immune from liability under the Communications Decency Act.

The Plaintiffs amended their complaint, raising the same claims and
adding allegations of harm that they suffered: emotional harm from
Ancestry's profiting from their records, lost time spent
investigating Ancestry's use of their records, and theft of their
intellectual property. Ancestry moved to dismiss, again for lack of
standing and under the Communications Decency Act.

The Court held that the Plaintiffs' new allegations do not change
the analysis in the Court's earlier order: the Plaintiffs do not
have Article III standing, and Ancestry is immune from liability
under the Communications Decency Act. The Court dismissed the
amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the dismissal order entered by
Judge Laurel Beeler.

The appellate case is captioned as Meredith Callahan, et al. v.
Ancestry.com Inc., et al., Case No. 21-16161, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 12, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Lawrence Geoffrey Abraham and Meredith Callahan
Mediation Questionnaire was due July 19, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by August 11, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on September 10, 2021;

   -- Appellants Lawrence Geoffrey Abraham and Meredith Callahan
opening brief is due on October 20, 2021;

   -- Appellees Ancestry.com Inc., Ancestry.com LLC and
Ancestry.com Operations Inc. answering brief is due on November 22,
2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MEREDITH CALLAHAN and LAWRENCE GEOFFREY
ABRAHAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Michael Ram, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com

Defendants-Appellees ANCESTRY.COM INC., a Delaware Corporation;
ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and
ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a Virginia Corporation, are
represented by:

          John Wall Baumann, Esq.
          Shon Morgan, Esq.  
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 443-3169
          E-mail: jackbaumann@quinnemanuel.com
                  shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Cristina Henriquez, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065
          Telephone: (650) 801-5000
          E-mail: cristinahenriquez@quinnemanuel.com

PETROQUEST ENERGY: Lee PRSA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Philip Lee, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. PetroQuest Energy,
L.L.C., et al., Case No. 6:16-cv-00516-RAW (E.D. Okla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following
class under Rule 23 for the claim that the Defendants breached
their statutory obligation to pay interest under the Oklahoma's
Production Revenue Standards Act (PRSA):

   "All non-excluded persons or entities who: (1) received
   Untimely Payments from Defendants (or Defendants' designees,
   including PetroQuest Energy, L.L.C. as contract operator) for
   oil-and-gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells on or after January
   1, 2015, and (2) who have not already been paid statutory
   interest on the Untimely Payments. An "Untimely Payment" for
   purposes of this class definition means payment of proceeds
   from the sale of oil production from an oil-and-gas well
   after the statutory periods identified in Okla. Stat. tit 52,
   section 570.10(B)(1) (i.e., commencing not later than six (6)
   months after the date of first sale, and thereafter not later
   than the last day of the second succeeding month after the
   end of the month within which such production is sold). Un-
   timely Payments do not include: (a) payments of proceeds to
   an owner under Okla. Stat. tit 52, section 570.10(B)(3)
   (minimum pay); (b) prior period adjustments; or (c) pass-
   through payments."

   Exclusions: The persons or entities excluded from the Class
   are: (1) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the
   United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (2)
   publicly traded oil and gas companies and their affiliates;
   (3) persons or entities that Plaintiff's counsel may be
   prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma
   Rules of Professional Conduct; (4) persons or entities who
   have already filed and still have pending or settled lawsuits
   for Untimely Payments against Defendants; and (5) Plaintiff's
   counsel, their ex-perts, and officers of the Court.

Additionally, the Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint
Plaintiff as class representative and that the Court appoint
Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.

The Defendants WSGP and Trinity admit they require a demand before
paying statutory interest to owners under Oklahoma's Production
Revenue Standards Act ("PRSA") -- this policy violates Oklahoma
law. Defendants further admit they don't pay statutory interest on
proceeds they send as unclaimed property -- this policy also
violates Oklahoma law. As a result of these unlawful policies,
Defendants have amassed millions of dollars of liability under the
PRSA. The Plaintiff moves the Court to certify this case as a class
action so that the class members may recover the damages they've
suffered from Defendants' knowing violations of the PRSA.

The Defendants WSGP and Trinity are sister companies and share the
exact same corporate ownership. oth Defendants are ultimately owned
by NextEra Energy, Inc., which is the world's largest utility
company, worth over $140 billion.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36Z6A2x
at no extra charge.[CC]

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

PIERCE COUNTY, WA: August 10 Deadline for Joining Parties
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDDIE LEE LEMMONS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PIERCE COUNTY, Case No. 3:21-cv-05390-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered a minute order setting trial date
and related dates:

   -- Deadline for joining                  August 10, 2021
      additional parties

   -- Motion for class certification        October 14, 2021
      due and noted on the Court's
      calendar for the fifth
      Friday thereafter

Should this case settle, counsel shall notify the Deputy Clerk as
soon as possible. Pursuant to LCR 11(b), an attorney who fails to
give the Deputy Clerk prompt notice of settlement may be subject to
such discipline as the Court deems appropriate, Judge Lasnik.

Pierce County is a county in the U.S. state of Washington. As of
the 2010 Census, the population was 795,225, making it the
second-most populous county in Washington behind King County, and
the 61st-most populous in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UZJdDB at no extra charge.[CC]


POLK STATE COLLEGE: Faces Suit Over COVID-19 Related Restrictions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
wfla.com reports that a lawyer representing a Polk State College
student says a new law protecting educational institutions against
COVID-19-related litigation is unconstitutional.

"It's an infringement on the power of the courts to exercise its
authority both in terms of jurisdiction and procedure," said John
Yanchunis, who is representing Shantrell Fisher in a lawsuit
against Polk State College.

Students paid hundreds of dollars in fees in 2020 for services,
including labs, computer rooms and parking spaces, that were
unavailable during the pandemic, Yanchunis argues.

"In-service programs, which they did not receive and were not
provided because they were attending school virtually," said
Yanchunis, who leads Morgan & Morgan's class action department.

"Because this is an open case, we do not have a comment at this
time," said Polk State College spokesperson Madison Fantozzi.

The class-action lawsuit is one of more than a dozen lawsuits filed
against public colleges and universities in Florida.

"We wondered if we would get a case, we waited, we watched our
colleagues go through it. The state university system has been
sued. We almost made it. We got served recently, I think, in the
month of June," said Carolyn Egan, general counsel for Florida
State University.

Egan said in a June board of trustees meeting that the university
filed a motion to dismiss and scheduled the hearing for August,
after a key piece of legislation would go into effect.

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R – Florida) signed a bill into law in late
June that protects educational institutions from class-action
lawsuits involving COVID-19 related actions.

"The class action device is the ability of a litigate to file a
class action in a Florida state court. No one can abridge that
right, no one can affect that right but the Supreme Court," said
Yanchunis.

Yanchunis expects rulings on the lawsuit to come down by the end of
the year. [GN]

PURDUE PHARMA: Johnston Town Council Votes to Approve Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rory Schuler at johnstonsunrise.net reports that four members of
the Johnston Town Council held an executive session to discuss
opioid litigation.

According to Town Council Vice President Joseph Polisena Jr. and
Assistant Town Solicitor Dylan Conley, Town Council voted to
approve acceptance of a settlement related to the proposed Purdue
Pharma Bankruptcy Plan.

"This is the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy, related to a national class
action lawsuit," Conley said.

Attorney Dylan Conley did not attend the meeting. However, his
father, Town Solicitor William J. Conley Jr., attended the meeting
and briefed councilors in a closed-door session.

When Town Council returned to their regular session, they made no
mention of the vote.

According to Johnston Town Clerk Vincent P. Baccari Jr., Town
Council voted 4-0 to agree to accept a settlement.

Town Council President Robert Russo did not attend the meeting.

Both Polisena and Dylan Conley said they could not disclose
settlement details because the litigation is still ongoing.

The settlement relates to partial resolution of ongoing National
Opioid Litigation, according to that night's Town Council agenda.

Council members also received a general update on "opioid
litigation status," according to the agenda.

"We voted to accept the opioid settlement," Joseph Polisena Jr.
said. "I can't get into the specifics of the situation because it
was in executive session. Litigation is still ongoing and it's
still in the court. The town is involved in a class action
lawsuit."

Dylan Conley compared the litigation "as a national phenomena"
similar to the class action lawsuits brought against Volkswagen
approximately five years ago and "the lead lawsuits and the
cigarette lawsuits" of decades past.

"They're similar in how governments received funds," Conley said.
"Just at a scale more equivalent to cigarettes and lead."

It could be a while before the settlement funds hit the town
coffers.

"We will receive a series of different settlements from a series of
different lawsuits, because the lawsuits are against a series of
different corporations that participated in the distribution in the
opioid market," Conley explained.

Claimants and creditors were required to vote on Purdue Pharma's
proposed bankruptcy plan of reorganization by July 14.

Conley said his firm is representing several Rhode Island
municipalities in this case, including Johnston and Westerly.

"After the voting period, the Bankruptcy Court will hold a
Confirmation Hearing for the Bankruptcy Court to consider whether
to approve the plan," according to a website set up for claimants
to respond to the case.

The Confirmation Hearing is scheduled for Aug. 9.

"If the plan is confirmed, anyone with an actual or potential claim
against Purdue Pharma L.P. or any of its affiliated debtors, or
with an actual or potential claim against Sackler family members,
and certain other individuals and related entities, relating to
Purdue Pharma L.P. and its affiliated debtors (including Purdue
prescription opioids, like OxyContin(R), or other prescription
opioids manufactured, marketed, or sold by Purdue), will be bound
by the terms of the plan, including the releases and injunctions
contained therein," according to the website. "In return for
providing the releases, claimants who timely filed a claim will be
eligible to participate in the trust distribution process. By
following the trust distribution procedures, claimants may be
eligible to receive recoveries from the applicable trust
established pursuant to the plan. For example, holders of personal
injury claims, including holders of NAS personal injury claims, are
eligible to receive recoveries from the Personal Injury ("PI")
Trust."

The courts will eventually dissolve the Purdue corporation.

"After emergence from Chapter 11, its operating assets will be
transferred to a newly formed company with a public-minded mission
of addressing the opioid crisis," according to the website,
www.purduepharmaclaims.com.

"The new company will be held to the highest standards of conduct,
including a prohibition restricting the promotion of opioid
products to healthcare professionals," according to the website.
"The new company will ultimately be owned by a new National Opioid
Abatement Trust established for the benefit of the American people.
State and local governments will neither own, nor operate the new
company."

The former owners of Purdue Pharma, the Sackler families,
"currently have no role in Purdue Pharma, and will have no
involvement in the new company," according to the website.

"The Sackler families will sell nearly all of their interests in
their foreign pharmaceutical businesses, and members of the Sackler
families will be prohibited from future active participation in the
business of making and selling opioids. Under the proposed plan,
the Sackler families have agreed to pay $4.275 billion over nine
years, in addition to the $225 million previously paid to the
United States to resolve civil claims, for a total settlement of
$4.5 billion."

The proposed plan limits liability of the company's founders and
former owners.

Johnston Mayor Joseph M. Polisena said he had not been briefed on
executive session.

"If we do get any settlement money, we're going to use it for
education," he said. "Council and I have spoken on this before."

Mayor Polisena described the litigation as "kind of a win-win
situation" for the town.

"We went into this with our eyes wide open," he said.
"Unfortunately for the people who have been subject to opioid
abuse, this is not a win-win for them."

The mayor said settlement money will likely help fund "longstanding
programs for opiate abuse" and "education on drug use." [GN]

RASELL REALTY: Boothman Shareholder Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CLEVE G. BOOTHMAN, DAWN J. COBHAM, KURT J.
BOOTHMAN, on behalf of themselves as shareholders of Rasell Realty
Corporation and in the right of Rasell Realty Corporation and on
behalf of all other shareholders of Rasell Realty Corporation
similarly situated v. CHRISTOPHER PETSANAS and CONSTANTINE A.
SCOURAS, and RASELL REALTY CORPORATION, Case No. 715697/2021, was
removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Queens, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on July 15, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04010 to the proceeding.

The complaint raises issues of intra-corporate governance of a
commercial real estate holding company and seeks equitable relief,
including declaratory judgments, orders compelling accountings and
the removal of corporate officers, a mandatory injunction directing
the posting of a surety bond, and a permanent injunction.

Rasell Realty Corporation is a real estate firm in New York. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
                            
         Steven J. Harfenist, Esq.
         HARFENIST KRAUT & PERLSTEIN, LLP
         3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 2E1
         Lake Success, NY 11042
         Telephone: (516) 355-9600
         Facsimile: (516) 355-9601
         E-mail: SHarfenist@hkplaw.com

REHOBOTH MCKINLEY: Charlie Consumer Fraud Suit Removed to D.N.M.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALICIA CHARLIE, LEONA GARCIA LACY, DARRELL TSOSIE,
and E.H., a minor, by and through his guardian, GARY HICKS, on
behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals
v. REHOBOTH MCKINLEY CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE SERVICES, Case No.
D-1113-CV-2021-00235, was removed from the Eleventh Judicial
District Court for the State of New Mexico, County of McKinley, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico on July 15,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Mexico assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-00652 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, intrusion
upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, negligence per se, breach of
implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act and the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act by failing to protect the sensitive and highly
personal information of patients following a cyberattack and data
breach on its network.

Rehoboth McKinley Christian Health Care Services is a healthcare
services provider located in New Mexico. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
                            
         Gregory L. Biehler, Esq.
         LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
         8801 Horizon Blvd. NE, Suite 300
         Albuquerque, NM 87113
         Telephone: (505) 828-3600
         Facsimile: (505) 828-3900
         E-mail: Greg.Biehler@lewisbrisbois.com

RENOVACARE INC: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
New Jersey captioned Boller v. RenovaCare, Inc., et al., (Case No.
21-cv-13766) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired RenovaCare, Inc. ("RenovaCare" or the "Company")
(OTC: RCAR) securities between August 14, 2017 and May 28, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

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

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

RenovaCare is a development stage company that has not generated
any revenue since its inception and has no commercialized
products.

On May 28, 2021, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") issued a litigation release stating that
RenovaCare was being charged with alleged securities fraud.
According to the SEC's complaint, between July 2017 and January
2018, the Company's controlling shareholder and Chairman, Harmel
Rayat ("Rayat"), "arranged, and caused RenovaCare to pay for, a
promotional campaign designed to increase the company's stock
price." Specifically, "Rayat was closely involved in directing the
promotion and editing promotional materials, and arranged to funnel
payments to the publisher through consultants to conceal
RenovaCare's involvement in the campaign." When OTC Markets Group,
Inc. requested that RenovaCare explain its relationship to the
promotion, the complaint alleges that "Rayat and RenovaCare then
drafted and issued a press release and a Form 8-K that contained
material misrepresentations and omissions denying Rayat's and the
company's involvement in the promotion."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.66, or 24.8%, over
three consecutive trading sessions to close at $2.00 per share on
June 2, 2021.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that, at the direction of Rayat, RenovaCare engaged
in a promotional campaign to issue misleading statements to
artificially inflate the Company's stock price; (2) that, when the
OTC Markets inquired, RenovaCare and Rayat issued a materially
false and misleading press release claiming that no director,
officer, or controlling shareholder had any involvement in the
purported third party's promotional materials; (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's disclosure controls and
procedures were defective; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired RenovaCare securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
this notice ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

RESET STAFFING: Fails to Pay Merchandisers' OT, Gonzales Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTI GONZALES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RESET STAFFING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00355 (E.D. Tex., July 13, 2021) brings this complaint
against the Defendant seeking to recover unpaid wages and other
damages and relief as a result of its alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
and hourly-paid merchandiser, claims that he routinely worked long
hours and consistently worked more than 40 hours per week.
Specifically, he was required by the Defendant from their homes
during normal work hours to their remote jobsites and were required
to stay overnight near these remote jobsites for the entirety of
their hitch. However, the Defendant did not consider Remote
Worksite Travel as hours worked for overtime purposes. As a result,
despite consistently working over 40 per week, the Defendant did
not pay the Plaintiff her overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours she worked
in excess of 40 per workweek.

Reset Staffing, Inc. is in the business of recruiting and placing
workers throughout the U.S. for merchandising work at Tractor
Supply stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          700 West Summit Drive
          Wimberly, TX 78676
          Tel: (512) 782-0567
          Fax: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com

ROCKET COMPANIES: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:

Rocket Companies, Inc. (RKT)
Class Period: 2/25/2021 - 5/5/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 30, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-rocket-companies-inc-securities-litigation

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

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

                   About ClaimsFiler

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


SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Class Certification Hearing Reset for Oct. 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Smitty's/Cam2 303 Tractor Hydraulic
Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation,
Case No. 4:20-md-02936 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough
entered an order that the class certification hearing previously
set on Oct. 7, 2021 is reset for Oct. 6, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 7B, Kansas City (SRB).

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.[CC]

STABLE ROAD: Faces Jensen Suit Over False and Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH JENSEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. STABLE ROAD ACQUISITION CORP., MOMENTUS INC., SRC-NI
HOLDINGS, LLC, BRIAN KABOT, JAMES NORRIS and MIKHAIL KOKORICH, Case
2:21-cv-05744 (C.D. Cal., July 15, 2021) is a class action brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Stable Road securities between
October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Class Period begins on October 7,
2020. On that date, Stable Road and Momentus issued a joint press
release announcing that the Company had agreed to acquire Momentus
in a proposed merger, subject to shareholder approval. Although
outside of Stable Road's claimed target industry, the press release
stated that the Merger would "create the first publicly traded
space infrastructure company at the forefront of the new space
economy." The release also stated that "[i]n 2019, the Company
successfully tested its water plasma propulsion technology in
space."

The complaint states that Defendants' statements were materially
false and misleading when made because they misrepresented and
failed to disclose the adverse facts about Momentus's business,
operations, and prospects and Stable Road's due diligence
activities in connection with the Merger, which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. As a direct and
proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, plaintiff and the
other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with
their purchases of Stable Road securities during the Class Period.

Plaintiff Jensen purchased Stable Road securities during the Class
Period.

Defendant Stable Road is a special purpose acquisition company with
principal executive offices in Venice Beach, California and
Defendant Momentus is a private commercial space company
headquartered in Santa Clara, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David C. Walton, Esq.
         Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: 619/231-1058
         Fax: 619/231-7423 (
         E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com
                 bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

                  - and -

         Samuel H. Rudman
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Telephone: 631/367-7100
         Fax: 631/367-1173
         E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

                  - and -

         Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
         JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: 619/230-0063
         Fax: 619/255-1856
         E-mail: frankj@johnsonfistel.com

STABLE ROAD: The Schall Law Reminds of September 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Stable Road
Acquisition Corp. ("Stable Road" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: SRAC)
for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October 7,
2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 13, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/stable-road-acquisition-corp/#case-form
to participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member. Stable Road's merger target, Momentus, held a test of its
key technology in 2019 that failed to meet its criteria for
success. The government of the United States considered Momentus
CEO Mikhail Kokorich to be a national security threat, jeopardizing
the Company's potential commercial success. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Stable Road, investors suffered damages.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

TARGET CORP: Bowen Appeals Class Cert. Bid Ruling in Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Aisha Bowen, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Aisha Bowen, et al. v. Target
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02587-JGB-MRW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

On December 7, 2015, Plaintiff Aisha Bowen filed a class action
complaint against Defendant Target in Los Angeles County Superior
Court. Target removed on April 14, 2016. On May 20, 2016, Ms. Bowen
amended her complaint for the first time.

On June 2, 2016, the Court approved the joint stipulation and
ordered proceedings on all meal-period claims stayed for the
duration of the Thompson case. On May 14, 2018, the parties in
Thompson entered into a settlement agreement settling all
meal-period claims through May 5, 2018. The Court approved the
settlement on August 2, 2018.

On December 3, 2019, Ms. Bowen amended her complaint once again,
adding new named Plaintiffs and new claims. The SAC alleges nine
causes of action: (1) failure to provide required meal periods; (2)
failure to provide required rest periods; (3) failure to pay
overtime wages; (4) failure to pay minimum wages; (5) failure to
pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; (6) failure
to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure to
indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in
discharge of duties; (8) unfair and unlawful business practices;
and (9) penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA), as a representative action.

On January 24, 2020, the Court dismissed claims Two, Eight, and
Nine to the extent each claim relied on an on-premises rest period
theory of liability pursuant to a Motion to Dismiss filed by
Target. The Plaintiffs filed motions for reconsideration and to
certify interlocutory appeal, which the Court denied on March 27,
2020. On January 5, 2021, the Court granted Target partial summary
judgment on Plaintiffs' Sixth and Ninth causes of action. On March
5, 2021, the Court denied Target's motion for leave to file a
second motion for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiffs filed
their Motion for Class Certification on January 25, 2021.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 30, 2021, the Hon.
Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order holding that:

   1. the Plaintiff's Motion is denied as to the proposed
      Reimbursement Class.

   2. the Plaintiffs' Motion is granted as to the proposed Regular
      Rate Class, defined as:

      "all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant
      Target Corporation in the State of California during the
      period of December 7, 2011 through the date of this Order
and
      who were paid a shift differential and/or holiday premium
pay
      during at least one workweek that they earned overtime wages
      during the Class Period."

   3. Claims derivative of the RROP Claims are also certified.

   4. The Plaintiffs Aisha Bowen and Stacey Williams are appointed
      as the representatives for the class.

   5. Matern Law Group, PC and Matthew J. Matern, Matthew W.
      Gordon, and Mikael H. Stahle are appointed as Class Counsel.

   6. Target shall produce, within 14 calendar days of the entry
of
      this Order, the updated class list, including names,
      addresses and telephone numbers, of class members to Class
      Counsel.

   7. The parties shall meet and confer as to the content of the
      class notice, and within 10 calendar days of this Order's
      entry, lodge with the Court a proposed class notice and any
      necessary complementary documents. If the parties are unable
      to agree to the content of a class notice, within 15 days of
      this Order's entry each party is directed to submit a draft
      class notice.

   8. The June 28, 2021 hearing is vacated.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Order entered by Judge
Bernal, granting-in-part and denying-in-part their motion for class
certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Aisha Bowen, et al. v. Target
Corporation, Case No. 21-80079, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 9, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners AISHA BOWEN and STACEY WILLIAMS, an
individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com

Defendant-Respondent TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation,
is represented by:

          Ryan David Derry, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          515 South Flower Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-6292

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com

TD AMERITRADE: Must Respond to Renewed Class Cert. Bid by August 16
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Klein v. TD Ameritrade
Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00396 (D. Neb.), the
Hon. Judge Susan M. Bazis entered an order granting unopposed
motion to extend.

The Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for
Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representative, and
Appointment of Class Counsel by August 16, 2021, says Judge Bazis.

The nature of suit states Other Statutes --
Securities/Commodities/Exchange.

TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading
platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks,
preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, forex,
options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, fixed income investments,
margin lending, and cash management services.[CC]

TD AMERITRADE: Seeks Extension to File Opposition to Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODERICK FORD, on behalf
of himself and all similarly situated, v. TD AMERITRADE HOLDING
CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE, INC., and FREDRIC TOMCZYK, Case No.
8:14-cv-00396-JFB-SMB (D. Neb.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting an extension of time in which to file their
brief in opposition to Plaintiff Roderick Ford's Renewed Motion for
Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representative, and
Appointment of Class Counsel.

On July 1, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion for Class
Certification,  Appointment of Class Representative, and
Appointment of Class Counsel.

Pursuant to NECivR. 7.1(b)(1)(B), the Defendants' brief in
opposition to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion ("Opposition Brief") is
currently due Thursday, July 15, 2021.

On July 9, 2021, the Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Class
Certification Briefing and any other Case Proceedings Pending Final
Resolution of Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration. As of the
date of filing, there has been no ruling on this Motion to Stay and
briefing deadlines are not yet due.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kHNQgc at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Victoria H. Buter, Esq.
          Thomas H. Dahlk, Esq.
          Victoria H. Buter, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          The Omaha Building
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2186
          Telephone: (402) 346-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
          E-mail: tom.dahlk@kutakrock.com
                  vicki.buter@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          Alex J. Kaplan, Esq.
          Eamon P. Joyce,
          Jon W. Muenz,
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: ajkaplan@sidley.com
                  ejoyce@sidley.com
                  jmuenz@sidley.com

UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT: French Tech Union Files Class-Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Murray at thegamer.com reports that for the past year, Ubisoft
has been trying its best to get out from under a sexual harassment
scandal that has already taken down many a former executive.
Ubisoft's CEO has tried to make it seem like the company has turned
a corner when it comes to its toxic work environment, but
acknowledging that such an environment remains a risk to the
company's future makes it seem like this scandal is still very much
a going concern.

On top of the bad press, now Ubisoft has to contend with an actual
lawsuit. Le Solidaires Informatique, a union composed of French
technology employees, has filed suit against Ubisoft as well as
several current and former employees.

Le Solidaires Informatique put out a call for collective action
against Ubisoft soon after the scandal broke last summer asking
anyone with information to come forward. The union has been taking
testimonials and building their case for the past year, and now has
filed suit in Bobigny criminal court, with Maude Beckers providing
representation.

Besides Ubisoft as a legal entity, the suit names several former
employees as defendants: Tommy Francois, a former member of
Ubisoft's editorial department and one of the first Ubisoft
executives fired in the scandal; Serge Hascoet, the former global
creative director who resigned soon after the scandal broke; and
Cecile Cornet, former global director of human resources and a
central figure accused of covering up harassment allegations
against Ubisoft's top executives.

Also named as a defendant is Yves Guillemot, Ubisoft's current CEO.
Despite calls for his resignation, Guillemot has managed to retain
his position throughout the scandal while deflecting accusations of
personal involvement. Guillemot has issued two open letters
explaining the company's actions to eliminate sexual harassment in
the workplace, although French publication Le Telegramme recently
published an expose saying that "nothing has changed" at Ubisoft.

Now with a lawsuit filed, what changes Ubisoft has or hasn't
enacted could become a matter of public record. [GN]

UNITED AUTOMOBILE: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs MSP Recovery
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Case No.
1:20-cv-20887-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga
entered an order that the Defendant, United Automobile Insurance
Company's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

Final judgment will issue by separate order. The Clerk of Court is
directed to CLOSE this case, and any pending motions are denied as
moot, says Judge  Altonaga.

United Automobile Insurance Company is a regional insurer.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Bp1Jpo at no extra charge.[CC]



UNITED STATES: Memmer Appeals Rulings in Rails-to-Trails Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff JEFFREY MEMMER, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled JEFFREY MEMMER et al.,
Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No.
1:14-cv-00135-MMS, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Orders entered on
November 2, 2020 and May 20, 2021, and the Rule 54(b) Judgment
entered on June 7, 2021.

The appellate case is captioned as JEFFREY MEMMER, GILBERT
EFFINGER, LARRY GOEBEL, SUSAN GOEBEL, OWEN HALPENY, MATTHEW
HOSTETTLER, JOSEPH JENKINS, MICHAEL MARTIN, RITA MARTIN, MCDONALD
FAMILY FARMS OF EVANSVILLE, INC., REIBEL FARMS, INC., JAMES
SCHMIDT, ROBIN SCHMIDT, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-2133, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filed on July 12, 2021.

In this Rails-to-Trails case, the Plaintiffs own real property
adjacent to railroad rights-of-way in southwestern Indiana. They
contend that the United States violated the Just Compensation
Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution by
authorizing the conversion of the railroad rights-of-way into
recreational trails pursuant to the National Trail Systems Act,
thus acquiring their property by inverse condemnation.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JEFFREY MEMMER, GILBERT EFFINGER, LARRY
GOEBEL, SUSAN GOEBEL, OWEN HALPENY, MATTHEW HOSTETTLER, JOSEPH
JENKINS, MICHAEL MARTIN, RITA MARTIN, MCDONALD FAMILY FARMS OF
EVANSVILLE, INC., REIBEL FARMS, INC., JAMES SCHMIDT, and ROBIN
SCHMIDT are represented by:

          Thomas S. Stewart, Esq.
          Elizabeth Gepford McCulley, Esq.
          STEWART, WALD & McCULLEY L.L.C.
          2100 Central, Suite 22
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 303-1500
          Facsimile: (816) 527-8068
          E-mail: stewart@swm.legal
                  mcculley@swm.legal

               - and -

          Steven M. Wald, Esq.
          Michael Smith, Esq.
          STEWART, WALD & McCULLEY L.L.C.
          12747 Olive Boulevard, Suite 280
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 720-0220
          Facsimile: (314) 899-2925
          E-mail: wald@swm.legal
                  smith@swm.legal

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:

          David L. Weigert, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Environment and Natural Resources Division
          Environmental Enforcement Section
          P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044-7611
          E-mail: David.Weigert@usdoj.gov

VERMONT AGENCY: Gray-Rand Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TINA GRAY-RAND, MICHAEL
HAMMOND, WILLIAM ROYALS, TAYLOR COOK, and others similarly
situated, v. VERMONT AGENCY OF HUMAN SERVICES, MICHAEL SMITH,
Secretary of the Agency of Human Services, SEAN BROWN, Commissioner
of the Department for Children and Families, Case No.
2:21-cv-00178-cr (D. Vt.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an
order certify class defined as follows:

   "Recipients of, and applicants to, the General Assistance
   emergency housing program who: (i) have a diagnosed
   disability or who are regarded as having a disability,
   defined as a physical or mental impairment that substantially
   affects a major life activity; (ii) satisfy GA eligibility
   criteria provided by GA Emergency Housing Rules (June 1,
   2021) other than Rule EH-720, or satisfied GA eligibility
   criteria provided by General/Emergency Temporary Housing
   Waiver and Variance of Rules (April 29, 2021); and (iii) were
   denied the opportunity to apply for GA, were told they were
   ineligible for GA, were unable to timely obtain verification
   of eligibility, or were denied GA, based on Defendants'
   interpretation of GA Emergency Housing Rules (June 1, 2021)
   definition of disability in Rule EH-720."

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs move that their counsel, Jessica
Radbord, Mairead O'Reilly, Laura Gans, Michael Benvenuto, and
Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., be appointed as class counsel.

The Vermont Agency of Human Services is a Vermont executive agency.
Its purpose is to develop and execute policy on human services for
the U.S. state of Vermont. AHS was created by the Vermont
Legislature in 1969 to govern all human service activities of the
state government.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2V1Dzk4
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jessica Radbord, Esq.
          Mairead O'Reilly, Esq.
          Laura Gans, Esq.
          Mairead O'Reilly, Esq.
          Michael Benvenuto, Esq.
          VERMONT LEGAL AID, INC.
          264 N. Winooski Ave.
          E-mail: Burlington, VT 05401
                  jradbord@vtlegalaid.org
                  mcoreilly@vtlegalaid.org
                  burlmail@vtlegalaid.org
                  lgans@vtlegalaid.org
                  mbenvenuto@vtlegalaid.org

VILLA HEALTHCARE: Johnson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Latisha Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Villa Healthcare Management, Inc., The
Villa at South Holland LLC, The Villa at Lincoln Park, LLC, The
Villa at Middleton Village, LLC, The Villa at Bradley Estates, LLC,
Golden Valley Opco LLC, The Villa at Bryn Mawr, LLC, St. Paul Opco,
LLC, New Brighton Opco, LLC, The Villa at Osseo, LLC, St. Louis
Park Opco II LLC, Richfield Opco LLC, Robbinsdale Opco LLC,
Roseville Opco LLC, The Villa at St. Louis Park, LLC, St. Louis
Park Opco, LLC, West Branch Opco, LLC, Rose City Opco, LLC,
Petoskey Opco, LLC, Traverse City Opco, LLC, Redford Opco, LLC,
Highland Park Opco, LLC, Warren Opco, LLC, Green Lake Opco, LLC,
Ypsilanti Opco, LLC, Oakland Opco, LLC, Moroun Nursing Center of
Detroit, LLC, Detroit Nursing Center, LLC, Park Nursing Center of
Taylor, LLC, Father Murray Nursing and Rehabilitation Centre, LLC,
Benjamin Israel, Mark Berger, Todd Stern, and John Doe Corporations
1-10, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03629 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2021),
seeks to recover compensation for unpaid overtime wages, an
additional amount as liquidated damages, interest and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs of this action under under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Johnson worked for Villa Healthcare as a nurse. She claims that
Defendants failed to pay her the proper overtime premium for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James L. Simon, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
      5000 Rockside Road, Suite 520
      Independence, OH 44131
      Telephone: (216) 525-8890
      Email: james@bswages.com

             - and -

      Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
      8401 Crawford Avenue, Suite 104
      Skokie, IL 60076
      Phone: (847) 644-3425
      Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
      Email: mike@fradinlaw.com

             - and -

      Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
      BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Telephone: (480) 382-5176
      Fax: (480) 304-3805
      Email: cliff@bswages.com


VIRGINIA: Stinnie Appeals Denial of Atty's. Fees and Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Damian Stinnie, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled DAMIAN STINNIE, MELISSA ADAMS,
and ADRAINNE JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; WILLIEST BANDY, and BRIANNA MORGAN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD D. HOLCOMB, in his official capacity as the
Commissioner of the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00044-NKM-JCH, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Virginia at
Charlottesville.

The class-action lawsuit challenges the automatic loss of driving
privileges regardless of a person's ability to pay and without
notice or a hearing. Brought by the Legal Aid Justice Center in
Charlottesville, the case alleges that approximately 650,000
Virginians have had their licenses suspended for reasons that have
nothing to do with driving violations and solely for failure to pay
fines.

The Plaintiffs are seeking a review of the Court's Memorandum
Opinion and Order dated June 4, 2021, denying their petition for
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

The appellate case is captioned as Damian Stinnie v. Richard
Holcomb, Case No. 21-1756, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, filed on July 9, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DAMIAN STINNIE, MELISSA ADAMS, ADRAINNE
JOHNSON, WILLIEST BANDY, and BRIANNA MORGAN, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Benjamin P. Abel, Esq.
          Jonathan Todd Blank, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          P. O. Box 1288
          Charlottesville, VA 22902-0000
          Telephone: (434) 977-2582

               - and -

          Tennille Jo Checkovich, Esq.
          SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC
          200 Commerce Street
          Smithfield, VA 23430
          Telephone: (757) 357-8151  

               - and -

          Angela Adair Ciolfi, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          1000 Preston Avenue
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Telephone: (434) 529-1810

               - and -

          Leslie Carolyn Kendrick, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW
          580 Massie Road
          Charlottesville, VA 22903-1789
          Telephone: (434) 243-8633

               - and -

          Patrick Stephen Levy-Lavelle, Esq.
          LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
          123 East Broad Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 426-8109

Defendant-Appellee RICHARD D. HOLCOMB, in his official capacity as
the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, is
represented by:

          Janet Westbrook Baugh, Esq.
          Nancy Hull Davidson, Esq.
          Michelle Shane Kallen, Esq.
          Margaret Hoehl O'Shea, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA
          202 North 9th Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 786-4596

               - and -

          Trevor Stephen Cox, Esq.
          Maya M. Eckstein, Esq.
          Neil K. Gilman, Esq.  
          David Mitchell Parker, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP
          951 East Byrd Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-4074
          Telephone: (804) 788-7221

               - and -

          Stuart Alan Raphael, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 419-2021

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Hajny Sues Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------
John Hajny, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi of
America, LLC and Sanctus, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-13442 (D.
N.J., July 8, 2020), seeks remedies including damages,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and equitable and injunctive
relief, including improvements to Defendants' data security
systems, future annual audits and ID protection services resulting
from negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, breach of
implied contract and for violation of the Drivers' Privacy
Protection Act, California's Consumer Privacy Act and California's
Unfair Competition Law.

Volkswagen Group of America and Audi sell and market Volkswagen and
Audi vehicles in the United States. Shift Digital helps deploy and
manage marketing programs. Its technology was initially developed
to meet the needs of the automotive industry and has more recently
evolved to serve clients in other industries such as powersports,
home building, and healthcare.

John Hajny has leased at least six Audi vehicles since 2014 from
various California Audi dealerships. Over 3 million persons had
their sensitive personally identifiable information stolen from
Defendants by computer hackers in a cyber-attack that compromised
names, mailing address email address, phone number, information
about a vehicle purchased, leased, or inquired about including the
Vehicle Identification Number, make, model, year, color and trim
and, in some instances, buyers' or interested parties' driver's
license numbers, Social Security numbers, account or loan numbers,
and tax identification numbers, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4677
      Email: rifkin@whafh.com

             - and -

      M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
      CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
      865 Howe Avenue
      Sacramento, CA 95825
      Telephone: (916) 777-7777
      Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
      Email: aberry@justice4you.com

             - and -

      Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
      Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 1820
      San Diego, CA
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      Email: byrd@whafh.com
             dejong@whafh.com


WAL-MART: Hearing on Alvarado Class Cert Bid Set for Oct. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA ALVARADO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; SAM'S WEST,
INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01926-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre
Birotte Jr., entered an order that the class certification briefing
schedule and the pretrial and trial dates shall be as follows:

   -- Opposition to Motion for              August 16, 2021
      Class Certification:

   -- Reply ISO Motion for                  September 8, 2021
      Class Certification:

   -- Hearing on Motion for                 October. 1, 2021
      Class Certification:

   -- Initial Expert Disclosures:           January 14, 2022

   -- Rebuttal Expert  Disclosures:         February 15, 2022

   -- Discovery Cutoff (Fact):              March 18, 2022

   -- Discovery Cutoff (Expert):            April 15, 2022

   -- Dispositive Motion Cutoff:            April 15, 2022

   -- Mediation Cutoff:                     April 29, 2022

   -- Joint Post-Mediation Report:          June 10, 2022

   -- Trial Documents (Set 1)               June 10, 2022

   -- Trial Documents (Set 2)               June 17, 2022

   -- Pretrial Confenrence:                 July 1, 2022

   -- Trial:                                July 19, 2022

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UY2C7J at no extra charge.[CC]

[*] ISS Says Class-action Settlements Up, New Filings Down
----------------------------------------------------------
James Langton at advisor.ca reports that securities class-action
settlement activity edged higher in the first half of 2021,
according to new data from ISS Securities Class Action Services.

U.S. class-action settlements rose 11.5% in the first half,
compared with the same period last year, ISS reported - with
settlements totalling US$2.3 billion.

The number of cases settled was up 34% year over year as well.

Both this year and last, the total value of settlement activity was
powered by one mega settlement. This year, it was a US$1.2-billion
settlement involving Valeant Pharmaceuticals, while last year, it
was a US$1-billion deal with American Realty Capital.

Settlement activity in Canada was stable in the first half, ISS
said.

This year, there were two class action settlements totalling $6.45
million. Last year, also saw two deals, amounting to $6.35
million.

ISS noted that settlement activity was similarly stable in
Australia, and that there were no class-action settlements in
Europe or Asia. Indeed, there hasn't been an investor class-action
settled in either region since mid-2018, ISS reported.


There was one tentative deal reached involving shareholders in
Germany and South Africa, but that settlement isn't expected to be
finalized until late 2021 or early 2022, ISS said, noting that the
deal is expected to exceed EUR480 million.

While the value of settlements are up, ISS also reported that the
volume of new shareholder class actions continued to decline. In
2020, the number of filings was down 22% - and that trend has
continued into the first half of 2021, it said.

"The cause of this decline was almost certainly Covid related," ISS
noted. [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GTA Co. Faces Suit Over Illegal Asbestos Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Gotsis, writing for Mass.gov, reports that an Everett
construction company and its president have been sued over claims
of illegal work on asbestos water mains in Everett and Braintree,
along with the Boston and Revere companies that transported the
asbestos waste and illegally stored it at their Revere facility,
Attorney General Maura Healey announced today.

"We allege that these defendants put the health of the public and
their workers at risk by conducting illegal and unsafe asbestos
work in the middle of city streets, including in environmental
justice communities that already bear disproportionate
environmental risks," said AG Healey. "We will hold accountable
people and companies who violate the laws intended to protect the
public from this dangerous material."

The AG's lawsuit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court Monday, alleges
that GTA Co., Inc. and its president, Gregory T. Antonelli,
violated the state's Clean Air Act when they removed and demolished
asbestos-containing municipal water pipes without complying with
required asbestos work practices as part of the water main
replacement projects the City of Everett and the Town of Braintree
hired them to complete.

The complaint also alleges that GTA and Antonelli left uncontained
asbestos-contaminated debris on the ground and in open dumpsters
along Cabot and Marlboro Streets in Everett and along Sheppard
Avenue in Braintree, and that they crushed and buried
asbestos-contaminated debris along Sheppard Avenue. The lawsuit
further alleges that GTA and Antonelli violated the state's False
Claims Act by making misrepresentations to the Town of Braintree
about its compliance with contract requirements to comply with
environmental laws and asbestos work practices.

This case was referred to the AG's Office by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP).

"We remain vigilant in our efforts to enforce the important laws
regarding asbestos abatement," said MassDEP Deputy Commissioner
Gary Moran. "When asbestos is improperly handled, fibers can be
released into the air, potentially resulting in health impacts to
workers and the general public. MassDEP strictly regulates the
handling, removal, and disposal of asbestos, and provides technical
assistance to parties engaged in asbestos abatement, in order to
protect the public health. Those who cut corners to save money will
be penalized and learn that it is more cost-effective to do it
right from the beginning."

The AG's complaint also alleges that EZ Disposal Service, Inc. and
EZ Disposal & Recycling, LLC, which were hired to transport
asbestos debris from the Everett worksite, failed to contain and
store the asbestos-contaminated waste safely while transporting it
to an EZ Disposal facility in Revere, and that they and the owners
of the EZ Disposal facility, Ricmer Properties, Inc., and 413-419
Bremen Street, LLC, unsafely and illegally stored it at that
facility in violation of the state's Clean Air Act.

Asbestos is a mineral fiber that has been used in a wide variety of
building materials, from roofing and flooring, to siding and
wallboard, to caulking and insulation. If asbestos is improperly
handled or maintained, fibers can be released into the air and
inhaled, potentially resulting in life-threatening illnesses,
including asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. Asbestosis is
a serious, progressive, and long-term disease for which there is no
known effective treatment. Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer
that is found in the thin membranes of the lung, chest, abdomen,
and heart, that may not show up until many years after exposure,
and that has no known cure, although treatment methods are
available to address the effects of the disease.

AG Healey's Office has made asbestos safety a priority. In November
2019, AG Healey released a report, highlighting the work of her
office's "Healthy Buildings, Healthy Air Initiative" that focuses
on combatting harms associated with asbestos by partnering with
state agencies to educate the public about asbestos safety, taking
action against landlords, contractors, and property owners who
break the law and advocating for stronger safety protections at the
federal level. Since September 2016, the AG's Office, with the
assistance of MassDEP, has successfully brought asbestos
enforcement cases that together have resulted in more than $3.5
million in civil penalties. In her May 2020 brief on the
environmental factors that compound the COVID-19 pandemic's
disparate impact on environmental justice communities in
Massachusetts, AG Healey identified pursuing enforcement cases in
such communities as an important step to address the longstanding
impact of environmental injustice on the state's families.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSP Recovery Targets Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Gladstone, writing for WSJ.com, reports that a collection
agent for Medicare service providers is suing one of the dozens of
trusts established by bankrupt asbestos manufacturers and plans to
pursue others, alleging they have systematically shifted the burden
of treating asbestos-related illnesses to the public.

MSP Recovery LLC said in court papers earlier this week it had
identified 60 asbestos compensation trusts nationwide that fail to
divulge settlement payments made to asbestos injury victims and to
reimburse Medicare providers for those peoples' healthcare costs.

Asbestos trusts established by bankruptcy courts have dispersed
billions of dollars in recent decades to victims of mesothelioma
and other asbestos-related cancers. MSP's court filing targeted the
trust established out of the 2002 bankruptcy of former industrial
equipment maker J.T. Thorpe Inc., saying it and others have failed
to notify or reimburse Medicare when paying compensation to people
who were treated in the Medicare system.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles,
said these bankruptcy trusts "routinely and consistently shirk
reporting and reimbursement obligations under the law," causing
"staggering financial losses" for Medicare Advantage organizations,
physicians' groups and other healthcare payers.


                            *********

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 2021. 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 ***