/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210817.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, August 17, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 158

                            Headlines

12 0 27 PROTECTIVE: Faces Reynolds Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Floyd Claims
3M COMPANY: Harwood Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: McDonald Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Roution Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products

ABBVIE INC: Holwill Putative Securities Class Suit Underway
ABBVIE INC: Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Suit Underway
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Gross Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Klein Law Reminds of September 27 Deadline

AETNA LIFE: Sept. 1 Extension for Class Cert. Briefing Sought
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Discloses Dismissal of Consolidated Class Action
ALASKA AIR: Appellate Court Reduces Judgment in Attendants' Suit
ALIERA COMPANIES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss LeCann Suit
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Dec. 9 Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Set

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of Purchasers' Class Suit Under Appeal
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Jury Trial in SSP Suit Set for Nov. 20, 2023
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Snow Putative Class Suit Underway
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Court Enters Initial Pretrial Conference Order
ALNYLAM PHARMA: Court Junks Leavitt Bid to Amend Complaint

ALNYLAM PHARMA: Seeks Reargument in CERF Class Suit
AMERICAN SOCIETY: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Baker Suit
APCT INC: Rodriguez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Machine Operators
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Lewakowski Securities Class Suit Underway
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Summary Judgment Bid in Suboxone Pending

ARDELYX INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of September 28 Deadline
ARDELYX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 28 Deadline
ARDELYX INC: Klein Law Reminds of September 28 Deadline
ARDELYX INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 28 Deadline
ASCENT RESOURCES: Eatons Win Class Status in Underpayment Suit

AXOS BANK: Jan. 6, 2022 Extension for Class Cert Bid Filing Sought
BELL CANADA: Settlement Reached in Quebec Consumer Class Action
BNSF RAILWAY: Macias Bid to Certify Class Moot
BONNIE HENRY: Fails to Provide Public Comments in CSASPP Class Suit
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Students File Sexual Assault Class Lawsuit

CALIFORNIA: Judge Rules Against Charter Schools in Class Lawsuit
CAMDEN PROPERTY: $5.2M Class Settlement in Suarez Suit Has Final OK
CARLOTZ INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 7 Deadline
CC-PALO ALTO: Cork Wins Class Certification Bid
CENTENE CORPORATION: Arana Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Retaliation

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Sultanis Class Suits
CHEMOURS CO: Continues to Defend Suits Related to Refinery
CHEMOURS CO: Georgia Putative Class Suit Underway
CHEMOURS CO: Perfluorinated Compound Suit Removed to Federal Court
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Davis Suit Over False Discounted Prices

CHINA AUTO: Dismissal of First Amended Vanderhoef Complaint Denied
COINBASE GLOBAL: Law Firms Seek Victims to Lead Fraud Lawsuit
COMPUTER HAUS: Seeks to Decertify Jahagirdar Collective Action
CONCHO RESOURCES: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
CONESTOGA SETTLEMENT: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Stayed

COSAN CONSTRUCTION: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
CRICKET WIRELESS: Court Modifies Nationwide Class Definition
DELACAN LLC: De Leon Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
DESSERT PALACE: Wait-staff Sues Over Denied Minimum, Overtime Pay
DFINITY USA: Kehoe Law Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit

DFINITY USA: Valenti Sues Over Decline of ICP Tokens' Price
FACE 2: Joint Stipulation for Conditional Certification Filed
FACEBOOK INC: Users File Class Suit Over Deceptive Ads Practices
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Settlement in Suit Against Unit Gets Final OK
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Klaus Says

FLINT, MI: Judge Certifies Suit Groups in Case Against Consultants
FLOWERS FOODS: Court Resets Schedule on Class Cert. Hearings
FORTIFI FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Portaluppi Suit
FRANCHISE GROUP: Labrado Suit to be Settled for $1.1 Million
FSB GROUP: Ontario Court Certifies Misclassification Class Action

FULL TRUCK: Faces Barber Securities Suit Over Depositary Shares
GC PIZZA: Rodriguez Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Suit
GEICO: Pimintel Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Vehicles
GEORGIA: King Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Georgia

GEORGIA: Thomas Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
GOOGLE LLC: AdTrader's Appeal From Award of Attorneys' Fees Tossed
GOOGLE LLC: Court Enters Limited Case Management Scheduling Order
GREAT KILLS: Lobato Suit Seeks to Certify Class
GREGORYS COFFEE: Baristas Slam Erratic Work Schedules

GS LABS: Fails to Pay Nurses' Overtime Wages, Fryer Suit Alleges
HAWAII: 1,200 Responders Will File Lawsuit Against Vaccine Mandate
HEARING HELP: Settlement Deal in Hoffman Suit Get Initial Nod
HENRY SCHEIN: Hollywood Police Officers Ret. System Suit Underway
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Continues to Defend Rodgers Class Action

HORNITO'S RESTAURANT: Perez Seeks Proper Wages, Slams Tip Credit
HORRY COUNTY, SC: Class Action Filed Over Road Maintenance Fees
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Friche Suit Alleges False Advertising in California
INEOS US: Seeman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Process Operators
INSPERITY INC: Bid to Nix Building Trades Pension Fund Suit Pending

ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 4 Deadline
JAZZ PHARMA: Trial in Xyrem Related Suit Set for Feb. 2023
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 22
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Indirect Purchaser Settlement Granted Final OK

JELD-WEN HOLDING: Molded Doors Related Suits in Canada Ongoing
JP MORGAN: Settlement Reached in New York Precious Metals Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Securities Lending Related Suit Underway
JUDGE GROUP: Katona FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. to E.D. Pennsylvania
K-MAC ENTERPRISES: Faces Tellor Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Miss.

KRYSTAL RESTAURANTS: Underpays Restaurant Managers, Northern Says
LAKE AVE: Najera Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Pizza Parlor Staff
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Class Cert. Hearing in Brown Suit Set for Oct. 5
LATIN GYROS: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: SD&A Businesses Acquisition Related Suit Underway

LIBERTY HEALTH: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of October 25 Deadline
LIFE LINE: Class Cert. Response Time Extended to August 23
LINCOLN LIFE: Nitkewicz Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
LIVE VENTURES: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
LIVE VENTURES: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 12 Deadline

MAC ACQUISITION: Improperly Pays Restaurant Staff, Merritt Claims
MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
MAPLEBEAR INC: Overcharges Customers, Andrews Class Suit Says
MARRIOTT INT'L: Suits Over Data Security Breach Underway
MATERION CORP: Lucyk Wage and Hour Purported Class Suit Underway

MCKESSON CORP: Fremont Leaders Vote to Join Opioid Class Settlement
MIMEDX GROUP: Hearing on CPFI Bid for Reconsideration Postponed
MMA CAPITAL: Cohen Bid for Preliminary Injunction Pending
MONARCH HEALTHCARE: Quay Slams Missed Breaks, Denied Overtime Pay
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Ripple XRP Cryptocurrency Related Suit Terminated

MOSAIC CO: Examination in Uberaba EHS Suit Pending
MOSAIC CO: Unit Continues to Defend Cruz Class Action
MUDRICK CAPITAL: Bass Suit Seeks to Enjoin Stockholders' Vote
MULTNOMAH, OR: Clark Must File Class Status Bid by April 2, 2022
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Kolev Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses

NBTY INC: Biotin Supplements' Label "Deceptive," Dervin Alleges
NCAA: Mitchell Seeks Damages for Football-Related Health Issues
NEW YUNG: Faces Xia Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Drivers and Helpers
NORTHLAND INSURANCE: Bid to Stay MSP Suit Partly Granted
NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Bid for Initial Approval of Settlement Pending

NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Holden FSCA Class Suit Underway
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Loses Bid to Junk Kendall Amended Complaint
ORPHAZYME A/S: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 7 Deadline
OZINGA BROS: Hortsman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Dispatchers
PACCAR INC: Continues to Defend Claims Related to EC Investigation

PAM TRANSPORT: Faces Another Class Action Wage Lawsuit in Arkansas
PARTS AUTHORITY: Jaime Labor Suit Moved From D. Ariz. to S.D.N.Y.
PATROL SOLUTIONS: Faces Rani Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Faces Lawsuit Over Improper Sales Tax Charges
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Undervalues "Total Loss" Vehicles, Suit Says

QUEENS PLAZA: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Missing Pay Stubs
QUICKEN LOANS: Court Amends Class Certification Briefing Order
R.L. POLK: Exceptions to Special Master's Final Report Partly OK'd
RECKITT BENCKISER: Hearing Over False Ads Suit Set on October 28
RELIGIEUX DE SAINT-VINCENT: Court Rejects Appeal in Assault Suit

RENOVACARE INC: Boller and Solakian Putative Class Suits Underway
ROYAL MUTUAL: Appeal Over Unfair Sales Practices Dismissed Again
SEALED AIR: UA Local 13 Securities Class Suit Underway
STABLE ROAD: Rosen Law Reminds of September 13 Deadline
SWBG LLC: Mismanaged 401k Retirement Funds, Coppel Suit Alleges

T-MOBILE US: Faces Dinkevich Putative Shareholder Class Suit
TAKEDA PHARMA: KPH Sues Over Overpriced Anti-Constipation Drug
TD AMERITRADE: Class Certification Deadlines in Klein Extended
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Dismissal of Class Suit Under Appeal
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Stipulation of Dismissal Filed in Ash Spill Suit

TRANSAM TRUCKING: Court Enters Phase I Scheduling Order
TRINITY SOLAR: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Charman Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ont. Court Certifies Class Action Against Firm
UNITED STATES: Summary Judgment Filed in Charter Boats' Class Suit
VAXART INC: Barker Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed

VBI VACCINES: Initial Hearing in Suit v. SciVac Set for Sept. 13
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit in California
VERISK ANALYTICS: Bid to Nix Penegar Putative Class Suit Pending
VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend Peterson Class Action
VERISK ANALYTICS: Petition to Compel Arbitration in Jackson Pending

VERISMA SYSTEMS: Class Certification Order in Hammetter Suit Upheld
VIAL FOTHERINGHAM: Lott's Counsel Awarded $174K in Fees and Costs
VISA INC: Court Grants Plaintiffs' Bids for Class Certification
WALLICK PROPERTIES: Class Action Lawsuit Certified in Fire Case
WARTBURG COLLEGE: Iowa Court Narrows Claims in Warner Class Suit

WASHINGTON: Urs Must File Class Certification Bid by Nov. 2
WAWA INC: Class Settlement in Data Security Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
WELLPET LLC: Nov. 2 Extension for Renewed Class Cert. Bid Sought
WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Caustic Soda Class Suits Underway
YALLA GROUP: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of October 12 Deadline

ZOOM VIDEO: Settles Consumer Data Sharing Class Suit for $85MM
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Privacy Violation Related Suit Underway
ZYMERGEN INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ZYMERGEN INC: Thornton Law Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ZYMERGEN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of October 4 Deadline

[*] Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. Joined Class Suit Over Opioid Crisis

                            *********

12 0 27 PROTECTIVE: Faces Reynolds Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA GENTLE REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 12 0 27 PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.;
COOPER HAGANS III; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 21STCV29162 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 9,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the California Labor Code including failure to provide employment
records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to
provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure
to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to pay
split shift wages, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure
to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to
provide basic information at the time of hiring and when employment
changes occur, failure to reimburse necessary business-related
expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and
accrual.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a security guard
from January 12, 2020 until August 3, 2020.

12 0 27 Protective Services, Inc. is a private security company in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
         Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
         Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
         HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
         801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 696-2306
         Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
         E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 kevin@hbklawyers.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Floyd Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-02528-RMG (D.S.C., August 9, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective
design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring
trust, and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
the California Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit asserts.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
         BANNER LEGAL
         445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
         Del Mar, CA 92014
         Telephone: (760) 479-5404
         E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com

               - and –

         S. James Boumil, Esq.
         BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
         120 Fairmount Street
         Lowell, MA, 01852
         Telephone: (978) 458-0507
         E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com

               - and –

         Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
         KYROS LAW
         17 Miles Rd.
         Hingham, MA 02043
         Telephone: (800) 934-2921
         E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

3M COMPANY: Harwood Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE HARWOOD, individually and on behalf of all wrongful death
beneficiaries of Roy Lindsay Harwood, deceased, Plaintiff v. 3M
COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT,
LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE PRODUCTS GP HOLDING, LLC; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.;
KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02523-RMG (D.S.C., August 10, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery,
inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and
wantonness.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff's
husband, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff's husband used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger, the suit contends.

As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff's husband was diagnosed with bladder cancer and died
on December 16, 2020.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma Management, LLC is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Reinach, Switzerland.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Fire Products GP Holding, LLC is a manufacturer of fire products
based in Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         W. Thomas McCraney, III, Esq.
         MCCRANEY | MONTAGNET | QUIN | NOBLE, PLLC
         602 Steed Road, Suite 200
         Ridgeland, MS 39157
         Telephone: (601) 707-5725
         E-mail: tmccraney@mmqnlaw.com

3M COMPANY: McDonald Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY MCDONALD III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02521-RMG
(D.S.C., August 10, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff as
a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with testicular cancer, the suit alleges.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                 - and –

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: Roution Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN ROUTION, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02522-RMG
(D.S.C., August 10, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff as
a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with neuroendocrine cancer, the suit alleges.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                 - and –

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

ABBVIE INC: Holwill Putative Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
purported securities class action suit entitled, Holwill v. AbbVie
Inc., et al.

In October 2018, a federal securities purported class action
lawsuit, Holwill v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
AbbVie, its chief executive officer and former chief financial
officer, alleging that reasons stated for Humira sales growth in
financial filings between 2013 and 2017 were misleading because
they omitted alleged misconduct in connection with Humira patient
and reimbursement support services and other services and items of
value that allegedly induced Humira prescriptions.

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

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


ABBVIE INC: Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that Forest Laboratories, LLC continues to
defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re:
Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Lawsuits are pending against Forest Laboratories, LLC and others
generally alleging that 2009 and 2010 patent litigation settlements
involving Namenda entered into between Forest and generic companies
and other conduct by Forest involving Namenda, violated state
antitrust, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and unjust
enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits, purported class actions filed by indirect purchasers
of Namenda, are consolidated as In re: Namenda Indirect Purchaser
Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

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

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


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 4 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Activision Blizzard Inc. ("Activision" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ATVI) in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of those who purchased
or otherwise acquired Activision publicly traded securities between
August 4, 2016 through July 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that the Company discriminated against both
women and minorities employed by its organization. Numerous
employee complaints of sexual harassment, retaliation, and other
inappropriate activities were reported to human resources and
executives, but unaddressed. The Company also failed to inform
investors that it was under investigation by the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") over allegations
of sexual harassment and other discrimination. Finally, in July
2021, Bloomberg Law revealed that DFEH had filed a lawsuit against
Activision following a lengthy two-year investigation into the
Company's practices. Based on these facts, Activision's public
statements were false and materially misleading during the Class
Period.

On this news, the price of Activision shares fell $5.89 per share
to close at $84.95 per share on July 27, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Activision
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
October 4, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Gross Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Activision Blizzard,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI).

Shareholders who purchased shares of ATVI during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

CONTACT US HERE:

https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/activision-blizzard-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=18379&from=5

CLASS PERIOD: August 4, 2016 to July 27, 2021

ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Activision Blizzard
discriminated against women and minority employees; (2) Activision
Blizzard fostered a pervasive "frat boy" workplace culture that
continues to thrive; (3) numerous complaints about unlawful
harassment, discrimination, and retaliation were made to human
resources personnel and executives which went unaddressed; (4) the
pervasive culture of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation
would result in serious impairments to Activision Blizzard's
operations; (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was at
greater risk of regulatory and legal scrutiny and enforcement,
including that which would have a material adverse effect; (6)
Activision Blizzard failed to inform shareholders that the
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing had been
investigating Activision Blizzard for harassment and
discrimination; and (7) as a result, Defendants' statements about
Activision Blizzard's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

DEADLINE: October 4, 2021 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/activision-blizzard-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=18379&from=5

NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of ATVI during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is October 4, 2021. There
is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.

WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

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

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

ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Klein Law Reminds of September 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of AdaptHealth Corp. f/k/a DFB
Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. (NASDAQ: AHCO) alleging that the
Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: November 11, 2019 and July 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 27, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in AHCO:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/adapthealth-corp-f-k-a-dfb-healthcare-acquisitions-corp-loss-submission-form?id=18543&from=5

AdaptHealth Corp. f/k/a DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. NEWS -
AHCO NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
AdaptHealth Corp. f/k/a DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) AdaptHealth had misrepresented its organic
growth trajectory by retroactively inflating past organic growth
numbers without disclosing the changes, in violation of Securities
and Exchange Commission regulations; (ii) accordingly, the Company
had materially overstated its financial prospects; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in AdaptHealth you have until September 27, 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 AdaptHealth 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 AHCO lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click https://bit.ly/3yTYyEG.

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.

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

AETNA LIFE: Sept. 1 Extension for Class Cert. Briefing Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA PETERS on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated v. AETNA INC., AETNA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, Case No.
1:15-cv-00109-MR (W.D.N.C), the Parties asks the Court to enter
extending time for class certification briefing as follows:


          Task                       Current       Proposed
                                    Deadline     New Deadline

   Plaintiff's Supplemental      Aug. 16, 2021    Sept. 1, 2021
   Brief Regarding Class
   Certification

   Defendants' Response          Aug. 30, 2021    Oct. 1, 2021

   Plaintiff’s Reply             N/A              Oct. 15, 2021

In accordance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Plaintiff
Peters moves the Court for an order extending the time for
Plaintiff to file her supplemental brief regarding class
certification from August 16, 2021 to September 1, 2021, the
Defendants to file their response from August 30, 2021 to October
1, 2021, and for Plaintiff to file a reply brief on October 15,
2021.

The Defendants Aetna Inc. and Aetna Life and do not oppose this
request. On August 2, 2021, the Court issued an order that
following remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, the Plaintiff shall file a supplemental brief
regarding class certification within 14 days of the Order, and that
Defendants shall have 14 days thereafter to file a response.

The Plaintiff seeks an extension because her filing will take
significant time. The ERISA issues and class issues implicated in
this case require complex analysis. Furthermore, the record, in
this case, contains thousands of pages, and the Fourth Circuit’s
opinion that will guide the parties' supplemental briefing is 71
pages long.

Additionally, the deadline set by the Court for supplemental
briefing falls within the summer month of August, during which time
Plaintiff's counsel has travel plans and family obligations. The
Plaintiff's counsel also has a number of previously-scheduled
professional obligations between now and August 16, 2021 in other
cases for which they are responsible, including a hearing on August
11 that requires time-consuming preparation.

Finally, because no other deadlines have been set following
supplemental class certification briefing, the requested extensions
will neither delay the resolution of this case nor require any
corresponding modification to any other dates.

Aetna s an American managed health care company that sells
traditional and consumer-directed health care insurance and related
services.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37Py8b2 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiff Sandra M. Peters are:

          Larry McDevitt, Esq.
          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 North Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          Nell Z. Peyser, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 897-3434
          Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
          E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com

AGEAGLE AERIAL: Discloses Dismissal of Consolidated Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
AgEagle Aerial Systems Inc. (NYSE American: UAVS) ("AgEagle" or the
"Company"), an industry-leading drone solutions provider, announced
that multiple, previously-disclosed lawsuits against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors have
been dismissed.

As previously disclosed in the Company's SEC filings, AgEagle and
certain of its current and former officers and directors were named
as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Lopez
v. AgEagle Aerial Systems Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv01810; and
Madrid v. AgEagle Aerial Systems Inc., et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-01991). These matters were consolidated, and a Lead
Plaintiff designated by Court Order. The Company is now pleased to
report that on July 30, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed a voluntary
dismissal of the consolidated securities class action.

Separately, two shareholders filed a derivative compliant on behalf
of the Company and against certain of our current and former
officers and directors before the Nevada federal court [Nostrand
and Rickerson v. Mooney et al. (Defendants) and AgEagle Aerial
Systems Inc., (Nominal Defendant), Case No. 3:21-cv-00130.].
AgEagle is pleased to report that on July 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs
in this Nevada derivative action filed a voluntary dismissal of the
action, and the court designated the case "closed" and
"terminated."

Finally, on July 27, 2021, a separate shareholder filed a similar
derivative complaint on behalf of the Company and against certain
of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Granja v.
AgEagle Aerial Systems Inc., et al, Case No. 2:21-cv-06056).
AgEagle is pleased to report that on August 11, 2021, the Plaintiff
in this California derivative action filed a voluntary dismissal of
the action.

These dismissals resolve all known litigation against the Company
and its officers and directors concerning Company operations.

                    About AgEagle Aerial

Founded in 2010, AgEagle Aerial Systems Inc. is one of the nation's
leading commercial drone technology providers. AgEagle's mission is
to empower The Drone Age(TM) by providing American-made drone
solutions to the world. The Company is leveraging its reputation as
one of the industry's premium technology solutions and aerial data
intelligence providers to deliver high-performance, end-to-end
drone solutions for commercial use worldwide. AgEagle products are
proudly manufactured and assembled in the United States.[GN]

ALASKA AIR: Appellate Court Reduces Judgment in Attendants' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appellate court
reversed portions of the lower court decision and significantly
reduced the judgment in the class action suit intiated by three
flight attendants.

In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for
damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San
Francisco wage and hour laws. The court certified a class of
approximately 1,800 flight attendants in November 2016. The Company
believes the claims, in this case, are without factual and legal
merit.

In July 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, finding Virgin America, and Alaska Airlines, as a
successor-in-interest to Virgin America, responsible for various
damages and penalties sought by the class members. In February
2019, the Court entered final judgment against Virgin America and
Alaska Airlines in the amount of approximately $78 million.

It did not award injunctive relief against Alaska Airlines. In
February 2021, an appellate court reversed portions of the lower
court decision and significantly reduced the judgment.

The determination of total judgment has not been completed as of
the date of this filing.

Based on the facts and circumstances available, the Company
believes the range of potential loss to be between $0 and $22
million, and holds an accrual for $22 million in Other accrued
liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. It did
not award injunctive relief against Alaska Airlines.

Alaska Air Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company
operates through three segments: Mainline, Regional, and Horizon.
The company was founded in 1932 and is based in Seattle,
Washington.


ALIERA COMPANIES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss LeCann Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Aliera Companies, Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled NOELLE LeCANN, KRISTIN SELIMO,
and TANIA FUNDUK, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC., formerly known as ALIERA
HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02429-AT, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 26, 2020, the
lawsuit arises from the Defendant's sale of illegal health
insurance to the Plaintiffs and the Class members.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has marketed and sold,
and continues to market and sell, illegal health insurance
masquerading as legitimate Health Care Sharing Ministry plans that
would purportedly provide benefits mirroring traditional health
insurance.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has falsely portrayed the
plans as HCSM plans -- even though the Defendant and the plans
plainly do not meet the requirements under federal law and state
law for HCSMs -- in an illegal scheme devised to avoid otherwise
applicable federal and state laws regarding health insurance,
including limitations on the percentage of premiums that can be
diverted to purposes other than the payment of benefits.

The Defendant now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated June
22, 2021, denying its motion to dismiss or alternatively compel
arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as Noelle LeCann, et al. v. Aliera
Companies, Inc., Case No. 21-12472, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on July 20, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before August 30, 2021;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief;

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due August
3, 2021 as to Appellant Aliera Companies, Inc.; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before August 17, 2021 as to Appellee Tania Funduk.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant ALIERA COMPANIES, INC., f.k.a. Aliera
Healthcare, Inc., is represented by:

          Sarah Craig, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN, LLP
          201 N Franklin St Ste 3200
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 221-2626
          E-mail: scraig@burr.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Bosquet Shirley, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN, LLP
          420 N 20th St Ste 3400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 458 5308
          E-mail: bshirley@burr.com

               - and -

          Kevin R. Stone, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN, LLP
          171 17th St NW Ste 1100
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 815-3000
          E-mail: kstone@burr.com  

Plaintiffs-Appellees NOELLE LECANN, KRISTIN SELIMO, and TANIA
FUNDUK, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Jennifer Kathleen Coalson, Esq.
          David F. Walbert, Esq.
          PARKS CHESIN & WALBERT, PC
          75 14th St NE Fl 26
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873-8000
          E-mail: jcoalson@pcwlawfirm.com
                  dwalbert@pcwlawfirm.com  

               - and -

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          Paul V. Sweeny, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          32 E 57th St
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
                  paul@sfclasslaw.com

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Dec. 9 Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that hearing on the motion
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement in the consolidated
class action suit in California is currently scheduled for December
9, 2021.

On November 5, 2018, a class action lawsuit against Align and three
of the company's executive officers was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock.

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

On December 12, 2018, a similar lawsuit was filed in the same court
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's
common stock.

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

On September 9, 2020, Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint was granted in part and denied in part.

On June 30, 2021, counsel for the parties signed a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement to resolve all claims for $16 million.

The settlement amount will be funded by insurance proceeds and
consequently, the company recorded a short term liability and a
receivable for this amount in its condensed consolidated financial
statements.

Lead Plaintiff filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the
settlement on July 15, 2021. A hearing on that motion is currently
scheduled for December 9, 2021.

The settlement is subject to notice to class members and approval
by the Court.

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


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of Purchasers' Class Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in the class
action suit initiated by a purported class of purchasers of the
company's common stock between April 24, 2019 and July 24, 2019, is
pending.

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

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

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

On March 29, 2021, defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint was granted with leave for the lead plaintiff to file a
further amended complaint.

On April 22, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a notice stating it would
not file a further amended complaint. On April 23, 2021, the Court
dismissed the action with prejudice and judgment was entered.

Lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on April 28, 2021. Lead
plaintiff's opening brief is currently due September 1, 2021.

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

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

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


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Jury Trial in SSP Suit Set for Nov. 20, 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that a jury trial in the
putative class action suit initiated by Simon and Simon, PC doing
business as City Smiles, is scheduled to begin November 20, 2023

On June 5, 2020, a dental practice named Simon and Simon, PC doing
business as City Smiles brought an antitrust action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
itself and a putative class of similarly situated practices seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief relating to Align's alleged
market activities in alleged clear aligner and intraoral scanner
markets.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and added VIP Dental Spas as a
plaintiff on August 14, 2020.

On September 9, 2020, Align moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended
complaint.

On April 8, 2021, the Judge denied Align's motion to dismiss.

A jury trial is scheduled to begin November 20, 2023.

Align believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself.

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


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Snow Putative Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by Misty Snow.

On May 3, 2021, an individual named Misty Snow brought an antitrust
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly
situated individuals seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief
relating to Align's alleged market activities in alleged clear
aligner and intraoral scanner markets. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on July 30, 2021 adding new plaintiffs and various state
law claims.

Align has not yet responded to the amended complaint.

Align believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself.

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


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Court Enters Initial Pretrial Conference Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEEANNA CAMPBELL, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. ALLTRAN
FINANCIAL, LP, Case No. 3:21-cv-00288-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon.
Judge Stephen L. Crocker enters a preliminary pretrial conference
order:

   1. Amendments to the pleadings: September 24, 2021

   2. Disclosure of experts:

      -- Plaintiff: October 15, 2021

      -- Defendants: November 12, 2021

   3. Motions & Briefs To Certify Classes: January 7, 2022

      This is the deadline for plaintiffs to seek certification
      of a Rule 23 class or for defendant to seek
      decertification of a conditional FLSA class.

   4. Discovery Cutoff: March 25, 2022

      All discovery in this case must be completed by the date
      set forth above, absent written agreement of all parties
      to some other date. Absent written agreement of the
      parties or a court order to the contrary, all discovery
      must conform with the requirements of Rules 26 through 37.

   5. Deadline for filing dispositive motions: July 22, 2022

      Dispositive motions may be filed and served by any party
      on any date up to the deadline set above. All dispositive
      motions must be accompanied by supporting briefs.

   6. Settlement Letters: December 2, 2022

   7. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all motions in limine:
      December 9, 2022

   8. Final Pretrial Conference: January 11, 2023 at 4:00 p.m.

   9. Trial: January 23, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.

Alltran is a debt collection agency.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VR3k7p at no extra charge.[CC]


ALNYLAM PHARMA: Court Junks Leavitt Bid to Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Plaintiffs in the
class action suit initially initiated by Caryl Hull Leavitt, did
not appeal the Court's decision denying plaintiff's motion seeking
leave to file a further amended complaint.

On September 26, 2018, Caryl Hull Leavitt, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the
company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial
Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

By stipulation of the parties and Order of the Court dated November
20, 2018, the action was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On May 8, 2019, the Court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff, and on July 3, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint, or the Complaint. In addition to the
originally named defendants, the Complaint also named as defendants
certain of the company's other executive officers, and purported to
be brought on behalf of a class of persons who acquired our
securities between September 20, 2017 and September 12, 2018 and
sought to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged violations
of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements related to the efficacy
and safety of the company's product, Onpattro.

The plaintiff sought, among other things, the designation of this
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and
expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate.

All defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its
entirety on July 31, 2019.

On March 23, 2020, the Court granted the company's motion and
dismissed the Complaint without prejudice. Pursuant to a prior
Order of the Court, on June 1, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion
seeking leave to file a further amended complaint. That motion was
fully briefed on June 22, 2020.

By Memorandum & Order dated March 12, 2021, the Court denied
plaintiffs' motion.

Plaintiffs did not appeal the Court's decision.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


ALNYLAM PHARMA: Seeks Reargument in CERF Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the defendants in
the Chester County Employees Retirement Fund initiated purported
securities class suit, filed a motion in the First Department
seeking reargument or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal to
the New York Court of Appeals.

On September 12, 2019, the Chester County Employees Retirement
Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a purported securities class action complaint for violation
of federal securities laws against the company, certain of its
current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters of
the company's November 14, 2017 public stock offering, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.

On November 7, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, or the
New York Complaint.

The New York Complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of
those who purchased the company's securities pursuant and/or
traceable to our November 14, 2017 public stock offering.

The New York Complaint purports to allege claims arising under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and generally alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the results of the company's
APOLLO Phase 3 clinical trial of patisiran.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of the
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, rescissory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the
court deems appropriate.

All defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the New York
Complaint in its entirety on December 20, 2019.

On November 2, 2020, the Supreme Court of the State of New York
entered a Decision and Order denying defendants' motion to dismiss.
In November 2020, defendants filed a notice of appeal of the
Supreme Court's decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of the State of New York for the First Department.

In April 2021, the First Department entered a Decision and Order
affirming in part and reversing in part the Supreme Court's
decision. In June 2021, defendants filed a motion in the First
Department seeking reargument or, in the alternative, for leave to
appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

Alnylam said, "We believe that the allegations contained in the New
York Complaint are without merit and intend to defend the case
vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of time that
this action will be ongoing or the liabilities, if any, which may
arise therefrom."

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


AMERICAN SOCIETY: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Baker Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Alexander C Baker, et al., Plaintiffs v. American
Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, et al., Defendants,
Case No. CV-21-00022-TUC-RM (D. Ariz.), Judge Rosemary Marquez of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued an
order:

   a. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
      Injunction;

   b. taking under advisement the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
      Certification;

   c. partially granting and partially taking under advisement
      pending supplemental briefing the Defendants Broadcast
      Music, Inc. ("BMI") and Mike O'Neill's Motion to Dismiss;
      and

   d. partially granting and partially taking under advisement
      pending supplemental briefing the Defendant American
      Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers ("ASCAP")'s
      Motion to Dismiss.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Alexander C. Baker and Adam Bravery LLC sue Defendants
ASCAP, BMI, O'Neill, and Erika Stallings, asserting 15 causes of
action on behalf of themselves and purported classes of similarly
situated songwriters and royalty assignees.

ASCAP and BMI are not-for-profit Performance Royalty Organizations
("PROs") that act as agents to collect and distribute performance
royalty money to their writer and publisher members. O'Neill is the
CEO of BMI, and Stallings was in-house counsel for BMI at all
relevant times. Both ASCAP and BMI are incorporated in Delaware and
have their principal offices in New York. O'Neill and Stallings
reside in New York.

ASCAP and BMI have an estimated 1.5 million writer members between
them. Songwriters assign to ASCAP and BMI the right to license the
public performances of their songs and must sign a standard
writer's agreement. ASCAP and BMI in turn enter into license
agreements with end-users of recorded music. ASCAP and BMI together
collect approximately $2 billion in license fees on an annual basis
and, after deducting operating expenses, distribute the money on a
quarterly basis as performance royalties. ASCAP co-mingles the
money it collects, as does BMI. The Plaintiffs do not know the
specifics of the formulas and are unable to verify whether ASCAP
and BMI are adhering to them.

The only other significant PRO is a private, invitation-only
organization that Songwriters have no right to join, and thus for
all intents and purposes, any Songwriter who seeks to earn
performance royalties must sign with either ASCAP or BMI. A
Songwriter may belong to only one PRO at a time, and any songs
registered with that PRO remain with that PRO even if the
Songwriter later changes his or her affiliation. Due to prior
federal antitrust litigation, ASCAP and BMI are bound by federal
consent decrees setting forth the terms and conditions under which
they are allowed to operate. Among other mandates, the consent
decrees require both ASCAP and BMI to collect performance royalties
for any Songwriter with at least one published work. BMI's consent
decree requires BMI to include a mandatory arbitration clause in
its standard writer's agreement, but ASCAP's consent decree does
not.

Plaintiff Baker, a resident of California, is a songwriter and
music producer who was a member of ASCAP from 1990-1999 and has
been a member of BMI since 1999. He has co-written numerous songs
with Clair Marlo, whom he met in 1993, married in 1995, and filed
for divorce from in 2014. The divorce proceedings resulted in a
stipulated order that music royalties be equalized between Baker
and Marlo for all songs created after Jan. 11, 1995 and before
April 7, 2015. To effectuate that order, Baker and Marlo jointly
signed and mailed letters of direction to ASCAP and BMI,
instructing them to equalize the royalties on all music registered
after Jan. 11, 1995 and before June 1, 2015. BMI complied with the
letter of direction until March 2020. ASCAP did not comply with the
letter of direction.

Plaintiff Adam Bravery is an Arizona limited liability company
formed by Baker and two other equal members in May 2018 for the
purpose of producing and commercially exploiting a music-driven,
animated motion picture authored by Baker. Prior to forming Adam
Bravery, Baker formed an entity named Write Hear, LLC and assigned
his BMI royalty stream to that entity. On July 9, 2018, Write Hear,
LLC assigned Baker's royalty stream to Adam Bravery. BMI began
paying Adam Bravery royalties in September 2018. Adam Bravery
depends on the royalty payments in order to operate and to pay
Baker's salary.

On July 16, 2019, Stallings sent Baker an email stating that his
assignment of works to Adam Bravery appeared to violate the terms
of his divorce from Marlo. According to the Plaintiffs, the terms
of Baker and Marlo's divorce prevent either individual from
assigning any work created between Jan. 11, 1995 and April 7, 2015,
but Baker's assignment of his share of the court-equalized
performance royalties did not violate the terms of the divorce
because a performance royalty is not a work.

On Aug. 21, 2019, Baker and Marlo received a letter from Stallings
stating that, absent resolution of Baker and Marlo's dispute
concerning whether Baker's assignment of his BMI royalty stream to
Adam Bravery violated the terms of their divorce, BMI would be
placing the disputed royalties on withhold and would proceed with
filing a third-party interpleader action to deposit the royalties
with the court until resolution of the dispute. On Sept. 26, 2019,
BMI's outside counsel AnnMarie Mori sent Baker an email asking him
to stipulate that he and Marlo had a dispute, which Baker refused
to do.

On Oct. 2, 2019, Marlo filed a contempt action in family court,
alleging that Baker's assignment of his royalties violated the
terms of their divorce. On Oct. 7, 2019, BMI sent a letter to Marlo
and Baker stating that it had received notice of Marlo's contempt
action and was placing a hold on the assigned royalties pending
resolution of the dispute concerning the assignment. On Oct. 10,
2019, the other members of Adam Bravery fired Baker from his
full-time job. On Nov. 7, 2019, the family court dismissed Marlo's
contempt action. On March 18, 2020, BMI distributed royalties to
Adam Bravery's bank account but then reversed the deposit and has
failed to pay royalties to date. As of March 2021, BMI has failed
to pay a total of $47,311.37 in royalties. As a result of the
withholding of royalties, Adam Bravery has necessarily ceased all
operations, and its net value has diminished by at least $150,000.

The first six counts of the SAC are asserted by the Plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and purported classes of Songwriters and
Assignees.

In Counts One through Five, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory
judgments stating (1) that the mandatory arbitration clause
contained in BMI's standard writer's agreement is void for economic
duress; (2) that ASCAP and BMI, and their officials, are state
actors for purposes of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; (3) that BMI's
arbitration clause, required by its consent decree, is
unconstitutional because it deprives Songwriters of their rights to
petition and to a jury trial without due process; (4) that
Songwriters and Assignees have a federally protected statutory
right to collect performance royalties; and (5) that ASCAP and BMI
owe a fiduciary duty to Songwriters and Assignees, giving
Songwriters and Assignees the right to audit ASCAP and BMI and to
know the entirety of the formulas by which royalties are
allocated.

In Count Six, the Plaintiffs allege that ASCAP and BMI breached
their fiduciary duty by manipulating the formulas by which
performance royalty money is distributed so as to underpay
Songwriters. In addition to declaratory relief, the Plaintiffs seek
as relief on the class claims monetary damages, an injunction
prohibiting ASCAP and BMI from disclaiming a fiduciary duty to
Songwriters and Assignees, an injunction prohibiting BMI from
compelling arbitration as a precondition of collecting performance
royalties for Songwriters, an accounting of money received and
distributed, and reimbursement of Plaintiffs' costs and attorney
fees.

In Count Seven of the FAC, Plaintiffs Baker and Adam Bravery assert
a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against BMI, alleging that
BMI, Stallings, and O'Neill violated their federally protected
rights by withholding royalty payments. In Count Eight, Adam
Bravery asserts in the alternative a breach of contract claim
against BMI, alleging that BMI's withholding of royalty payments
violates the right to payment held by Adam Bravery by virtue of
Baker's writer's agreement with BMI. In Count Nine, Adam Bravery
asserts a breach of fiduciary duty claim against BMI, alleging that
a fiduciary relationship was formed between BMI and Baker upon the
signing of Baker's writer's agreement with BMI in 1999, that the
fiduciary relationship extends to Adam Bravery, and that BMI's
withholding of royalty payments violates its fiduciary duty. In
Count Ten, Baker and Adam Bravery assert a claim for constructive
fraud against BMI, O'Neill, and Stallings, alleging that they
fabricated a false dispute between Baker and Marlo as a pretext to
impose a royalty hold against Baker while continuing to pay
royalties to Marlo.

In Count Eleven, Baker asserts a claim for intentional infliction
of emotional distress against BMI, O'Neill, and Stallings. In Count
Twelve, Baker asserts a claim for fraudulent inducement against BMI
and Stallings, alleging that BMI made false and/or misleading
statements to prevent Baker from joining BMI to Baker and Marlo's
family law case. In Count Thirteen, Baker asserts a Section 1983
claim against ASCAP, alleging that ASCAP violated his federally
protected right to collect performance royalties by failing to pay
him equalized royalties since September 2016. In Count Fourteen,
Baker asserts in the alternative a breach of contract claim against
ASCAP. Finally, in Count Fifteen, Baker asserts a breach of
fiduciary duty claim against ASCAP arising out of ASCAP's failure
to pay equalized royalties since September 2016.  The Plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages against BMI and ASCAP, punitive damages
against BMI, injunctive relief, and reimbursement of their costs
and attorney's fees.

II. BMI and O'Neill's Motion to Dismiss

BMI and O'Neill ("BMI Defendants") move to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
FAC for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and for lack of personal and subject-matter
jurisdiction.  The BMI Defendants argue, first, that the Plaintiffs
lack standing to assert the claims alleged in the FAC. They further
argue that, even if Baker has standing, his claims are subject to
mandatory arbitration. The BMI Defendants then argue that Counts
One through Twelve of the FAC fail to state claims on which relief
can be granted. They further argue that this Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction over this action and lacks personal
jurisdiction over O'Neill.

In opposition to the BMI Defendants' Motion, the Plaintiffs argue
that they have standing to assert both the class claims and
individual claims raised in the FAC. They also argue that BMI's
mandatory arbitration clause is unenforceable and, even if it is
enforceable, it does not cover their dispute regarding whether BMI
owes Songwriters a fiduciary duty. The Plaintiffs assert that all
causes of action in the FAC are well-founded and well-pled. They
further argue that O'Neill's alleged act of creating a false
pretext on which to improperly withhold royalty payments to Arizona
citizen Adam Bravery satisfies the minimum contacts test for
personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs argue that this Court has
federal-question jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act,
the Civil Rights Act, the United States Constitution, and ASCAP and
BMI's consent decrees. Finally, they argue that the Court also has
diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy exceeds
the jurisdictional minimum.

III. ASCAP's Motion to Dismiss

ASCAP moves to dismiss the FAC for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted. It argues, first, that the Court lacks federal-question
jurisdiction because (1) the FAC fails to state a claim for which
relief can be granted under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; (2) the
Declaratory Judgment Act does not create subject-matter
jurisdiction where none otherwise exists; and (3) ASCAP's consent
decree reserves exclusive jurisdiction over matters implicating the
decree to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. ASCAP further argues that this Court lacks
diversity jurisdiction because the parties are not completely
diverse.  It then argues that the FAC fails to state a claim on
which relief can be granted. Finally, ASCAP argues that, to the
extent the FAC plausibly alleges any claims against it, the claims
should be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New York because the governing documents of Baker's writer's
agreement with ASCAP contain a forum-selection clause providing
that members' claims against ASCAP are subject to the exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts of New York.

In their opposition to ASCAP's Motion, the Plaintiffs "submit that
diversity jurisdiction does not apply." They argue that the Court
has federal question jurisdiction because ASCAP is a state actor
for civil rights purposes and Songwriters have a federally
protected right to collect performance royalties. The Plaintiffs
then argue that supplemental jurisdictional over their state claims
is appropriate. They argue that the claims asserted against ASCAP
are plausible and adequately pled. The Plaintiffs do not oppose
transfer to the Southern District of New York, so long as the
entire case is transferred.

IV. Discussion

A. Federal-Question Jurisdiction

Dismissal is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) when the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. "Federal
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that
power authorized by Constitution and statute. District courts have
original jurisdiction, known as federal-question jurisdiction, in
"all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States."

Judge Marquez holds that the Court has federal-question
jurisdiction over Counts Two, Three, Four, Seven, and Thirteen of
the FAC. However, she finds that none of those counts state a claim
on which relief can be granted. The Judge determines that (i) 28
U.S.C. Section 2201 does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction on
the Court; (ii) the Plaintiffs are not parties to either consent
decree, and neither consent decree confers federal jurisdiction
over the claims asserted in the Plaintiffs' FAC; and (iii) any
non-frivolous assertion of a federal claim suffices to establish
federal question jurisdiction.

B. Failure to State a Federal Claim

Dismissal is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) when a complaint fails to state a claim on which relief
can be granted.  If a complaint falls short of meeting the
necessary pleading standards, a district court should dismiss with
leave to amend unless the deficiencies of a pleading "could not
possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Failing to
give leave to amend when a plaintiff could include additional facts
to cure a complaint's deficiencies is an abuse of discretion.

Judge Marquez dismisses Counts Two, Three, Four, Seven, and
Thirteen with prejudice because the deficiencies of the claims
could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts. She
finds that Count Two of the FAC fails because the Plaintiffs cite
no authority supporting their novel proposition that federal
consent decrees can transform private entities into state actors
for purposes of Section 1983.  She also finds that Count Three
fails as well because the FAC fails to plausibly allege that BMI
and/or ASCAP are governmental actors as opposed to merely private
actors.  Moreover, Count Four of the FAC fails because any right of
the Plaintiffs to collect performance royalties from BMI and ASCAP
arises not from federal constitutional or statutory law but from
the writer's agreements that Baker signed with BMI and ASCAP.
Finally, because the FAC does not plausibly allege state action or
the deprivation of federal rights, Counts Seven and Thirteen fail
to state claims on which relief can be granted, and they will be
dismissed.

C. Diversity Jurisdiction

In addition to federal-question jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs' FAC
asserts diversity jurisdiction. In its Motion to Dismiss, ASCAP
factually attacks the FAC's assertion of diversity jurisdiction,
arguing that its presence in this lawsuit destroys complete
diversity because it is a membership association, its citizenship
is determined by the citizenship of all of its members, and it has
members in California, where Baker is a citizen, and Arizona, where
Adam Bravery is a citizen.

Judge Marquez finds that the FAC does not specify the amount of
damages sought on the class claims, but it alleges that ASCAP and
BMI collectively have 1.5 million writer members and collect over
$2 billion in license fees annually. In response to BMI's Motion to
Dismiss, the Plaintiffs aver that the class-wide amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million. However, in response to ASCAP's
Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs aver that diversity jurisdiction
does not apply in the case. The parties' briefs do not adequately
address whether the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(2), and the current record is insufficient to allow
the Court to conclusively determine that issue. Accordingly, the
Judge requires supplemental briefing regarding whether the Court
has class action diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2).

D. Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Individual Claims

In a civil action in which a district court has original
jurisdiction, the court generally also has "supplemental
jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to the
claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they
form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the
United States Constitution."

Because the individual claims do not arise out of a common nucleus
of operative fact as the only claims over which the Court might
have original jurisdiction, Judge Marquez declines to exercise the
Court's supplemental jurisdiction over the individual claims.
Accordingly, Counts Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Fourteen, and
Fifteen of the FAC will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction.  And, because Defendants O'Neill and Stallings are
named as defendants only with respect to the Plaintiffs' individual
claims, which are all being dismissed for failure to state a claim
on which relief can be granted or for lack of jurisdiction, they
will be dismissed.

E. Standing

The BMI Defendants argue that Baker lacks standing to pursue claims
arising from BMI's hold on royalty distributions because Baker
permanently and irrevocably assigned his BMI royalty stream, and he
cannot bring a direct action for injuries to Adam Bravery. They
also argue that Adam Bravery lacks standing to pursue claims
arising from Baker's contractual relationship with BMI because the
assignment of royalties from Baker to Write Hear and Write Hear to
Adam Bravery did not include the assignment of any tort claims or
contractual rights.

Judge Marquez holds that these arguments appear to be directed at
the Plaintiffs' individual claims, and it is not clear how they
apply to the surviving class claims.  If the BMI Defendants believe
these arguments apply to the class claims, she says, they may
clarify their position in their supplemental brief on
jurisdiction.

F. Personal Jurisdiction

The BMI Defendants argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over O'Neill. (Doc. 22 at 25-26.) Because O'Neill is sued only with
respect to Plaintiffs' individual claims, and the individual claims
are all being dismissed either for failure to state a claim or for
lack of jurisdiction, O'Neill will be dismissed as a defendant, and
the Court declines to address his arguments concerning personal
jurisdiction.

V. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

The Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction requiring BMI to
dissolve its royalty withhold and release the withheld royalty
payments to Adam Bravery. The requested preliminary injunctive
relief relates only to the Plaintiffs' individual claims, which the
Court is dismissing for failure to state a claim on which relief
can be granted and for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, Judge
Marquez will deny as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary
Injunction.

VI. Motion for Class Certification

For purposes of the FAC's class claims, the Plaintiffs move for
certification of a "Songwriter Class" composed of all writer
members of ASCAP and BMI, as well as an "Assignee Class" composed
of all individuals or entities who are entitled to receive ASCAP
and/or BMI writer royalties by virtue of a valid royalty assignment
contract. Judge Marquez takes the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification under advisement pending the parties' supplemental
briefing on whether the Court has jurisdiction over the class
claims asserted in Counts One, Five, and Six of the FAC.

VII. Order

Based on the foregoing, the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are
granted in part and taken under advisement in part, as follows:

     1. Counts Two, Three, Four, Seven, and Thirteen of the FAC are
dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted.

     2. Counts Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Fourteen, and
Fifteen of the FAC are dismissed without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction.

     3. Defendants O'Neill and Stallings are dismissed.

     4. The Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are taken under
advisement with respect to Counts One, Five, and Six of the FAC.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied as
moot.

Within 15 days of the date the Order is filed, the Defendants will
file supplemental briefs. The Plaintiff may file a responsive
supplemental brief within 15 days of service of the Defendants'
supplemental briefs. No reply will be permitted absent leave of
Court. The parties' supplemental briefs will be limited to seven
pages each and will address the issue of whether the Court has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2) and/or 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367 over Counts One, Five, and Six of the FAC.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is taken under
advisement pending the parties' supplemental briefing on
jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2rdtbwh6 from Leagle.com.


APCT INC: Rodriguez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Machine Operators
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLEMENTE RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APCT, INC.; CARTEL ELECTRONICS,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21CV385440 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., August 9, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum and regular rate wages,
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to
timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a machine operator in
Santa Clara County, California from approximately March 2016 to
June 2021.

APCT, Inc. is a manufacturer of electrical components based in
Santa Clara, California.

Cartel Electronics, LLC is a manufacturer of quick turn printed
circuit boards, with its principal place of business in Santa
Clara, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Kane Moon, Esq.
         Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan, Esq.
         MOON & YANG, APC
         1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 232-3128
         Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
         E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                 lilit@moonyanglaw.com

AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Lewakowski Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit entitled, Deanna
Lewakowski v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.

On March 1, 2021, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey
alleging that the Company and certain of its officers engaged in
violations of the federal securities laws relating to public
statements made by the Company regarding the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) approval of Libervant.

Following the court's appointment of a lead plaintiff, an amended
complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on July 25, 2021. Dispositive
motions must be filed with the court by August 16, 2021.

Aquestive said, "The Company is not able to determine or predict
the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable
estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if
any, in this matter."

Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various
products to address unmet medical needs. The Company markets
Sympazan, an oral soluble film formulation of clobazam for the
treatment of lennox-gastaut syndrome; Suboxone, a sublingual film
formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of
opioid dependence; and Zuplenz, an oral soluble film formulation of
ondansetron for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated
with chemotherapy and post-operative recovery in the United States
and internationally. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New Jersey.


AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Summary Judgment Bid in Suboxone Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion for
summary judgment filed in the class action suit entitled, In re
Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and Naloxone) Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or the Suboxone MDL, is pending.

On September 22, 2016, forty-one states and the District of
Columbia, or the States, brought a lawsuit against Indivior and the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging violations of federal and state antitrust
statutes and state unfair trade and consumer protection laws
relating to Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film in 2010
and seeking an injunction, civil penalties, and disgorgement.

After filing the lawsuit, the case was consolidated for pre-trial
purposes with the In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and
Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2445, or the Suboxone MDL,
a multidistrict litigation relating to putative class actions on
behalf of various private plaintiffs against Indivior relating to
its launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film.

While the Company was not named as a defendant in the original
Suboxone MDL cases, the action brought by the States alleges that
the Company participated in an antitrust conspiracy with Indivior
in connection with Indivior's launch of Suboxone Sublingual Film
and engaged in related conduct in violation of federal and state
antitrust law. The Company moved to dismiss the States' conspiracy
claims, but by order dated October 30, 2017, the court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss. The Company filed an answer denying
the States' claims on November 20, 2017.

Daubert motions were filed on September 28, 2020, and oppositions
were filed on October 19, 2020. On February 19, 2021, the court
issued an order denying all Daubert motions.

On March 8, 2021, Aquestive filed a motion for summary judgment.
Briefing on summary judgment motions was completed on May 28, 2021.


There is no date set for a hearing on the motions for summary
judgment and no trial date has yet been set.

Aquestive said, "The Company is not able to determine or predict
the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or provide a reasonable
estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if
any, in this matter."

Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,
focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing various
products to address unmet medical needs. The Company markets
Sympazan, an oral soluble film formulation of clobazam for the
treatment of lennox-gastaut syndrome; Suboxone, a sublingual film
formulation of buprenorphine and naloxone for the treatment of
opioid dependence; and Zuplenz, an oral soluble film formulation of
ondansetron for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated
with chemotherapy and post-operative recovery in the United States
and internationally. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Warren, New Jersey.


ARDELYX INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of September 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Ardelyx, Inc. ("Ardelyx" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ARDX) in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Ardelyx publicly traded securities between
August 6, 2020 and July 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lead product
candidate, tenapanor, a supposedly first-in-class medicine for the
control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with chronic kidney
disease ("CKD") on dialysis and the likelihood that it would be
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Defendants possessed, were
in control over, and, as a result, knew (or had reason to know)
that the data submitted to support the New Drug Application was
insufficient in that it showed a lack of clinical relevance of the
drug's treatment effect, making it foreseeably likely (if not
certain) that the FDA would not approve the drug. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Ardelyx
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
September 28, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]

ARDELYX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
Ardelyx Inc. (NASDAQ: ARDX) ("Ardelyx") on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired Ardelyx securities between August 6, 2020 and
July 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Ardelyx securities during the Class Period may, no later than
September 28, 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; toll free at
(844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/ardelyx-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=ardelyx

Ardelyx is a specialized biopharmaceutical company that focuses on
developing first-in-class medicine to improve treatment for people
with cardiorenal disease. This includes patients with chronic
kidney disease ("CKD") on dialysis suffering from elevated serum
phosphorus, or hyperphosphatemia; and CKD patients and/or heart
failure patients with elevated serum potassium, or hyperkalemia.

In June 2020, the defendants submitted a New Drug Application
("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for
Ardelyx's lead product candidate, tenapanor, a supposedly
first-in-class medicine for the control of serum phosphorus in
adult patients with CKD on dialysis. According to Ardelyx,
tenapanor has "a unique mechanism of action and acts locally in the
gut to inhibit the sodium hydrogen exchanger 3, or NHE3." If
approved, tenapanor "would be the first therapy for phosphate
management that blocks phosphorus absorption at the primary pathway
of uptake[,]" and "could greatly improve patient adherence and
compliance with one single pill dosed twice daily in contrast to
current therapies where typically multiple pills are taken before
every meal." Thus, tenapanor was widely touted by the defendants.

The Class Period commences on August 6, 2020, when Ardelyx issued a
press release announcing that it submitted an NDA to the FDA for
the review of tenapanor as a first-in-class therapy to control
serum phosphorus in adult patients with CKD on dialysis.

The FDA accepted Ardelyx's NDA in September 2020 and set a
Prescription Drug User Fee Act date of April 29, 2021. Ardelyx
repeatedly lauded this development, highlighting the FDA's
acceptance and review of the NDA, supported by so-called
"successful" Phase 3 studies.

However, the truth was revealed after the markets closed on July
19, 2021, when the defendants announced that Ardelyx received a
letter from the FDA on July 13, 2021, stating that "the FDA has
identified deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and
post-marketing requirements/commitments." In particular, the FDA
noted that "a key issue is the size of the treatment effect and its
clinical relevance."

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding tenapanor and the likelihood that it would be approved by
the FDA. The complaint further alleges that the defendants
possessed, were in control over, and, as a result, knew, or had
reason to know, that the data submitted to support the NDA was
insufficient in that it showed a lack of clinical relevance of the
drug's treatment effect, making it foreseeably likely, if not
certain, that the FDA would not approve the drug.

Ardelyx investors may, no later than September 28, 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. Communicating with any
counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery
achieved in this case. 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.


Contacts
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]

ARDELYX INC: Klein Law Reminds of September 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Ardelyx, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARDX)
alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: August 6, 2020 and July 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in ARDX:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/ardelyx-inc-loss-submission-form?id=18544&from=5

Ardelyx, Inc. NEWS - ARDX NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
Ardelyx, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: 1) the Company overstated the
likelihood that tenapanor would be approved by the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"); and 2) Defendants possessed, were in
control over, and as a result, knew that the data submitted to
support the New Drug Application was insufficient in that it showed
a lack of clinical relevance of the drug's treatment effect, making
it foreseeably likely that the FDA would not approve the drug.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Ardelyx you have until September 28, 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 Ardelyx 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 ARDX lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click https://bit.ly/3kh9SVt.

                     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.

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

ARDELYX INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Ardelyx, Inc. ("Ardelyx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ARDX)
and certain of its officers. The class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, and docketed under 21-cv-06228.
Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec 240.10b-5, on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and
their affiliates, who purchased Ardelyx securities between August
6, 2020 and July 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who
were damaged thereby (the "Class").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Ardelyx securities during the Class Period, you have until
September 28, 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.

Ardelyx is a specialized biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing first-in-class medicine to improve treatment for people
with cardiorenal disease. This includes patients with chronic
kidney disease ("CKD") on dialysis suffering from elevated serum
phosphorus, or hyperphosphatemia; and CKD patients and/or heart
failure patients with elevated serum potassium, or hyperkalemia.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding tenapanor
and the likelihood that it would be approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA"). Defendants possessed, were in control
over, and, as a result, knew (or had reason to know) that the data
submitted to support a New Drug Application ("NDA") for tenapanor
was insufficient in that it showed a lack of clinical relevance of
the drug's treatment effect, making it foreseeably likely (if not
certain) that the FDA would not approve the drug.

In June 2020, Defendants submitted an NDA to the FDA for Ardelyx's
lead product candidate, tenapanor, a supposedly first-in-class
medicine for the control of serum phosphorus in adult patients with
CKD on dialysis. According to Ardelyx, tenapanor has "a unique
mechanism of action and acts locally in the gut to inhibit the
sodium hydrogen exchanger 3, or NHE3," resulting in the "tightening
of the epithelial cell junctions, thereby significantly reducing
paracellular uptake of phosphate, the primary pathway of phosphate
absorption." If approved, tenapanor "would be the first therapy for
phosphate management that blocks phosphorus absorption at the
primary pathway of uptake[,]" and "could greatly improve patient
adherence and compliance with one single pill dosed twice daily in
contrast to current therapies where typically multiple pills are
taken before every meal." Thus, tenapanor (and its promise) was
widely touted by Defendants and, accordingly, extremely important
to the valuation (and future success) of Ardelyx securities.

The FDA accepted Ardelyx's NDA in September 2020 and set a
Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA") date of April 29, 2021.

The Company repeatedly lauded this development, highlighting the
FDA's acceptance and review of the NDA, supported by so-called
"successful" Phase 3 studies, in each subsequently filed quarterly
report and in the Company's 2020 annual report. Even when the FDA
requested that the Company provide additional information related
to Ardelyx's clinical data, which caused the PDUFA date to slip by
three months, Defendants continued to hype Ardelyx's "positive"
clinical trial results, which, according to them, showed
"improvements" over current treatments, supported tenapanor's
"clinical safety and efficacy," and reinforced its "potential" as a
"transformative" treatment. At no point did Defendants state (much
less suggest) that there may be fatal issues with the drug, its
clinical trial data, or both. Rather, Defendants simply claimed
that the FDA's request was merely because they needed help to
"better understand the clinical data in light of tenapanor's novel
mechanism of action as compared to approved therapies."

Defendants' rosy narrative, however, came to a halt after the
market closed on July 19, 2021. At that time, Ardelyx announced
that it had received a letter from the FDA, dated July 13, 2021,
that said the administration had found deficiencies that precluded
discussion around the would-be labeling and post-marketing
requirements for tenapanor. Critically, the FDA said it detected
issues with both the size and clinical relevance of the drug's
treatment effect.

Immediately, analysts cut their price targets and downgraded the
Company's rating. Piper Sandler, for example, rated Ardelyx neutral
(down from a buy-equivalent rating) and wrote, "we struggle to see
a path forward for Tenapanor." Raymond James, another analyst,
reset the Company's price target to $4.00 from $14.00 per share.

The Company's share price likewise plummeted, falling $5.69 per
share, or nearly 74%, in a single day, to close at $2.01 per share
on July 20, 2021, before falling another 4.2% by market close on
July 21, 2021.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, 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, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz 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.pomlaw.com. [GN]

ASCENT RESOURCES: Eatons Win Class Status in Underpayment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN EATON and CYNTHIA
EATON, individually and on behalf of a class of all other similarly
situated, and  CUNNINGHAM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TRUST, individually
and on behalf of a class of all other similarly situated, v. ASCENT
RESOURCES -- UTICA, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-03412-EAS-CMV (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge enters an order denying the Defendant's
Daubert motion, and grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Court's grant of class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3) is subject to the class definition modifications, says
Judge Sargus.

This case involves the alleged underpayment of royalties on oil and
gas leases. The Plaintiffs Cunningham, and Brian and Cythia Eaton,
are the lessors to oil and gas leases with Ascent, a natural gas
and oil producer doing business in Ohio.

Ascent became the lessee to Cunningham's and the Eatons' leases
through assignment. The Eatons allege that "as soon as Ascent took
our checks over, they decreased about 50 percent."

Cunningham alleges a similar occurrence. The Eatons and Cunningham
filed lawsuits against Ascent, which this Court has since
consolidated.

Ascent Resources is an exploration and production company. The
Company acquires, explores for, develops, and produces natural gas,
oil, and natural gas.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xMfLyp at no extra charge.[CC]

AXOS BANK: Jan. 6, 2022 Extension for Class Cert Bid Filing Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH HOAGLAND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
AXOS BANK, Case No. 3:20-cv-00807-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties
stipulate that the deadline to complete discovery for Plaintiff's
motion for class certification be extended up to and including
December 7, 2021, and that the deadline for Plaintiff's motion for
class certification be extended up to and including January 6,
2022.

The Parties hereby respectfully move the Court to grant this Joint
Motion for such relief and, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, submit a
proposed order to that effect concurrently hereto.

This is a putative class action in which Plaintiff seeks redress
for nonconsensual, prerecorded-voice telemarketing calls allegedly
made to himself and others by or on behalf of Defendant in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The Parties believe that a ninety-day extension of the current
deadlines will be sufficient to allow them to complete the
discovery pertinent to class certification, and thus respectfully
seek such from the Court.

The Court's Scheduling Order Regulating Discovery and Class
Certification Motion Filing Deadline is set for September 8, 2021,
as the deadline to complete discovery with respect to Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, with Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is due by October 8, 2021.

Axos Bank is an American federally chartered direct bank
headquartered in San Diego, California. It is the main consumer
brand of Axos Financial.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CTUUNE at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          909 Davis St., Suite 500
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          1230 Columbia St., Suite 1140
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-2416
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  csekino@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
          4445 Lake Forest Dr., Suite 490
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq.
          M LLER SHAH LLP
          1230 Columbia St., Suite 1140
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-2416
          E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
                  cgsekino@millershah.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM
          2754 Erie Ave.
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 381-2333
          E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq.
          KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN LLP
          Jefferson Rd., 2nd Floor
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Telephone: (973) 503-5900
          E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Homer, Esq.
          KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN LLP
          7825 Fay Ave., Suite 200
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 795-0426
          E-mail: ahomer@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Durone, Esq.
          Stacey R. Gilman, Esq.
          BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 1200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 561-7007
          E-mail: adurone@berkowitzoliver.com
                  sgilman@berkowitzoliver.com

BELL CANADA: Settlement Reached in Quebec Consumer Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ilana Belfer at mtlblog.com reports that despite denying
allegations that it misled consumers, Bell Canada has agreed to pay
$2 million - a credit of $8 per eligible customer - following a
class-action lawsuit launched in Quebec in March 2017.

According to the settlement agreement posted to law firm LPC Avocat
Inc.'s website, the plaintiff, Shay Abicidan, claimed the telecom
giant misled consumers into believing they had access to a fully
fibre-optic network.

"The Plaintiff alleged that Bell Canada misled consumers by using
the term Fibe and/or fibre optics when offering services that were,
in fact, hybrid (i.e. composed of fibre optics and copper), in
violation of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act," the case summary
reads.

If the settlement is approved in court, anyone living in Quebec who
subscribed to FIBE TV or FIBE Internet between May 1, 2012, and
March 30, 2017, and who was not connected to a 100% fibre-optic
network, will be able to claim a one-time credit of $8 plus taxes
on their account.

There are three non-negotiable criteria to qualify for the credit:

You subscribed to Bell's FIBE Internet or FIBE TV services between
May 1, 2012, and March 30, 2017
You were connected to Bell's network via a
fibre-to-the-neighbourhood (FTTN) connection
You remain subscribed to FIBE Internet or FIBE TV services as of
the distribution date (60 days after the final judgement)

The hearing to approve the settlement agreement between the two
parties will take place on the morning of November 24 at the
Montreal courthouse. [GN]


BNSF RAILWAY: Macias Bid to Certify Class Moot
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Macias et al v. BNSF
Railway Company, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02305 (D. Kan.), the Hon.
Judge Toby Crouse enters an order finding as moot motion to certify
class, in light of the filing of the amended motion.

The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.

The BNSF Railway is the largest freight railroad network in North
America.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]

BONNIE HENRY: Fails to Provide Public Comments in CSASPP Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Reid Small at westernstandardonline.com reports that a judge locked
in trial dates for BC's Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Bonnie
Henry, who has been named as the defendant in a class action
lawsuit set forth by the Canadian Society for the Advancement of
Science in Public Policy (CSASPP).

Henry and BC Minister of Health, Adrian Dix have not responded to
the Western Standard for comment following, nor have they addressed
it publicly.

The hearing - a judicial management conference - was strictly
procedural, meaning it was not meant to deal with any of the
allegations CSASPP is making in the action.

CSASPP's civil proceeding's objectives are "to obtain any available
civil remedy for the maximum number of British Columbian's that
revert in whole or in part any COVID-19 related statute,
ministerial order, regulation, or other executive, regulatory, or
legislative measure; past extant, or proposed; that constrain any
activity of any person inadequately supported by either science or
law," as written on its website.

"We have received support from city councillors, medical doctors,
biostatisticians, two former Canadian premiers (including
Newfoundland's Brian Peckford). . . .  one of which helped draft
the charter, distinguished members of the bar, concerned parents,
government whistle-blowers, a former deputy Prime Minister of
Canada, a former federal opposition leader, and many others," said
Kip Warner, Executive Director of CSASPP, in a June 3 interview
with the Western Standard.

CSASPP initially filed their class action suit on Jan. 26, 2021.

During the hearing, a trial date was set.

"Dr. Henry, in her capacity as the provincial health officer for
the province of BC, and the Crown, will stand trial as ordered by
the court starting 17 April, 2023," wrote CSASPP in an August 11
release.

It's important to note this is a class action and Henry has not
been charged with an offence. The Ministry of Attorney General says
that the Provincial Health Officer denies all allegations, and
Henry - who is named as the defendant - will have the opportunity
to defend herself.

This will happen at the aforementioned trial date, contingent upon
the certification hearing, which is scheduled to take place the
week of June 20, 2022.

"For those of you unfamiliar with class actions, a certification
hearing is very important, arguably more so than trial," writes
CSASPP.

Upon certification, Henry will be sent a form for an examination
for discovery, this will happen well before trial.

Crown argued it was too soon to set a trial date, but was
unsuccessful in doing so.

While many of CSASPP's supporters are concerned with the distant
dates, the organization itself is pleased with the timing
considering how backed up the courts are, especially since delays
having only grown worse due to COVID.

Both parties will return to court for their second case planning
conference on Sept. 27, 2021, and instructions on how the public
can listen will be updated on CSASPP's website closer to the date.

British Columbia experienced 17,350 business closures in April of
2020; a more than 200% increase from 7,623 in 2019, according to
statistics Canada.


"I don't see a quick recovery in the industry. It is going to take
years for things to go back to normal, if there will be a normal. .
. .  the new normal, as they call it," Eduardo Bilardello, owner
and head chef of Brioche Urban Eatery told the Western Standard.

Eduardo was one of many business owners who felt they were not
included in the government's "we're all in this together"
sentiment.

Henry ordered more restrictions in Central Okanagan on August 6,
enforcing the closure - yet again - of nightclubs and bars that
don't serve food.

Patrons at restaurants must limit themselves to groups of six or
less, and liquor service is now suspended at 10 p.m.

High-intensity fitness gyms are also not allowed to operate in
Central Okanagan, among other restrictions.

At a press conference in late July, Henry warned the public "there
are consequences for people who are not immunized," adding that
"this will be important for us as we head into the fall."

"If you're in the Okanagan, the best thing you can do to get
through these restrictions is to get vaccinated and encourage
everyone in you're life to do the same," said Henry at a
last-minute press conference Aug. 6.

"That's how we get back to doing the things that we love, and being
with the people that we love."

As for whistle-blowers in Henry's staff, CSASPP says they can make
arrangements for encrypted telephone, video, e-mail, or text, if
requested, and will take all reasonably necessary steps to ensure
anonymity. [GN]

BROWN UNIVERSITY: Students File Sexual Assault Class Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
msmagazine.com reports that in the fall of 1990, Brown University
students were frustrated and angry by the administration's paltry
response to reports of sexual assault. So they took matters into
their own hands.

According to a New York Times story at the time, the Brown
University library "became a repository for information of a most
unusual kind: on its bathroom walls women made a list of the male
students who the women said had raped them. Repeatedly scrubbed
from the bathrooms by janitors only to reappear, the list of names
has grown in recent weeks to as many as 30 and has appeared in
several other bathrooms on campus."

Over 30 years later, Brown once again finds itself the subject of
searing criticism for its alleged failure to address sexual assault
on campus. But this time, the university faces a class-action
lawsuit by four current and former students-all survivors of campus
sexual harassment and assault-who claim the school failed to
protect them from harm "despite knowledge that sexual assault on
its campus is endemic."

The case, filed in federal court in Rhode Island on August 6,
alleges that Brown officials repeatedly downplayed or dismissed
complaints of sexual misconduct-including stalking, harassment and
assault-in violation of federal Title IX rules, Rhode Island civil
rights law and Brown's own code of conduct.

"Survivors at Brown are silenced, harmed, dismissed and discouraged
from seeking justice by the university," said the four
plaintiffs-Carter Woodruff, Chloe Burns, Taja Hirata-Epstein, and
Katiana Soenen. "The so-called systems of justice and support at
Brown, as well as the faculty, staff and administrators who
implement them, actively perpetuate and exacerbate the injustices
and harm they claim to remedy."

The four women plaintiffs are two recent graduates and two current
students. They are jointly represented by the law firms of Grant &
Eisenhofer and Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky. The suit seeks to
represent all woman who attended Brown since 2018, who experienced
sexual violence and then were "further traumatized by the
university's mishandling of sexual misconduct complaints."

"These courageous women have brought this action expressly to hold
Brown University to account for tolerating sexual
misconduct-however, based on our extensive pre-suit investigation,
we believe many more sexual violence survivors at Brown will
follow," said trial attorney Elizabeth Bailey of Saltz Mongeluzzi &
Bendesky.

The complaint describes sexual misconduct as "endemic" on Brown's
campus. In 2019, as part of a national survey, the American
Association of Universities surveyed 3,100 Brown students about
their concerns regarding university sexual assault and misconduct
issues. One quarter of undergraduate women reported receiving
nonconsensual sexual contact while at Brown. Nearly half-48.2
percent-of all students reported experiencing at least one type of
offensive or inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature. Over 76
percent of the perpetrators were current Brown students. And more
than one in five students-22.1 percent-believed that sexual
misconduct was very or extremely problematic on Brown's campus.

"Our clients are taking this necessary step, convinced that, given
its previous decades of inaction, Brown will simply continue to act
like it's the 18th century and perpetuate its non-compliant,
haphazard and ineffective internal grievance process," said Bailey.
"We hope this action is a call for other women who have endured
similar abuse and subsequent mistreatment by college administrators
to step forward and hold accountable all those responsible."

The lawsuit alleges the university "failed and continues to fail"
to protect women, "creating a campus culture that ignores and even
tacitly allows trauma to be inflicted on women." According to the
complaint, "Brown set up a system that dissuades and actively
thwarts reporting of sexual assault and misconduct on campus
despite its knowledge of a pervasive and ongoing problem."

The plaintiffs allege that "Brown employees. . . . discouraged or
even overtly prevented the proper reporting of sexual assault and
abuse allegations." When students were able to file complaints,
they were "ignored or inadequately investigated or addressed,
effectively ratifying the abusive acts committed against" the
plaintiffs, they say.

The complaint notes that the university regularly reports
significantly more "incidents" than formal complaints or findings
of responsibility. For example, during the 2019-2020 academic year,
103 incidents were reported but only nine formal complaints were
filed and only five findings of responsibility-less than 5 percent
of reported incidents.

The plaintiffs also allege that the university "routinely engaged
in retaliatory conduct against students who publicly discussed
their experiences, publicly raised complaints about Brown, and/or
engaged in publicly-organized protests against Brown's failures."

Woodruff, Burns, Hirata-Epstein and Soenen said that despite
"numerous student uprisings led by survivors and their allies . . .
. the university has never responded to these pleas for justice
with anything but begrudging, minor changes to policy and
procedure."

In June of 2020, students created an Instagram account Voices of
Brown, where they shared their stories of sexual assault and their
experiences in reporting the assaults to Brown. By February of
2021, after over 100 survivors had reported their experiences,
students created another Instagram account-End Sexual Violence at
Brown, where students posted an open letter "denouncing the Brown
administration and recounting a decades-long history of
institutional survivor-silencing and suppression of student
activism." Students then plastered the campus with posters reading
"End Sexual Violence @ Brown" and "End the Silence, End the
Violence."
On April 7, students held an in-person, outdoor, COVID-safe
protest. They marched to the Brown president's house and presented
a list of demands. Later they organized an email campaign demanding
action. "Brown administrators never responded to the actions. . . .
directly," says the complaint, and "only begrudgingly agreed to
meet" with student leaders, which resulted in "no material changes
to Brown's policies or conduct."

The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction to ensure strict
compliance with Title IX provisions.

"For Brown University, an Ivy League school and one of the
country's elite liberal arts institutions, to fail students who
have suffered physical trauma and are in need of extra care and
compassion, it is appalling," said co-counsel Kim Evans of Grant &
Eisenhofer.

"Not only are these young women left unsupported at an especially
vulnerable time, but the school's indifference and the impunity
afforded their attackers compromises the women's education,
entrenches a code of silence around sexual assault, and reinforces
humiliation and psychological stress, making their campus a hostile
place."

Brown University did not respond to a request from Ms. for comment
on the lawsuit.

"We hope our lawsuit will bring justice to the countless survivors
who have suffered at the hands of the university," said Woodruff,
Burns, Hirata-Epstein, and Soenen.

Resources are available to assist sexual assault survivors from the
National Sexual Assault Hotline operated by RAINN (Rape, Abuse &
Incest National Network). To speak confidentially to a trained
staff member from a local sexual assault service provider call
800-656-HOPE or visit https://hotline.rainn.org/online. [GN]

CALIFORNIA: Judge Rules Against Charter Schools in Class Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
californianewstimes.com reports that a judge in the California High
Court ruled in a class action against hundreds of online and other
non-classroom-based charter schools, and the state unfairly robbed
schools of educational funds during a pandemic. I declared that it
was not the case.

Judgment Inherited on July 27, it hit a school called a
non-classroom-based charter school, as at least 20% of learning
takes place off-campus, often online or at home.

Three San Diego-based charter school networks (Classical Academies,
Learning Choice Academy, and Springs Charter Schools) and parents
of several registered and waiting-list students sued California
last fall. rice field. It takes into account new students enrolled
during the last school year.

The proceedings Deemed Plaintiffs' lawyer Lee Rosenberg has filed a
class action petition on behalf of about 300 non-classroom-based
charter schools enrolling about 200 students across California.

He said these schools accepted about 25,000 freshmen who had not
been paid by the state last year.

The state typically provides per-student funding to all public
schools, including charter schools. In other words, the more
students enroll in school, the higher the state's funding.

Last year, due to the closure of pandemics and related schools, the
state initially frozen public school funding levels to stabilize
school and district finances.

State authorities then unfrozen funds and existing and new to K-12
public schools, with the exception of non-classroom-based charter
schools that primarily provided online, homeschooling, and
non-traditional educational services. Funded new students for
registration. Their funds remained frozen for existing students.

State leaders have chosen not to fund freshmen in
non-classroom-based charter schools. History of fraud And abuse By
some of those types of schools, the Attorney General wrote in a
recent court filing.

"The state has determined that (non-classroom-based charter
schools) are raising great concerns about fraud, abuse, and
incentive education, and while the state is considering basic
(non-classroom) policies, it is a pandemic. We decided to limit the
incentives to expand that educational model, based on charter
schools). "

During last year's pandemic, thousands of California students left
their original school district or charter school and enrolled in a
non-classroom-based charter school. Charter school reported waiting
list Of thousands of students. Charter school leaders said many
families knew that these schools had years of experience and
expertise in servicing students in remote areas.

The plaintiffs in the proceedings argued that it was the main
reason why each freshman, like any other district, deserved
funding.

"Under the Student Funding Act, student education funding remains
in the public school where they depart, thus rewarding the public
school district for not serving students who did not serve well.
"The complaint said.

The funding freeze continued during last year's school year.

Plaintiffs alleged that this harmed student education on
non-classroom-based charters, as their schools were forced to
distribute the same amount of state money to more students. They
said public school funding was to follow students no matter which
public school they chose.

"We're obviously really disappointed. We've been fighting for
nearly a year now," Rosenberg said. "For the first time in history
we know, we decided not to fund the education of all California
students. I just thought it was immoral and unacceptable."

Judge James Argeles of the Sacramento Superior Court ruled against
charter school plaintiffs because they did not show last year's
students that they were not educated due to lack of funding.

"Petitioners do not prove that (non-classroom-based) students were
not actually or effectively educated during any period of fiscal
year 2020-21," Arguelles wrote.

He also opposed them because he disagreed with their claim that the
state was bound by a contract to fund each student at a particular
level.

State lawyers previously claimed that there was no contract between
the state and the charter school that would prevent the state from
changing the amount that it funded or did not fund the charter
school. It is the legislature's authority to determine the amount
that public schools receive.

Charter school proponents have been fighting for months with the
perception that non-classroom-based charter schools are fraudulent.
The California Charter Schools Association has argued that a few
villains should not pollute all non-classroom-based charter
schools. Charter schools offer an alternative model of education
that many students do not get from the school district.

Rosenberg said the client is considering the next step and whether
to appeal to Argeles' decision.

Judge rules against Calif. charter schools in class-action funding
lawsuit Source link Judge rules against Calif. charter schools in
class-action funding lawsuit. [GN]

CAMDEN PROPERTY: $5.2M Class Settlement in Suarez Suit Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, JORGE SUAREZ, Plaintiff v. CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST,
CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT, INC., and CSP COMMUNITY OWNER, LP f/k/a CSP
COMMUNITY OWNER, LLC, d/b/a CAMDEN WESTWOOD, Defendants. JORGE
SUAREZ, Plaintiff v. CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST, CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT,
INC., and CSP COMMUNITY OWNER, LP f/k/a CSP COMMUNITY OWNER, LLC,
d/b/a CAMDEN WESTWOOD, Defendants, Case Nos. 5:17-cv-124-D,
5:18-cv-455-D (E.D.N.C.), Judge James C. Dever, III, of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western
Division, grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final
approval of the parties' settlement and grants the Class Counsel's
fee application and request for service awards to the Class
Representatives.

The Settlement Agreement provides monetary relief of $5,269,396.

I. Background

Suarez I History

On Jan. 24, 2017, Suarez filed a putative class action against the
Defendants in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division
of Wake County, North Carolina, Case No. 17 CVS 1037. Suarez
alleged the Defendants violated N.C.G.S. Sections 42-46 and 75-54,
et seq., by automatically assessing tenants three fees for filing
an eviction: (1) a $96 eviction complaint filing fee, (2) a $30
service fee, and (3) an attorneys' fee.

On March 10, 2017, the Defendants removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.  They
answered the complaint on April 10, 2017.

On June 25, 2018, the North Carolina General Assembly amended N.C.
Gen. Stat. Section 42-46 to add two subsections -- (i) and (j) --
—that expressly authorized landlords to charge and recover
out-of-pocket expenses, including Eviction Fees, and to include
these amounts in the amount required to cure a default.

In light of the Amendment, on July 20, 2018, the Defendants filed a
supplemental memorandum in support of their motion for summary
judgment. On July 27, 2018, the parties filed additional responses
regarding the Amendment.

On March 21, 2019, the District Court granted Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment in the Action and denied Suarez' Motion to
Certify the Class as moot. On the same date, the Court entered
judgment for the Defendants. On April 4, 2019, Suarez filed a
Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.

On June 15, 2020, while the appeal was pending, Suarez filed a
Voluntary Petition for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy pursuant
to Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Bankruptcy Court
appointed Barry E. Mukamal as the trustee of bankruptcy estate
created by Suarez's Bankruptcy Petition.

On June 19, 2020, the Fourth Circuit issued its unpublished opinion
affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding Suarez I to the
District Court. On Sept. 29, 2020, the Fourth Circuit issued its
mandate and remanded Suarez I to the District Court.

On Sept. 29, 2020, the Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Suarez I
pending approval of the settlement between the Bankruptcy Trustee
and Camden by the Bankruptcy Court. Dueto this issue, the
Plaintiffs' counsel had to hire the law firm of Genovese Joblove &
Batista PA in order to prevent any putative class members' claims
being potentially extinguished in the matter.

On Oct. 2, 2020, the Intervening Plaintiffs filed a Motion to
Substitute Class Representative and/or Intervene. While the Motion
to Stay and the Motion to Substitute was pending before the Court,
the Parties engaged in arms'-length settlement discussions, and on
Nov. 2, 2020, the Parties reached an agreement in principle to
jointly resolve Suarez I and Suarez II contingent upon the
negotiation and execution of the Settlement Agreement and approval
by the District Court.

Suarez II History

On July 30, 2018, Suarez filed a second putative class action
against the Defendants in the General Court of Justice, Superior
Court Division of Wake County, North Carolina, Case No. 18 CVS 9566
("Suarez II"). Suarez II alleged the Defendants violated the NCDCA
by attempting to collect debts through the service of Final Account
Statements to former tenants.  On Sept. 21, 2018, the Defendants
removed Suarez II to the District Court pursuant to CAFA.

On Oct. 5, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint in
Suarez II. On Oct. 26, 2018, Suarez filed an Amended Complaint
against the Defendants. On Nov. 9, 2018, the Defendants moved to
dismiss Suarez' Amended Complaint, which Suarez opposed. On Feb. 1,
2019, Suarez filed a motion to remand Suarez II to state court,
which the Defendants opposed. On July 29, 2019, the Court entered
an order denying as moot Suarez' motion to remand and granting in
part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

On Aug. 28, 2019, the Defendants filed their answer to Suarez'
Amended Complaint and filed a counterclaim against Suarez. On Oct.
9, 2019, Suarez filed a motion to dismiss the Defendants'
counterclaim. On Nov. 20, 2019, the Defendants amended their answer
and counterclaim. On Dec. 13, 2019, Suarez moved to dismiss
Defendants' amended counterclaims. On Jan. 3, 2020, the Defendants
filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss the amended
counterclaims, and, on Feb. 7, 2020, Suarez filed a reply in
support of the motion to dismiss the amended counterclaims. On
Sept. 8, 2020, the Court granted Suarez' motion to dismiss the
amended counterclaims.

On Sept. 29, 2020, the Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Suarez II
pending approval of the settlement between the Bankruptcy Trustee
and Camden by the Bankruptcy Court. While the Motion to Stay was
pending before the Court, the Parties engaged in arms'-length
settlement discussions, and on Nov. 2, 2020, the Parties reached an
agreement in principle to jointly resolve Suarez I and Suarez II
contingent upon the negotiation and execution of the Settlement
Agreement and approval by the District Court.

Prior to filing a Motion for Preliminary Approval, the Parties
filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate Suarez I and Suarez II for
purposes of effectuating efficient approval and administration of
the settlement of both cases.

Settlement Terms

The Settlement Agreement provides monetary relief of $5,269,396,
which is composed of a Cash Fund of $2.1 million, and Debt Relief
of approximately $3,169,396. Each Settlement Class member is a
member of one or two classes.

The Collection Letter Class is defined as "All natural persons who
(a) at any point between Jan. 27, 2013, and June 25, 2018, (b)
resided in any of Defendants' Properties and (c) received a letter
that threatened that Defendants would file a summary ejectment
lawsuit, an eviction action, or notice to vacate the premises if
the person failed to make a complete rental payment and that once
the summary ejectment lawsuit was filed, the tenant would be
charged Eviction Fees in order to dismiss the eviction action."

The Eviction Fee Class is defined as "All natural persons who (a)
at any point between Jan. 27, 2013, and June 25, 2018, (b) resided
in any of Defendants' Properties and (c) were charged and (d)
actually paid Eviction Fees." The Final Account Statement Class is
defined as "For the period of time between July 30, 2014, through
Nov. 1, 2018, all consumers throughout the State of North Carolina
who were sent a Final Account Statement."

Collection Letter Class members were eligible to receive $50 per
letter sent to them by the Defendants up to $150 if they made a
valid claim. The Final Account Statement Class was eligible to
receive $100 if they filed a valid claim. Eviction Fee Class
members were eligible to receive an estimated $225 per instance in
which they were charged and paid approximately $191 without having
to file a claim. Eviction Fee Class members may also be Collection
Letter Class members and Final Account Statement Class members and
file claims for such benefits. Any amounts not claimed from the
Collection Letter Class or the Final Account Statement Class would
be redistributed evenly to the members of the Eviction Fee Class
Members.

Under the settlement, all costs of notice and claims administration
have been paid by Defendants out of the monetary relief.
Court-approved fees and expenses for the Class Counsel and service
awards for the Class Representatives will be paid by the Defendants
out of the monetary relief.

In addition, certain Settlement Class members were eligible to
request non-monetary relief in the form of a Consent Motion to Set
Aside Judgment for Possession Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) and
Stipulation of Dismissal. The consent motion allows certain
Settlement Class members to set aside judgments entered against
them by Defendants for possession of the rental property; however,
Settlement Class members have the obligation of filing the motion.

The Settlement also provides that the Defendants will not contest
the Settlement Class Counsel's application to the Court for payment
of attorneys' fees up to the amount of $1.06 million plus
reimbursement of expenses and costs from the Cash Fund of the
Settlement. The requested attorneys' fees amount to approximately
20% of the total monetary relief provided under the Settlement.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendants, subject to
Court approval, will pay $1,000 each to Debra Rhino, Kristina Kish,
Christopher Knapp, Florencia Hernandez, Bruno Asobo, Heather
Mitchell, and Susan Reddick (total of $7,000) for their service as
Class Representatives, with such payments to be made from the Cash
Fund of the settlement payment.

In the event that Settlement Class members fail to cash their
checks within six months of mailing and remaining funds are left
over, as provided in the Settlement Agreement, such that the
Settlement Fund has a positive balance, all remaining amounts in
the Settlement Fund will be equally divided and disbursed to the
approved cy pres recipient: Legal Aid of North Carolina. The Claims
Administrator is ordered to provide a report to Class Counsel of
all money in the Cash Fund left undisbursed within 15 calendar days
after the six-month period has elapsed.

The Settlement Classes have been notified of the settlement
pursuant to the plan approved by the Court.

II. Order

Having considered the written submissions and after hearing oral
argument at the fairness hearing on July 30, 2021, Judge Dever
grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of the
parties' settlement and grants the Class Counsel's fee application
and request for service awards to the Class Representatives.

The Judge finally approves in all respects the Settlement set forth
in the Settlement Agreement, and finds that the Settlement, the
Settlement Agreement, and the plan of distribution of the
Settlement funds are in all respects fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and are in the best interest of the settlement class.

The Class Counsel is awarded, from the Settlement Fund, attorneys'
fees in the amount of $1.06 million from the Defendants to be paid
from the Cash Fund as set forth in the manner described in
Settlement Agreement, which amount the Court finds to be fair and
reasonable.

The Class Counsel is also awarded, from the Cash Fund, a
reimbursement of their expenses of $91,729.92 and the Claims
Administrator is awarded its expenses for notice and administration
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Dever also finds to be fair and reasonable service award of
$1,000 each to Debra Rhino, Kristina Kish, Christopher Knapp,
Florencia Hernandez, Bruno Asobo, Heather Mitchell, and Susan
Reddick, $7,000 total, to be paid from the Cash Fund.

Any amounts unused for the administration of the Settlement will be
distributed to the cy pres recipient.

Since no member of the Class has objected to the Settlement, the
Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement is the date of the
signing of the order, and the Class Releasors will release and
forever discharge the Released Persons from the Released Claims;
provided, however, that the individual identified in the Settlement
Administrator's Declaration who requested to be excluded from the
settlement will not be deemed to have received any claims.

By reason of the settlement, and there being no just reason for
delay, Judge Dever enters final judgment in the matter and all
claims alleged by the Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the action is
dismissed with prejudice as against the Class Representatives, all
members of the Settlement Classes and the Defendants and Released
Persons.

The Plaintiffs and the Class Members are permanently barred and
enjoined from asserting any and all claims included in the
Settlement Agreement's Release in any legal proceeding.

The parties will bear their own costs except as provided by the
Settlement Agreement and as ordered.

It is further adjudged that the Class Representatives, on behalf of
themselves and members of the Settlement Classes, will be deemed
conclusively to have compromised, settled, discharged, dismissed,
and released any and all rights, claims, or causes of action
against Released Persons as provided for in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Class Administrator will complete administration of the class
by making the payments approved by the Order in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement and the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Final Order &
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/2m8dfkw6 from
Leagle.com.


CARLOTZ INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of CarLotz, Inc. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline
listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be
found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

LOTZ Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/carlotz-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18516&wire=1

CarLotz, Inc. (NASDAQ:LOTZ)

LOTZ Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 30,
2020 - May 25, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 7, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/carlotz-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18516&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, 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.

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

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

CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]

CC-PALO ALTO: Cork Wins Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA COLLINS CORK, et
al., v. CC-PALO ALTO, INC., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00750-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon Judge Edward J. Davila enters an order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule
23(a) 24 and 23(b)(2).

The motion is denied in all other respects. The parties are
directed to meet and confer regarding a schedule for the case, and
if possible, submit a stipulation and order. In the event the
parties are unable to reach an agreement, the parties shall file a
joint statement explaining their respective positions no later than
August 20, 2021, says Judge Davila.

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


CENTENE CORPORATION: Arana Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
ESWIN ARANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE CORPORATION; HEALTH NET OF
CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV29434 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 10, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions
Code, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act including failure to
compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to
pay wages owed every pay period, failure to maintain accurate
records, failure to give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks,
failure to reimburse for business expenses, discrimination on the
basis of physical disability, failure to accommodate physical
disability, failure to engage in interactive process to determine
reasonable accommodation, retaliation, failure to prevent
discrimination and retaliation, and wrongful termination.

The Plaintiff started to work for Centene in or around 2015 or 2016
until December of 2020. His latest job title was an appeals and
grievance coordinator assistant.

Centene Corporation is a managed care company headquartered in
Missouri.

Health Net of California, Inc. is a provider of health plans and
services, headquartered in Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Harout Messrelian, Esq.
         MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
         500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 484-6531
         Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
         E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Court Narrows Claims in Sultanis Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the two class action lawsuits filed against Champion Petfoods
USA Inc., et al., the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen enters an order
granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motions to
dismiss Plaintiff Patricia Sultanis' class action complaints in the
"Poultry Action" and the "Fish Action."

   -- Ms. Sultanis's claims on behalf of the Nationwide Class
      under Count 6 of the Poultry Action are dismissed without
      leave to amend.

   -- Ms. Sultanis's claims on behalf of the Multi-State Class
      under Count 1 of both Actions are dismissed with leave to
      amend.

   -- If Ms. Sultanis amends her complaint to add similarly 20
      situated named plaintiffs in some or all of the states
      currently comprising the Multi-State Class and survives a
      further motion to dismiss, class certification would not
      be decided until a formal motion is filed under Rule 23 --
      the Court would then examine, inter alia, issues of
      manageability.

   -- Ms. Sultanis's claims on behalf of herself and the
      California Sub-Class under Counts 3 (CLRA), (FAL), and
      (UCL) in the Fish Action are dismissed for failure to
      state a claim with leave to amend.

   -- The motions are denied as to all other counts.

   -- Sultanis is instructed to file any amended complaint no
      later than 30 days after the date of this order.

The two class action lawsuits are captioned as:

   "Sultanis v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. et al, Case No.
   3:21-cv-00162-EMC 22 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 8, 2021) (the
   "Poultry Action"); and

   "Sultanis v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. et al, Case No.
   3:21-cv-00167-EMC (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 8, 2021) (the "Fish
   Action").

The Plaintiff purchased Champion's Acana brand petfood marketed and
labeled as being made with "free-run" poultry and "wild-caught"
fish (the "Products") for the four years preceding the filing of
her complaint, and most recently on July 24, 2017. Ms. Sultanis
alleges that the poultry Products were marketed with statements
that included "made with fresh free-run chicken, turkey, and
cage-free eggs."

Champion Petfoods retails pet food products.

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

CHEMOURS CO: Continues to Defend Suits Related to Refinery
----------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend suits including a putative class action lawsuit filed by
area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery Inc.

There are six lawsuits, including a putative class action, pending
against E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (EID) by area
residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery multi-party
Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana.

Several of the lawsuits allege that Chemours is now responsible for
EID environmental liabilities.

The lawsuits include allegations for personal injury damages,
property diminution, and other damages.

At separation, EID assigned Chemours its former plant site, which
is located south of the residential portion of the Superfund area,
and its responsibility for the environmental remediation at the
Superfund site.

Chemours said, "Management believes a loss is reasonably possible,
but not estimable at this time due to various reasons including,
among others, that such matters are in their early stages and have
significant factual issues to be resolved. In one of the six
lawsuits, pursuant to a March 2021 court decision, there are no
current pending claims against EID or Chemours."

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHEMOURS CO: Georgia Putative Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit currently pending in the
Georgia state court.

In December 2019, a putative class action was filed in Georgia
state court on behalf of customers of the Rome, Georgia water
division and the Floyd County, Georgia water department against
numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia,
suppliers, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (EID), and Chemours
in Georgia state court alleging negligence and nuisance and related
to the release of perfluorinated compounds (PFC), including
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), into a river leading to their water
sources.

The matter was removed to federal court.

Damages sought include compensatory damages for increased water
surcharges, as well as punitive damages and injunctive relief for
abatement and remediation.

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHEMOURS CO: Perfluorinated Compound Suit Removed to Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the perfluorinated
compound (PFC) related cases filed in North Carolina state court
one of which is a putative class action initiated by residents who
are served by the Cape Fear Public Water utility have been removed
to federal court.

In September 2020, three additional lawsuits were filed in North
Carolina state court against Chemours and E. I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company ("EID"), as well as other defendants.

One of the lawsuits is a putative class action on behalf of
residents who are served by the Cape Fear Public Water utility,
alleges negligence, nuisance, and other claims related to the
release of perfluorinated compounds from Fayetteville, and seeks
compensatory and punitive damages and medical monitoring.

The other two lawsuits were filed on behalf of individuals residing
near Fayetteville and allege negligence, nuisance, and other claims
related to the release of perfluorinated compounds.

The individuals seek compensatory property damages, punitive
damages, and, in some cases, medical monitoring.

All three lawsuits allege fraudulent transfer against EID and other
EID entities, but not against Chemours. In October 2020, the cases
were removed to federal court.

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America.  It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Davis Suit Over False Discounted Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. HUD-L-003138-21 (N.J. Super., Hudson Cty., August 9, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach
of contract under the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of express warranty, injunctive relief under the
New Jersey Uniform Declaratory Judgement Act, and violations of the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Truth in Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's use of a uniform policy of
advertising and displaying fictitious purported former prices and
percentage-off discounts and sale prices in the advertising,
marketing, and sale of children's clothing and accessories sold and
offered for sale in its brick-and-mortar The Children's Place
stores in New Jersey. The Defendant advertises perpetual or near
perpetual storewide sales and percentage-off discounts, typically
25% to 75% off, from its self-created list prices for nearly all of
its products in order to trick its customers into thinking that its
products are on sale. The Defendant's marketing plan is to deceive
its customers into believing that the list prices printed on its
product tags and on product webpages are the original, regular and
normal prices for its products, and that its products are worth
these inflated list prices, such that the lower advertised sale
prices represent special bargains. The Defendant's fraudulent
advertising scheme harmed consumers like Plaintiff, who purchased
falsely discounted products from The Children's Place
brick-and-mortar retail stores in New Jersey, the suit asserts.

The Children's Place, Inc. is a company that owns and operates The
Children’s Place, a designer and retail seller of children's
clothing and accessories, in New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
         Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
         Shane T. Prince, Esq.
         DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
         5 Greentree Centre
         525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Telephone: (856) 797-9951
         Facsimile: (856) 797-9978

                - and –

         Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
         Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
         HATTIS & LUKACS
         400 108th Avenue NE, Suite 500
         Bellevue, WA 98004
         Telephone: (425) 233-8650
         Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
         E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com
                 pkl@hattislaw.com

CHINA AUTO: Dismissal of First Amended Vanderhoef Complaint Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRACY VANDERHOEF, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. CHINA AUTO LOGISTICS INC.,
TONG SHIPING, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-cv-10174
(D.N.J.), Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs, along with the putative class, are persons and
entities, who purchased publicly traded CALI securities between
March 28, 2018, and Sept. 5, 2018. They allege that the Defendants,
current and former officers and directors of China Auto Logistics
Inc. ("CALI"), failed to disclose related party transactions that
the Company conducted with various entities owned and controlled by
the Company's executives and their families, in violation of
Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. They further aver that Defendants unlawfully
failed to disclose that they leveraged these related party
transactions to divert profits from CALI to its CEO, Shiping, his
wife, Weihong, and their families, and subsequently interfered with
an independent investigation launched by outside counsel concerning
CALI's disclosure issues.

CALI is principally in the business of selling and trading imported
automobiles in the People's Republic of China. In the Company's
annual SEC report in 2016, CALI disclosed that its two largest
revenue-generating customers were Tianjin Jing Dian Automobile
Sales Information Ltd. Co. and Tianjin Binhai International
Automall Ltd. Co. In the same report, CALI disclosed that its two
"major" suppliers were Tianjin Shi Mao International Trading Ltd.
Co. and Tianjin Ying Zhi Jie International Logistics Ltd. Co.
The Plaintiffs allege that CALI failed to disclose, however, that
its dealings with Jing Dian, Binhai, Shi Mao, and Ying Zhi Jie
constituted related party transactions as these entities were
controlled by family members of Shiping and Weihong, and shared
addresses, officers, and directors with CALI and its operating
subsidiaries. These operating subsidiaries include Tianjin Seashore
New District Shisheng Business Trading Group Co. Ltd., Tianjin
Hengjia Port Logistics Corp., and Tianjin Ganghui Information
Technology Corp. Shisheng, CALI's primary operating subsidiary,
owns 98% of both Hengjia and Ganghui, which share the same business
address. Weihong served as a "supervisor" at Hengjia and co-founded
Shisheng, where she served as Senior Vice President.

Consequently, the Plaintiffs allege that Shiping and Xinwei
committed actionable fraud when, in the same 2016 annual report,
they certified that: (1) CALI's financial disclosures did "not
contain any untrue statement or a misleading omission] of a
material fact," and (2) they had revealed any potential fraud
involving "management or other employees who have a significant
role in CALI's internal control over financial reporting to the
Company's auditor and Audit Committee." The Plaintiffs also note
that Fuqi, Lili, Shaohua, and Barth executed CALI's financial
disclosures within the same report. Barth chaired CALI's Audit
Committee, Fuqi served as member of the Company's Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committee, and Lili and Shaohua served as
members of both CALI's Audit and Governance Committees.

In addition, the Plaintiffs allege that, during this same period,
the Defendants failed to disclose that the Company utilized these
related party transactions to sell its inventory (imported cars) at
below-market prices to entities owned and controlled by Shiping,
Weihong, and their families. They assert that those entities then
resold the imported cars to consumers at market prices, reaping
substantial profits for Shiping, Weihong, and their families.

Months later, CALI's shareholders caught wind of the fraudulent
scheme as, on April 2, 2018, the Company disclosed that it would be
unable to timely file its 2017 annual report with the SEC due to
"identified material weaknesses in internal controls and procedures
over identifying and reporting certain relationships." CALI added
that it "expected to correct this material weakness by implementing
additional procedures in the first half of 2018." Days later, in
support of these efforts, CALI's Board disclosed that it had
retained independent counsel, DLA Piper, to conduct the
Investigation regarding CALI's failing internal controls. In the
same release, CALI assured its investors that it was "working
diligently with its auditors and independent counsel" and "intended
to cooperate fully with the Investigation." CALI's share-price fell
19% following these disclosures.

Subsequently, on July 17, 2018, CALI disclosed that Shiping and
Xinwei had resigned from the Company following accusations from
China's police force that they wrongfully accessed sensitive data
from CALI's employees in an attempt to cover up their fraud. NASDAQ
de-listed CALI's stock from its exchange after learning this news,
which resulted in the fall of CALI's stock price by over 70%. Ten
days later, Barth disclosed that he had also resigned from CALI
because "the active noncooperation of the Company had prevented the
Audit Committee and its counsel from uncovering the evidence
necessary to ascertain the truth or inaccuracy of the allegations
pertaining to the Investigation. In particular, management had
prevented them from engaging in any efforts to collect physical and
electronic evidence or to communicate with the Company's officers
and employees."

One month later, CALI disclosed that its outside auditor and DLA
Piper had resigned from their roles servicing the Company, and that
the Company did "not believe that the Investigation would be
completed."

The Defendants seek dismissal of the FAC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.  The Plaintiffs opposed the pending
motion, and the Defendants replied. Judge Cecchi decides the matter
without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b).

Discussion

a. Count One

In Count One, the Plaintiffs allege that Shiping and Xinwei
violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose: (1)
the related party transactions; (2) the scheme to divert CALI's
profits to Shiping, Weihong, and their families; and (3) their
obstruction of the Investigation. Plaintiffs further allege that
they suffered losses when, after CALI disclosed issues relating to
the related party transactions, the Company's stock price fell. In
response, Shiping and Xinwei aver that the Plaintiffs have failed
to establish the scienter and loss causation elements under Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

To state a viable claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, the Plaintiffs must plead: (1)
a material misrepresentation or omission; (2) scienter; (3) a
connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the
purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance upon the
misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss
causation. Additionally, claims brought under Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 are subject to the heightened pleading standards of the
PSLRA and Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), which require allegations of fraud
to be stated with particularity.

Judge Cecchi opines that (i) the Plaintiffs have adequately plead
scienter; (ii) while certain allegations -- including those
concerning CALI's GAAP violations, executive and auditor
resignations, and that Shiping and Xinwei maintained c-suite
positions at CALI -- may not alone support an inference that these
Defendants acted with scienter, such allegations, in tandem, do
support such an inference; and (iii) the FAC delineates company
disclosures, alleges such disclosures revealed previously
undisclosed information, and then cites to drops in CALI's stock
price as a result." It is sufficient to plead loss causation.

b. Count Two

In Count Two, the Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant violated
Section 20(a). In response, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs' claim warrants dismissal as they fail to allege that:
(1) CALI committed a primary violation of the Exchange Act (Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5), or that (2) Defendants "controlled" CALI
within the meaning of the Exchange Act.

To state a claim under Section 20(a), the Plaintiffs must
demonstrate: (1) "a violation of the Exchange Act," and (2) "that
the Individual Defendants were controlling persons of the
corporation."

Judge Cecchi holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded each
of these elements. First, as the Court previously held, the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that CALI committed a primary
violation of the Exchange Act under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.
Second, they have satisfactorily detailed that each Defendant was a
"control person" of the Company in that they exercised
"decision-making power" over its business activities. Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs have asserted a cognizable Section 20(a) claim
against each Defendant.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth, Judge Cecchi denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss. An appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5ypah4bt from Leagle.com.


COINBASE GLOBAL: Law Firms Seek Victims to Lead Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms Pollock Cohen LLP and Dilendorf Law Firm PLLC are
looking for victims who were defrauded by Coinbase Global Inc.
(NASDAQ:COIN). The two firms seek to lead a proposed class action
against Coinbase for securities fraud in relation to Coinbase's
2021 IPO. The proposed class action seeks to recover on behalf of
those who purchased Coinbase Class A common stock. Individuals who
purchased Coinbase shares on or after April 14, 2021 and suffered
losses have until September 20, 2021 to apply for lead plaintiff
and represent the class.

On April 14, 2021, Coinbase went public, listing nearly 115 million
shares on the NASDAQ stock exchange. The stock began trading at
$381 share. However, by July 22, 2021, the value of those shares
had plummeted to only $208 per share.

Coinbase IPO Class Action
In the IPO's Offering Materials, Coinbase bragged that it had
enough cash on hand to operate for at least a year. But only one
month after the offering, Coinbase announced it planned to take on
$1.25 billion in debt. And in the IPO, Coinbase touted itself as a
"safe, trusted, and easy-to-use platform" that could supposedly
meet "real time, and 24/7/365 demands of crypto asset markets." But
barely a month had passed when Coinbase revealed that it suffered
from "delays . . . due to network congestion," which prevented
people from withdrawing their coins when they wanted.

Then, on July 22, 2021, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed
in the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:21-cv-05634). It
alleges that Coinbase mislead the public in the IPO for not
disclosing that it actually needed a significant injection of cash
to operate and that its platform was increasingly susceptible to
service disruptions.

Investors who (1) purchased COIN stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's IPO, and (2) who are interested in applying to be
lead plaintiff in order to effectively lead the litigation and
maximize class recovery, are encouraged to contact Pollock Cohen
and Dilendorf Law. The law firms may be able to recover your losses
without you paying anything out of pocket.

If you believe you would be an excellent representative to lead the
class, please visit www.coinbaseipoclassaction.com or email
coin@pollockcohen.com.[GN]

COMPUTER HAUS: Seeks to Decertify Jahagirdar Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAILESH JAHAGIRDAR, et.
al. v. THE COMPUTER HAUS NC, INC. d/b/a CITYMAC, et. Al, Case No.
1:20-cv-0033 (W.D.N.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an
order decertifying the Plaintiffs' conditional collective action
and dismissing all of the Opt-in Plaintiffs.

The Defendants claim that the Plaintiffs have unequivocally denied
that they experienced the alleged wage and hour violations. Thus,
the record evidence has shown that Plaintiffs are not similarly
situated with respect to any of the claims alleged in this Action
and that collective treatment is inappropriate. For the foregoing
reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant its
Motion and enter an Order decertifying Plaintiffs' collective
action.

The Computer Haus NC Inc is located in Bellingham, WA, United
States and is part of the Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair
and Maintenance Industry.

A copy of the the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 4, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AITG5E at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          Nicole Katherine Haynes, Esq.
          John Grover Hutchens, III, Esq.
          GESSNER LAW PLLC
          602 East Morehead Street
          G.G. Galloway House
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com
                  nicole@mgessnerlaw.com
                   johnny@mgessnerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan W. Yarbrough, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS,
          SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
          84 Peachtree Road, Suite 230
          Asheville, NC 28803
          Telephone: (828) 277-5137
          Facsimile: (828) 277-5138
          E-mail: jyarbrough@constangy.com

CONCHO RESOURCES: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Concho Resources, Inc. (NYSE: CXO)
investors that acquired shares between February 21, 2018 and July
31, 2019. Investors have until September 28, 2021 to seek an active
role in this litigation.

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

It is alleged in this complaint that Concho made misleading and/or
false statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the well
spacing at Dominator Project was highly risky and aggressive, and
premised on no reasonable basis to believe it would work as
intended; (2) Concho's practice of implementing tighter well
spacing was not limited to a handful of "tests", therefore more
widespread than the market was led to believe; (3) it was known or
recklessly disregarded that measures to mitigate well spacing risks
were non-existent and/or impossible; (4) these risks were evident
during the Class Period, which caused underground well interference
and permanently decreasing production, forcing Concho to scale back
production targets, adopting more conservative spacing measures in
its other projects; (5) it would take multiple quarters to reverse
the impacts of this widespread well spacing failure; and (6)
Concho's public statements were misleading and materially false at
all relevant times, as a result.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
28, 2021.

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

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

CONESTOGA SETTLEMENT: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEE NEUKRANZ, et al., v.
CONESTOGA SETTLEMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-01681-L-BH (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Irma Carrillo
Ramirez enters an order granting the Parties' agreed motion to stay
deadline for filing motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Certification
within 30 days after the Court lifts the discovery stay in this
matter. This stay shall not affect Provident Trust Group, LLC's
pending Motion to Strike Class Allegations.

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

COSAN CONSTRUCTION: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURO SANCHEZ and JUAN EUSEBIO SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COSAN CONSTRUCTION
CORP., AMCG INC., TERENCE JAMES FERGUSON, and AARON KING,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06744 (S.D.N.Y., August 10, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
and failure to provide accurate wage notices.

Mr. Sanchez worked for the Defendants as a foreman, mason, and
bricklayer from approximately the summer of 2016 through October
2020.

Mr. Santiago worked for the Defendants as a mason and bricklayer
from approximately August 2017 through March 16, 2020.

Cosan Construction Corp. is a construction firm located at 941
Mclean Avenue, Suite 444, Yonkers, New York.

AMCG Inc. is a construction firm located at 941 Mclean Avenue,
Suite 444, Yonkers, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Louis Pechman, Esq.
         Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
         PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
         488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 583-9500
         E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                 cuadra@pechmanlaw.com

CRICKET WIRELESS: Court Modifies Nationwide Class Definition
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE POSTPICHAL, et al.,
v. CRICKET WIRELESS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-07270-WHA (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge William Alsup enters an order certifying a
Nationwide Class but modifying the proposed class definition to
account for customers that must be excluded based on Cricket's
arbitration agreements.

The nationwide class is composed of:

   "All persons in the United States with a customer address in
    a geographic market with no Cricket 4G/LTE network coverage
    who between November 1, 2012 and September 30, 2014,
    purchased from Cricket a 4G/LTE monthly plan for service on
    Legacy Cricket’s network, or later activated a 4G/LTE plan
    with the device for service on Legacy Cricket’s network.

    The class excludes:

    (1) any Cricket customer who continued to use Cricket
        receiving the May 22, 2014 text message notification
        regarding Cricket’s arbitration clause;

    (2) any Cricket customer who agreed to Cricket’s arbitration
        provision via electronic signature after May 2017;

    (3) Any class member that defendant proves is subject to an
        arbitration agreement.

    (4) the defendant and its officers, directors, managers,
        employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates;

    (5) any person with a customer address outside of Cricket’s
        network footprint but in a market with Sprint LTE
        coverage;

    (6) governmental entities; and

    (7) the judge(s) to whom this case is assigned and any
        immediate family members thereof.

The Court said, "This order finds that the various arbitration
agreements here do not defeat typicality or superiority. Our case
presents common classwide issues as to whether booklets in phone
boxes constituted a legally effective means of imposing an
arbitration agreement on class members, a finding that cuts against
Cricket's typicality argument. Determination may require
state-by-state consideration, but the Court will try to group
sub-issues."

Further consumers who agreed to arbitrate based on later iterations
of Cricket's disclosure of arbitrations clause warrant carve-outs
from the class. Significantly, this order finds convincing that the
vast majority of those with accounts on or after May 22, 2014, will
be bound to arbitrate claims, including those arising even earlier
in the class period. Therefore, no one who had an account after May
22, 2014, may participate in the class. The same reasoning applies
to later revisions to the arbitration provision in 2017. Those who
fell within the class period but were customers in 2017 and
electronically signed terms and conditions containing an
arbitration clause must arbitrate. This order adjusts the class
definition to reflect this ruling, the Court adds.

Cricket Wireless is an American wireless service provider, owned by
AT&T Inc. It provides wireless services to 10 million subscribers
in the United States. Cricket Wireless was founded in March 1999 by
Leap Wireless International.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yQeCau at no extra charge.[CC]

DELACAN LLC: De Leon Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Edward De Leon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Delacan, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-01445, (D. Nev., August 3, 2021) seeks a declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, costs, and a
reasonable attorneys' fee as a result of Defendant's failure to pay
proper overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada
law.

Delacan provides staffing services in the IT and telecommunications
industries where De Leon worked as a Field Technician. Delacan
allegedly failed to pay De Leon for an overtime premium for hours
worked over 40 in any week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq.
      RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
      Las Vegas, NV 89145
      Tel: (702) 320-8400
      Fax: (702) 320-8401
      Email: esther@rodriguezlaw.com

             - and -

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      HODGES & FOTY, LLP
      4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

             - and -

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      The Heritage Building, Suite 250
      34555 Chagrin Boulevard
      Moreland Hills, OH 44022
      Phone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
             lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


DESSERT PALACE: Wait-staff Sues Over Denied Minimum, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oxana Raiter, Olga Samoylova Iram, Andrey Leontyev and Eugene Azov,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Dessert Palace Bose Inc. and Efim Milrud, Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-04410 (E.D. N.Y., August 5, 2021), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours
compensation, reimbursement for business expenses and damages
arising from breach of contracts, plus interest, attorneys' fees
and costs under New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate as "Emmons Palace," a Russian American
restaurant in Brooklyn, New York owned by Milrud where Raiter,
Samoylova, Leontyev and Azov were assigned in various wait-staff
positions, including bartender, barista, cashier, server and busser
from approximately 2012 to September 2019. They claim to be denied
minimum wages, overtime premium pay, spread-of-hours pay, subjected
to unlawful deductions, unreimbursed for costs of uniforms and the
required weekly amount for uniform laundering and maintenance and
were not given wage statements.

Raiter and Samoylova assert individual claims of gender
discrimination, sexual harassment and hostile work environment
under New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human
Rights Law. They claim that Milrud routinely sexually harassed them
and made nonconsensual physical contact with their bodies and
inappropriate, sexual and aggressive comments towards them,
including comments about their breasts and buttocks.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      LIPSKY LOWE LLP
      630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
      New York, NY 10017-6705
      Tel: (212) 392-4772
      Fax: (212) 444-1030
      Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
             milana@lipskylowe.com


DFINITY USA: Kehoe Law Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is conducting a class action investigation to
determine whether unregistered securities were sold to investors of
DFINITY's ICP token cryptocurrency.

On August 9, 2021, a class action complaint was filed against
DFINITY USA Research LLC, DFINITY Foundation, and Dominic Williams
(collectively, "Dfinity" or "Defendants") in United States District
Court, Northern District of California.

From May 10, 2021 to the present ("Class Period"), according to the
class action complaint ". . . Defendants have promoted, offered,
and sold throughout the United States unregistered securities
called 'ICP tokens,' and have engaged in insider trading of such
securities, in violation of federal law."

Allegedly, the "Defendants did not register ICP as a security with
the Securities Exchange Commission . . . [and] did not qualify for
an exemption from the registration requirements; materially
defrauded investors in connection with the promotion, offering, and
sale of ICP; and have transacted in ICP in the Class Period while
in possession of material, non-public information."

The complaint alleges that "[b]y selling and promoting these
unregistered security tokens to investors, and by transacting in
them while in possession of material, non-public information,
Defendants have reaped billions of dollars in profits."

The Defendants, according to the class action complaint, ". . .
kept for themselves and sold into the market billions of dollars'
worth of ICP tokens. After insiders began to sell massive
quantities of these ICP tokens, and while Plaintiff and the other
Class members were transacting in ICP tokens, the price of ICP
tokens fell from a high of over $730 after issuance to around $60
today. Even by the volatile standards of the cryptocurrency market,
this constituted an astonishing collapse in value." [Emphasis
added.]

INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, DFINITY'S ICP
TOKENS FROM MAY 10, 2021 TO THE PRESENT AND SUFFERED FINANCIAL
LOSSES ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C. MICHAEL
YARNOFF, ESQ., (215) 792-6676, EXT. 804, MYARNOFF@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE CLASS ACTION INVESTIGATION OR
POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.

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

DFINITY USA: Valenti Sues Over Decline of ICP Tokens' Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL VALENTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DFINITY USA RESEARCH LLC, DFINITY
FOUNDATION, and DOMINIC WILLIAMS, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-06118 (N.D. Cal., August 9, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case arises from the Defendants' dissemination of materially
false and misleading statements in order to trade unregistered
securities called ICP tokens at artificially inflated prices from
May 10, 2021 through the present. These alleged misrepresentations
and omissions are related to (i) the extent to which vesting
restrictions precluded Dfinity and its insiders, who collectively
held approximately 50% of ICP as of May 10, 2021, from selling
substantial amounts of their ICP on crypto-asset exchanges in the
weeks immediately following May 10, 2021, (ii) the extent to which
Dfinity and its insiders intended to sell their ICP on crypto-asset
exchanges over that same period, and (iii) the extent to which
Dfinity and its insiders did in fact sell substantial amounts of
their ICP on crypto-asset exchanges over that same period.
Information regarding whether approximately 50% of tokenholders
could, intended to, and did sell their ICP, as the Defendants' own
public statements illustrate, are material—and they had a
significant impact on the market price of ICP.

When the truth emerged, the price of ICP tokens fell from a high of
over $730 after issuance to around $60 today, says the suit.

Dfinity USA Research, LLC is a research company headquartered in
Palo Alto, California.

Dfinity Foundation is a Switzerland-based not-for-profit
organization. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
         Edward Normand, Esq.
         Richard Cipolla, Esq.
         Stephen Lagos, Esq.
         Ivy T. Ngo, Esq.
         ROCHE FREEDMAN LLP
         99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (646) 350-0527
         Facsimile: (646) 392-8842
         E-mail: kyle@rcfllp.com
                 tnormand@rcfllp.com
                 rcipolla@rcfllp.com
                 slagos@rcfllp.com
                 ingo@rcfllp.com

FACE 2: Joint Stipulation for Conditional Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DE'SHAUNDA SMITH, On
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FACE 2
RESOURCES CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01031-TMP (N.D.
Ohio), the Parties stipulate to the following:

   1. The Parties are providing for Court approval a jointly-
      proposed notice, proposed cover email to putative
      collective action members, and proposed opt-in consent
      form;

   2. The Defendants shall within ten days following the Court's
      approval of conditional certification provide Plaintiff a
      list in electronic form containing the name, last known
      home address (including zip code), and last known email
      address of all putative class members identified as
      follows:

      "All present and former direct service providers and other
      hourly employees with similar job titles and/or duties who
      have been employed by Face 2 Resources Corporation from
      May 17, 2018 to the present who worked more than (0) hours
      in one or more workweek during which they were paid a rate
      less than one and one half times their regular hourly rate
      for any hour over 40 hours;"

   3. Thee Plaintiff's counsel shall mail the notice to the
      individuals via First Class Mail and send notice
      electronically by electronic mail.

   4. The potential plaintiffs shall be provided, and the opt-in
      period will close as to the potential opt-in plaintiffs,
      60 days after Plaintiff's counsel's regular mailing of the
      jointly-proposed notice and opt-in form, and Plaintiff's
      counsel's emailing of the proposed cover email to putative
      collective action members along with the proposed notice
      and opt-in form;

   5. The opt-in period will be extended only if (1) the Parties
      agree to permit late filings, or (2) good cause is shown
      regarding why the opt-in form is not postmarked prior to
      the deadline. Opt-in forms received by mail without
      postmarks shall be considered timely if received within
      seven business days of the deadline.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lZ9xZX at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew K. Seeley, Esq.
          BUCKLEY KING LPA
          1400 Fifth Third Center
          600 Superior Avenue East
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 685-4815
          Facsimile: (216) 579-1020
          E-mail: Seeley@buckleyking.com

FACEBOOK INC: Users File Class Suit Over Deceptive Ads Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco at lawstreetmedia.com reports that social media
platform Facebook has been served with a lawsuit accusing it of
actively soliciting and assisting scammers for its own financial
gain and to users' detriment. Complaint claims that Facebook should
do more to reign in deceptive ads on its platform, like those
purporting to sell "shady" products such as diet pills featuring
fake celebrity endorsements.

The filing explains that Facebook collects data from its users
without compensation, which in turn enables the company to sell
"precisely targeted ads" to advertisers, some of whom are
unscrupulous. Specifically, "[s]cammers discovered they could
exploit these targeting capabilities to get deceptive, false and/or
misleading ads viewed by the Facebook users most likely to click
those ads and be lured into bait-and-switch and other fraudulent
schemes."

Facebook reportedly profits from advertisements placed on its site
and therefore lacks incentive to curb practices that defraud its
users. The complaint points to several investigative reports
finding that Facebook facilitates scams, notwithstanding ad
policies and guidelines that prohibit deceptive practices. For
example, the complaint cites an internal study concluding that 30%
of ads placed by Chinese advertising clients violated at least one
Facebook ad policy, representing nearly $2.6 billion in revenue in
2020 alone.

The filing seeks certification of an injunctive relief class
consisting of all Facebook users and a second damages sub-class
consisting of all users who clicked on a deceptive ad and "suffered
harm" since Aug. 11, 2017. As for the requested injunctive relief,
the plaintiff asks that Facebook take more precautionary measures
to screen advertisers, particularly those in "based in China and
other countries where a material percentage of ads violate
Facebook's ad policies." In particular, Facebook should prevent
repeat offenders from continuing to display scam ads, timely
processing and addressing scam reports, and promptly identifying
and removing such ads, the complaint says.

The filing states four claims for relief under common and state law
including negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff and
putative class seek not only injunctive and declaratory relief, but
also disgorgement, damages, and their attorneys' fees and costs.

The Facebook user is represented by Levi & Korsinsky LLP.[GN]

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Settlement in Suit Against Unit Gets Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
Court in the class action suit against Reliance Trust Company, had
entered an order approving the settlement and entered a final
judgment dismissing the action with prejudice.

Reliance, the Company's subsidiary, is a defendant in a class
action arising out of its provision of services as the
discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan for one of its customers.

On behalf of the Plan participants, plaintiffs in the action, which
was filed in December 2015, sought damages and attorneys' fees, as
well as equitable relief, against Reliance and the Plan's sponsor
and record-keeper for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

At a non-jury trial conducted in March 2020, Reliance vigorously
defended the action and contended that no breaches of fiduciary
duty or prohibited transactions occurred and that Plan participants
suffered no damages.

At trial, Plaintiffs claimed damages of approximately $127 million
against all defendants.

On October 12, 2020, Reliance and plaintiffs entered into a
settlement agreement, which was subject to final court approval, to
settle all allegations and claims asserted in the action for $39.8
million without equitable relief. On October 14, 2020, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement agreement.

In the settlement agreement, Reliance admitted no wrongdoing or
liability with respect to any of the allegations or claims and
maintains that the Plan was managed, operated, and administered
during its tenure as the Plan's discretionary trustee in full
compliance with ERISA and applicable regulations.

The Company recorded a liability for the agreed settlement amount
of $39.8 million and a corresponding loss in Other income
(expense), net on the consolidated statement of earnings (loss)
during the quarter ended September 30, 2020.

On March 8, 2021, the Court entered an order approving the
settlement and entered a final judgment dismissing the action with
prejudice.

Reliance paid the full settlement amount in April 2021 and has met
its monetary obligations under the settlement agreement.

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. operates as a
financial services technology company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Integrated Financial Solutions
and Global Financial Solutions segments. The company was founded in
1968 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Underpays Customer Service Reps, Klaus Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
HOPE KLAUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES,
INC.; WORLDPAY, LLC; and WORLDPAY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00514-DRC (S.D. Ohio, August 10, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act
by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated customer service representatives for all hours worked.

The Plaintiff was employed as a customer service representative by
Worldpay, LLC and Worldpay, Inc. at their Mason, Ohio customer
service call center from about February of 2017 to December of
2018.

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FIS) is an operator
of call centers, with a principal place of business in
Jacksonville, Florida.

Worldpay, LLC is an operator of call centers, with a principal
place of business in Symmes Township, Ohio.

Worldpay, Inc. is an operator of call centers, with a principal
place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
         Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
         Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
         THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
         The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
         34555 Chagrin Boulevard
         Moreland Hills, OH 44022
         Telephone: (216) 696-5000
         Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
         E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com

                - and –

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

FLINT, MI: Judge Certifies Suit Groups in Case Against Consultants
------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal district judge certified two separate issue groups for
class action lawsuits filed against two engineering firms that were
hired to advise the city of Flint ahead of the Flint Water Crisis.

In a 144-page opinion released U.S. District Judge Judith Levy
certified a "multi-defendant" issues class and a "LAN" issues class
that can proceed with a suit against LAN, or Lockheed Andrews &
Newnam, and VNA, or Veolia North America.

The two firms, which are accused of providing bad advice related to
the Flint lead contamination water crisis, did not join a $641
million settlement between Flint residents and the state and area
hospitals. They will instead proceed forward with the litigation
process.

Levy, in her opinion, declined to grant plaintiffs' request to
certify one "master" issues class and four subclasses, instead
limiting the certifications to two.

"Issues-based resolution of common claims will streamline
litigation at both the class and individual levels by allowing the
parties to dispute common, class-wide claims 'in one fell swoop,'"
Levy said.

VNA in a statement said Levy's opinion indicated that "the true
responsibility for the Flint water crisis lies with the government
officials who failed to protect the people of Flint."

"As we have repeatedly stated, Veolia North America had no role in
the decision to switch the water source to the Flint River and the
resulting harmful consequences for the people of Flint," said
Carrie Griffiths, a spokeswoman for Veolia North America. "We are
looking forward to proving these facts at trial."

The city initially had hired LAN to consult on the use of the Flint
River as a water source in 2011, at which time the company
"cautioned against it and warned that the dormant (Flint Water
Treatment Plant) would require millions of dollars in upgrades in
order to treat the raw river water safely," according to a summary
of the case in Levy's opinion.

The city continued to pursue a switch in water sources and, in
2013, hired LAN again to determine the steps the city would need to
take to transition to the Flint River. At the time, the city ended
its contract with the Detroit area water system with the plan to
eventually join the then unfinished Karegnondi Water Authority.

LAN, at that time, advised on the upgrades and water quality
control needed and said an April 2014 timeline was possible. It did
not recommend a corrosion control program, Levy wrote.

When chlorine was used to address E. coli in the water after the
switch to the Flint River, officials did not put in corrosion
controls and LAN "allegedly never raised red flags" about the harm
that could result, according to Levy's summary.

The city, in February 2015, hired VNA and rehired LAN to review the
city's water to address public health concerns that had cropped up
about the water after the switch.

Both LAN and VNA recommended ferric chloride, which experts said
would have increased water acidity and corosivity, Levy wrote.

About a week after it was hired, VNA said in an interim report that
the city "was in compliance with drinking water standards," the
judge wrote. But, internally, the company mentioned concerns about
corrosion and indicated a reconnection to Detroit water would have
been the easiest solution.

LAN has argued its role was mischaracterized because it was
"basically shut out from water quality decision making," Levy
wrote.

VNA has argued that its final report recommended an initiation of
discussions with the state about adding corrosion controls. [GN]

FLOWERS FOODS: Court Resets Schedule on Class Cert. Hearings
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIMON GORO, an individual,
et al., v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a Georgia
corporation, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01190-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Todd W. Robinson enters an order vacating the motion
hearing set for August 25, 2021 and resetting the hearings on the
pending motions as follows:

   -- On September 9, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3A, the
      Court will conduct a hearing on Defendants' Motion for
      Judgment on the Pleadings, and Plaintiffs' Motion for
      Partial Summary Judgment.

   -- On November 3, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3A, the
      Court will conduct a hearing on all other pending motions
      before this Court.

   -- Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Continue Hearing on
      Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and All Related
      Deadlines is granted.

   -- On or before August 25, 2021, Defendants may file a
      supplemental brief in opposition to the Motion for Class
      Certification of no more than six pages, accompanied by
      any new evidence, reflecting information gathered during
      the recent deposition(s) of the Maciel Plaintiffs.

   -- The replies in support of the Motion to Certify Class and
      the Motion to Compel Arbitration shall be filed on or
      before September 22, 2021.

   -- All other deadlines and dates remain as previously set.

Flowers Foods, headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia, is a producer
and marketer of packed bakery food. The company operates 47
bakeries producing bread, buns, rolls, snack cakes, pastries, and
tortillas.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CQ2sAC at no extra charge.[CC]

FORTIFI FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Portaluppi Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HECTOR PORTALUPPI, et al., Plaintiffs v. FORTIFI
FINANCIAL, INC. (f/k/a Energy Efficient Equity, Inc.), et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-7959-ODW (RAOx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge
Otis D. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California:

   (i) denies the Defendants' Motion to Strike Class Allegations;
       and

  (ii) grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion
       to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs Hector and Carmen Portaluppi initiated the putative
class action against Defendants FortiFi and the County of Los
Angeles based on allegations that the County and private financing
contractors like FortiFi are scamming low-income California
homeowners. Plaintiffs are a married couple in their seventies
residing in Los Angeles, California. In October 2018, two
salespeople associated with non-party Eco Tech visited the
Plaintiffs' home and pitched a "government program" that would
cover the costs of green-energy improvements on their home. The
salespeople were referring to California's Property Assessed Clean
Energy Program ("PACE"), which allows California homeowners to
finance green-energy upgrades to their homes through property tax
assessments ("PACE Loans") that are levied and collected by local
governments. All Pace Loans are contractual in nature and
"homeowners must voluntarily agree in writing to have secured liens
placed on their property" ("PACE Liens") in exchange for the
green-energy improvements.

The Plaintiffs allowed the Eco Tech salespeople to conduct a
walkthrough of their home to find potential green-energy
improvements eligible under the program. After the walkthrough, the
salespeople provided Plaintiffs with a list of eligible
improvements, including energy efficient appliance installations
and a replacement air-duct. In reliance on the salespeople's
representations, the Plaintiffs disclosed their personally
identifiable information ("PII") to "confirm their eligibility" in
the program. Eco Tech used their PII to forge and falsify PACE Loan
applications on their behalf and then sent the falsified documents
to FortiFi. Eco Tech installed defective upgrades but did not
charge the Plaintiffs. A year later, the Plaintiffs received their
tax bill from the County, which increased from approximately
$1,431.84 annually, to $8,815.74. They discovered the increase was
due to a $69,000 secured property tax assessment (PACE Lien)
against their home, which was established without their knowledge
or consent.

Beginning in October 2019, the Plaintiffs contacted the Defendants
to demand relief from the fraudulent PACE Loans which caused the
increase in their property taxes. The Defendants failed to provide
the Plaintiffs relief, so the Plaintiffs obtained a private loan
with a 13% annual percentage rate to pay the increased property tax
bill. The Plaintiffs paid the County more than $7,000" in property
taxes and "incurred approximately $1,000 in additional interest
charges on the private loan."

Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs initiated the action against
the Defendants asserting claims for violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") under federal law
(Counts I-III); elder abuse (Count IV); violations of California
Business and Professions Code section 7159.2(b) (Count V);
violations of California Unfair Competition Law (Count VI);
negligence (Count VII); violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
(Counts VIII-IX); breach of contract (Count X); and declaratory
judgment (Count XI). They also seek to represent two classes—the
first for persons in California who incurred PACE Liens caused by
FortiFi, and the second for persons who incurred PACE Liens on
their residential properties in Los Angeles County.

The Defendants move to dismiss the FAC based on standing, failure
to state a claim, and to strike the class allegations.

Discussion

I. Motion to Dismiss

Judge Wright turns to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of
standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(1)
and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The
Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the
action because less than a month after Plaintiffs filed the action,
FortiFi mailed the Plaintiffs a letter informing them that their
disputed tax assessment was released; the letter included a refund
check for $7,384.44 to cover the payments that the Plaintiffs made
toward the assessment. Next, they argue for dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6) on several grounds: (1) the Plaintiffs' claims against
FortiFi are barred by the litigation privilege; (2) the Plaintiffs
lack a private right of action to enforce the PACE statutes; (3)
the Plaintiffs failed to exhaust purported administrative remedies;
and the Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently state claims for (4) RICO
violations, (5) elder abuse, (6) violations of the California
Business and Professions Code, and (7) violations of Section 1983.

In sum, Judge Wright finds that the majority of the Defendants'
arguments and purported grounds for dismissal are flawed or
entirely misplaced. He grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as follows:

       1. The Defendants' Motion is denied in part to the extent
the Defendants claim the Plaintiffs' action is barred by the
litigation privilege;

       2. The Defendants' Motion is denied in part to the extent
they claim the Plaintiffs have no private right of action;

       3. The Defendants' Motion is denied in part to the extent
they claim the Plaintiffs failed to exhaust purported
administrative remedies;

       4. The Defendants' Motion is granted in part and the
Plaintiffs' civil RICO claims (Counts I-III) are dismissed with
leave to amend;

       5. The Defendants' Motion is denied in part to the extent
they seek to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for elder abuse (Count
IV);
    
       6. The Defendants' Motion is granted in part to the extent
they seek to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for violations of the
California Business and Professions Code (Count V) and the Court
denies leave to amend;

       7. The Defendants' Motion is denied in part and the Court
sua ponte dismisses the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim against the
County (Count VIII) with leave to amend;

       8. The Defendants' Motion is denied in part to the extent
they seek to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 facial challenge
to the PACE statutes (Count IX).

Next, Judge Wright turns to the Defendants' Motion to Strike Class
Allegations, which was filed concurrently with the Motion to
Dismiss.

II. Motion to Strike Class Allegations

The Defendants move to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations and
argue that it is appropriate to do so at this early stage "rather
than wait for a motion to certify the class at some later date."
Their Motion to Strike Class Allegations is based is on several
grounds, including: (1) the PACE participants cannot be a class,
and (2) the allegations in the FAC do not satisfy the requirements
of Rule 23(a) or (b). In opposition, the Plaintiffs raise several
arguments, including that the Defendants' Motion is premature.

Judge Wright holds that given the early stage of the proceedings,
it is premature to say whether the matter should proceed as a class
action. It does not appear that discovery has commenced and no
motion for class certification has been filed. At this stage, even
if there are issues with the proposed class, it cannot be said that
there are no circumstances in which the proposed class could
succeed. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Strike is premature
at this early stage and is more properly decided on a motion for
class certification after the parties have had an opportunity to
conduct discovery, develop a record, and brief the issues.

For the foregoing reasons, the Judge denies the Defendants' Motion
to Strike Class Allegations.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wright denies the Defendants'
Motion to Strike Class Allegations. He grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. If the Plaintiffs choose to
file a second amended complaint ("SAC"), they must do so no later
than 21 days from the date of the Order. If they file a SAC, the
Defendants must file their responses no later than 14 days from the
date of the SAC filing. The Plaintiffs' failure to file a SAC will
convert the dismissal of Counts I to III, and VIII to one with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/569va3jj from Leagle.com.


FRANCHISE GROUP: Labrado Suit to be Settled for $1.1 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Franchise Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 26, 2021, that the parties in Rene
Labrado v. JTH Tax, Inc., agreed to settle the matter in principle
for $1.1 million and the matter has been stayed pending the
parties' filing of settlement papers.

On July 3, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles by a former employee for
herself and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" persons.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company
allegedly violated various provisions of the California Labor Code,
including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest
premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, wages
not timely paid, non-compliant wage statements, failure to keep pay
records, unreimbursed business expenses and violation of California
Business and Profession Code Section 17200.

The Complaint seeks actual, consequential and incidental losses and
damages, injunctive relief and other damages.

On May 24, 2021, the parties agreed to settle this matter in
principle for $1.1 million and the matter has been stayed pending
the parties' filing of settlement papers.

The settlement is expected to contain broad and customary releases.
Despite the parties' desire to settle the matter, there is no
assurance that the settlement will be approved by the Court.

As of June 26, 2021, the Company had accrued $1.1 million related
to this case, which is included in current liabilities held for
sale in the accompanying condensed balance sheet.

Franchise Group, Inc. is a franchisor operator and acquirer of
franchised and franchisable businesses that can be scaled using the
company's operating expertise. The company currently operates three
reportable segments: Liberty Tax, Buddy's and Sears Outlet. The
company is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.


FSB GROUP: Ontario Court Certifies Misclassification Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton at investmentexecutive.com reports that an Ontario
court has certified a class action against an insurance brokerage
alleging that reps are improperly classified as independent
contractors when they should be considered employees - a claim that
may hurt reps more than it helps them.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class action
against a trio of related firms - FSB Group Ltd., FSB Insurance
Ltd. and FSB Commercial Ltd. - brought by Surendraraj
Navartnarajah. The plaintiff argued that reps should be treated as
employees and entitled to a minimum wage, vacation pay, overtime
and other employment standards.

The claim that reps should be classified as employees is incorrect,
the firm argued, and the independent contractor arrangement
actually benefits the reps financially. According to the decision,
the firm said the claim is "driven by a few putative class members
to the detriment of the many."

The plaintiff in the case signed on to the firm as both an employee
(a part-time sales co-ordinator) and an independent contractor,
amid concerns that he wouldn't be able to earn enough income
working solely on commission as a contractor.

"He therefore held a uniquely hybrid position which, in effect,
graphically illustrates the different status of a producer from the
defendants' other employees," the court noted.

However, whether it is wise to sue for employee status, rather than
maintaining independent contractor status, remains to be seen, the
court suggested.

"If the plaintiff wins his case and he and the entire class of
producers are found to have been employees all along and thus are
entitled to vacation pay and overtime pay, they may also be liable
for back taxes. After all, independent contractors enjoy a variety
of business deductions and other tax advantages that employees do
not enjoy," the court said.

Additionally, they could lose the ownership of their books of
business as a result of being classified as employees, the court
suggested.

"I do not put these issues forward in order to pre-judge whether
defendants' counsel is right or wrong in making these arguments,
but I do point out that there is a risk that the producers may get
more than they ask for and may not like it," the court said. "What
defendants' counsel's argument suggests is that at some point, the
majority of class members may find that their financial interest
was hijacked by the claim rather than advanced by the claim."

The court determined that a class action is the preferred way to
resolve the issues.

"[W]hile defendants' counsel makes a cogent point about financial
risk, it is not really a point about the preferability or not of a
class proceeding. It is more of a point about the wisdom of
bringing this claim at all," the court noted.

"If this case ultimately prompts the revenue authorities to revisit
the producers' situation, or someone to challenge the
transferability of the producers' book of business, it will do so
whether it goes forward on an individual or a class basis," it
said. [GN]


FULL TRUCK: Faces Barber Securities Suit Over Depositary Shares
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BARBER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FULL TRUCK ALLIANCE CO. LTD., PETER HUI ZHANG, SIMON
CHONG CAI, SHANSHAN GUO, GUIZHEN MA, WENJIAN DAI, RICHARD WEIDONG
JI, JENNIFER XINZHE LI, COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, COGENCY GLOBAL INC.,
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION
HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., UBS
SECURITIES LLC, HUATAI SECURITIES (USA), INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC., NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., CHINA
RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED and CLSA LIMITED, Case
No. 654695/2021 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., July 30, 2021) is a
securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Full Truck Alliance American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
in or traceable to the Company's January 23, 2021 initial public
offering (the "IPO") seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933.

Mr. Barber purchased Full Truck Alliance ADSs in or traceable to
the IPO and has been allegedly damaged thereby.

Defendant Full Truck Alliance operates a digital freight platform
and is based in Guizhou, China. Its ADSs trade in New York on the
NYSE under ticker symbol "YMM." Each Full Truck Alliance ADS
represents 20 Class A ordinary shares of the Company. The Company
maintains a dual-class share structure designed to concentrate
control over the Company in the hands of Full Truck Alliance
insiders out of proportion with their economic stake. Holders of
Class A shares (the shares owned by public investors) are entitled
to one vote per share. By contrast, holders of Class B shares (the
shares owned by Company insiders) are entitled to 30 votes per
share. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.

Defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, China International Capital
Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited, Goldman Sachs (Asia)
L.L.C., UBS Securities LLC, Huatai Securities (USA), Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Nomura Securities International,
Inc., China Renaissance Securities (Hong Kong) Limited and CLSA
Limited are the "Underwriter Defendants."

Pursuant to the 1933 Act, the Underwriter Defendants are liable for
the materially false and misleading statements in the Registration
Statement, says the suit.

The Underwriter Defendants are investment banking houses that
specialize in, inter alia, underwriting public offerings of
securities. They served as the underwriters of the IPO and shared
over $82 million in fees collectively for their services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Richard Gonnello, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  rgonnello@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

GC PIZZA: Rodriguez Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCENT RODRIGUEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GC
PIZZA LLC d/b/a "Domino's Pizza" and GREGORY CUTCHALL,
individually, Case No. 4:20-cv-03106-JMG-SMB (D. Neb.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying his Fair Labor Standards Act
      (FLSA) claim to proceed as a collective action;

   2. directing GC Pizza to identify all delivery drivers they
      have employed at any time in the last three years;

   3. directing GC Pizza to provide the notice-related
      information to Plaintiff's attorneys within 14 days; and

   4. directing the issuance of Plaintiff's proposed notice and
      consent form to all such persons.

GC Pizza owns and operates a chain of approximately 17 Domino's
Pizza franchise stores in and around Omaha, Nebraska. GC Pizza
requires its delivery drivers to furnish their own delivery
vehicles and pay out of pocket for all automobile expenses they
incur in making deliveries. GC Pizza provides only a partial, and
unreasonably low, reimbursement for these costs.

Because GC Pizza pays its delivery drivers the exact applicable
minimum wage while grossly under-reimbursing them for vehicle costs
its delivery drivers incur in performing their job, the
unreimbursed vehicle costs constitute “de facto deductions”
that cause drivers' wages to fall below the minimum wage in
violation of the FLSA.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class dated Aug. 4,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jRGXqx
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, Missouri 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

               - and -

          Eli Karsh, Esq.
          LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
          225 S. Meramec Ave., Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 862-3333, ext. 13
          Facsimile: (314) 862-0605
          E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Meredith Black Mathews, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 North St. Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Work: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (214) 346-5909
          mmathews@foresterhaynie.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Moran, Esq.
          Thomas Horgan, Esq.
          ENGLES, KETCHAM, OLSON & KEITH, P.C.
          1700 Farnam Street, Suite 1350
          Omaha, Nebraska 68102
          Telephone: (402) 348-0900
          Facsimile: (402) 348-0904
          E-mail: mmoran@ekoklaw.com

GEICO: Pimintel Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------
Michael Pimintel, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Government Employees Insurance
Company Inc. (GEICO), Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00405 (W.D. N.C.,
August 5, 2021), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

GEICO is in the business of providing vehicle insurance, property
insurance and business insurance. Pimintel is a former non-exempt,
hourly employee who worked as Auto Claim and/or Damage Adjusters
for GEICO in North Carolina. He claims to have performed
off-the-clock work for which he was not adequately compensated. He
claims to be regularly required by GEICO management to work
additional hours beyond this scheduled time while off-the-clock and
without receiving compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Tamra Givens, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
             tgivens@shavitzlaw.com

             - and -

      Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (800) 616-4000
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

             - and -

      Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
      David C. Leimbach, Esq.
      Brett D. Watson, Esq.
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Tel: (415) 421-7100
      Fax: (415) 421-7105
      Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
             dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com

             - and -

      Paige T. Bennett, Esq.
      DANIELS & TREDENNICK PLLC
      6363 Woodway Drive, Suite 700
      Houston, TX 77057
      Telephone: (713) 917-0024
      Facsimile: (713) 917-0026
      Email: paige.bennett@dtlawyers.com

             - and -

      John J. Nestico, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY, LLP
      6000 Fairview Rd, Suite 1200
      Charlotte, NC 28210
      Tel: (510) 740-2946
      Fax: (415) 421-7105
      Email: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ratchet+Wrench reports that a new class action lawsuit has been
filed against General Motors, GM Authority reported.

The lawsuit alleges an equipment defect prevents airbag deployment
and activation of the automatic seat belt pretensioners in certain
frontal crashes, resulting in the death or injury of at least 1,298
people.

This isn't the first time General Motors has faced issues regarding
its sensing and diagnostic modules. Back in 2016, the automaker
recalled 4 million vehicles over issues with the same components,
while a further recall of 88,000 GMC vehicles was issued in 2018.

Vehicles cited in this latest lawsuit include 2010 GMC Sierra
2500HD, 2012 Chevy Traverse, 2014 Chevy Traverse, 2014 Chevy
Equinox, 2014 Chevy Silverado 1500, and 2014 Chevy 1500 Express.
[GN]


GEORGIA: King Suit Removed from State Court to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as King, et al., v. State of
Georgia, et al., Case No. 2021CV350906, was removed from the
Superior Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on July 30, 2021.

The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-03082-CAP to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' alleged civil
rights-related violations.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr.

Plaintiffs Von King, Danielle Johnson, Chelsea Shaw, and Jane/John
Doe 1-9, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Emily Early, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          PO Box 1287
          Decatur, GA 30031-1287
          Telephone: (404) 221-4036
          E-mail: emily.early@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Jason James Carter, Esq.
          Juliana Mesa, Esq.
          BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
          3900 One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
          Telephone: (404) 881-4100
          Facsimile: (404) 881-4111
          E-mail: carter@bmelaw.com
                  mesa@bmelaw.com

Defendants State of Georgia; and Georgia Department of Labor and
Commissioner Mark Butler, in his official capacity, are represented
by:

          Kimberly Blue Lewis, Esq.
          STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAW
          40 Capitol Square, SW, Ste. 226g
          Atlanta, GA 33034
          Telephone: (404) 458-3538
          E-mail: klewis@law.ga.gov

GEORGIA: Thomas Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff EDWARD EARL THOMAS filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Edward E. Thomas, Patricia Thomas,
Government of the United States of America, United Nations, United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; Dr. Shellielle S.
Youhoing Nanan, Counsel/Legal Representative and Ex-Rel. v.
Magistrate Richard Brown, Clayton County Magistrate, Case No.
1:21-cv-02445-ELR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

Mr. Richard Brown is sued in his official capacity as Magistrate
Judge of Clayton County, Georgia.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 22, 2021, the
lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of civil rights for
petition for writ of mandamus.

Mr. Thomas now seeks a review of the Court's Judgment and Order
dated June 28, 2021, dismissing the case with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Edward Thomas v. Richard Brown,
et al., Case No. 21-12475, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on July 20, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before August 30, 2021;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief; and

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due August
6, 2021 as to Appellant Edward Earl Thomas.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant EDWARD EARL THOMAS, of Jonesboro, Georgia,
appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees RICHARD BROWN, Clayton County Magistrate, et
al., are represented by:

          Sandra Webb, Esq.
          PO Box 524
          Jonesboro, GA 30237
          Telephone: (404) 521-4423

GOOGLE LLC: AdTrader's Appeal From Award of Attorneys' Fees Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADTRADER, INC.; SPECIALIZED COLLECTIONS BUREAU, INC.;
CLASSIC AND FOOD EOOD; LML CONSULT LTD.; AD CRUNCH LTD.;
Plaintiffs-Appellants, GAW POE LLP, Appellant v. GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-15542 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed AdTrader's appeal from
district court's order denying attorneys' fees under the
fee-shifting statute, but awarding fees under the common fund
doctrine.

Google operates platforms that help advertisers find and purchase
advertising space on third-party websites. When Google succeeds in
placing such ads, it receives payments from the advertisers, a
portion of which are passed to the website publishers, with Google
keeping the remainder for itself. Google charges advertisers and
pays publishers based on the number of users who view, click on, or
purchase products in response to the advertisements so placed.
Google represents, however, that it does not charge advertisers or
pay publishers for "invalid traffic," that is, traffic that does
not represent genuine human activity.

In the case, Plaintiff AdTrader brought a class action lawsuit in
December 2017 on behalf of itself and advertisers who used Google
advertising services but did not receive refunds for invalid
traffic. Google informed AdTrader and the district court in April
2019 that Google would issue refunds to the advertisers who used a
Google platform called DoubleClick Bid Manager ("DBM Advertisers"),
but would continue to litigate the claims the claims asserted by
AdTrader on behalf of other putative advertiser classes and by
AdTrader individually. Google stipulated that it would pay
AdTrader's attorneys' fees, if awarded by the Court, out of
Google's own pocket, rather than have them deducted from any common
fund for payments to class members.

Seeking such an award, AdTrader argued that it was entitled to a
percentage of the monetary benefit it conferred on DBM Advertisers
and moved for attorneys' fees pursuant to a California fee-shifting
statute or, alternatively, the "common fund" doctrine, described
below. The district court denied attorneys' fees under the
fee-shifting statute, but awarded fees under the common fund
doctrine. Unsatisfied, AdTrader now challenges on appeal the amount
of the fee award.

In AdTrader's view, a fee award is immediately appealable even when
the underlying litigation is still ongoing and the requirements of
the collateral order doctrine are not met, as long as the district
court's order invokes the "common fund doctrine." AdTrader tries to
root this supposed "common fund exception" to the final judgment
rule in case law.

AdTrader also argues the district court's order is "definitive,"
because the court knew that Google's issuance of $65.7 million in
refunds to DBM Advertisers would extinguish the damages claims of
DBM Advertisers. It adds that the Fee Order is distinct from the
merits, because the "remaining events of the underlying litigation
will have no impact on whatever fees and expenses are awarded to
AdTrader from this common fund."

AdTrader further suggests that the opportunity to review the
attorneys' fee award will be lost once the DBM Advertisers' claims
for damages have been mooted. Finally, AdTrader relies on several
distinguishable cases holding that orders directing government
litigants to pay attorneys' fees may be appealed under the
collateral order doctrine.

Judge Jed S. Rakoff, writing for the Ninth Circuit, opines that
neither a traditional common fund case nor one that meets the
requirements of the collateral order doctrine. The litigants and
the district court may have agreed that attorneys' fees should be
determined in light of common fund principles, but they also agreed
that "any award of attorneys' fees here would not come from a sum
that Google has been ordered to pay the class." This alone shows
that the case neither fits the situation under which the "common
fund" doctrine developed nor meets the requirement of
unreviewability that is essential to the limited collateral order
exception to finality. Judge Rakoff has also considered the
Appellants' other arguments for an immediate appeal and find them
to be without merit.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate
jurisdiction, because the class action below has reached neither a
final judgment on the merits nor a final settlement, and because no
exception to the final judgment rule applies.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5cd9jnyy from Leagle.com.

Randolph Gaw (argued) -- rgaw@gawpoe.com -- Mark Poe --
mpoe@gawpoe.com -- Samuel Song -- ssong@gawpoe.com -- Victor Meng
-- vmeng@gawpoe.com -- and Flora Vigo -- fvigo@gawpoe.com -- Gaw
Poe LLP, in San Francisco, California, for the
Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Jeffrey M. Gutkin (argued) -- jgutkin@cooley.com -- Michael G.
Rhodes -- mrhodes@cooley.com -- Kyle C. Wong -- kwong@cooley.com
--Audrey J. Mott-Smith -- amottsmith@cooley.com --and David S.
Houska, Cooley LLP, in San Francisco, California, for the
Defendant-Appellee.


GOOGLE LLC: Court Enters Limited Case Management Scheduling Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN DIAZ, et al., v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-03080-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Nathanael M. Cousins enters a limited case management scheduling
order as follows:

   -- The deadline to amend pleadings and add parties is August
      26, 2021.

   -- The deadline to request a protective discovery order and
      to file stipulated or competing proposed ESI protocol(s)
      is August 26, 2021.

   -- Initial Disclosures must be made by August 4, 2021.

   -- Parties must file and serve all dispositive motions by
      January 6, 2023.

   -- March 23, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The parties must file a
      joint case management statement by March 16, 2022, in
      accordance with Civil L.R. 16-10(d).

   -- The Plaintiffs serve class certification motion and Rule
      23 expert witness report(s), if any, by July 14, 2022.

   -- Google serves class certification opposition and Rule 23
      expert witness report(s), if any, by September 1, 2022.

   -- The Plaintiffs serve reply in support of motion for class
      certification and rebuttal expert report(s), if any, by
      September 29, 2022.

   -- Class certification hearing: October 12, 2022, at 2:00
      p.m.

   -- The Court will schedule the remaining case events after
      the further case management conference and hearing on the
      motion to dismiss set for October 27, 2021.

   -- All hearings, conferences, and pretrial proceedings will
      be by phone or video conference via Zoom until further
      Court order.

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

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

GREAT KILLS: Lobato Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMETRIO LOBATO, on behalf
of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. GREAT
KILLS MARINA CAFE, INC. d/b/a MARINA CAFE, JOSEPH LABRIOLA,
ROSEMARIE SALADINO, and ROBERT PARASCANDOLA, Case No.
1:18-cv-05579-KAM-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting his motion for class certification pursuant
to fed.r.civ.p. 23.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class dated Aug. 4,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37I4Yuw
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class, are:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24 th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


GREGORYS COFFEE: Baristas Slam Erratic Work Schedules
-----------------------------------------------------
Joshua Oshaughnessy and Melissa Murillo, on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gregorys
Coffee Management LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-04350 (E.D. N.Y.,
August 3, 2021), seeks redress for violations of the New York City
Fair Workweek Law, New York labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff failed to provide
employees with predictable schedules with at least 14-days' notice,
changed employees' schedules at the last minute, required employees
to work closing and opening shifts without at least 11 hours off in
between, failed to offer new shifts to current employees before
hiring new employees and required employees to work off-the-clock
at the end and start of their shifts to avoid having to pay
overtime premiums.

Gregorys Coffee Management operate "Gregorys," a fast food
establishment in New York where Oshaughnessy and Murillo were
employed as baristas at the Gregorys located in Brooklyn, New York.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      335 18th Pl NE
      Washington, DC 20002
      Phone No.: (202)744-1407
      Fax No.: (312) 419-1025
      Email: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com

             - and -

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Phone No.: (312) 419-1008
      Fax No.: (312) 419-1025
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com


GS LABS: Fails to Pay Nurses' Overtime Wages, Fryer Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH FRYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GS LABS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-02347-HLT-ADM (D. Kan., August 9, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated nurses overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek.

Mr. Fryer worked for GS Labs as a nurse in Kansas from
approximately November 2020 through January 2021.

GS Labs LLC is a software product development company doing
business in the State of Kansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
         Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
         PAUL LLP
         601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
         Kansas City, MI 64106
         Telephone: (816) 984-8100
         E-mail: Rick@paullp.com
                 Laura@paullp.com

                - and –

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

HAWAII: 1,200 Responders Will File Lawsuit Against Vaccine Mandate
------------------------------------------------------------------
khon2.com reports that representatives for Hawaii union members
taking legal action against the state's COVID vaccine mandate held
a news conference at attorney Michael Green's office. Approximately
1,200 first responders are part of the class action lawsuit.

The attorneys announced that they plan to file the lawsuit in order
to try to stop the mandate which takes effect Aug. 16. This one is
on behalf of police officers, firefighters and other first
responders.

"They're just asking for the chance to choose," said attorney Shawn
Luiz. "It's a personal, autonomous, healthcare decision, and
everyone should make their own choice, whether or not they want to
take a vaccine or not."

"I have to choose between that career that I'm committed to or put
in an experimental drug that I don't know what it's gonna do to me
in my body, or I got to give all that up," said Capt. Kaimi Pelekai
of the Honolulu Fire Department.

Pelekai says the City just sent county workers a letter saying they
either have to get vaccinated or show proof of religious or medical
exemption - or they could lose their job. KHON2 is asking the City
about the letter.

When the governor announced the mandate last week, he said
unvaccinated workers have the option of getting tested weekly.
Representatives for the union members in the class action lawsuit
say this is a violation of their collective bargaining agreement,
and it runs into a whole set of problems for the workers.

"If they can't prove the testing because they're waiting for their
free tests and they're going to be home without pay. So it's almost
the same result as being fired. You're having a large majority of
our first responders off the street without pay and being
punished," said attorney Kristin Coccaro.

"The heavy-handedness that we are now seeing is shocking to the
conscious for Hawaii especially, and there's got to be a voice,"
said Green.

The City confirmed the letter that was sent to workers and released
a statement from the Honolulu Mayor Rick Blangiardi saying, "I
stand behind the decision to protect City employees, their families
and our communities, while also reducing the number of positive
COVID-19 cases."

A spokesman for the state attorney general says, "The State is
confident that its vaccine and testing policy is lawful and
constitutional."

Although there are a number of free testing sites, those who are
unable to go to them will have to pay for their own. Exemptions
will be provided, but it is still not clear how those will be
determined. Those who do not comply, however, could lose their
job.

HGEA, and other public workers unions such as UPW, and those
representing teachers, police officers, UH professors and
firefighters said they encourage their members to get vaccinated.
Still, they said the unions should have been consulted.

Six public unions issued a joint statement on Ige's vaccine
policy.

"Some of the strongest unions in the country are here in Hawaii,
and the governor threw his emergency proclamation order [to]
destroy the unions' abilities to fight for their employees," Green
said. "We have thousands of people who are told, 'You are going to
take this vaccination or you won't have a job.'"

Green said the next chapter that follows is these workers filing
for unemployment but unable to receive anything because they were
terminated.

Pelekai gave an impassioned speech about having to decide between
his freedom of choice or continue serving his community.

"I spent the last 20 years of my life and 37 years watching my dad
do this job, and because I didn't want to put an experimental drug
in my body, I got to give that all up?" Pelekai said.

"If we're not there, it's because of them. It's because of the
mayor. It's because of the governor," Pelekai continued. "We want
to be there! We signed up for this! This is what we want to do for
the rest of our lives! We want to run in. We want to stop the
bullet. We want to swim into the 40-foot waves to save your lives!
That's what we want. That's what we wanted to be. And if we're not
there on the 16th, you can call Mayor Blangiardi and thank
him."[GN]

HEARING HELP: Settlement Deal in Hoffman Suit Get Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK HOFFMAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. HEARING HELP EXPRESS,
INC., TRIANGULAR MEDIA CORP., LEADCREATIONS.COM, LLC, LEWIS LURIE,
INTRICON, INC., and INTRICON CORPORATION, Case No.
3:19-cv-05960-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman
enters an order that:

   1. Settlement Approval

      The Settlement Agreement, including the Long-Form Notice,
      Email Notice, Postcard Notice, Claim Form, and Opt-Out
      Form are preliminarily approved.

   2. Appointment of the Settlement Administrator and the
      Provision of Class Notice

      AB Data, Ltd. is appointed as the Settlement
      Administrator. Settling Defendants and the Settlement
      Administrator will notify Settlement Class Members of the
      settlement in the manner specified under Section 4 of the
      Settlement Agreement.

   3. Claim for a Settlement Award

      Settlement Class Members who want to receive an award
      under the Settlement Agreement must accurately complete
      and deliver a Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator
      no later than 90 calendar days after the entry of this
      Order.

   4. Objection to Settlement

      Any Settlement Class Member who has not submitted a valid
      written exclusion request and who wishes to object to the
      fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement
      Agreement, the Fees, Costs, and Expenses Award, or the
      Service Payment must deliver written objections to the
      Settlement Administrator (by postal mail or email) or the
      Court no later than 90 calendar days after the entry of
      this Order.

   5. Requesting Exclusion

      Settlement Class Members may elect not to be part of
      the Class and not to be bound by this Settlement
      Agreement.

   6. Provisional Certification

      The Settlement Class is provisionally certified as:

      "All persons or entities within the United States who
      received, on or after October 9, 2015, a non-emergency
      telephone call from or on behalf of Hearing Help Express,
      Inc. and whose contact information was received either
      directly or indirectly from ByteSuccess (including its
      related entity and/or successor, Andrews Wharton) and
      Triangular Media Corp. (including, LeadCreations),
      promoting goods or services: (i) to a cellular telephone
      number through the use of an automatic telephone dialing
      system; (ii) to a cellular or residential telephone number
      using an artificial or prerecorded voice; or (iii) to a
      cellular or residential telephone number that has been
      registered on the national Do Not Call Registry for at
      least 31 days and who received more than one such call
      within any twelve-month period."

   7. Conditional Appointment of Class Representative and Class
      Counsel

      Plaintiff is conditionally certified as the class
      representative to implement the Parties’ settlement in
      accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The law firms of
      Paronich Law, P.C Terrell Marshall Law Group, PLLC are
      conditionally appointed as Settlement Class Counsel.
      Plaintiff and Settlement Class Counsel must fairly and
      adequately protect the Settlement Class' interests.

   8. Stay of Other Proceedings

      The Court hereby orders that any Action or proceedings in
      any court in the United States involving any Released
      Claims asserted by any Releasing Parties, except any
      matters necessary to implement, advance, or further the
      approval of the Settlement Agreement are stayed pending
      the Final Approval Hearing and issuance of any Final Order
      and Judgment.

Hearing Help offers hearing aids and hearing aid accessories.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iMWXLa at no extra charge.[CC]

HENRY SCHEIN: Hollywood Police Officers Ret. System Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 26, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by the City of
Hollywood Police Officers Retirement System.

On September 30, 2019, the City of Hollywood Police Officers
Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for
violation of the federal securities laws against Henry Schein,
Inc., Covetrus, Inc., and Benjamin Shaw and Christine Komola
(Covetrus's then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, respectively) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Case No. 2:19-cv-05530-FB-RLM.

The complaint seeks to certify a class consisting of all persons
and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased or
otherwise acquired Covetrus common stock from February 8, 2019
through August 12, 2019.

The case relates to the Animal Health Spin-off and Merger of the
Henry Schein Animal Health Business with Vets First Choice in
February 2019. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 and asserts that
defendants' statements in the offering documents and after the
transaction were materially false and misleading because they
purportedly overstated Covetrus's capabilities as to inventory
management and supply-chain services, understated the costs of
integrating the Henry Schein Animal Health Business and Vets First
Choice, understated Covetrus's separation costs from Henry Schein,
and understated the impact on earnings from online competition and
alternative distribution channels and from the loss of an allegedly
large customer in North America just before the Separation and
Merger.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.
Pursuant to the provisions of the PSLRA, the court appointed lead
plaintiff and lead counsel on December 23, 2019. Lead plaintiff
filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on February 21, 2020.
Lead plaintiff added Steve Paladino, the company's Chief Financial
Officer, as a defendant in the action. Lead plaintiff filed an
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 21, 2020, in
which it added a claim that Mr. Paladino is a "control person" of
Covetrus.

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action."

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics,
physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics,
and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two
segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value Added
Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in
Melville, New York.


HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Continues to Defend Rodgers Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife
Ltd., et al.

On September 18, 2017, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
and Members were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit, titled Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al. and filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
which alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices statute and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statutes, unjust enrichment, and negligent
misrepresentation.

On August 23, 2018, the Court issued an order transferring the
action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California as to four of the putative class plaintiffs and ordering
the remaining four plaintiffs to arbitration, thereby terminating
the Company defendants from the Florida action.

The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and will
vigorously defend itself against the claims in the lawsuit.

The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount
of the loss that may result from an unfavorable outcome.

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

Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. develops and sells nutrition solutions in
North America, Mexico, South and Central America, Europe, the
Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. The company was formerly
known as Herbalife Ltd. and changed its name to Herbalife Nutrition
Ltd. in April 2018. Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.


HORNITO'S RESTAURANT: Perez Seeks Proper Wages, Slams Tip Credit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joaquin Mendez Perez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hornito's Restaurant Corp.,
Roberto Hernandez and Junior Hernandez, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-06641 (S.D. N.Y., August 5, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a fast-food restaurant in
Bronx, NY under the name "Jimbo's Hamburger Palace" where Perez was
employed as a delivery worker. He claims to have generally worked
in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime pay and denied
spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. Moreover,
Defendants claimed tip credit for all hours worked despite
requiring him to work non-tipped duties for hours exceeding 20% of
the total hours worked each workweek. He also claims to have never
received wage statements and appropriate minimum wage. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HORRY COUNTY, SC: Class Action Filed Over Road Maintenance Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
wbtw.com reports that a class action lawsuit was filed over Horry
County's road maintenance fee, seeking refunds for "all unlawfully
charged road fees," according to the lawsuit obtained by News13.

Horry County charges $50 per year per registered vehicle in the
county. In fiscal year 2021, the county collected $17,741,915 from
the fee.

A portion of the money is shared with municipalities in the county.
The money goes toward maintenance work like repaving roads,
installing or replacing sidewalks and filling in potholes.

The lawsuit claims that the county residents paying the fee don't
get extra benefits compared to the people in the general public who
don't pay the fee.

In June, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the "road
maintenance fee" charged by Greenville County was unconstitutional.
The lawsuit claims the fee in Horry County is identical, and should
also be considered unlawful.

"By charging and collecting the unlawful Road Fees, and adopting
Ordinances authorizing the Road Fees, Defendants acted outside the
scope of legitimate objectives permitted for counties and their
departments in South Carolina, exercised powers contrary to law, as
well as the public policy, and charged fees which were unduly
oppressively to Plaintiffs and the Class, and deprived Plaintiff
and the Class of their property in violation of the United States
Constitution," the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit claims that Horry County was aware of the South
Carolina Supreme Court ruling but have not given any refunds.

Horry County's road maintenance fee has been in place since 1987.
It was affirmed by the state Supreme Court in 1992. After the
ruling against Greenville County, Horry County is cautiously moving
forward, Angie Jones, the county's treasurer, told News13 in July.

Jones told News13 in July that the county is still collecting the
money, but keeping it in a separate account and not distributing
any of it until the county has answers.

A spokesperson for Horry County said the county does not comment on
pending litigation. [GN]

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Friche Suit Alleges False Advertising in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
SEBASTIEN FRICHE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI MOTOR CO.; HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
8:21-cv-01324 (C.D. Cal., August 9, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for false advertising and violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Consumers Legal Remedy Act, and the
California's Unfair Competition Law.

Hyundai Motor Co. is a multinational automotive manufacturer,
headquartered in Seoul, South Korea.

Hyundai Motor America is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hyundai Motor
Company, headquartered in Fountain Valley, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         David C. Wright, Esq.
         MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
         3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
         Ontario, CA 91761
         Telephone: (909) 557-1250
         Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
         E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com

INEOS US: Seeman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Process Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT SEEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INEOS US CHEMICALS COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00206 (S.D. Tex., August 9, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated process operators overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Seeman was employed as a process operator by the Defendant at
its Chocolate Bayou Works facility in Alvin, Texas from
approximately July 2015 to January 2021.

Ineos US Chemicals Company is a petrochemical company based in
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Clif Alexander, Esq.
         Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
         Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
         Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
         Craig D. Henderson, Esq.
         Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
         ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
         819 N. Upper Broadway
         Corpus Christi, TX 78401
         Telephone: (361) 452-1279
         Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
         E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com
                 lauren@a2xlaw.com
                 cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                 craig@a2xlaw.com
                 carter@a2xlaw.com

INSPERITY INC: Bid to Nix Building Trades Pension Fund Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the securities class action suit entitled, Building Trades
Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v. Insperity, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05635-NRB, is pending.

In July 2020, a federal securities class action was filed against
the company and certain of the company's officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
name of the case is Building Trades Pension Fund of Western
Pennsylvania v. Insperity, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05635-NRB.


On October 23, 2020, the court issued an order appointing Oakland
County Employees' Retirement System and Oakland County Voluntary
Employees' Beneficiary Association Trust as lead plaintiff.

On December 22, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed its consolidated
complaint alleging that the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business and
operations in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, costs, equitable/injunctive
relief, and such other relief that may be deemed proper.

On April 26, 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint with prejudice.

The Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss on
June 10, 2021, and the defendants filed their reply in support of
the motion to dismiss on July 12, 2021.

Insperity said, "We believe the allegations in the action are
without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend this litigation.
As a result of uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter, no
provision has been made in the accompanying Consolidated Financial
Statements."

Insperity, Inc. provides human resources and business solutions to
enhance business performance for small and medium-sized businesses
in the United States. The company was formerly known as
Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to Insperity, Inc. in March
2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 4 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 has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Iterum Therapeutics plc ('Iterum' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ:ITRM)
from November 30, 2020 through July 23, 2021 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleges violations of the Exchange
Act of 1934.

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

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the sulopenem New Drug Application ("NDA") lacked
sufficient data to support approval for the treatment of adult
women with uncomplicated urinary tract infections ("uUTIs") caused
by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly
suspected to be non-susceptible to a quinolone; (ii) accordingly,
it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the sulopenem NDA in its
current form; (iii) defendants downplayed the severity of issued
and deficiencies associated with the sulopenem NDA; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 1, 2021, Iterum issued a press release "announc[ing] that
the Company received a letter from the [FDA] stating that, as part
of their ongoing review of the [sulopenem NDA], the agency has
identified deficiencies that preclude the continuation of the
discussion of labeling and post marketing requirements/commitments
at this time."

On this news, Iterum's ordinary share price fell $0.87 per share,
or 37.99%, to close at $1.42 per share on July 2, 2021.

Then, on July 26, 2021, Iterum issued a press release announcing
that it had received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA for
the sulopenem NDA, "provid[ing] that the FDA has completed its
review of the NDA and has determined that it cannot approve the NDA
in its present form."

On this news, Iterum's ordinary share price fell $0.499 per share,
or 44.16%, to close at $0.631 per share on July 26, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 4, 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 Iterum securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/iterumtherapeutics-itrm-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-425/apply/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@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]

ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 4 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of
Iterum Therapeutics plc (NASDAQ: ITRM) securities between November
30, 2020 and July 23, 2021, inclusive ("Class Period") have until
October 4, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Iterum
class action lawsuit. The Iterum class action lawsuit charges
Iterum and certain of its top executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Iterum class action lawsuit
(Klein v. Iterum Therapeutics plc, No. 21-cv-04181) was filed on
August 5, 2021 in the Northern District of Illinois and is assigned
to Judge Gary Feinerman.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Iterum class action
lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can
also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling
800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Iterum class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than October 4, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Iterum is a pharmaceutical company developing
sulopenem, an anti-infective compound with oral and intravenous
formulations that is in Phase III clinical trials for the treatment
of, among other medical issues, uncomplicated urinary tract
infections ("uUTIs"). In November 2020, Iterum submitted a New Drug
Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for sulopenem etzadroxil/probenecid (oral sulopenem) for
the treatment of uUTIs in patients with a quinolone non-susceptible
pathogen.

The Iterum class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) the sulopenem NDA lacked sufficient data to
support approval for the treatment of adult women with uUTIs caused
by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly
suspected to be non-susceptible to a quinolone; (ii) accordingly,
it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the sulopenem NDA in its
current form; (iii) defendants downplayed the severity of issues
and deficiencies associated with the sulopenem NDA; and (iv) as a
result, Iterum's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 1, 2021, Iterum issued a press release "announc[ing] that
the Company received a letter from the [FDA] stating that, as part
of their ongoing review of the [sulopenem NDA], the agency has
identified deficiencies that preclude the continuation of the
discussion of labeling and post marketing requirements/commitments
at this time." The press release further stated that "[n]o details
with respect to deficiencies were disclosed by the FDA in this
notification and the letter further states that the notification
does not reflect a final decision on the information under review."
On this news, Iterum's ordinary share price fell nearly 38%.

Then, on July 26, 2021, Iterum issued a press release announcing
that it had received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA for
the sulopenem NDA, "provid[ing] that the FDA has completed its
review of the NDA and has determined that it cannot approve the NDA
in its present form." Specifically, "the FDA determined that
additional data are necessary to support approval for the treatment
of adult women with [uUTIs] caused by designated susceptible
microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible
to a quinolone," while "recommend[ing] that Iterum conduct at least
one additional adequate and well-controlled clinical trial,
potentially using a different comparator drug," and "conduct
further nonclinical investigation to determine the optimal dosing
regimen." On this news, Iterum's ordinary share price fell an
additional 44%, further damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Iterum
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Iterum class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Iterum class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Iterum class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Iterum class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for more information.[GN]

JAZZ PHARMA: Trial in Xyrem Related Suit Set for Feb. 2023
----------------------------------------------------------
Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Court in the
consolidated class action suit related to Xyrem(R) issued a Case
Management Order that schedules this case for trial in February
2023.

From June 2020 to March 2021, a number of class action lawsuits
were filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect Xyrem
purchasers, alleging that the patent litigation settlement
agreements the company entered with generic drug manufacturers who
had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications, or ANDA, filers
violate state and federal antitrust and consumer protection laws,
as follows:

On June 17, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBS, against Jazz
Pharmaceuticals plc, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Jazz
Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, or, collectively, the Company
Defendants (the BCBS Lawsuit).

The BCBS Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals plc, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., and
Lupin Inc., or, collectively, the BCBS Defendants.

On June 18 and June 23, 2020, respectively, two additional class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company Defendants and the
BCBS Defendants: one by the New York State Teamsters Council Health
and Hospital Fund in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, and another by the Government
Employees Health Association Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the GEHA Lawsuit).

On June 18, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California by
the City of Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, and
Roxane Laboratories, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma
Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and Hikma
Pharmaceuticals plc, or, collectively, the City of Providence
Defendants.

On June 30, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by UFCW
Local 1500 Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd., Jazz
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals plc, Eurohealth (USA), Inc. and West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals Corp., or collectively the UFCW Defendants (the
UFCW Lawsuit).

On July 13, 2020, the plaintiffs in the BCBS Lawsuit and the GEHA
Lawsuit dismissed their complaints in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois and refiled their
respective lawsuits in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On July 14, 2020, the plaintiffs in the UFCW Lawsuit dismissed
their complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and on July 15, 2020, refiled their
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On July 31, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the
A.F. of L.-A.G.C Building Trades Welfare Plan on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc
(the AFL Plan Lawsuit).

The AFL Plan Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories Inc., West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc,
Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Ltd.,
Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc.

On August 14, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York by the Self-Insured Schools of California on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, against the Company Defendants,
as well as Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Eurohealth (USA) Inc., Hikma
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Roxane
Laboratories, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Endo International,
plc, Endo Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin
Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd., Sun Pharmaceutical Holdings USA, Inc., Sun
Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Watson Laboratories, Inc.,
Wockhardt Ltd., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wockhardt USA
LLC, Mallinckrodt plc, and Mallinckrodt LLC (hereinafter the
Self-Insured Schools Lawsuit).

On September 16, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, by Ruth Hollman on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, against the same defendants named in the
Self-Insured Schools Lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in certain of these lawsuits are seeking to
represent a class of direct purchasers of Xyrem, and the plaintiffs
in the remaining lawsuits are seeking to represent a class of
indirect purchasers of Xyrem. Each of the lawsuits generally
alleges violations of U.S. federal and state antitrust, consumer
protection, and unfair competition laws in connection with the
Company Defendants' conduct related to Xyrem, including actions
leading up to, and entering into, patent litigation settlement
agreements with each of the other named defendants. Each of the
lawsuits seeks monetary damages, exemplary damages, equitable
relief against the alleged unlawful conduct, including disgorgement
of profits and restitution, and injunctive relief. It is possible
that additional lawsuits will be filed against the Company
Defendants making similar or related allegations.

If the plaintiffs were to be successful in their claims, they may
be entitled to injunctive relief or we may be required to pay
significant monetary damages, which could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations
and growth prospects.

In December 2020, the above cases were centralized and transferred
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, where the multidistrict litigation will proceed for the
purpose of discovery and pre-trial proceedings. In January 2021,
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued a Case Management Order that schedules this case
for trial in February 2023.

On March 18, 2021, United Healthcare Services, Inc. filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
against the Company Defendants, Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Roxane
Laboratories, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Eurohealth
(USA) Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical Inc.,
Lupin Ltd., and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., raising similar
allegations, or the UHS Lawsuit.

On March 24, 2021, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation conditionally transferred the UHS Lawsuit to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
where it was consolidated for discovery and pre-trial proceedings
with the other cases.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc is a biopharmaceutical company based in
Ireland. It was founded in 2003. One of the company's most
significant products is the United States Food and Drug
Administration approved drug Xyrem, the sodium salt of the
naturally occurring neurotransmitter I3-Hydroxybutyric acid.


JELD-WEN HOLDING: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the final settlement
approval hearing in the class action suit initiated by Cambridge
Retirement System, is scheduled to be heard on November 22, 2021.

On February 19, 2020, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia against
the Company, current and former Company executives, and various
Onex-related entities alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as well as violations of Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants and
Onex-related entities ("Cambridge").  

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 8, 2020, the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund
were named as co-lead plaintiffs and filed an amended complaint on
June 22, 2020.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July
29, 2020, which was denied on October 26, 2020.

On January 19, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the company opposed on February 2, 2021.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
March 29, 2021.

On April 12, 2021, the company filed a petition to seek the Fourth
Circuit's permission to appeal this class certification opinion.

On April 20, 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
resolve this securities class action.

The agreement contemplates a full release of claims through the
date of preliminary court approval of the settlement in exchange
for a payment of $39.5 million funded by the Company's D&O
carriers.

On April 21, 2021, the parties jointly informed the court of their
agreement, and the court stayed all deadlines in the case.

As part of the settlement agreement, on April 22, 2021, we withdrew
our petition to the Fourth Circuit for its permission to appeal the
district court's class certification opinion.

On June 4, 2021, the parties filed their stipulation of dismissal
of the action and the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement agreement.

The Company continues to believe that the plaintiffs' claims lack
merit and has denied any liability or wrongdoing for the claims
made against the Company. The settlement agreement remains subject
to court approval and other conditions.

On July 27, 2021, the Eastern District of Virginia preliminarily
approved the settlement agreement and the hearing for final
approval is scheduled to be held on November 22, 2021.

JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.


JELD-WEN HOLDING: Indirect Purchaser Settlement Granted Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court granted final
approval order and judgment on the settlements made in the Indirect
Purchaser Class.

On October 19, 2018, Grubb Lumber Company, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the company and one of its competitors in the doors market,
Masonite Corporation, in the Eastern District of Virginia.

The company subsequently received additional complaints from and on
behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of interior molded doors.


The suits were consolidated into two separate actions, a Direct
Purchaser Action and an Indirect Purchaser Action. The suits allege
that Masonite and JELD-WEN violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
and in the Indirect Purchaser Action, related state law antitrust
and consumer protection laws, by engaging in a scheme to
artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the prices of
interior molded doors in the United States.

The complaints sought ordinary and treble damages, declaratory
relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes the claims lack merit and vigorously defended
against the actions.

On September 18, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss the lawsuits, dismissing various
state law claims and limiting plaintiffs' damages claims to a
four-year period (from 2014-2018) under the applicable statute of
limitations.

Together with Masonite, the company filed motions to oppose class
certification in both the Direct Purchaser and Indirect Purchaser
Actions on May 19, 2020.

On August 31, 2020, JELD-WEN and Masonite entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the Direct Purchaser Action.

In exchange for a full release of claims through the date of
preliminary court approval of the settlement, each defendant
originally agreed to pay $28.0 million to the named plaintiffs and
the settlement class.

On January 27, 2021, the parties to the Direct Purchaser Action
revised the settlement agreement to modify certain terms, and each
defendant agreed to pay a total of $30.8 million to the named
plaintiffs and the settlement class in exchange for a full release
of claims through the date of preliminary approval of the revised
settlement, which the court granted on February 5, 2021.

In addition, on September 4, 2020, JELD-WEN and Masonite entered
into a separate settlement agreement to resolve the Indirect
Purchaser Action.

Each defendant agreed to pay $9.75 million to the named plaintiffs
and the settlement class in exchange for a full release of claims
through the execution date of the settlement agreement, and the
court has granted preliminary approval of this settlement in the
Indirect Purchaser Action.

The final fairness hearing in the Direct Purchaser Action was held
on June 2, 2021, and the court entered a final approval order and
judgment on June 3, 2021.

On June 17, 2021, the Company made the settlement payment to the
named plaintiffs and the settlement class in the Direct Purchaser
Action.

The deadline to appeal the entry of the final approval order and
judgment was July 7, 2021, and no party or class member filed an
appeal.

The final fairness hearing in the Indirect Purchaser Action was
held on July 26, 2021 and the court issued a final approval order
and judgment on July 27, 2021.

The Company continues to believe that the plaintiffs' claims lacked
merit and has denied any liability or wrongdoing for the claims
made against the Company.

JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.


JELD-WEN HOLDING: Molded Doors Related Suits in Canada Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend two putative class action suits in Canada related to its
interior molded doors from the company or Masonite.

On May 15, 2020, Developpement Emeraude Inc., on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company and Masonite in the Superior Court of
the Province of Quebec, Canada, which was served on the company on
September 18, 2020 ("the Quebec Action").

The putative class consists of any person in Canada who, since
October 2012, purchased one or more interior molded doors from us
or Masonite.

The suit alleges an illegal conspiracy between us and Masonite to
agree on prices, the distribution of market shares and/or the
production levels of interior molded doors and that the plaintiffs
suffered damages in that they were charged and paid higher prices
for interior molded doors than they would have had to pay but for
the alleged anti-competitive conduct.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 9, 2020, Kate O'Leary Swinkels, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
against JELD-WEN and Masonite in the Federal Court of Canada, which
was served on us on September 29, 2020 (the "Federal Court
Action").

The Federal Court Action makes substantially similar allegations to
the Quebec Action and the putative class is represented by the same
counsel. In February 2021, the plaintiff in the Federal Court
Action noticed a proposed Amended Statement of Claim that replaced
the named plaintiff, Kate O'Leary Swinkels, with David Regan. The
plaintiff has sought a stay of the Quebec Action while the Federal
Court Action proceeds.

JELD-WEN said, "We do not anticipate a hearing on the certification
of the Federal Court Action before the middle of 2022. The Company
believes both the Quebec Action and the Federal Court Action lack
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them."

JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.


JP MORGAN: Settlement Reached in New York Precious Metals Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the parties in the
consolidated putative class action suit related to precious metals
futures and options price manipulation scheme have informed the
court that they have entered into a settlement to resolve the
action.

The Company previously reported that it and/or certain of its
subsidiaries had entered into resolutions with the U.S. Department
of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(CFTC) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
which, collectively, resolved those agencies' respective
investigations relating to historical trading practices by former
employees in the precious metals and U.S. treasuries markets and
related conduct from 2008 to 2016.

The Firm entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DPA") with
the DOJ in which it agreed to the filing of a criminal information
charging JPMorgan Chase & Co. with two counts of wire fraud and
agreed, along with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, to certain terms and obligations as set forth
therein.

Under the terms of the DPA, the criminal information will be
dismissed after three years, provided that JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC fully
comply with all of their obligations.

Across the three resolutions with the DOJ, CFTC and SEC, JPMorgan
Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC agreed to pay a total monetary amount of approximately $920
million. A portion of the total monetary amount includes victim
compensation payments.

Several putative class action complaints have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Firm and certain former employees, alleging a precious
metals futures and options price manipulation scheme in violation
of the Commodity Exchange Act.

Some of the complaints also allege unjust enrichment and deceptive
acts or practices under the General Business Law of the State of
New York. The Court consolidated these putative class actions in
February 2019, and the consolidated action is stayed through
December 2021.

In July 2021, the parties informed the Court that they have entered
into a settlement to resolve the action.

In Canada, plaintiffs have moved to commence putative class action
proceedings based on similar alleged underlying conduct for
precious metals.

In addition, several putative class actions were filed in the
United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois
and Southern District of New York against the Firm, alleging
manipulation of U.S. Treasury futures and options, and bringing
claims under the Commodity Exchange Act. Some of the complaints
also allege unjust enrichment.

The actions in the Northern District of Illinois have been
transferred to the Southern District of New York.

The Court consolidated these putative class actions in October 2020
and plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint in April
2021. In May 2021, the parties informed the Court that they have
entered into a settlement to resolve the action.

In October 2020, two putative class action complaints were filed
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Firm and certain individual defendants on behalf of shareholders
who acquired shares during the putative class period alleging that
certain SEC filings of the Firm were materially false or misleading
in that they did not disclose certain information relating to the
above-referenced investigations.

The Court consolidated these putative class actions in January
2021.

Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint in May 2021, which
additionally alleged that certain orders in precious metals futures
contracts placed by precious metals futures traders during the
putative class period were materially false and misleading.
Defendants have moved to dismiss.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Securities Lending Related Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit related to the alleged
conspiracy to prevent the emergence of anonymous exchange trading
for securities lending transactions.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, J.P. Morgan
Prime, Inc., and J.P. Morgan Strategic Securities Lending Corp. are
named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint asserts violations of federal antitrust law and New
York State common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
prevent the emergence of anonymous exchange trading for securities
lending transactions.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. Plaintiffs
have moved to certify a class in this action, which defendants are
opposing.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community
Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial
Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase &
Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


JUDGE GROUP: Katona FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TODD KATONA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE JUDGE GROUP, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00826, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on August 9, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-03534-ER to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated recruiters overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek.

Mr. Katona worked for the Defendant as a recruiter in Pennsylvania
from approximately February 2018 through November 2018.

The Judge Group, Inc. is a company that provides staffing services
based in Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
         Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 cfitz@mybackwages.com

                 - and –

         Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788
         Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
         E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

                 - and –

         Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
         GOODRICH & GEIST PC
         3634 California Ave.
         Pittsburgh, PA 15212
         Telephone: (412) 766-1455
         Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
         E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

K-MAC ENTERPRISES: Faces Tellor Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
EVAN TELLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. K-MAC ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00110 (E.D. Miss., August 9, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Missouri Revised Statutes by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated assistant managers
appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its restaurants
located in Cape Girardeau and Perryville in Missouri beginning
December of 2018. In June of 2020, the Defendant promoted the
Plaintiff to assistant manager at its Perryville location until
March of 2021. After March of 2021, he was demoted to shift lead
until his employment terminated in July of 2021, says the suit.

K-Mac Enterprises, Inc. is a company that owns and operates
multiple Taco Bell franchises, including in Cape Girardeau and
Perryville in Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Courtney Harness, Esq.
         SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
         Kirkpatrick Plaza
         10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
         Little Rock, AR 72211
         Telephone: (501) 221-0088
         Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
         E-mail: harness@sanfordlawfirm.com

KRYSTAL RESTAURANTS: Underpays Restaurant Managers, Northern Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSANNA NORTHERN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRYSTAL RESTAURANTS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00284-TES (M.D. Ga., August 9, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
other similarly situated managers overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked as a manager for the Defendant's restaurant
location in Byron, Peach County, Georgia from March 16, 2020 until
January 4, 2021.

Krystal Restaurants, LLC is an operator of fast food restaurants in
several states, including Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
                  
         William Gregory Dobson, Esq.
         LOBER & DOBSON, LLC
         1040 Fort Stephenson Road
         Lookout Mountain, GA 30750
         Telephone: (478) 335-6895
         E-mail: wgd@lddlawyers.com

                - and –

         A. Danielle McBride, Esq.
         LOBER & DOBSON, LLC
         830 Mulberry Street, Suite 201
         Macon, GA 31201
         Telephone: (478) 745-7700
         E-mail: admcbride@lddlawyers.com

                - and –

         Michael J. Lober, Esq.
         LOBER & DOBSON, LLC
         1197 Canton Street
         Roswell, GA 30075
         Telephone: (770) 741-0700
         E-mail: mjlober@lddlawyers.com

LAKE AVE: Najera Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Pizza Parlor Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO HERNANDEZ NAJERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAKE AVE PIZZA LLC (DBA LAKE
AVENUE PIZZA) and REY "DOE", JUNIOR, Defendants, Case No.
7:21-cv-06753 (S.D.N.Y., August 10, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay spread-of-hours
premium, failure to comply with recordkeeping requirements, and
failure to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cook, preparer and dish washer at
the Defendants' Lake Avenue Pizza located at 137 Lake Avenue in
Yonkers, New York from on or about February 2020 until July 10,
2021.

Lave Ave Pizza LLC, is an owner and operator of a pizza parlor
under the name Lake Avenue Pizza located at 137 Lake Avenue in
Yonkers, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Lina Stillman, Esq.
         STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
         42 Broadway, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 203-2417
         Facsimile: (212) 203-6010

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Class Cert. Hearing in Brown Suit Set for Oct. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMALLA BROWN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, and LOANCARE, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00280-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Frank W. Whitney
enters an order that a hearing on Plaintiff's motion to certify
class and on any dispositive motions that may be filed by August
31, 2021, will take place on Tuesday, October 5, 2021, in Courtroom
5B of the Charles R. Jonas Building, 401 W. Trade Street,
Charlotte, North Carolina, 28202.

The parties' arguments will be limited to 40 minutes per side and
may be allocated among arguments on class certification and
dispositive motions as counsel shall see fit, says Judge Whitney.

Lakeview Loan operates as a mortgage finance company. The Company
offers loans re-financing options.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lXtmAO at no extra charge.[CC]

LATIN GYROS: Faces Ramirez Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
OTTONIEL RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LATIN GYROS, INC., PABLO MENDOZA,
AGUSTIN MENDOZA, MESIAS MENDOZA and ELIZABETH R. MENDOZA,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-04487 (E.D.N.Y., August 10, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure
to provide written notice, failure to furnish accurate wage
statements, and failure to provide accurate wage notices.

The Plaintiff was employed at the Defendants' restaurant in New
York from in or about November 2015 to in or about April 2021.

Latin Gyros, Inc. is an owner and operator of a restaurant located
at 82 Main Street, Port Washington, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Peter A. Romero, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
         490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
         Hauppauge, NY 11788
         Telephone: (631) 257-5588
         E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: SD&A Businesses Acquisition Related Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit related to the company's
acquisition of the SD&A Businesses.

On March 2, 2021, Leidos and certain current officers of Leidos
were named as defendants in a putative class action securities
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder relating to alleged misstatements or
omissions in Leidos' public filings with the SEC and other public
statements during the period from May 4, 2020 to February 23, 2021
relating, among other things, to Leidos' acquisition of the SD&A
Businesses.

The plaintiff seeks to recover from the Company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages at this time.

Leidos said, "We believe the suit lacks merit and we intend to
vigorously defend against it."

Leidos Holdings, Inc. provides services and solutions in the
defense, intelligence, civil, and health markets in the United
States and internationally. It operates through three segments:
Defense Solutions, Civil, and Health. The company was founded in
1969 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


LIBERTY HEALTH: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of October 25 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit purchasers of common stock of Liberty Health Sciences, Inc.
(OTCMKTS: LHSIF):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

To: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
Liberty Health Sciences, Inc. on the over-the-counter market in the
United States ("Shares" or, in singular, "Share") between July 20,
2017 and December 6, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement
Class Period"):

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 certified as a class action for
the purpose of settlement 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 Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $1,800,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action.

Pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York that a hearing will be held on
November 15, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable Mary Kay
Vyskocil, United States District Judge of the Southern District of
New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl St., Courtroom 18C, New York, NY 10007-1312 for the purpose
of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims
in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum
of $1,800,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (2) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation of Settlement dated January 8, 2021
("Settlement Stipulation") (and in the Notice) should be granted;
(3) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds
is fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (4) whether the application
of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third
(33.333%) of the Settlement Amount ($600,000) plus interest,
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $35,000, and a
Compensatory Award to Plaintiffs of no more than $8,000 (or $5,000
for Lead Plaintiff Nancy Lin and $3,000 for Plaintiff Gilbert Lee
Silverbird) should be approved.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Shares of Liberty between
July 20, 2017 and December 6, 2018, both dates inclusive (the
"Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this
Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you
may possess relating to your ownership interest in Liberty Shares.
If you have not received a detailed Notice and a copy of the Proof
of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by visiting
https://www.strategicclaims.net/Liberty/ or by contacting the
Claims Administrator at Liberty Securities Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Suite
205, Media, PA 19063; toll-free at (866) 274-4004; or at
info@strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form to the
Claims Administrator either online at
www.strategicclaims.net/Liberty/ no later than 11:59 p.m. on
November 22, 2021 or at the address listed in the detailed Notice
and postmarked no later than November 22, 2021, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion
request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action
whether or not you make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than October 25, 2021, in the manner and
form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Settlement Stipulation. [GN]

LIFE LINE: Class Cert. Response Time Extended to August 23
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Laird, et al., v. Life
Line Screening of America, Ltd., Case No. 5:21-cv-01244 (N.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sara Lioi enters an order granting the
defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to
plaintiffs' motion for class certification until August 23, 2021.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Life Line provides health screening services. The Company offers
screening services for heart stroke and abdominal aortic aneurysm.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at no extra charge.[CC]

LINCOLN LIFE: Nitkewicz Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Andrew Nitkewicz filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled ANDREW NITKEWICZ, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
JOAN C. LUPE FAMILY TRUST, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINCOLN LIFE & ANNUITY COMPANY OF
NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-6805, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 16, 2021, Judge
John P. Cronan of the Southern District of New York grantdd Lincoln
NY's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff Nitkewicz as successor trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Family
Trust, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
brings the putative class action for breach of contract arising
from a universal life insurance policy issued by Defendant Lincoln
NY. The Plaintiff paid a "Planned Premium" on May 7, 2018, which,
pursuant to the Policy, largely went into an interest-bearing
account associated with the Policy. Monthly deductions were made
from that account to cover the cost of insurance and administrative
charges. The Plaintiff argues that New York law requires Lincoln NY
to refund a portion of that Planned Premium to cover a period that
followed the insured's death on Oct. 6, 2018.

Lincoln NY paid the Specified Amount but declined to refund any
portion of the Planned Premium on the basis that "annual planned
premiums paid increased the policy value, earned interest, were
accessible for a policy loan, withdrawal or cash surrender, and
could have been used to cover future policy expenses," and
therefore "there was no 'unearned premium' and no refund of premium
was payable." The Plaintiff contends that Lincoln NY's refusal to
issue a proportionate refund of the Planned Premium to cover the
period from November 2018 (i.e., the month after Ms. Lupe's death)
through May 7, 2019 violated New York Insurance Law.

On Aug. 24, 2020, the Plaintiff commenced the action, bringing a
single claim of breach of contract. The case was originally
assigned to the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe, but was reassigned to
Judge Cronan on Sept. 29, 2020. On Nov. 13, 2020, Lincoln NY moved
to dismiss the Complaint. It also has requested that the Court
takes judicial notice of publicly available Product Outlines from
the New York State Department of Financial Services ("NYDFS"),
which Lincoln NY argues support its reading of New York Insurance
Law.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the case dismissal order
entered by Judge Cronan.

The appellate case is captioned as Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life &
Annuity Company of New York, Case No. 21-1830, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on July 28,
2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Andrew Nitkewicz, as Trustee of The Joan C.
Lupe Family Trust and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Seth D. Ard, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          560 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com

Defendant-Appellee Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York is
represented by:

          Alan B. Vickery, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8200
          E-mail: avickery@bsfllp.com

LIVE VENTURES: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada captioned Sieggreen v. Live Ventures
Incorporated, et al., (Case No. 21-cv-01517) on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Live Ventures
Incorporated ("Live Ventures" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LIVE)
securities between December 28, 2016 and August 3, 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 Live Ventures 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/live-ventures-incorporated/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On August 3, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") filed a complaint against Live Ventures, its Chief
Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer alleging
"multiple financial, disclosure, and reporting violations related
to inflated income and earnings per share, stock promotion and
secret trading, and undisclosed executive compensation."
Specifically, the SEC alleged that Live Ventures had recorded
income from a backdated contract, which increased pre-tax income
for fiscal 2016 by 20%, and understated its outstanding share
count, which overstated earnings per share by 40%.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $29.08, or 46%, to
close at $33.50 per share on August 4, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The stock price continued to decline $7.74, or 23%,
over the next four consecutive trading sessions to close at $25.76
per share on August 10, 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 Live's earnings per share for FY 2016 was
actually only $6.33 per share; (2) that the Company used an
artificially low share count to boost the earnings per share by
40%; (3) that Live had overstated pre-tax income for fiscal 2016 by
20% by including $915,500 of "other income" related to certain
amendments that were not negotiated until after the close of the
fiscal year; (4) that Live's acquisition of ApplianceSmart did not
close during first quarter 2017; (5) that using December 30, 2017
as the "acquisition date" and recognizing income therefrom did not
conform to generally accepted accounting principles; (6) that, by
falsely stating that the acquisition closed during the quarter,
Live recognized bargain purchase gain, which enabled the Company to
report positive net income in what would otherwise have been an
unprofitable quarter; (7) that between fiscal 2016 and fiscal 2018,
Live's CEO received approximately 94% more in compensation than was
disclosed to investors; and (8) 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 Live Ventures 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]

LIVE VENTURES: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Live
Ventures Incorporated (NASDAQ: LIVE) securities between December
28, 2016 and August 3, 2021, inclusive ("Class Period") have until
October 12, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Live
Ventures class action lawsuit. The Live Ventures class action
lawsuit charges Live Ventures and certain of its top executives
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Live
Venture class action lawsuit was commenced on August 13, 2021 in
the District of Nevada and is captioned Sieggreen v. Live Ventures
Incorporated, No. 21-cv-01517.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Live Ventures class
action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here.
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Live Ventures class action lawsuit must
be filed with the court no later than October 12, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Live Ventures class action lawsuit alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Live
Ventures' earnings per share for fiscal year 2016 was actually only
$6.33 per share; (ii) Live Ventures used an artificially low share
count to boost the earnings per share by 40%; (iii) Live Ventures
had overstated pre-tax income for fiscal year 2016 by 20% by
including $915,500 of "other income" related to certain amendments
that were not negotiated until after the close of the fiscal year;
(iv) Live Ventures' acquisition of ApplianceSmart did not close
during the first quarter of 2017; (v) using December 30, 2017 as
the "acquisition date" and recognizing income therefrom did not
conform to generally accepted accounting principles; (vi) by
falsely stating that the acquisition closed during the quarter,
Live Ventures recognized bargain purchase gain, which enabled Live
Ventures to report positive net income in what would otherwise have
been an unprofitable quarter; (vii) between fiscal year 2016 and
fiscal year 2018, Live Ventures' CEO, defendant Jon Isaac, received
approximately 94% more in compensation than was disclosed to
investors; and (viii) as a result, defendants' positive statements
about Live Ventures' business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 3, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") filed a complaint against Live Ventures, its CEO, and its
CFO, defendant Virland A. Johnson, alleging "multiple financial,
disclosure, and reporting violations related to inflated income and
earnings per share, stock promotion and secret trading, and
undisclosed executive compensation." Specifically, the SEC
complaint alleged that Live Ventures had recorded income from a
backdated contract, which increased pre-tax income for fiscal year
2016 by 20%, and understated its outstanding share count, which
overstated earnings per share by 40%. On this news, Live Ventures'
share price fell approximately 46%, damaging investors. Live
Ventures' stock price declined an additional 23% over the next four
consecutive trading sessions.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Live Ventures
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Live Ventures class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Live Ventures
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the Live Ventures class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
Live Ventures class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff.

                       About Robbins Geller

With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in
securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained
many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including
the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion -
in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for
recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double
the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm.
Please visit https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for more
information. [GN]

MAC ACQUISITION: Improperly Pays Restaurant Staff, Merritt Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY MERRITT and LAUREN JONES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAC ACQUISITION, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02142 (D. Colo., August 9, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated restaurant staff at full minimum wage rate due
to its tip credit practices.

Ms. Merritt worked for the Defendant as a server, bartender and
caterer at the Romano's Macaroni Grill located in Greenville, South
Carolina from approximately February 2018 to March 2020.

Ms. Jones worked for the Defendant as a server and bartender at the
Romano's Macaroni Grill located in Greenville, South Carolina from
approximately June 2016 to May 2019.

Mac Acquisition, LLC is an operator of a nationwide chain of
restaurants under the trade name Romano's Macaroni Grill throughout
the U.S. including in Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Don J. Foty, Esq.
         HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
         4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
         Houston, TX 77006
         Telephone: (713) 523-0001
         Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
         E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

                - and –

         Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
         Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
         Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
         THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
         The Heritage Building, Suite 250
         34555 Chagrin Boulevard
         Moreland Hills, OH 44022
         Telephone: (216) 696-5000
         Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
         E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
                 lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (MIC) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company's motions to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint is still pending.

On April 23, 2018, a complaint captioned City of Riviera Beach
General Employees Retirement System v. Macquarie Infrastructure
Corp., et al., Case 1:18-cv-03608 (VSB), was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

A substantially identical complaint captioned Daniel Fajardo v.
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03744 (VSB) was filed in the same court on April 27, 2018.


Both complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of MIC
common stock between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 2018.

The named defendants in both cases were the Company and four
current or former officers of MIC and one of its former subsidiary,
IMTT Holdings LLC.

The complaints in both actions allege that the Company and the
individual defendants knowingly made material misstatements and
omitted material facts in its public disclosures concerning the
Company's and IMTT's business and the sustainability of the
Company's dividend to stockholders.

On January 30, 2019, the Court issued an opinion and order
consolidating the two cases, appointing Moab Partners, L.P. (Moab)
as Lead Plaintiff and approving Moab's selection of lead counsel.

On February 20, 2019, Moab filed a consolidated class action
complaint.

In addition to the claims noted above, the consolidated class
action complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the Company's
November 2016 secondary public offering of common stock.

The consolidated amended complaint also adds Macquarie
Infrastructure Management (USA) Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., and
seven additional current or former officers or directors of MIC as
defendants.

On April 22, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in its
entirety, with prejudice. Briefing concluded on July 22, 2019.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the claims
asserted, which the Company believes are entirely meritless.

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

Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns and operates a portfolio
of businesses that provide services to other businesses, government
agencies, and individuals. It operates through: International-Matex
Tank Terminals (IMTT), Atlantic Aviation, and MIC Hawaii segments.
The company was founded in 2004 and is based in New York, New
York.


MAPLEBEAR INC: Overcharges Customers, Andrews Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Andrews, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MAPLEBEAR INC. d/b/a INSTACART, DOES 1-10 Inclusive,
Case No. CGC-21-590201 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., July 30,
2021) seeks to stop Defendant's practice of overcharging its
customers when it makes substitutions such as for lower weight
produce or for cheaper substitute products ("the Substitute Goods")
in violation the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law,
and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Even though Defendant makes such substitutions and thus pays a
lower price for the substituted goods, it still charges the
Plaintiff and other customers the full price of the unsubstituted
products, thus pocketing the difference in price., the lawsuit
says.

The Plaintiff seeks to obtain redress for a California class of
consumers (Class Members) who were overcharged for the Substitute
Goods, within the applicable statute of limitations period by
Defendant.

The Defendant represented to Class Members the prices for certain
products to be sold by Defendant through its app, the Instacart
App. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated viewed and relied
on these representations on Defendant's App.

Instacart is an American company that operates a grocery delivery
and pick-up service in the United States and Canada. The company
offers its services via a website and mobile app.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tiriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com

MARRIOTT INT'L: Suits Over Data Security Breach Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend lawsuits related to data security incident.

On November 30, 2018, the company announced a data security
incident involving unauthorized access to the Starwood reservations
database.

Working with leading security experts, the company determines that
there was unauthorized access to the Starwood network since 2014
and that an unauthorized party had copied information from the
Starwood reservations database and taken steps towards removing it.
While the company's forensic review of the incident is now
complete, certain data analytics work continues. The Starwood
reservations database is no longer used for business operations.

Following the company's announcement of the Data Security Incident,
approximately 100 lawsuits were filed by consumers and others
against us in U.S. federal, U.S. state and Canadian courts related
to the incident.

All but one of the U.S. cases were consolidated and transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, pursuant to
orders of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the
"MDL").

The plaintiffs in the U.S. and Canadian cases, who generally
purport to represent various classes of consumers, generally claim
to have been harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by the
Company in connection with the Data Security Incident and assert a
variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees, and other
related relief.

Among the U.S. cases consolidated in the MDL proceeding is a
putative class action lawsuit that was filed on December 1, 2018
against the Company and certain of our current and former officers
and directors, alleging violations of the federal securities laws
in connection with statements regarding the company's cybersecurity
systems and controls, and seeking certification of a class of
affected persons, unspecified monetary damages, costs and
attorneys' fees, and other related relief (the "Securities Case").


The MDL proceeding also included two shareholder derivative
complaints that were filed on February 26, 2019 and March 15, 2019,
respectively, against the Company and certain of our current and
former directors, alleging, among other claims, breach of fiduciary
duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, mismanagement and
violations of the federal securities laws, and seeking unspecified
monetary damages and restitution, changes to the Company's
corporate governance and internal procedures, costs and attorneys'
fees, and other related relief (the "MDL Derivative Cases").

A separate shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on December 3, 2019 against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors,
alleging claims and seeking relief generally similar to the claims
made and relief sought in the other two derivative cases. This case
was not consolidated with the MDL proceeding.

The company filed motions to dismiss in connection with all of the
U.S. cases. The company's motions to dismiss the Securities Case
and the MDL Derivative Cases were granted in June 2021. The
plaintiff in the Securities Case has appealed the dismissal, which
appeal is still pending, and the plaintiffs in the MDL Derivative
Cases have not appealed. Motions to dismiss in the other MDL cases
have been denied in part or in whole and these cases remain at
varying stages. A motion to dismiss the Delaware derivative case is
pending.

A putative class action lawsuit brought on behalf of financial
institutions has been voluntarily dismissed. The Canadian cases
have effectively been consolidated into a single case in the
province of Ontario.

The company disputes the allegations in the lawsuits and is
vigorously defending against such claims.

In April 2019, the company received a letter purportedly on behalf
of a stockholder of the Company (also one of the named plaintiffs
in the putative securities class action described above) demanding
that the Board of Directors take action against certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors to recover
damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and related claims
arising from the Data Security Incident.

The Board of Directors has constituted a demand review committee to
investigate the claims made in the demand letter, and the committee
has retained independent counsel to assist with the investigation.
The committee's investigation is ongoing.

In addition, on August 18, 2020, a purported representative action
was brought against us in the High Court of Justice for England and
Wales on behalf of an alleged claimant class of English and Welsh
residents alleging breaches of the General Data Protection
Regulation and/or the U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 (the "U.K.
DPA") in connection with the Data Security Incident. The company
disputes all of the allegations in this purported action and will
vigorously defend against any such claims.

On November 5, 2020, the court issued an order with the consent of
all parties staying this action pending resolution of another case
raising similar issues, but not involving the Company, that is
pending before the U.K. Supreme Court.

Marriott International, Inc., incorporated on September 19, 1997,
is a lodging company. As of December 31, 2017, the Company
operated, franchised, or licensed 6,520 properties across the
world, with 1,257,666 rooms. Marriott International operates in
three business segments: North American Full-Service, North
American Limited-Service and International. The company is based in
Bethesda, Maryland.


MATERION CORP: Lucyk Wage and Hour Purported Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Materion Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a wage and hour purported collective and class action,
entitled, Garett Lucyk, et al. v. Materion Brush Inc., et. al.

On October 14, 2020, Garett Lucyk, et al. v. Materion Brush Inc.,
et. al., case number 20CV0234, a wage and hour purported collective
and class action, was filed in the Northern District of Ohio
against the Company and its subsidiary, Materion Brush Inc..

Plaintiff, a former hourly production employee at the Company's
Elmore, Ohio facility, alleges, among other things, that he and
other similarly situated employees nationwide are not paid for all
time they spend donning and doffing personal protective equipment
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.

The case is currently in the preliminary stages.

The Company believes that it has substantive defenses and intends
to vigorously defend this suit.

Materion Corporation, through its subsidiaries, produces and
supplies high-performance engineered materials. The Company
provides beryllium, beryllium alloys, and electronic products, as
well as engineered material systems. Materion has manufacturing
facilities, service and distribution centers, and research
facilities in the United States and internationally. The company is
based in Mayfield Heights, Ohio.


MCKESSON CORP: Fremont Leaders Vote to Join Opioid Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Carson at Fremont News-Messenger reports that city Council
approved the city's participation in a multi-billion-dollar 2021
national opioid settlement agreement, as the city hopes to put more
money toward addiction treatment services.

The council unanimously approved a resolution at a special
meeting.

Jim Melle, law director, said whatever funds the city were to get
in the settlement could be used only for drug treatment.

The agreement Melle referenced involves a July 21 pact between the
National Prescription Opiate Litigation MDL Plaintiffs' Executive
Committee, several state attorneys general and four major
defendants.

The parties announced agreement on terms of proposed nationwide
settlements to resolve all opioids litigation brought by states and
local political subdivisions against the three largest
pharmaceutical distributors: McKesson, Cardinal Health and
AmerisourceBergen and manufacturer Janssen Pharmaceuticals and its
parent company Johnson & Johnson.

Deadline to sign on extended until next week
Melle said the state attorney general had imposed a deadline for
cities and municipalities to opt in to the agreement, although that
deadline has shifted to next week.

Attorney General Dave Yost pressured counties and cites to join
Ohio's massive settlement of around $808 million with three major
drug distributors who were sued for their role in the opioid
epidemic., according to the Columbus Dispatch.

At least 95% of litigating municipalities have to sign on in order
for the deal to go forward. But only 86% had joined. The deadline
the attorney general had imposed.

He put in a new deadline and tried to turn up the heat on those
that have not joined.

Yost said he will put on his website a button that will show who's
in or not so the public can know if their community is part of it.

Melle said there were a lot of cities that did not know about the
settlement and the potential funds available for treatment
services.

Mayor Danny Sanchez said any money the city receives could help
agencies like Surest Path Recovery Center, which is run by David
Guardiola. [GN]

MIMEDX GROUP: Hearing on CPFI Bid for Reconsideration Postponed
---------------------------------------------------------------
MiMedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the hearing on the
motion for reconsideration of the dismissal and for leave to amend
to add a new plaintiff in the securities class action suit headed
by Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois ("CPFI"), has been
postponed.

On January 16, 2019, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia entered an order consolidating two
purported securities class actions (MacPhee v. MiMedx Group, Inc.,
et al. filed February 23, 2018 and Kline v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et
al. filed February 26, 2018).

The order also appointed CPFI as lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2019,
CPFI filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming as defendants
the Company, Michael J. Senken, Parker H. "Pete" Petit, William C.
Taylor, Christopher M. Cashman and Cherry Bekaert & Holland LLP.

The amended complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It asserted a
class period of March 7, 2013 through June 29, 2018.

Following the filing of motions to dismiss by the various
defendants, CPFI was granted leave to file an amended complaint.
CPFI filed its amended complaint against the Company, Michael J.
Senken, Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, and Cherry Bekaert &
Holland (Christopher Cashman was dropped as a defendant) on March
30, 2020; defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 29, 2020.

On March 25, 2021, the Court granted defendants' respective motions
to dismiss, finding that CPFI lacked standing to bring the
underlying claims and also could not establish loss causation
because it sold all of its shares in MiMedx prior to any corrective
disclosures, and dismissed the case.

On April 22, 2021, CPFI filed a motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal and for leave to amend to add a new plaintiff to attempt
to cure the standing and loss causation issues.

The Company has opposed CPFI's motions and the hearing on the same
scheduled for July 28, 2021 has been postponed; no new date has yet
been set.

MiMedx Group, Inc. is an industry leader in advanced wound care and
an emerging therapeutic biologics company, developing and
distributing placental tissue allografts with patent-protected
processes for multiple sectors of healthcare. The company is based
in Marietta, Georgia.


MMA CAPITAL: Cohen Bid for Preliminary Injunction Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
MMA Capital Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August 3, 2021,
that the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff
in Cohen v. Michael Falcone, et al., No. 2021-0646 (Del. Ch. Ct.),
is pending.

MMA Capital Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, FP Acquisition
Parent, LLC ("Parent"), and FP Acquisition Merger Sub, LLC entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which the Company
will merge with and into Merger Sub.

Merger Sub is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent is wholly
owned by its two members Fundamental Partners III, LP and
Fundamental Partners IV, LP, each of which is affiliated with
Fundamental Advisors LP. Upon completion of the Merger, Merger Sub
will be the surviving entity, continuing as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent, and the separate corporate existence of the
Company will cease. The Company filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") on July 13, 2021 its definitive proxy
statement relating to the proposed transaction.

In a case, Cohen v. Michael Falcone, et al., No. 2021-0646 (Del.
Ch. Ct.), the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit, on
his behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated shareholders,
against the Company and all seven Directors in the Delaware Court
of Chancery.

Cohen alleges that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to provide the Company's public stockholders with all
material information necessary to decide whether to vote in favor
of or against the Merger or exercise appraisal rights.

Cohen's complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction
preventing both the shareholder vote and the Merger, attorney's
fees, and, if the court does not enjoin the Merger, rescission of
the Merger or unspecified damages.

In addition, Cohen has filed with the court a motion for a
preliminary injunction.

The court has scheduled a hearing on Cohen's motion for August 9,
2021.

MMA Capital said, "While the Company believes that the disclosures
in connection with the proposed transaction, including those set
forth in the Proxy Statement, comply fully with applicable law, the
Company has determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy
Statement with the supplemental disclosures.

Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary,
the Company specifically denies all allegations in the litigation
that any additional disclosure was or is required."

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/37FEN7N.

MMA Capital Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, invests in bonds and debt
capital that finance affordable housing and infrastructure projects
and the development, construction ,and operation of renewable
energy systems. MMA Capital Holdings serves customers in the United
States." The company is based in Baltimore, Maryland.


MONARCH HEALTHCARE: Quay Slams Missed Breaks, Denied Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
April Quay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Monarch Healthcare Management LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01796, (D. Minn., August 5, 2021), seeks
to recover compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 206, 207, and 216(b)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Minnesota Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act and the Minnesota
Code of Regulations on Wages and Labor.

Monarch Healthcare Management provides short term rehabilitation
and long-term healthcare services to its live-in patients
throughout the state of Minnesota. Quay worked for Monarch as a
nurse in Faribault, Minnesota from approximately July of 2018 until
January of 2020. She typically worked approximately in excess of
forty "on-the-clock" hours per week but was not compensated for
overtime, asserts the complaint.

Monarch allegedly automatically deducts at least one, and as many
as two, 30-minute meal periods from employees' daily time but does
not completely relieve them from duty during their day for the
purposes of taking a meal break, the complaint adds. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4700 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Fax: (612) 215-6870
      Email: fisher@nka.com

             - and -

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Ripple XRP Cryptocurrency Related Suit Terminated
------------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August 2, 2021,
that the Court terminated the consolidated putative securities
class action suit related to the company's use of Ripple's XRP
cryptocurrency.

A putative securities class action lawsuit was filed on March 1,
2021, in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California against MoneyGram and certain of its executive
officers.

A second substantially similar putative class action was filed on
March 10, 2021, in the same court.

The lawsuits asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleged that MoneyGram made
material misrepresentations regarding its business relationship
with Ripple Labs, Inc. and MoneyGram's use of Ripple's XRP
cryptocurrency.

The lawsuits sought unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest
and costs and attorneys' fees. On April 8, 2021, by agreement of
the parties, the court consolidated the two lawsuits and
transferred the consolidated action to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On July 30, 2021, the Court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a Notice
of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice prior to the deadline for
filing a consolidated amended complaint. On August 2, 2021, the
Court terminated the consolidated action.

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


MOSAIC CO: Examination in Uberaba EHS Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the examination in the
Uberaba EHS class action is pending and the parties are negotiating
a settlement.

In 2013, the State of Minas Gerais public prosecutor filed a class
action claiming that Mosaic's predecessor company in Brazil did not
comply with labor safety rules and working hour laws.

This claim was based on an inspection conducted by the Labor and
Employment Ministry in 2010, following which the company was fined
for not complying with several labor regulations.

The company filed its defense, claiming that it complied with these
labor regulations and that the assessment carried out by the
inspectors in 2010 was abusive.

Following the initial hearing, the court ordered an examination to
determine whether there has been any non-compliance with labor
regulations.

The examination is currently pending and the parties are
negotiating a settlement.

The amount claimed in the proceeding is $31.9 million.

The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients worldwide. The
company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and
International Distribution. The Mosaic Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.


MOSAIC CO: Unit Continues to Defend Cruz Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's
wholly-owned subsidiary, Mosaic Global Operations Inc. continues to
defend a putative class action "Cruz Litigation".

On August 27, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough
County, FL against the company's wholly owned subsidiary, Mosaic
Global Operations Inc. and two co-defendants.

The complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of
radiation at two manufactured housing communities located on
reclaimed mining land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, allegedly
due to phosphate mining and reclamation activities occurring
decades ago.

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages,
injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties, and a
medical monitoring program funded by the defendants.

Mosaic said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter."

The Mosaic Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and markets
concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients worldwide. The
company operates through three segments: Phosphates, Potash, and
International Distribution. The Mosaic Company was founded in 2004
and is headquartered in Plymouth, Minnesota.


MUDRICK CAPITAL: Bass Suit Seeks to Enjoin Stockholders' Vote
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE BASS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MUDRICK CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORPORATION II,
SCOTT KASEN, DAVID KIRSCH, BRIAN KUSHNER, JASON MUDRICK and DENNIS
STOGSDILL, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0690 (Del. Ch., August 10,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duties and violation of the Delaware General Corporation
Law (DGCL).

According to the complaint, Mudrick Capital made materially false
and misleading proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with a special meeting of
stockholders scheduled for August 25, 2021. In Proposal No. 1 of
the Proxy, the board is seeking stockholder approval of the Topps
Business Combination. In Proposal No. 2, the board is seeking
approval of a Second Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, which includes various amendments to the Charter
adopted by the Board, including the Class A Share Increase
Amendment and the Opt-Out Provision Amendment. As disclosed in the
Proxy, however, the board is bringing Proposal No. 2 only in front
of (a) the Company's Class B Common Stockholders voting as a
separate class; and (b) the Company's Class A and Class B Common
Stockholders voting together. The board knows that public
stockholders have a right to a separate class vote. The Plaintiff
seeks to enjoin the vote so that the Defendants are required to
re-submit these votes in compliance with the DGCL, says the suit.

Mudrick Capital Acquisition Corporation II is a company that
operates as a blank check company based in New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         David A. Jenkins, Esq.
         Neal C. Belgam, Esq.
         Kelly A. Green, Esq.
         Jason Z. Miller, Esq.
         SMITH KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
         1000 West Street, Suite 1501
         P.O. Box 410
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 652-8400
         E-mail: djenkins@skjlaw.com
                 nbelgam@skjlaw.com
                 kgreen@skjlaw.com
                 jmiller@skjlaw.com

                - and –

         Steven J. Purcell, Esq.
         Douglas E. Julie, Esq.
         Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq.
         Anisha Mirchandani, Esq.
         PURCELL JULIE & LEFKOWITZ LLP
         200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700
         New York, NY 10166
         Telephone: (212) 725-1000

                - and –

         Adam Frankel, Esq.
         GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC
         881 Lake Avenue
         Greenwich, CT 06831
         Telephone: (203) 622-6001

MULTNOMAH, OR: Clark Must File Class Status Bid by April 2, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARK, et al v. MULTNOMAH
COUNTY, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00501 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann
L. Aiken enters an order granting unopposed motion for extension of
discovery & PTO deadlines as follows:

   -- Pre-certification class discovery is to be completed by
      March 31, 2022.

   -- Motion for class certification is due by April 2, 2022.

   -- Amended pleadings are due 45 days following the Court's
      order on plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

   -- Fact discovery material to individual claims is to be
      completed 120 days following the Court's order on
      plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

   -- Dispositive motions are due 45 days following the close of
      fact discovery material to individual claims.

   -- ADR report is due 60 days following the Court's ruling on
      any dispositive motions.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Prison Condition.

Multnomah County is one of the 36 counties in the U.S. state of
Oregon.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at no extra charge.[CC]


NATIONAL FREIGHT: Kolev Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
STOYAN KOLEV, JOHNNIE PARKS, PETER DOBRZYNIECKI, LUDWIK DRUZD,
CASEY JONES, JESUS RUIZ, and ARNULFO VIEJO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL
FREIGHT, INC. and NFI INTERACTIVE LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-15107 (D.N.J., August 10, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for unjust enrichment and violations of the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act and the New Jersey Wage
Payment Law by making unlawful wage deductions, failing to pay
wages, and failing to reimburse the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated delivery drivers for expenses incurred performing their
work.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as delivery drivers at any
time between 2009 to 2021.

National Freight, Inc. is a third-party logistics provider, with
its headquarters in Camden, New Jersey.

NFI Interactive Logistics, LLC is a provider of logistics
solutions, with its headquarters in Camden, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Zachary Rubin, Esq.
         Harold Lichten, Esq.
         Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
         Thomas Fowler, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
         729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
         Boston, MA 02116
         Telephone: (617) 994-5800
         Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
         E-mail: zrubin@llrlaw.com
                 hlichten@llrlaw.com
                 ssb@llrlaw.com
                 tfowler@llrlaw.com

                - and –

         Bradley Manewith, Esq.
         Marc Siegel, Esq.
         James Rogers, Esq.
         SIEGEL & DOLAN, LTD.
         150 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 3000
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 878-3210
         Facsimile: (312) 878-3211
         E-mail: bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
                 msiegel@msiegellaw.com

NBTY INC: Biotin Supplements' Label "Deceptive," Dervin Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA M. DERVIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NBTY, INC. and NATURE'S BOUNTY,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04215 (N.D. Ill., August 9,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
biotin supplements under the Nature's Bounty brand. On the front of
the biotin products, the Defendants represent that the products
"Support Healthy Hair, Skin & Nails." These health benefit
representations are likely to deceive consumers because neither
biotin the nutrient nor supplemental biotin support hair, skin or
nail health. In short, purchasing the Defendants' supplemental
biotin products serves no purpose, let alone supporting hair, skin,
or nail health. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth
about the Defendants' misrepresentations, they would not have
purchased their biotin products, says the suit.

NBTY, Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of nutritional
supplements, headquartered in New York.

Nature's Bounty, Inc. is a subsidiary of NBTY, Inc., headquartered
at 110 Orville Drive, Bohemia, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
         WELTMAN LAW LLC
         235 W. Snow Rd.
         Baroda, MI 49101
         Telephone: (312) 504-1988
         E-mail: sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com

                - and –

         Pasha Vaziri, Esq.
         VARIZI LAW LLC
         111 W. Washington St., Ste. 1500
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 690-2610
         E-mail: pvaziri@vaziri.law

                - and –

         Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
         LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
         510 Walnut St., Ste. 500
         Philadelphia, PA 19106
         Telephone: (215) 592-1500
         E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

                - and –

         Charles LaDuca, Esq.
         CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
         4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 200
         Washington, DC 20016
         Telephone: (202) 789-3960
         E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com

                - and –

         Michael McShane, Esq.
         AUDET & PARTNERS LLP
         711 Van Ness Ave., Ste. 500
         San Francisco, CA 94102
         Telephone: (415) 568-2555
         E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com

NCAA: Mitchell Seeks Damages for Football-Related Health Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02172 (S.D. Ind.,
August 3, 2021), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential,
compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future
medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and
interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract
and unjust enrichment.

Mitchell played football at Montana State University from 1986 to
1989, as a nose guard center and guard. He suffered from numerous
concussions, as well as countless sub-concussive hits as part of
routine practice and gameplay. Mitchell now suffers from issues
including, but not limited to, cognitive impairments such as
impaired memory, impaired attention, executive dysfunction;
impulsivity, depression, anxiety, fearfulness, irritability,
apathy, motor impairments, balance issues, dizziness and more.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Mitchell alleges that
NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: (713) 554-9099
     Fax: (713) 554-9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

            - and -

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

            - and -

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


NEW YUNG: Faces Xia Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Drivers and Helpers
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHUNYU XIA, SIAN GAO, BAO JIN XU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW YUNG WAH CARRIER, LLC,
NEW YUNG WAH TRADING, LLC, XIN PING ZHENG, JUAN QING LIN, JOHN DOE
1-5, JANE DOE 1 a/k/a LINDA P. ZHENG a/k/a YU JIE ZHENG a/k/a YU
MEI ZHENG a/k/a YU ZHENG N. ZHENG, JANE DOE 2 a/k/a LINDA P. ZHENG
a/k/a YU JIE ZHENG a/k/a YU MEI ZHENG a/k/a YU ZHENG N. ZHENG, JANE
DOE 3-5, COMPANY ABC 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04475
(E.D.N.Y., August 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium, failure to
provide proper wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.

Plaintiff Chunyu Xia was employed by the Defendants as a driver
from 2005 to April 10, 2020.

Plaintiffs Sian Gao and Bao Jin Xu were employed by the Defendants
as helpers from March 1, 2017 to June 20, 2019 and March 10, 2020
to July 13, 2020, respectively.

New Yung Wah Carrier, LLC is an operator of a wholesale business in
Brooklyn, New York.

New Yung Wah Trading, LLC is an operator of a wholesale business in
Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Heng Wang, Esq.
         HENG WANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         305 Broadway, Suite 1000
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 513-1183
         Facsimile: (646) 572-8998
         E-mail: heng.wang@wanggaolaw.com

NORTHLAND INSURANCE: Bid to Stay MSP Suit Partly Granted
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC (MSPRC), v. NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-24176-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Chris McAliley
enters an order granting in part defendants' motion to stay.

The Court says the parties shall promptly meet and confer to agree
on the amount of costs that MSPRC must pay to Travelers Surety and
Casualty Company pursuant to Rule 41(d). If the parties cannot
reach agreement, then Defendants shall submit, within 30 days from
the date of this Order, proof of the costs from the Prior Travelers
Action that Travelers Surety and Casualty Company is entitled to
recover under Rule 41(d), along with a memorandum that demonstrates
that such costs will not be useful in this litigation. Since the
amount of costs to be awarded remains pending, the Court declines
to exercise its discretion at this time to stay these proceedings
until MSPRC makes full payment. However, should MSPRC fail to
timely pay the costs ultimately agreed to or awarded, Defendants
may file a renewed motion for stay.

This action is one of many putative class action lawsuits that
Plaintiff MSPRC and/or its designated series have filed against
various insurance companies, including Defendants, seeking
reimbursement pursuant to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, (the
MSP Act).

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant insurers had primary payor
obligations under the MSP Act, and Plaintiffs' assignors, Medicare
Advantage Plans (MA Plans), had secondary payor status under the
Act. Plaintiffs allege that the MA Plans conditionally paid
accident-related medical expenses for Medicare enrollees and
Defendants are obligated to reimburse those funds to Plaintiffs.

Northland Insurance Company provides property and casualty
insurance services.

MSPRC is a Medicaid and Medicare Secondary Payer Act recovery
Specialist.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AJQQ0f at no extra charge.[CC]

NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Bid for Initial Approval of Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
NortonLifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2021, that the Motion for
Preliminary Settlement Approval, is pending

Securities class action lawsuits, which have since been
consolidated, were filed in May 2018 against the company and
certain of its former officers, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The lead plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint alleged that,
during a purported class period of May 11, 2017 to August 2, 2018,
defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and that certain individuals violated
Section 20A, of the Securities Exchange Act.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the Court granted in an
order dated June 14, 2019.

Pursuant to that order, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to
amend and a proposed first amended complaint on July 11, 2019. The
Court granted the motion in part on October 2, 2019 and the first
amended complaint was filed on October 11, 2019.

The Court's order dismissed certain claims against certain of our
former officers. Defendants filed answers on November 7, 2019.

On April 20, 2021, to resolve an alleged conflict of interest
raised with respect to the lead plaintiff and its counsel, the
Court ordered a second Class Notice disclosing the circumstances of
the alleged conflict and providing a further period for class
members to opt out, which closed on July 2, 2021. The initial class
opt out period closed on August 25, 2020.

On May 24, 2021, the parties reached a proposed settlement and
release of all claims in the class action, for $70 million, and on
June 8, 2021, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, subject to Court approval and exclusive of any claims
that may be brought by shareholders who opted out of the class
action.

Of the $70M, $67.1 million was covered under the applicable
insurance policy with the remainder to be paid by the Company.

On July 6, 2021, the plaintiff filed its Motion for Preliminary
Settlement Approval and that motion is set to be heard on August
12, 2021.

NortonLifeLock, Inc. engages in the provision of security, storage,
and systems management solutions. It operates through Enterprise
Security and Consumer Digital Safety segments. The Consumer Digital
Safety segment provides solutions to protect information, devices,
networks and the identities of consumers. The company is based in
Tempe, Arizona.


NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Holden FSCA Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
NortonLifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by Lauren Holden.

On February 8, 2021, Lauren Holden filed a putative class action in
the Circuit Court for Duval County, Florida alleging that the
Company violated the Florida wiretapping statute, Florida Security
of Communications Act (FSCA), Fla. Stat. Ann. Section 934.01, et.
seq., through the use of session replay technology on
www.us.norton.com.

The complaint defines the class as consisting of Florida residents
who visited the website and whose electronic communications were
alleged to have been intercepted by the Company without prior
consent and, on behalf of the class, seeks statutory damages,
attorney's fees and costs, and injunctive relief.

On March 12, 2021, the Company removed the case to the District
Court for the Middle District of Florida and filed its Answer and
Affirmative Defenses to the complaint. The Company then filed a
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on April 20, 2021.

On April 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Complaint. On July 22, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff
leave to file an amended complaint and deemed the Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings moot.

NortonLifeLock said, "At this stage, we are unable to assess
whether any material loss or adverse effect is reasonably possible
as a result of this lawsuit or estimate the range of any potential
loss. We dispute these claims and intend to defend them
vigorously."

NortonLifeLock, Inc. engages in the provision of security, storage,
and systems management solutions. It operates through Enterprise
Security and Consumer Digital Safety segments. The Consumer Digital
Safety segment provides solutions to protect information, devices,
networks and the identities of consumers. The company is based in
Tempe, Arizona.


ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Loses Bid to Junk Kendall Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN KENDALL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS, INC., KEVIN C. TANG, MICHAEL HEARNE, and JOHN
G. LEMKEY, Case No. 3:20-cv-01828-H-LL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Marilyn L. Huff enters an order denying defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's second amendment complaint (SAC) in its
entirety.

The Defendants contend that Plaintiff's SAC fails to meet federal
pleading  standards. The Court disagrees. Defendants’ arguments
are better suited to a motion for summary judgment or opposition to
class certification when the record is more fully developed.

The Defendants must file an answer to the SAC within 30 days of the
date of this Order, says Judge Huff.

On April 13, 2021, Plaintiff Kendall filed his SAC alleging the
Defendants had violated federal securities laws. On May 13, 2021,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's SAC for failure to
state a claim. The Plaintiff filed his opposition on June 26, 2021.
The Defendants filed their reply on July 26, 2021. On August 4,
2021, the Court took the matter under submission.

The following allegations are taken from Plaintiff's SAC. This is a
securities class action against Odonate and three of its officers
under Sections 10(b) and 4 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The case is brought on behalf all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the stock of Odonate between
December 7, 2017 and March 19, 2021. Founded in 2013, Odonate is a
pharmaceutical company formerly focused on the development of
therapeutics for the treatment of cancer.

The Defendant Tang is Odonate's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer. The Defendant Hearne has served as Odonate's Chief
Financial Officer since November 2018. Defendant Lemkey served as
Odonate's Chief Financial Officer until November 2018, when he was
promoted to Chief Operating Officer.

The Plaintiff alleges Odonate's primary focus was developing its
sole drug candidate, tesetaxel - an orally administered
chemotherapy agent -- to treat patients with locally advanced or
metastatic breast cancer.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AKtfg5 at no extra charge.[CC]

ORPHAZYME A/S: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
September 7, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased 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").

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

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 if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

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

OZINGA BROS: Hortsman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Dispatchers
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HORTSMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OZINGA BROS., INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-04264 (N.D. Ill., August 10, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated dispatchers overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a salaried
dispatcher from March of 2015 until June of 2021.

Ozinga Bros., Inc. is a supplier of concrete products and services
to building sites across the Midwest and South Florida,
headquartered in Mokena, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Josh Sanford, Esq.
         SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
         Kirkpatrick Plaza
         10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
         Little Rock, AR 72211
         Telephone: (501) 221-0088
         Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
         E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

PACCAR INC: Continues to Defend Claims Related to EC Investigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
PACCAR Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend claims
related to a European Commission (EC) probe.

On July 19, 2016, the EC concluded its investigation of all major
European truck manufacturers and reached a settlement with DAF
Trucks N.V.

Following the settlement, claims and lawsuits have been filed
against the Company, DAF and certain DAF subsidiaries and other
truck manufacturers in various European jurisdictions. These claims
and lawsuits include a number of collective proceedings, including
proposed class actions in the United Kingdom, alleging EC-related
claims and seeking damages.

Others may bring EC-related claims and lawsuits against the Company
or its subsidiaries. While the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses, such claims and lawsuits will likely take a significant
period of time to resolve.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any,
that may result given the early stage of these claims and lawsuits.


An adverse outcome of such proceedings could have a material impact
on the Company's results of operations.    

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

PACCAR Inc. is a global technology company whose Truck segment
includes the design and manufacture of high-quality light-, medium-
and heavy-duty commercial trucks. In North America, trucks are sold
under the Kenworth and Peterbilt nameplates, in Europe, under the
DAF nameplate and in Australia and South America, under the
Kenworth and DAF nameplates. The Parts segment includes the
distribution of aftermarket parts for trucks and related commercial
vehicles. The company is based in Bellevue, Washington.

PAM TRANSPORT: Faces Another Class Action Wage Lawsuit in Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------------
landline.media reports that a former driver for PAM Transport has
filed a class action lawsuit alleging the company intentionally
paid drivers below federal and state minimum wages for all hours
worked.

On Aug. 6, Lee Vazquez, a former driver for Tontitown, Ark.-based
PAM Transport, filed a lawsuit in an Arkansas federal district
court accusing the trucking company of violating the state and
federal wage laws, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

Vazquez, on behalf of potentially thousands of drivers, claims PAM
Transport did not compensate for all hours worked, including unpaid
hours worked after leaving the company. Additionally, Vazquez
claims the company loaned drivers advances and charged them an
exorbitant rate plus fees.

Allegations against PAM Transport
According to the complaint, drivers claim PAM Transport allegedly
underpaid thousands of drivers from Jan. 1, 2020 to the present.

Similar to other wage lawsuits, Vazquez claims that all time spent
over the road is compensable due to the strict control PAM
Transport has over drivers. Specifically, the complaint claims the
company requires drivers "to remain over-the-road in or in the
general proximity of their assigned truck for more than 24
consecutive hours during multiday and multiweek tours of duty."

In addition to unpaid work-related activities, like fueling and
routine maintenance, Vazquez claims that activities such as
sleeping are compensable due to the fact that PAM Transport
requires to stay with the truck to protect customers' property.
Drivers were never paid for that time.

Accounting for that unpaid time, which is at least 16 hours a day
on the road, drivers claim they were paid below minimum wage.

Missing wages also apply to any paychecks received upon termination
that do not reflect the claimed compensable work hours.

Vazquez also alleges unlawful deductions. She claims PAM Transport
deducts $25 a week until $500 accrues in an escrow account.
Additionally, drivers who attended its CDL school are charged $45
per week to repay loans.

Drivers also have the opportunity to receive an advance on
paychecks. However, that comes in the form of a loan that charges
drivers more than 10% per annum. According to Arkansas state law,
an employer cannot discount wages for pay advances at a rate more
than 10% per annum from the date of payment to the regular payday.
Since those advances go through electronic payment processor
Comdata, Vazquez also is claims violations of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act.

Additionally, the federal RICO Act makes it illegal for a company
to receive income through the collection of unlawful debt when
engaging in interstate commerce. Consequently, the lawsuit claims
RICO violations due to the "usurious advance charges."

Browne v. PAM Transport
Vazquez's lawsuit states that it does not seek damages for any
claim released in a similar lawsuit PAM Transport settled.

Last July, PAM Transport settled a class action case filed by
former driver David Browne for $16.5 million. Browne accused the
trucking company of underpaying its drivers. Both parties reached a
settlement just one day before the trial was scheduled to begin.

Although some of Vazquez's claims are nearly identical to Browne's
there are some key differences. First, the Browne case included
orientation times, which Vazquez does not. While Browne focused
only on federal and state wage laws, Vazquez adds violations of the
RICO and EFT acts.

Most importantly, eligible settlement class members in the Browne
case include over-the-road drivers for PAM Transport from Dec. 9,
2013, to Dec. 31, 2019. Essentially, the Vazquez lawsuit picks up
where the Browne case left off by representing drivers from Jan. 1,
2020, to the present. [GN]

PARTS AUTHORITY: Jaime Labor Suit Moved From D. Ariz. to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HUGO JAIME, RANDALL GOHN, and ROBERT DAVIS JR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PARTS AUTHORITY, LLC; PARTS AUTHORITY, INC.; YARON ROSENTHAL;
NORTHEAST LOGISTICS, INC. D/B/A DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS; ARIZONA
LOGISTICS, INC. D/B/A DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS; BBB LOGISTICS,
INC. D/B/A DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS; MICHIGAN LOGISTICS, INC.
D/B/A DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS; LARRY BROWNE; DOES 1-20 D/B/A
DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS, and DOES 21-40, Case No. 2:21-cv-00015,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on August 10, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-06219-UA to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
overtime wages to delivery drivers in violation of all applicable
minimum wage laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act,
California Labor Code, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law, the New York Labor Law, the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standard Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the
Washington Minimum Wage Act, the Florida Constitution, and the
District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act.

Parts Authority, LLC is a distributor of automotive and truck
parts, with its principal place of business located at 3 Dakota
Drive, Suite 110, New Hyde Park, New York.

Parts Authority, Inc. is a distributor of automotive and truck
parts, with its principal place of business located at 3 Dakota
Drive, Suite 110, New Hyde Park, New York.

Northeast Logistics, Inc., doing business as Diligent Delivery
Systems, is a transport and logistics company, with its principal
place of business located at 9200 Derrington Road, Houston, Texas.

Arizona Logistics, Inc., doing business as Diligent Delivery
Systems, is a transport and logistics company, with its principal
place of business located at 9200 Derrington Road, Houston, Texas.

BBB Logistics, Inc., doing business as Diligent Delivery Systems,
is a transport and logistics company, with its principal place of
business located at 9200 Derrington Road, Houston, Texas.

Michigan Logistics, Inc., doing business as Diligent Delivery
Systems, is a transport and logistics company, with its principal
place of business located at 9200 Derrington Road, Houston, Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Sean J. O'Hara, Esq.
         KERCSMAR & FELTUS PLLC
         7150 East Camelback Road, Suite 285
         Scottsdale, AZ 85251
         Telephone: (480) 421-1001
         Facsimile: (480) 421-1002
         E-mail: sjo@kflawaz.com

                - and –

         Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
         Bradley Silverman, Esq.
         Andrew White, Esq.
         FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
         One North Broadway, Suite 900
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (914) 298-3281
         Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
         E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                 bsilverman@fbfglaw.com
                 awhite@fbfglaw.com

                - and –

         Mark Potashnick, Esq.
         WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
         11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
         St. Louis, MO 63141
         Telephone: (314) 997-9150
         Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
         E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

PATROL SOLUTIONS: Faces Rani Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Patrol Solutions,
Inc. The case is captioned as Joshina Rani vs. Patrol Solutions,
Inc., Case No. 34-2021-00305206-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento
Cty., July 30, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged employment-related claims.

Patrol Services is a security company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          555 12th Street, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Faces Lawsuit Over Improper Sales Tax Charges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Walsh at Business Insider reports that Peloton users have
filed a class action lawsuit against the at-home exercise bike and
workout company, claiming it improperly charged a sales tax to its
customers.

Peloton, which costs $39 a month for an "All-Access" membership and
$12.99 a month for a "Digitial" membership, unlawfully charged
users an additional sales tax between 6.3% and 8.9% in New York,
Virginia, and Massachusetts, according to court documents obtained
by Bloomberg Law.

Because all Peloton memberships are digital, plaintiffs Brannon
Skillern and Ryan Corken believe that Peloton memberships should
not have sales tax and should be tax-exempt as "digital goods,"
according to the lawsuit.

While Peloton no longer charges its customers a sales tax in the
three states, Skillern and Corken are seeking unspecified
compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs.

Peloton declined to respond to Insider's request for comment,
stating that the company does not comment on active litigation.

After a child was fatally injured and on a Peloton Tread+ treadmill
in March, the company faced a lawsuit after featuring a child in
its advertisements for the treadmill. More than 39 people were
injured on the Tread+ treadmill before it was recalled in May,
according to Insider. Despite this, the demand for Peloton remains
strong.

Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, the at-home fitness
market grew substantially as gyms closed and people exercised at
home. Peloton made $1.8 billion in revenue in 2020 and has over 4.4
million subscribers across its exercise platforms, Insider
reported. In 2021, Peloton hopes to make $4 billion in revenue.
[GN]


PROGRESSIVE CORP: Undervalues "Total Loss" Vehicles, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
repairerdrivennews.com reports that a proposed class action suit
has been filed against the Progressive Corporation in New York
federal court accusing the insurer of underpaying total loss claims
by applying an arbitrary and deceptive valuation adjustment.

The suit claims that Progressive "systemically thumbs the scale"
against claimants by applying a so-called "Projected Sold
Adjustment" that reduces the base values of the comparable vehicles
used to calculate the actual cash value of claimants' total loss
vehicles. The negative price adjustment is applied on top of normal
adjustments for differences such as trim level, mileage or options.
According to the suit, the only explanation for this "Projected
Sold Adjustment" appears on the last page of the valuation reports
and is a "general, nondescript statement" claiming that the
reduction is to "reflect consumer purchasing behavior (negotiating
a different price than the listed price)."

Plaintiffs Dominick Volino and John Plotts said Progressive
declared their vehicles total losses and promised to pay them
actual cash value to buy replacements but that Progressive's use of
the "Projected Sold Adjustment" resulted in a lower payout. Volino
claims the underpayment was about $585, and Plotts' was underpaid
by $802.

Progressive uses the vehicle valuation service provided by Mitchell
International. According to the suit, the arbitrary nature of
Progressive's Projected Sold Adjustment is demonstrated by the fact
that Mitchell's primary competitor in providing valuation reports,
CCC Intelligent Solutions, does not apply projected sold
adjustments. Instead, CCC uses list prices.

The suit also claims that Progressive does not apply these
adjustments when valuing total losses in California, and there is
no justification for applying these adjustments in New York while
not subjecting California claimants to the same negative
adjustments.

In addition to seeking approval for its class action and awarding
damages, the suit asks that the court order Progressive to stop
using the projected sold adjustment in determining the ACV of total
loss vehicles.

While the alleged behavior of Progressive may seem like an unfair
claims settlement practice, New York does not allow insurers to be
sued directly for unfair claims practices; such remedies are left
to the Department of Insurance. Instead, this suit alleges that the
insurer violated New York General Business Law Sec 349, a statute
that does allow a private right of action (where an individual or
business can file suit) and has been used by body shops in the past
to file suits against insurers.

GBL Sec 349 makes unlawful "deceptive acts or practices in the
conduct of any business, trade or commerce," and explicitly
provides for a private right of action.

The case, Dominick Volino et al. v. Progressive Corp. was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]

QUEENS PLAZA: Ramirez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Missing Pay Stubs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Ramirez and Sergio Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Queens Plaza
Deli Corp., Fahd Musleh and Nash Muslem, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-04417 (E.D. N.Y., July 5, 2021), seeks compensation for wages
paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from
defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive
overtime premium pay as required by law and liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law,
"spread of hours" requirements of New York Labor Law and statutory
damages for violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants owned and operated a deli in Queens under the name
"Hudson Food Market," where Plaintiffs were employed primarily as
food preparers, working the deli counter, preparing sandwiches and
salads and working the grill. They regularly worked seven days per
week typically working roughly twelve-hour days, all without
overtime pay. Defendants allegedly failed to provide them with
written wage notices providing contact information, regular and
overtime rates and intended allowances claimed. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      STEIN & NIEPORENT LLP
      1441 Broadway, Suite 6090
      New York, NY 10018
      Tel: (212) 308-3444
      Email: dstein@steinllp.com


QUICKEN LOANS: Court Amends Class Certification Briefing Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL VOSS v. QUICKEN
LOANS, LLC AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00756-SKB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon Judge Stephanie K.
Bowman enters an order granting defendant's unopposed motion to
amend calendar order re: briefing on class certification.

The Calendar Order is hereby amended such that Defendants'
opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification is
not due until 14 days after this Court’s ruling on Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment. The filing of Plaintiff's reply brief
in support of class certification shall be due within 14 days after
the filing of Defendants' opposition.

Quicken Loans is a mortgage lending company headquartered in the
One Campus Martius building in the heart of the financial district
of Downtown Detroit, Michigan.

Mortgage Electronic is an American privately held corporation. On
October 5, 2018, Intercontinental Exchange and MERS announced that
ICE had acquired all of MERS.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AFjQ9t at no extra charge.[CC]

R.L. POLK: Exceptions to Special Master's Final Report Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BUTTONWOOD TREE VALUE PARTNERS, L.P., a California
Limited Partnership, and MITCHELL PARTNERS L.P., a California
Limited Partnership, Plaintiffs v. R. L. POLK & CO., INC., STEPHEN
R. POLK (individually and on behalf of a Defendant Class of
similarly situated persons), THE ESTATE OF NANCY K. POLK, KATHERINE
POLK OSBORNE, DAVID COLE, RICK INATOME, CHARLES McCLURE, J. MICHAEL
MOORE, RLP & C HOLDING, INC., RLP MERGER CO., STOUT RISIUS ROSS,
INC., and HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN LLP, Defendants, C.A.
No. 9250-VCG (Del. Ch.), Judge Sam Glasscock, III, of the Court of
Chancery of Delaware:

    (i) denied the Plaintiffs' Exceptions to the Special Master's
        Final Report and Recommendation after In Camera Review of
        Certain Documents Withheld on Grounds of Privilege on
        Nov. 23, 2020; and

   (ii) denied in part and granted in part the Defendants'
        Exceptions.

At issue is the thorough and thoughtful Final Report of the Special
Master dated Nov. 23, 2020. Both parties have taken limited
exceptions to the Final Report.

Non-party R. L. Polk and Co., Inc. ("Polk Co." or "Company") is a
Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Michigan. The Company
was formerly a named defendant; Judge Glasscock dismissed it from
the matter at Oral Argument on May 31, 2017.

Defendant Stephen Polk is the great-grandson of the Company's
founder and has been a member of the Company's Board of Directors
since 1984. At all times relevant to the action he was Chairman of
the Board and the Company's CEO and President. Former Defendant
Nancy K. Polk is his sister-in-law and Defendant Katherine Polk
Osborne is his niece.

The Estate of Nancy K. Polk was substituted in place of the
deceased Nancy K. Polk as a defendant in the action in 2019. Nancy
was member of the Board at all times relevant to the matter.

Defendant Katherine Polk Osborne was a member of the Board at all
times relevant to the matter.

Non-party Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP is a law firm that
served as outside counsel to the Company in connection with several
of the transactions at issue in the Amended Complaint. Honigman was
formerly a named defendant in the action but was dismissed by the
Court's Memorandum Opinion of July 24, 2017. The Plaintiffs allege
that Honigman simultaneously served as counsel to the Company, to
members of the Polk family, and to other entities affiliated with
the Company or the Polk family.

Plaintiff Buttonwood is a California limited partnership that held
shares in the Company at all relevant times and participated in the
2011 Self-Tender. Plaintiff Mitchell is also a California limited
partnership that held shares in the Company at all relevant times
and participated in the 2011 Self-Tender. The Plaintiffs purport to
bring the action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated.

In their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Company's controlling stockholders -- and specifically Stephen --
breached their fiduciary duties to the minority by inducing them to
sell their shares for an inadequate price in a self-tender
transaction in 2011 ("2011 Self-Tender") that enriched the Polk
family at the Plaintiffs' expense. After the transaction, the
purported controllers received dividends amounting to one-third of
the self-tender price. The Company was later acquired for three
times the self-tender valuation. In describing the self-tender to
its stockholders, the Company allegedly failed to disclose several
material facts, including that members of the Polk family had been
considering a sale of the company for some time.

The Plaintiffs initiated the action in 2014, alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty against officers and directors of the Company in
connection with the 2011 Self-Tender and the subsequent merger.
They have since amended the complaint twice, most recently on Dec.
19, 2016.

Judge Glasscock's order of April 9, 2018, appointed Mr. William B.
Chandler, III, as Special Discovery Master to address, among other
issues in the action, any discovery disputes "as directed by the
Court" or "as the Parties mutually agree to submit to the Special
Master."

After conducting the requested in camera review, the Special Master
issued a draft report on Aug. 7, 2020. The parties briefed their
exceptions to the Draft Report from Sept. 1 through Sept. 18, 2020.
The Special Master issued his Final Report and Recommendation after
In Camera Review of Certain Documents Withheld on Grounds of
Privilege on Nov. 23, 2020. Of the 402 documents identified for in
camera review, the Final Report recommends sustaining privilege as
to 35 and permitting redactions based on partial privilege to
another 24.

In their exceptions to the draft report, the Plaintiffs also
identified eight documents not addressed in the Special Master's
Draft Report. The Special Master determined that most of those
documents had already been produced. For those that had not, he
recommended no privilege.

Both parties took exceptions to the Final Report. They briefed
those exceptions from Jan. 1 to Feb. 22, 2021. The Plaintiffs also
moved to re-allocate the costs of the in camera review to the
Defendants ("Costs Motion"). On April 15, 2021, Judge Glasscock
heard argument on, and denied, the Costs Motion and deemed both of
the parties' exceptions fully submitted for decision without
further argument as of that date.

Discussion

The parties, in their respective Exceptions, dispute the scope of
the common interest doctrine as applied to the documents at issue.
The Defendants also take exception to the Special Master's
recommendation that privilege was waived by deficiencies in the
privilege logs.

A. Common Interest

The Plaintiffs' sole exception to the Final Report argues that the
Special Master incorrectly recommended sustaining privilege, or
partial privilege, for communications between parties who did not
share a common legal interest in the following transactions: The
contemplated stock repurchase in 2008; the contemplated election of
Subchapter S status via short-form merger in 2010; and the
completed 2011 Self-Tender. The Defendants' Exceptions focus on the
same transactions, arguing the opposite. Per the Defendants,
privilege was not waived because only parties with a common legal
interest were included in the communications. Both set of Exception
raise the same issue: Whether the confidentiality, and, therefore,
the attorney-client privilege that would otherwise apply to the
withheld communications, was fatally compromised by the presence of
individuals or entities whose interests were insufficiently
"parallel and non-adverse" with respect to the particular
transaction to sustain the common interest doctrine.

Accordingly, Judge Glasscock considers separately whether the
relevant persons or entities share a common legal interest such
that privilege is not waived.

1. Documents Relating to a Possible Self-Tender in 2008

a. Stephen Polk

Regarding a possible self-tender by the Company in 2008, the Final
Report recommends waiving attorney-client privilege where Stephen
was included in the communications. The Special Master concluded
that Stephen "stood on both sides of the contemplated transaction,
including opposite the Company." Therefore, he did not share a
common interest with the Company and privilege was waived as to
those communications as though they were disclosed to a
third-party. The Defendants take exception to this recommendation,
contending that, at the pleading stage, mere allegations of a
conflict of interest are insufficient to waive attorney-client
privilege as to the Company's directors and officers.

Judge Glasscock opines that the Defendants here have failed to
demonstrate a common legal interest between Stephen and the Company
with respect to the stock repurchase contemplated in 2008 for the
reasons already stated. Thus, they have not met their burden to
establish that the relevant communications are privileged. The
Defendants' Exceptions to this recommendation of the Final Report
are denied.

b. Honigman

The Final Report recommended that portions of communications
including Honigman could be redacted on the basis of
attorney-client privilege, because Honigman advised the Company in
connection with the stock repurchase contemplated in 2008. The
Plaintiffs took exception to the recommended redactions because,
per the Plaintiffs, "Honigman simultaneously represented the Polk
family and the Company during communications regarding this
conflicted 2008 self-tender." The Defendants deny that Honigman
represented anyone other than the Company in connection with that
transaction.

Judge Glasscock holds that the Plaintiffs offer nothing to support
their assertion that Honigman represented members of the Polk
Family in connection with this transaction. The Defendants, for
their part, actively deny it. The Judge cannot, on the basis of
such a sparse record, find that Honigman advised the Polk family
such that the Polk family's alleged conflict of interest vitiates
the otherwise applicable attorney-client privilege. The Plaintiffs'
Exception to this recommendation is denied.

2. Documents Relating to Taking the Company Private or Converting
to a Subchapter S Corporation

a. Stephen Polk

As with respect to the transaction considered in 2008, the Special
Master recommended that privilege was waived where Stephen was
included in communications about the Company's potential election
of Subchapter S status via short-form merger because "the Polk
family and the Company stood on opposite sides of the contemplated
transaction and did not share a common interest in considering what
a short-form merger transaction would entail." The Defendants argue
that this conclusion is flawed because management, including
Stephen, "needed to take certain preliminary steps"; "reasonably
expected expect that their communications with the Company's
lawyers were and would remain privileged and confidential"; and
"there was no adversity" between Stephen and the Company.

As a significant stockholder, Stephen had a material financial
interest which would be affected by a merger or a change in the
Company's tax status, Judge Glasscock opines. He has also found it
reasonably conceivable that Stephen controlled the Company for the
benefit of the Polk family. Thus, the Defendants have not met their
burden to demonstrate that Stephen shared a common legal interest
with the Company or its counsel in connection with the potential
Subchapter S election and communications cannot be withheld on that
basis. The Defendants' Exception to this recommendation is denied.

b. Honigman

With respect to the same transaction, the Final Report recommended
that certain communications including Honigman could be withheld or
redacted on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The Plaintiffs
argue that communications including Honigman are not privileged,
repeating their allegation that Honigman simultaneously represented
the Polk family and the Company.

Judge Glasscock finds that a waiver of privilege occurs when the
parties' interests become adverse. He does not assume that Holding
Co. became adverse to the Company at the moment of its formation
merely because it might at some later point negotiate opposite the
Company in a merger. It does not appear that the parties ever
negotiated terms. Accordingly, the Judge does not find that
Honigman represented clients with adverse interests. The Exceptions
to the recommendations are denied.

c. Morris Nichols

The Plaintiffs also take exception to the Final Report's
recommendation that certain advice of Morris Nichols could be
redacted as attorney-client privilege, because Morris Nichols
ultimately represented the Special Committee. Honigman appears to
have consulted with Morris Nichols on matters of Delaware law prior
to Morris Nichols representing the Special Committee. That advice
was rendered to the Company and is therefore properly privileged.
The Exceptions to this recommendation are denied.

3. Documents Relating to the 2011 Self-Tender

a. Stephen Polk

In general, the Final Report again recommended no privilege where
legal advice was shared with Stephen when he "stood on opposite
sides of the transaction." However, privilege was recommended as to
several communications including Stephen that reflected legal
advice about the Company's disclosure obligations under its bylaws
in anticipation of a shareholders meeting. The Special Master
concluded that Stephen had a common interest with -- and was,
therefore, not adverse to -- the Company with respect to its
disclosure obligations under the bylaws.

The Plaintiffs took exception to this recommendation, arguing that
"the acknowledged adversity of interests and the absence of a
binding contract until the Company accepted the 2011 Self-Tender"
precluded any common legal interest as to the content of the
disclosures or the timing of the issuance of the offer. The
Defendants, for their part, reiterate their general exception that
privilege cannot be waived by disclosure to Stephen based on
breaches of fiduciary duty that are only alleged at this stage.

Judge Glasscock finds that two of the documents to which the
Plaintiffs' exception would apply are identified in the privilege
logs as emails "containing legal advice concerning corporate bylaws
of the Company and requirements for notice of shareholder meeting."
The other two are identified as emails "containing legal advice
concerning discussion of a self-tender at an annual shareholder
meeting." Unlike the documents that the Judge has found are not
privileged due to being shared with Stephen, it does not appear
that these documents reflect legal advice that implicates Stephen's
conflicted position with respect to a self-tender. They do not
appear to contain legal advice about the terms or timing of the
2011 Self-Tender or the content of disclosures related to it.
However, as the Special Master noted, the privilege log description
could have better "reflected the nature of the legal advice being
conveyed." The Defendants should update the privilege log, but this
flaw is not so egregious to warrant waiving privilege as to the
entirety of the communications. The Plaintiffs' Exceptions to this
recommendation are denied.

b. Honigman

With respect to the 2011 Self-Tender, the Plaintiffs reiterate
their general exception that communications including Honigman are
not privileged "due to Honigman's dual roles."

Again they provide no evidence that Honigman represented anyone
other than the Company in connection with this transaction, Judge
Glasscock holds. Accordingly, and for the same reasons already
discussed with respect to the previous transactions, he cannot
conclude that privilege was waived. The Plaintiffs' Exceptions to
this recommendation are denied.

c. Morris Nichols

The Plaintiffs also reiterate their exception that legal advice of
Morris Nichols is not privileged, because Morris Nichols
represented the Special Committee, "not the Company," in connection
with the 2011 Self-Tender.

Although Morris Nichols was retained to negotiate on behalf of the
Special Committee in connection with the Company's contemplation of
a short-form merger in 2010, the Judge finds no evidence to suggest
that a special committee was used in connection with the 2011
Self-Tender or that Morris Nichols continued to advise the Special
Committee once a merger was no longer being considered. Even if the
Special Committee was still constituted and advised by Morris
Nichols at this time, the Special Committee, the Company, and the
entire Board would share a common legal interest in advice related
to a self-tender. Accordingly, legal advice rendered by Morris
Nichols to the Company is privileged. The Plaintiffs' Exceptions to
this recommendation are denied.

B. Privilege Log Entries

Judge Glasscock agrees with the Special Master's conclusion in the
Final Report that the privilege logs are deficient. Additionally,
as the Defendants themselves point out, they did not take exception
to that conclusion which was present in the Draft Report, as well.
However, the Defendants chose to await the Judge's final
determination before turning to the necessary corrections to the
logs. The question is whether that languid approach amounts to a
waiver of the privilege. The Special Master recommended that a
waiver is warranted under these circumstances. That is certainly
defensible given the Defendants' generally lethargic response to
their discovery obligations. The withholding of corrections to the
log in the context of a proceeding subject to de novo review does
not, to my mind, warrant a waiver of privilege, however, which
would entail an intentional relinquishment of rights.

The Judge opines that the Defendants should have acted with
alacrity, but he does not find a waiver. The Defendants will make
the corrections identified in the Final Report within 15 days after
entry of an order implementing the rulings in the Memorandum
Opinion, after which the discovery rulings adopted here from the
Final Report will apply to those documents. To the extent that my
conclusion conflicts with the Final Report, the Defendants'
Exceptions are granted.

Conclusion

Judge Glasscock denied the Plaintiffs' Exceptions, and denied in
part and granted in part the Defendants' Exceptions. The parties
should meet and confer as to a case schedule and provide an
appropriate form of order that includes deadlines by which the
Defendants will provide corrected privilege logs and produce
documents in accordance with the conclusions of the Final Report
and the Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/utysrnr7 from Leagle.com.

R. Bruce McNew -- mcnew@wlblaw.com -- of COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A., in
Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the Plaintiffs.

David A. Dorey -- Dorey@BlankRome.com -- of BLANK ROME LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Christopher M. Mason --
cmason@nixonpeabody.com -- of NIXON PEABODY LLP, New York, New
York, and Carolyn G. Nussbaum -- cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com -- of
NIXON PEABODY LLP, in Rochester, New York, Attorneys for the
Defendants.


RECKITT BENCKISER: Hearing Over False Ads Suit Set on October 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased Schiff Move Free(R) Advanced, Move Free(R)
Advanced Plus MSM, or Move Free(R) Advanced Plus MSM & Vitamin D
from May 28, 2015 to June 24, 2021, you may be a "Class Member" and
entitled to receive a cash payment from a class action settlement.
In Yamagata v. Reckitt Benckiser, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-03529-VC
(N.D. Cal.), the court preliminarily approved the Settlement of a
class action lawsuit involving claims that these Schiff Move
Free(R) Advanced supplements were falsely advertised. The defendant
in the lawsuit denies these claims.

To determine if you are a Class Member, view the Detailed Notice
and the Settlement Agreement at www.MoveFreeAdvancedSettlement.com
or call toll-free 1-855-435-0524.

What can I get? There is a $50 million Settlement Fund. For each
bottle purchased (for purposes other than resale), Class Members
may receive a cash payment of $22. No proof of purchase is required
for claims of up to three units (for a total of $66 in cash). These
award amounts may increase or decrease depending on the number of
claims made and other factors explained in the Settlement
Agreement.

How do I get a cash payment? You must submit a Claim Form to
receive a cash payment. Claim Forms can be submitted online at
www.MoveFreeAdvancedSettlement.com or by mail. The deadline to
submit a Claim Form is November 8, 2021.

What are my other options? If you don't want any benefits or to be
legally bound by the Settlement, you must submit an Exclusion
Request postmarked or submitted online at
www.MoveFreeAdvancedSettlement.com by October 14, 2021. You may
also write to the Court if you wish to object to the Settlement by
October 14, 2021. The Court will require only substantial
compliance with the requirements for submitting an objection. If
you exclude yourself, then you cannot receive any benefits, but you
do not release any potential rights to sue Reckitt Benckiser LLC
relating to the legal claims in the lawsuit.

The Court will hold a hearing on October 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. At
that hearing, the Court will consider whether to approve this
Settlement and whether to approve requested attorneys' fees of 25%
of the Settlement Fund plus reimbursement of costs and requested
Class Representative awards of $500 and $7,500. You may appear at
the hearing, but you don't have to. The Court has appointed
attorneys from the law firm Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP to
represent the Class ("Class Counsel"). You will not be charged for
these lawyers. If you want your own lawyer, you may hire one at
your expense.

If you have any questions, please visit
www.MoveFreeAdvancedSettlement.com or call 1-855-435-0524.

URL : https://www.movefreeadvancedsettlement.com

Contact Information:
please visit www.MoveFreeAdvancedSettlement.com or call
1-855-435-0524. [GN]


RELIGIEUX DE SAINT-VINCENT: Court Rejects Appeal in Assault Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press at the Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal
of the Religieux de Saint-Vincent de Paul du Canada to overturn the
Superior Court's May 19, 2021 judgment granting the application for
authorization to bring a class-action suit for sexual assaults that
allegedly occurred between 1940 and the present.

The class-action will, therefore, proceed.

The plaintiff, now 61 years old, has been granted representative
status for people who claim to have been sexually assaulted by a
religious member, employee or attendant of the religious
congregation.

The man alleged to have been sexually assaulted when he was 12
years old by a priest at the Patro de Jonquiere in the 1960s. He
alleges that the Quebec City-based congregation was aware of the
sexual abuse, but covered it up.

His identity is protected by a court-ordered publication ban.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

The petition had been filed in December, 2019. It is possible to
register for class-action status, free of charge and
confidentially, by contacting the law firm Arsenault Dufresne Wee.

The law firm is also behind sexual assault proceedings against the
Congregation of Holy Cross and St. Joseph's Oratory, the Oblats de
Marie Immaculee, the Clercs de Saint-Viateur du Canada, the Freres
des ecoles chretiennes and the Freres de Saint-Gabriel du Canada.
He also took the dioceses of Montreal, Longueuil, Joliette, Quebec
and Trois-Rivieres to court.

The statute of limitations, which imposed a 30-year limit on the
ability to bring a civil suit against an alleged abuser, was
abolished last summer. [GN]

RENOVACARE INC: Boller and Solakian Putative Class Suits Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RenovaCare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend two putative securities class action suits initiated by,
Gabrielle A. Boller and Michael Solakian.  

On July 16 and July 21, 2021, two purported shareholders of the
Company filed putative class actions in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and
certain of its current and former executive officers (captioned
Gabrielle A. Boller, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. RenovaCare, Inc., Harmel Rayat, and Thomas
Bold, No. 2:21-cv-13766-SDW-ESK, and Michael Solakian, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RenovaCare, Inc.,
Harmel Rayat, and Thomas Bold, No. 2:21-cv-13930, respectively).

The complaints in Boller and Solakian were brought both
individually and on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
stockholders, claiming that in connection with the facts and
circumstances underlying the allegations in the SEC Complaint, the
Company engaged in fraudulent conduct and made false and misleading
statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading.

Both Boller and Solakian seek to declare the action to be a class
action and monetary damages, including costs and expenses, and
award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs,
and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in Boller and
Solakian and any other Class Actions derived from the SEC Complaint
are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

RenovaCare said, "Based on the early stages of these legal
proceedings, and the inherent uncertainty as to their outcome, at
this time, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate a
possible range of loss, if any, that may result from the
allegations set forth in the complaints filed in the Class
Actions."

RenovaCare, Inc., through its subsidiary, develops and markets
organ regeneration products. The company is based in Roseland, New
Jersey.


ROYAL MUTUAL: Appeal Over Unfair Sales Practices Dismissed Again
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton at investmentexecutive.com reports that a proposed
class action against Royal Mutual Funds Inc. (RMFI) for alleged
sales practices violations has once again failed in a British
Columbia court.

The Court of Appeal for B.C. dismissed an appeal of the Supreme
Court of B.C.'s refusal to certify a proposed class action against
the firm stemming from its practice of paying its reps an extra 10
basis points for selling certain proprietary funds.

Last November, the B.C. Supreme Court dismissed an application for
certification as a class action against the fund dealer, finding
that most of the plaintiffs' claims were bound to fail and that a
class action would not be the "preferable procedure" for the claims
that could have a chance in court.

That ruling was appealed, and the appeal court has upheld the
initial decision.

"The appellants have not demonstrated any basis on which to
interfere with the judge's conclusions," the written reasons
stated.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued the fund dealer owed an "ad hoc
fiduciary duty" to its clients, and that it breached its "fair
dealing" obligation to clients.

The appeal court dismissed those arguments once again.

On the question of whether the firm owed an "ad hoc" fiduciary duty
to clients, the appeal court said, "The appellants seek to
establish a duty that is based on RMFI's alleged breach or capacity
to commit such a breach, thus creating a conflict of interest,
rather than on the basis of some vulnerability on the part of the
appellants or the existence of a discretionary power over them."

The court upheld the previous decision, denying that argument. It
also dismissed the plaintiffs' efforts to argue a novel claim for
breaching a fair dealing obligation, noting that the claim rests on
the argument that a regulatory violation on its own may be enough
to justify a civil remedy - an argument that was previously
rejected in the courts.

RMFI was sanctioned by the Ontario Securities Commission after
self-reporting the compensation arrangement, which did violate
sales practices rules. In a 2018 settlement, RMFI agreed to a
$1.1-million penalty, $20,000 in costs and a reprimand.

However, the court found that this doesn't necessarily create a
civil cause of action.

"I again agree with each aspect of the judge's analysis in
concluding that the appellants' novel claim for breach of an
equitable obligation of fair dealing is bound to fail," the appeal
court said.

The court also dismissed appeals of the judge's conclusions on
damages, and whether the case was suitable for a class action.[GN]

SEALED AIR: UA Local 13 Securities Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by UA Local 13 &
Employers Group Insurance Fund.

On November 1, 2019, purported Company stockholder UA Local 13 &
Employers Group Insurance Fund filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers.

On June 4, 2020, the complaint was amended to remove all individual
defendants other than the Company's former CFO and to add a
plaintiff, and on July 13, 2020, the complaint was further amended
to identify a total of four plaintiffs.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's hiring
of Ernst & Young LLP as its independent auditors and concerning the
Company's corporate policies and procedures.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between November 17, 2014 and June 20, 2019.


The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, including interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 4, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, and on June 1, 2021, the court issued a ruling that
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.

The Company filed its answer to the complaint on July 15, 2021.

Sealed Air Corporation provides food safety and security, and
product protection solutions worldwide. It was founded in 1960 and
is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.


STABLE ROAD: Rosen Law Reminds of September 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Stable Road Acquisition Corp.
(NASDAQ: SRAC) (NASDAQ: SRACW) (NASDAQ: SRACU) between October 7,
2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the
important September 13, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Stable Road securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Stable Road class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2122.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 13,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants'
statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and
misleading when made because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose the adverse facts about Momentus Inc.'s ("Momentus")
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 follows: (1) that
Momentus's 2019 test of its key technology, a water plasma
thruster, had failed to meet Momentus's own public and internal
pre-launch criteria for success, and was conducted on a prototype
that was not designed to generate commercially significant amounts
of thrust; (2) that the U.S. government had conveyed that it
considered the chief executive officer ("CEO") of Momentus a
national security threat, which jeopardized the CEO's continued
leadership of Momentus and Momentus's launch schedule and business
prospects; (3) that as a result of the foregoing, the revenue
projections and business and operational plans provided to
investors regarding Momentus and the commercial viability and
timeline of its products were materially false and misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis in fact; and (4) that Stable Road had
failed to conduct appropriate due diligence of Momentus and its
business operations and defendants had materially misrepresented
the due diligence activities being conducted by SRC-NI Holdings,
LLC and Stable Road executives in connection with the merger. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

To join the Stable Road class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2122.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

SWBG LLC: Mismanaged 401k Retirement Funds, Coppel Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO COPPEL, ELIZABETH FLORES, MIRIAM GARCIA, PABLO MARTINEZ,
TYLER MITCHELL, MICHELI ORTEGA, JUDITH URIOSTEGUI, ELIZABETH
USSELMAN, individually and as a representative of a Putative Class
of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of the SWBG, LLC
401(K) PLAN (FKA SEAWORLD PARKS AND ENTERTAINMENT 401(K) PLAN),
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; SWBG, LLC;
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SWBG, LLC, INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF 401(K) FOR
SWBG, LLC; ORLANDO CORPORATE OPERATIONS GROUP, LLC; MARK G.
SWANSON, CEO, ELIZABETH GULACSY, CFO, and IRS FORM 5500 SIGNATORY;
and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01430-CAB-RBB
(S.D. Cal., August 10, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the SWBG, LLC 401(K) Plan, formerly known as SeaWorld
Parks and Entertainment 401(K) Plan. Specifically, SWBG and its
individual members allegedly breached their fiduciary duties of
prudence and loyalty to the Plan by: (a) offering and maintaining
higher cost share classes when identical lower cost class shares
were available; (b) overpaying for covered service providers by
paying variable direct and indirect compensation fees through
revenue sharing arrangements with the funds offered as investment
options under the Plan; (c) failing to engage in a competitive
bidding process by submitting a request for proposal to multiple
service providers; (d) imprudently choosing and retaining expensive
funds that consistently failed to meet or exceed industry
benchmarks or had sufficient history to be offered in the Plan; and
(e) failing to offer and retain a diverse pool of investment funds
in accordance with the industry standard.

As a result of these alleged breaches, the Plan, the Plaintiffs and
Class members suffered substantial losses in the form of higher
fees or lower returns on their investments than they would have
otherwise experienced. The Plaintiffs and Class members seek to
recover mismanaged 401k retirement funds.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. is an American theme park and
entertainment company, headquartered in Orlando Florida.

SWBG, LLC, is a subsidiary of SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc.,
headquartered in Orlando Florida.

Orlando Corporate Operations Group, LLC is an administrative
services firm with its principal place of business located at 6240
Sea Harbor Drive, Orlando, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
         CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
         591 Telegraph Canyon Rd., #376
         Chula Vista, CA 91910
         Telephone: (805) 618-2924
         Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
         E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com

                - and –

         James A. Clark, Esq.
         Renee P. Ortega, Esq.
         TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
         11335 Gold Express Drive, Ste. 105
         Gold River, CA 95670
         Telephone: (916) 361-6009
         Facsimile: (916) 361-6019
         E-mail: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com
                 renee.parras@towerlegalgroup.com

T-MOBILE US: Faces Dinkevich Putative Shareholder Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile US, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company together
with Deutsche Telekom AG (DT), SoftBank Group Corp., is facing a
putative shareholder class action and derivative action suit
entitled, Dinkevich v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al., Case No. C.A.
No. 2021-0479.

On June 4, 2021, a putative shareholder class action and derivative
action was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Dinkevich v.
Deutsche Telekom AG, et al., Case No. C.A. No. 2021-0479, against
Deutsche Telekom AG (DT), SoftBank Group Corp. and certain of the
company's current and former officers and directors, asserting
breach of fiduciary duty claims relating to the repricing amendment
to the Business Combination Agreement, and to SoftBank's
monetization of its T-Mobile shares.

The company is also named as a nominal defendant in the case.

T-Mobile said, "We are unable to predict the potential outcome of
these claims. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit."

T-Mobile US, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides mobile
communications services in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. The Company was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.  T-Mobile US, Inc. is as a
subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom Holding B.V.


TAKEDA PHARMA: KPH Sues Over Overpriced Anti-Constipation Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Endo
International PLC and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-11255 (D. Mass., August 3, 2021), seeks to recover damages,
interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting
from Takeda and Par's anticompetitive conduct.

According to the complaint, in late 2014, Takeda paid generic
competitor Par to keep generic Amitiza, an anti-constipation drug,
off the market for up to six more years thus preserving Amitiza's
monopoly. The active pharmaceutical ingredient in Amitiza is
lubiprostone. The Takeda-Par deal came just after the lubiprostone
patent expired in 2014.

This restrained competition in the market for Amitiza and its
generic equivalents. As a result of delayed generic competition
allowing Takeda to monopolize the market with its brand Amitiza
product for years at a supracompetitive price, purchasers paid far
more and Takeda and Par made many hundreds of millions of dollars
more than they otherwise would have, adds the complaint.

KPH operates retail and online pharmacies in the Northeast under
the name "Kinney Drugs." It purchased Amitiza from Defendants.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company is a Japanese corporation that owns
and controls Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA. Takeda was the only entity
selling branded Amitiza in the United States.

Endo International completed an acquisition of Par Pharmaceuticals
Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including Par, and combined it
with Endo's existing generics subsidiary, Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
     Lauren Guth Barnes, Esq.
     Jessica R. MacAuley, Esq.
     Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
     Cambridge, MA 02142
     Tel: (617) 482-3700
     Fax: (617) 482-3003
     Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
            lauren@hbsslaw.com
            jessicam@hbsslaw.com
            bradleyv@hbsslaw.com

            - and -

     Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
     Stephanie E. Smith, Esq.
     ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC
     20 Rahling Cir.
     Little Rock, AR 72223
     Tel: (501) 821-5575
     Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
            stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us

TD AMERITRADE: Class Certification Deadlines in Klein Extended
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis enters an order granting
the motion to extend class certification deadlines as follows.

The Defendants shall respond to the Renewed Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representative, and Appointment
of Class Counse by September 30, 2021, says Judge Bazis.

The nature of suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange
Act.

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.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at no extra charge.[CC]



TENNESSEE VALLEY: Dismissal of Class Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal on the
order of dismissal of the putative class action suit initiated by a
Local Power Company (LPC) customer, is pending.

On June 9, 2020, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed against
TVA and one of its LPCs, Bristol Virginia Utilities Authority
("BVUA"), in federal court in Abingdon, Virginia, by a Local Power
Company customer (LPC customer), asserting claims for breach of
contract and violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The lawsuit alleges that the customers of TVA's LPCs are
third-party beneficiaries under TVA's wholesale power contracts
with its LPCs and that TVA's rate changes dating back to 2010
violate Section 11 of the TVA Act. Section 11 of the TVA Act
establishes the broad policy that TVA power projects shall be
considered primarily for the benefit of the people of the Tennessee
Valley and that service to industry is a secondary purpose to be
used principally to secure a sufficiently high load factor and
revenue returns to permit domestic and rural use at the lowest
possible rates.

The remedies requested include an injunction prohibiting TVA rate
changes that violate Section 11, monetary damages, and repayment of
rates charged in violation of Section 11.

TVA and BVUA filed motions to dismiss the case on November 9, 2020
and filed supplemental motions to dismiss on December 21, 2020, in
response to an amended complaint filed by the plaintiff.

Oral argument on the motions was held on February 18, 2021, and on
March 19, 2021, the court granted TVA's and BVUA's motions to
dismiss.

The plaintiff appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on April 15, 2021.

The parties filed their briefs with the Fourth Circuit and are
waiting for the court to inform them whether it will ask for oral
argument or will decide the appeal based on the briefs.

Tennessee Valley Authority, a government-owned corporation,
produces electricity. The Company provides power to large
industries and 155 power distributors that serve approximately 9
million consumers in seven southeastern states. Tennessee Valley's
power system is self-financed. The company is based in Knoxville,
Tennessee.


TENNESSEE VALLEY: Stipulation of Dismissal Filed in Ash Spill Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the parties in the
class action suit related to the 2008 Kingston Ash Spill, filed a
joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice with the court.

On November 7, 2019, a resident of Roane County, Tennessee, filed a
proposed class action lawsuit against Jacobs Engineering Group,
Inc. and TVA in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee.

The complaint alleges that the class representative and all other
members of the proposed class were damaged as a result of the 2008
ash spill at Kingston and the resulting cleanup activities.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that (1) TVA was
negligent in its construction and operation of the Kingston CCR
facility, (2) TVA and Jacobs failed to take proper measures to
mitigate environmental and health risks during the cleanup
response, and (3) TVA and Jacobs misled the community about health
and environmental risks associated with exposure to coal fly ash.

The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief in the
form of an order requiring the defendants to establish a blood
testing program and medical monitoring protocol and to remediate
damage to the properties of the proposed class.

Briefing on complementary motions to dismiss filed by TVA and
Jacobs closed July 1, 2020.

The motions were referred to the magistrate judge for recommended
dispositions, and in February 2021, the magistrate recommended the
dismissal of all claims, except the plaintiff's temporary nuisance
claim.

TVA and Jacobs filed objections to the recommendation to retain the
temporary nuisance claim, and the plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to file an amended complaint that alleged only a nuisance
claim.

On March 29, 2021, the district court issued an opinion adopting
the magistrate's recommendations and granting the plaintiff leave
to file an amended complaint, which the plaintiff did.

On April 20, 2021, TVA and Jacobs filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The parties subsequently agreed to dismiss the case without
prejudice, and on June 16, 2021, the parties filed a joint
stipulation of dismissal without prejudice with the court.

Tennessee Valley Authority, a government-owned corporation,
produces electricity. The Company provides power to large
industries and 155 power distributors that serve approximately 9
million consumers in seven southeastern states. Tennessee Valley's
power system is self-financed. The company is based in Knoxville,
Tennessee.


TRANSAM TRUCKING: Court Enters Phase I Scheduling Order
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIRK ROBERTS, et al.,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. TRANSAM
TRUCKING, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02073-JWB-GEB (D. Kan.),
the Hon. Judge Gwynne E. Birzer enters a Phase I scheduling order
as follows:

                Event                      Deadline/Setting

-- Formal mediation completed            Deferred to Phase II

-- Supplementation of initial            Per rule and
   disclosures                           30 days prior to
                                         discovery close

-- Phase I class/certification           March 31, 2022
   discovery completed

-- Phase I Experts disclosed by          Jan. 14, 2022
   party with the burden of proof

-- Phase I Rebuttal experts              Feb. 28, 2022
   disclosed

-- Phase I Motions to dismiss            None expected in
                                         Phase I

-- Motions to amend                      Within 5 months of
                                         decision on
                                         class/collective action
                                         certification

-- Plaintiff's motion for                March 31, 2022
   class certification

-- Phase I - other potentially           April 29, 2022
   dispositive motions (e.g.,
   summary judgment)
-- Phase II Status Report due to         Within 21 days of
   Magistrate Judge                      decision on class
                                         /collective action
                                         certification

-- Status conference                     Will be set
                                         upon Court's ruling
                                         on motion for class
                                         certification

-- Proposed pretrial order due           Deferred

-- Pretrial conference                   Deferred

-- Jury Trial in Kansas City             Deferred

TransAm Trucking is a leading refrigerated long-haul trucking
company that serves the Midwest, Mid-South, East Coast and
Florida.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3g1CsZg at no extra charge.[CC]

TRINITY SOLAR: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Charman Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
THANE CHARMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRINITY SOLAR INC., DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01423-BAS-KSC (S.D. Cal.,
August 9, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the cellular
telephones of the Plaintiff and Class members using an automatic
telephone dialing system (ATDS) in an effort to sell or solicit its
services without obtaining prior express written consent. The
Plaintiff and Class members suffered an injury as a result of the
Defendant's solicitation call. The call invaded their privacy,
causing annoyance, wasting their time, consuming use of their
smartphone devices without authorization, and otherwise invading
their privacy and intruding into their personal affairs without
permission, the suit says.

Trinity Solar Inc. is a solar energy company, with its principal
place of business located in Wall, New Jersey. [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
         Telephone: (323) 306-4234
         Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
         E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Ont. Court Certifies Class Action Against Firm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Deschamps at The Canadian Press reports that Ontario's
Superior Court of Justice has certified a class-action lawsuit
against Uber Technologies Inc., which advances a fight to get some
of the platform's Canadian couriers and drivers recognized as
employees.

The class action was certified by judge Justin Paul Perell in a
decision released and stems from a court filing made by Samfiru
Tumarkin LLP and Uber Eats courier David Heller in 2017.

The Toronto law firm and the Ontario man's class action argues that
Uber couriers should be entitled to minimum wage, vacation pay and
other protections because they meet the definition of employees
under Ontario's Employment Standards Act.

"Uber has complete control over these drivers, when they work, how
they work, what they get paid for the work that they do," said
Samfiru Tumarkin lawyer Samara Belitzky.

"I could go on and on, but there are so many examples of how Uber
has this control over these drivers, yet the drivers don't have the
benefits and the protections that employees would normally have in
situations, where the employer is in control."

Uber has long refused to recognize couriers and drivers using its
platform as employees and instead likened them to independent
contractors because they have the flexibility to drive or deliver
as little or as much as they want.

The San Francisco, Calif.-based technology giant has been fighting
the Heller case since it was brought to court five years ago.

It succeeded in getting the case stayed in 2018 because it required
all disputes it is involved in go through mediation in the
Netherlands, where its business was once incorporated.

Uber's Canadian ride-hailing and food-delivery business has since
shifted from being based in the Netherlands to Canada and in July
started collecting sales tax that will be remitted to the
government.

In 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the stay Uber
obtained, so the company took its arguments to the Supreme Court of
Canada, where it lost later that year.

certification allows the class action to proceed through Canadian
courts again, though Uber could appeal the case again on other
grounds.

"We'll review the ruling more closely in the coming days," the
company said in a statement.

"We remain focused on creating a better future for app-based
workers that provides the flexibility and independence they want,
with the benefits and protections they deserve."

If the class action winds up with the drivers winning, Belitzky
said it will be a "landmark decision."

"There's nothing like it in Canada. It will be a first for Canada
for sure," she said.

"It will change the landscape of employment because a lot of these
companies, including Uber, up until now have been able to get away
with misclassifying their drivers, and so they essentially reap all
the benefits now."

Uber has been pushing a labour model called Flexible Work+ in
Canada in recent months.

The model it is proposing to provinces requires app-based gig
employers to accrue self-directed benefit funds that can be
dispersed to drivers for prescriptions, dental and vision care and
provide safety training and tools like reflective vests.

Uber says it is pursuing the model because an October survey of
more than 600 Uber couriers and drivers in Canada showed 65 per
cent favoured Flexible Work+. Roughly 16 per cent still like the
current independent contractor model and 18 per cent wanted to be
classified as employees with benefits.

However, many gig workers, labour groups and employment lawyers are
fighting the proposal because they say it allows Uber to keep
treating couriers and drivers unfairly and keeps them in a state of
precarity.

Canadian Labour Congress President Bea Bruske hailed the court
ruling and said all workers should have workplace protections and
benefits.

"For far too long, Uber has dictated the terms of workers'
employment but hasn't been accountable for providing a minimum wage
and vacation pay," she said in a release.

"Labour law -- is the law -- and it applies to all companies.
Canada's unions support the decision to certify this class action
and invite Uber drivers from coast-to-coast to unionize and
collectively bargain their rights." [GN]

UNITED STATES: Summary Judgment Filed in Charter Boats' Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a motion for summary
judgment, requesting relief on behalf of more than a thousand
charter boat captains who are challenging a Final Rule subjecting
charter boats operating in the Gulf of Mexico to 24-hour
warrantless surveillance. The motion was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in NCLA's class-action
lawsuit, Mexican Gulf Fishing Company, et al. v. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, et al.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published the Final
Rule in July 2020, requiring that each charter boat be "equipped
with NMFS-approved hardware and software with a minimum capability
of archiving GPS locations." The Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)
must be permanently affixed to the vessel and "archive
the vessel's accurate position at least once per hour, 24 hours a
day, every day of the year." In other words, NOAA and NMFS want to
LoJack every charter boat in the Gulf of Mexico-but they don't own
these boats.  

Unfortunately for NOAA/NMFS, the Supreme Court struck down
long-term location tracking by government agencies as an
unconstitutional invasion of privacy months before the issuance of
the notice of proposed rulemaking. Thus, NCLA argues the 24-hour
GPS tracking of all charter boats in the Gulf of Mexico without any
suspicion of wrongdoing violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition
against unreasonable searches. Moreover, the permanent installation
of GPS tracking devices on charter boats effects an uncompensated
taking, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. These constitutional
violations are even more stark, given that many owners of charter
boats also use them for personal non-fishing activities but are
still monitored and tracked on such excursions.  

Plaintiffs do not challenge the transmission of fish-related
information in electronic fishing reports. Rather, they challenge
the requirement to transmit "other information" not specified in
the regulatory text, including business data. The Final Rule
creates a regime of pervasive and constant electronic monitoring.
It imposes burdensome technological and reporting requirements on
small businesses and confers virtually no benefit over cheaper and
less intrusive methods in monitoring fish stocks in the Gulf of
Mexico.  

Beyond the blatant constitutional violations, NOAA/NMFS's
surveillance program for chartered boats is not authorized by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, which Congress passed to protect, manage, and
grow U.S. fisheries resources. Each of these grounds provides
enough reason to set aside the Final Rule and declare it unlawful.


NCLA released the following statements:  

"Taking people out into the Gulf of Mexico to fish is not a crime,
and the Administrative State should not be able to track our
clients with marine 'ankle bracelets' reporting their every move."
- John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA

"The Final Rule would subject every single charter boat owner in
the Gulf of Mexico to 24-hour GPS tracking, without warrants or
even suspicion of wrongdoing. The Supreme Court has said clearly
and repeatedly such panoptic surveillance violates the Fourth
Amendment. What's worse, under the Final Rule boat owners must pay
for the violation of their own constitutional rights because the
rule forces them to purchase, install, and maintain expensive
tracking 6devices themselves for the government's use."
- Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

                           ABOUT NCLA

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by
prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect
constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative
State. NCLA's public-interest litigation and other pro bono
advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal
agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will
help restore Americans' fundamental rights. [GN]

VAXART INC: Barker Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Vaxart, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on August 2, 2021, that the proposed
order voluntarily dismissing Stephen Barker's class action suit has
been granted.

On February 4, 2021, Stephen Barker, a purported stockholder of
Vaxart, filed a class action in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
captioned Barker v. Vaxart, Inc., C.A. No. 2021-0098-MTZ, against
the Company and the Company's board of directors alleging that a
provision of Article VI, Section 2 of the Company's bylaws violated
Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL").

This section of the bylaws provided that the Company's directors
could only be removed by the affirmative vote of the holders of at
least 75% of the voting power of all the then-outstanding shares of
capital stock of the corporation entitled to vote generally in the
election of directors. The Action sought to lower that threshold
voting requiring to a simple majority of the voting power of the
Company's outstanding common stock.

On April 7, 2021, the Board approved and adopted the Amended and
Restated Bylaws of Vaxart, Inc., effective immediately as of that
date, which included an amendment to Article VI, Section 2 of the
Bylaws that, subject to the Certificate of Incorporation and
applicable law, lowered the threshold voting requirement for the
removal of any director from 75% to the affirmative vote of a
majority of the voting power of the outstanding capital stock of
the Company entitled to vote in the election of such director. This
amendment effectively mooted the Action.

On May 5, 2021, plaintiff Barker filed a notice and proposed order
voluntarily dismissing the Action as moot and providing that
jurisdiction would be retained solely to resolve an anticipated
application for attorneys' fees and expenses, which proposed order
was entered by the Court of Chancery on June 14, 2021.

The parties to the Action subsequently agreed to a payment by
Vaxart to plaintiff Stephen Barker's counsel of $49,000, in full
satisfaction of his claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in
connection with the Action.

The Court of Chancery has not been asked to review or approve, and
will pass no judgment on, this payment.

Vaxart, Inc., a clinical-stage company, engages in the discovery
and development of oral recombinant protein vaccines based on its
proprietary oral vaccine platform.  The company's product pipeline
includes tablet vaccines that are designed to protect against
norovirus, seasonal influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus. It
is also developing therapeutic immune-oncology vaccines for
cervical cancer and dysplasia caused by human papillomavirus.  The
company was formerly known as Vaxart Biosciences, Inc. and changed
its name to Vaxart, Inc. in July 2007. The company was incorporated
in 2004 and is headquartered in South San Francisco, California.


VBI VACCINES: Initial Hearing in Suit v. SciVac Set for Sept. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the next preliminary
hearing in the putative class action suit initiated against SciVac
Ltd, is scheduled to be held on September 13, 2021.

On September 13, 2018, two actions were brought in the District
Court of the central district in Israel naming the company's
subsidiary SciVac as a defendant.

In one claim, two minors, through their parents, allege among other
things, defects in certain batches of our 3-antigen prophylactic
HBV vaccine discovered in July 2015; that the company's 3-antigen
prophylactic HBV vaccine was approved for use in children and
infants in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its
safety; that SciVac failed to provide accurate information about
the company's 3-antigen prophylactic HBV vaccine to consumers and
that each child suffered side effects from the vaccine.

The claim was filed together with a motion seeking approval of a
class action on behalf of 428,000 children vaccinated with our
3-antigen prophylactic HBV vaccine in Israel from April 2011 and
seeking damages in a total amount of NIS 1,879,500,000 (not in
thousands) ($576,534).

The second claim is a civil action brought by two minors and their
parents against SciVac and the Israel Ministry of Health alleging,
among other things, that SciVac marketed an experimental,
defective, hazardous or harmful vaccine; that the company's
3-antigen prophylactic HBV vaccine was marketed in Israel without
sufficient evidence establishing its safety; and that the company's
3-antigen prophylactic HBV vaccine was produced and marketed in
Israel without approval of a western regulatory body.

The claim seeks damages for past and future losses and expenses as
well as punitive damages.

SciVac believes these matters to be without merit and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.

The District Court has accepted SciVac's motion to suspend reaching
a decision on the approval of the class action pending the
determination of liability under the civil action.

Preliminary hearings for the trial of the civil action began on
January 15, 2020, with subsequent preliminary hearings held on May
13, 2020 and December 3, 2020 to discuss document disclosure. The
next preliminary hearing is scheduled to be held on September 13,
2021.

VBI Vaccines Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and sells
vaccines to address unmet needs in infectious disease and
immuno-oncology in Israel and internationally. The company was
formerly known as SciVac Therapeutics Inc. and changed its name to
VBI Vaccines Inc. in May 2016. The company is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Still Defends Wolther Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Veeco Instruments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated purported class action suit entitled, Wolther
v. Maheshwari et al.

On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock
as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a
purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Wolther v.
Maheshwari et al., Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and
others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the
SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition.

On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther
Action.

These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action, and a
consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018.

The consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under
Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among
other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the
registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech
acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose
delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD
competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute.

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

Veeco Instruments Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, sells, and supports semiconductor and thin film
process equipment primarily to make electronic devices worldwide.
Veeco Instruments Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Plainview, New York.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Bid to Nix Penegar Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit initiated by Cara Jane Penegar, as
Executrix of the Estate of Johnny Ray Penegar, Jr., is pending.

On October 23, 2020, Cara Jane Penegar, as Executrix of the Estate
of Johnny Ray Penegar, Jr., filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, 3:20-cv-585-RJC-DCK, against Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, as
well as Verisk Analytics, Inc. and ISO Claims Partners, Inc.

The complaint alleges that Liberty Mutual violated the Medicare
Secondary Payer Act ("MSPA") by failing to reimburse Medicare for
medical services that should have been covered by its policies,
with the result that Medicare bore the cost instead.

The suit alleges that we are jointly and severally liable because
of the company's involvement in Medicare reporting and/or other
plan management. The complaint pleads a North Carolina class and a
nationwide class, each composed of: all Medicare enrollees (within
the respective geographic areas) for whom Medicare paid for an item
or service where Liberty Mutual was the carrier and/or the company
was involved in claims administration; where defendants were
demonstrated to be responsible for payment of the medical services
via a workers' compensation judgment, settlement, award, or
contractual obligation; where defendants provided notice to the
government of the fact of the settlement, judgment or award
establishing their responsibility on or after October 23, 2017; but
where defendants failed to make timely payment.

The complaint does not identify the amount of damages sought but
seeks double damages under the MSPA on behalf of all class members
for all amounts at issue, as well as interest and attorneys' fees.


The Plaintiffs subsequently amended the complaint to add agency and
conspiracy claims against the company and Liberty Mutual.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The
court has not yet set a hearing date on the company's motion.

Verisk said, "At this time, it is not possible to reasonably
estimate the liability related to this matter."

Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides data analytics solutions in the
United States and internationally. It provides predictive analytics
and decision-support solutions to customers in rating,
underwriting, claims, catastrophe and weather risk, natural
resources intelligence, economic forecasting, and various other
fields. The company operates through three segments: Insurance,
Energy and Specialized Markets, and Financial Services. The company
was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Jersey City, New
Jersey.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend Peterson Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Jillyn Peterson, Gabe Hare,
Robert Heynen and Adam Krajewski.

On September 24, 2020, former employees Jillyn Peterson, Gabe Hare,
Robert Heynen and Adam Krajewski, filed suit in the United States
District Court, District of New Jersey (No. 2:20-cv-13223-CCC-MF)
against Defendants Insurance Services Office Inc. ("ISO"), the Plan
Administration Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and its
members ("Committee Defendants"), and the Trust Investment
Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and its members. The
class action complaint alleges violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, ("ERISA").

The class is defined as all persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the ISO 401(k) Savings and Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, at any time between September 24, 2014 through the
date of judgment.

The complaint alleges that all defendants are fiduciaries with
respect to the Plan. Plaintiffs challenge the amount of fees paid
by Plan participants to maintain the investment funds in the plan
portfolio and the amount of recordkeeper fees paid by participants.
Plaintiffs allege that by permitting the payment of excessive fees,
the Committee Defendants breached their ERISA duties of prudence
and loyalty.

Plaintiffs further allege that ISO breached its ERISA duty by
failing to monitor the Committee Defendants who they allege
committed known breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint
does not specify damages but alleges the fiduciary breaches cost
Plan participants millions of dollars.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on January
12, 2021, which the Court partially denied on April 13, 2021.

The case is currently proceeding into the discovery phase.

Verisk said, "At this time, it is not possible to reasonably
estimate the liability related to this matter."

Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides data analytics solutions in the
United States and internationally. It provides predictive analytics
and decision-support solutions to customers in rating,
underwriting, claims, catastrophe and weather risk, natural
resources intelligence, economic forecasting, and various other
fields. The company operates through three segments: Insurance,
Energy and Specialized Markets, and Financial Services. The company
was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Jersey City, New
Jersey.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Petition to Compel Arbitration in Jackson Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the petition to compel
arbitration and a motion to stay the putative class action brought
by Erica Jackson, pending the completion of the parties'
arbitration proceedings, is pending.

On December 10, 2020, the company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit brought by Erica Jackson in the Court of Common
Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania against Lead Intelligence,
Inc. d/b/a Jornaya, Case No. 2020 CV 03695.

The class complaint alleges that we violated Pennsylvania's Wiretap
Act ("PWA"), 18 Pa. Const. Stat. Section 5701 et seq. by
"wiretapping" and "intercepting" the plaintiff's communications on
the website colleges.educationgrant.com.

The plaintiff alleges a class of all persons whose electronic
communications were intercepted through the use of the company's
wiretapping on the website.

The complaint claims damages pursuant to the PWA for actual
damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate
of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is
higher, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and other
litigation costs.

On February 16, 2021, the company filed preliminary objections to
the plaintiff's complaint, the plaintiff opposed, and the Court
ultimately denied the company's preliminary objections.

The company subsequently filed a petition to compel arbitration and
a motion to stay this action pending the completion of the parties'
arbitration proceedings. A hearing date on the motions has not been
set.

Verisk said, "At this time, it is not possible to reasonably
estimate the liability related to this matter."

Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides data analytics solutions in the
United States and internationally. It provides predictive analytics
and decision-support solutions to customers in rating,
underwriting, claims, catastrophe and weather risk, natural
resources intelligence, economic forecasting, and various other
fields. The company operates through three segments: Insurance,
Energy and Specialized Markets, and Financial Services. The company
was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Jersey City, New
Jersey.


VERISMA SYSTEMS: Class Certification Order in Hammetter Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District II, affirmed the order
of the circuit court certifying a class in the case, DERRICK J.
HAMMETTER AND ANTOINETTE M. VINKAVICH, Plaintiffs-Respondents v.
VERISMA SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, FROEDTERT MEMORIAL
LUTHERAN HOSPITAL, INC., Defendant-Co-Appellant, Appeal No.
2019AP2423 (Wis. App.).

Plaintiffs-Respondents Hammetter and Vinkavich each retained the
Cannon & Dunphy law firm to represent him/her in separate personal
injury actions. Related to such representation, each signed an
authorization that allowed Cannon to secure release of his/her
health care records. Cannon requested the records from Froedtert,
and as the vendor responsible for releasing information on behalf
of Froedtert, Verisma billed Cannon for costs related to the
records release, including an $8 certification charge and $20
retrieval fee charged pursuant to WIS. Cannon paid this fee and was
later reimbursed by Hammetter and Vinkavich pursuant to a retainer
agreement each had with Cannon requiring such repayment from any
recovery.

Wisconsin Stat. Section 146.83(3f)(b)4.-5. respectively authorize
health care providers to charge the $8 certification charge and $20
retrieval fee if the requestor of the records "is not the patient
or a person authorized by the patient." On Dec. 1, 2015, the Court
of Appeals decided Moya v. Aurora Healthcare, Inc., 2016 WI App 5,
366 Wis.2d 541, 874 N.W.2d 336 (2015) (Moya I). In that case, the
Court of Appeals interpreted Wis. Stat. Section 146.83(3f)(b)4.-5.
as not exempting from the $28 fee an attorney with a written
authorization from a patient who requested records on behalf of the
patient.

A year and one-half later, the supreme court reversed this decision
and held that "any person," including an attorney, with a written
authorization from a patient who requests records on behalf of a
patient is exempt from this $28 fee (Moya II). Interpreting the "a
person authorized by the patient" language of subdivisions 4. and
5., which the Moya II court observed was further statutorily
defined to include "any person authorized in writing by the
patient," the court held that these phrases "require only a person
with a written authorization from the patient." The Moya II court
held that not only does an attorney with a written authorization
from a patient qualify as "a person authorized by the patient" for
purposes of being exempt from the $28 fee, but that "any person"
with a written authorization from a patient qualifies and is
exempt.

Following the release of the Moya II decision, Hammetter and
Vinkavich filed this suit against Verisma claiming a violation of
Wis. Stat. Section 146.83(3f), unjust enrichment, and conversion
and seeking compensatory and punitive damages "on their own behalf
and on behalf of the members of a proposed class of individuals and
entities that are similarly situated." Hammetter and Vinkavich
later filed a second amended complaint, adding Froedtert as a
defendant and specifically asserting that Froedtert "is vicariously
liable for the acts of its authorized agent, Verisma." Hammetter
and Vinkavich subsequently moved for class certification, but only
against Verisma "as the release of information agent of Froedtert
for thousands of violations of Section 146.83."

Following extensive argument and briefing by the parties, including
Froedtert, the circuit court granted the motion for class
certification, defining the class as follows:

Any person or entity who:

      1. Either a. Requested his or her own patient health care
provider records, or authorized another in writing to obtain his or
her own health care provider records, from a health care provider
in the State of Wisconsin; or b. Was authorized in writing by the
patient to request and obtain the patient's health care provider
records from a health care provider in the State of Wisconsin; and

      2. Was charged by Verisma, either directly or indirectly, a
certification and/or retrieval fee at any time between July 1, 2011
and the date of trial; and

      3. Incurred and ultimately paid the certification and/or
retrieval charges.

Defendants Verisma and Froedtert appeal.

Discussion

A. Class Certification Findings

The certification of a class action is governed by Wis. Stat.
Section 803.08.2 To certify a class action, a circuit court must
first find all of the following: (a) the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of
law or fact common to the class; (iii) the claims or defenses of
the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class; and (iv) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

As to the numerosity requirement, the Court of Appeals finds that
neither Verisma nor Froedtert dispute that the numerosity
requirement is met. Nor could they successfully do so. In Harwood
v. Wheaton Franciscan Servs., Inc., 2019 WI App 53, Para.23, 388
Wis.2d 546, 933 N.W.2d 654., the Court of Appeals determined that
for purposes of satisfying the numerosity requirement, 42
identified class members was sufficient. In the case, there appear
to be thousands.

As to the commonality requirement, all of the members of the
proposed class allegedly suffered the same injury -- that pursuant
to Wis. Stat. Section 146.83(3f)(b)4.-5., they were wrongfully
charged the $8 certification charge and/or the $20 retrieval fee.
The answer to whether Verisma wrongfully charged either fee will
resolve the underlying liability issue for each class member. Thus,
there are common issues of law and fact as the matter is governed
by the same statutory provisions and proof of unlawful charging of
these fees will be very similar for each member of the class.

With respect to the typicality requirement, the Court of Appeals
holds that Hammetter's and Vinkavich's claims are certainly typical
of the claims of the class. It explains that the question on
typicality is not whether the claims of Hammetter and Vinkavich are
identical in every way with every potential class member but
whether their claims are typical. Again, as Verisma points, the
typicality requirement is met if Hammetter's and Vinkavich's claims
"arise from the same practice or course of conduct that gives rise
to the claims of other class members," "are based on the same legal
theory," and ultimately "have the same essential characteristics as
the claims of the class at large." These factors are satisfied in
the case.

Furthermore, as it previously stated, the Court of Appeals finds
that Froedtert and Verisma point to no evidence indicating Verisma
actually had a different mental state dependent on when the records
were requested (or the nature of the person or entity who made the
request). Moreover, it notes that Wis. Stat. Section 803.08(7)
provides that "when appropriate, a class may be divided into
subclasses that are each treated as a class." Thus, if after
discovery on the merits, the circuit court determines that
subclasses are appropriate, it has the statutory authority to
establish subclasses.

Turning to the adequacy requirement, the Court of Appeals holds
that neither Verisma nor Froedtert develop an argument to convince
it that Hammetter, Vinkavich, or their counsel have an interest
that is antagonistic to those of other members of the class, nor
does it see any. As to whether the counsel representing Hammetter
and Vinkavich in the class action are qualified to adequately
"conduct the proposed litigation," the circuit court found that the
interests of the class will be protected "by experienced and
competent counsel who have achieved excellent results in the past,
and are familiar with the law and facts governing this proceeding."
Verisma and Froedtert make no argument to the contrary, thus the
Court of Appeals spends no more time on this consideration.

The Court of Appeals also considers whether "the questions of law
or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members" and whether "a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy. It holds that the predominance and
superiority requirements are met. It finds that the issue is
whether Verisma wrongly charged fees for the release of records;
the issue does not relate to harm caused as a result of the release
of the records. Verisma's proposed interpretation would swallow up
Section 146.84(b) and (bm), and the language of Section
146.84(1)(a) gives no indication Verisma's interpretation was
intended by the legislature. In the interest of simplifying the
lawsuit and avoiding a multiplicity of litigation, the Court of
Appeals holds that a class action is proper even if each member of
the class has a separate cause of action for money damages.

Notice to Potential Class Members

Verisma tries to derail class certification by asserting that the
Court of Appeals should "at the very least, remand for further
proceedings and require Hammetter and Vinkavich to present the plan
addressing notice" to be provided to potential class members. It
claims that the circuit court's class definition "is not precise
enough to allow for individual notice of the class action."

The Court of Appeals responds that the matter of proper notice is
premature. The circuit court will have opportunity upon remand to
ensure the requirements of Section 803.08(4) are satisfied.

Class Certification of Common Law Claims

Froedtert argues that "the circuit court erroneously exercised its
discretion in certifying the class for plaintiffs' common law
claims" of conversion and unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeals disagrees. It holds that for purposes of class
certification, Froedtert's arguments do not persuade it that the
court erroneously exercised its discretion, particularly since
Froedtert directs it to no record evidence suggesting Verisma
actually gave any consideration to the nature of the particular
requestor or the time period when the request was made.

Statute of Limitations

Froedtert argues that the two-year limitation period of Wis. Stat.
Section 893.93(2)(a) operates to bar Hammetter's "and many of the
other class member's" Wis. Stat. Section 146.84 claims.

The Court of Appeals disagrees. It explains that the primary
purpose of the statute is obviously to benefit individual patients
by ensuring they are not gouged by unreasonable and excessive
charges demanded by their health care provider for their own
medical records. As it has have observed, the Wisconsin Supreme
Court has held that the two-year statute of limitations applies
where the action by a private party upon a statute penalty is for
the benefit of the public, while the six-year statute of
limitations applies when private individuals seek private relief."
With the statutory provision at issue in the case, private
individuals seek private relief. The six-year statute of
limitations applies.

Voluntary Payment Doctrine

Lastly, Verisma and Froedtert argue that class certification is
inappropriate because "proof of the voluntary payment defense will
require mini-trials of each class members' claims to determine if
he or the requestor objected to the charges before paying them."
This is a nonstarter as the voluntary payment doctrine plays no
role in the class-certification consideration in the case.

While Verisma indicates that it raises this defense in relation to
Hammetter's and Vinkavich's "common law claims" of unjust
enrichment and conversion, the Court of Appeals finds that those
claims directly stem from and would not exist without Wis. Stat.
Section 146.83(3f). Thus, it believes this holding of Moya II to be
broad enough to preclude application of the voluntary payment
doctrine to these claims as well, because application of the
doctrine to these claims would just as readily "undermine the
manifest purposes" of Section 146.83(3f).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals concludes that the
circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in
certifying the class in the case. The order is affirmed and the
Decision is recommended for publication in the official reports.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Decision is available
at https://tinyurl.com/dsyh9xpy from Leagle.com.


VIAL FOTHERINGHAM: Lott's Counsel Awarded $174K in Fees and Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANICE LOTT, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; KANIKA CHEA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VIAL FOTHERINGHAM, LLP,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00419-HZ (D. Or.), Judge Marco A.
Hernandez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motions for Attorney's Fees and
Bill of Costs.

The Plaintiffs' attorneys are awarded $172,665.15 in fees and
$1,239.70 in costs.

Plaintiffs Lott and Chea brought claims under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") against Defendant Vial
Fotheringham, LLP alleging that the Defendant engaged in abusive,
deceptive, and unfair debt collection efforts when attempting to
collect overdue homeowners' association ("HOA") assessments.

At summary judgment, the Court found that the Defendant violated
the FDCPA as to Plaintiffs Ms. Lott and Ms. Chea by collecting
interest on attorneys' fees at rates not expressly authorized by
the HOA governing documents that created the underlying debt. The
Court also found that the Defendant lawfully charged Plaintiffs for
pre-suit attorneys' fees. It denied both parties' remaining motions
as to whether Defendant lawfully charged the Plaintiffs for other
management fees.

The Plaintiffs then moved to certify a class based on the interest
on attorneys' fees issue. The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion.
The Court entered a Stipulated Judgment of Dismissal on Aug. 24,
2020.

The Plaintiffs now move for $221,576.50 in attorney's fees and
$1,239.70 in costs.

Discussion

I. Amount of Attorney's Fees

A. Hours Reasonably Expended

The Plaintiffs seeks compensation for 99 hours of work performed by
attorney Mark Passannante, 314.3 hours of work performed by Bret
Knewtson, 41.9 hours of work performed by Nick Kahl, and 38.9 hours
of work performed by Young Walgenkim. The Defendant objects to time
spent by the Plaintiff's counsel arguing that they should not be
compensated for any work on the unsuccessful class certification
effort and that the number of hours spent by counsel on its filings
was unreasonable. It also argues for lodestar reductions based on
the Plaintiffs' counsel's unreasonableness in settlement
negotiations, duplication of efforts, and block billing.

i. Partial Success

Judge Hernandez finds the number of hours spent by Mr. Knewtson and
Mr. Passannante on the class certification effort excessive.
Accordingly, he reduces their hours spent on the class
certification effort after the October 2017 Summary Judgment by
30%. The Judge will not reduce Mr. Kahl and Mr. Walgenkim's hours
as they made discrete and limited contributions to the effort.

ii. Duplicative Hours, Clerical Work and Block Billing

The Defendant requests that the Court impose a 15% reduction from
the lodestar calculation based on the duplication of efforts and
block billing. The Judge declines to adjust the lodestar
calculation based on these practices and instead eliminates or
reduces specific hours where appropriate. He identified 1.3 hours
that qualify as clerical work. The Judge deducted those hours from
the total award.

Judge Hernandez also reduced three entries that were block billed
in a manner that made it difficult to understand whether the time
spent was reasonable by 20%.  Although he discourages attorneys
from using block billing, the Judge did not find it necessary to
reduce other entries that were block billed. The remainder of the
block billed entries were for short periods of time and were
reasonable in light of the recorded tasks.

iii. Excessive Hours

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' counsel's hours on the
three substantive pieces of litigation not related to class
certification, and on the attorneys' fees petition and reply should
be reduced because the amount of time spent was unreasonable.

Considering the complexity of the statute at issue, and the
Plaintiffs' effort to litigate an issue of first impression, Judge
Hernandez finds that the majority of the counsel's hours on the
substantive pieces of litigation reasonable. However, he will
reduce the Plaintffs' counsel's hours spent on the attorneys' fees
petition and reply. Counsel spent 18.5 hours on the attorneys' fee
petition and 14.9 hours on the reply to the Defendant's response to
the attorneys' fee petition. Mr. Knewtson regularly litigates
consumer protection issues on a contingent fee basis and thus has
experience preparing attorneys' fees petitions. Accordingly,
preparing and defending the fee petition and reply should not have
taken 34 hours. The Judge finds this amount of time excessive and
reduces the awarded for work on the fee petition and reply by 25%.

iv. Further Adjustments to the Lodestar

The Defendant asks the Court to reduce the lodestar amount by 40%
because of the Plaintiffs' counsel's alleged failure to engage in
good faith settlement negotiations. Five weeks after the Plaintiffs
filed the lawsuit, the Defendant made a settlement offer of $1,500,
plus attorneys' fees. It states that the Plaintiff never responded
or made a counteroffer. The Plaintiffs' counsel did share the offer
with their clients who rejected it.

Judge Hernandez declines to adjust the lodestar amount on this
basis. He opines that the Plaintiffs ultimately settled for an
amount greater than the statutory damages. Additionally, this was
not an FDCPA case where Plaintiffs brought a claim for conduct that
had already been found unlawful. The Plaintiffs' FDCPA claim was
novel and resulted in Defendant curbing its unlawful practice. This
is a significant result that would not have occurred if they had
accepted an early settlement.

B. Reasonable Hourly Rate

In determining the reasonable hourly rate, Judge Hernandez
considers what a lawyer of comparable skill, experience, and
reputation could command in the relevant community.

i. Bret Knewtson's Hourly Rate

Mr. Knewtson seeks $450 per hour. Mr. Knewtson has been a
practicing lawyer for over 18 years.

Judge Hernandez agrees with other judges in the district that Mr.
Knewtson has "has considerable and specialized experience working
on FDCPA cases."  He concludes that given Mr. Knewtson's total
years of practice, experience, and prior awards compensation at
$400 per hour is a reasonable hourly rate.

ii. Mark Passannante's Hourly Rate

Mr. Passannante seeks $425 an hour. Mr. Passannante has been a
practicing lawyer for over 25 years. His practice focuses on real
estate disputes and landlordtenant matters in state court. When not
working on contingent fee cases, Mr. Passannante charges clients
$270 per hour in his practice, and $430 per hour when he works for
a different firm.

Judge Hernandez finds that the 2017 OSB Survey, Mr. Passannante's
experience, and the hourly rates previously awarded to Mr.
Passannante are sufficient evidence to support an hourly rate of
$415.

iii. Nicholas A. Kahl's Hourly Rate

Mr. Kahl seeks $410 an hour. Mr. Kahl is a class action attorney.
He joined the case after the Court encouraged the Plaintiffs'
counsel to affiliate with more experienced class action lawyers.
Mr. Kahl does not submit evidence of the number of years he has
been in practice. He states that he is an "accomplished litigator."
Mr. Kahl request $410 per hour based on the 95th percentile billing
rate of attorneys in private practice in Portland, Oregon with
10-12 years of experience.

Judge Hernandez therefore assumes he has 10-12 years of experience.
Mr. Kahl does not provide evidence of his past fee awards. Given
the limited record provided by Mr. Kahl, the Judge concludes an
award within the 75th percentile band of the 2017 OSB Survey is
appropriate. Accordingly, he finds that $350 per hour is a
reasonable rate.

iv. Young Walgenkim's Hourly Rate

Mr. Walgenkim seeks $375 per hour. Mr. Walgenkim worked as a
"contract attorney" on the case and was "in charge of reviewing
discovery related to the substantive rights granted by the HOA
governing documents." He does not present evidence of his past fee
awards or the number and types of cases he has previously worked
on.

Accordingly, Judge Hernandez finds an award within the 75th
percentile band of the 2017 OSB Survey is appropriate. He finds
that $350 per hour is a reasonable rate.

II. Costs & Other Expenses

The Plaintiffs request $1,239.70 in costs. Defendant does not
object to the $400 in requested fees paid to the clerk but objects
to the remaining fees as related to thePlaintiffs' class discovery
efforts. The trial court may apportion costs between successful and
unsuccessful claims or reduce the amount of costs awarded based on
the prevailing party's relative degree of success.

Seeing as the Court has allowed attorneys' hours related to the
unsuccessful class certification effort, Judge Hernandez declines
to exclude these costs. He awards the requested $400 in clerk fees
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1920. In addition to the clerk fees,
the Plaintiffs request $633.20 for printed or electronically
recorded transcripts and $206.50 for "Court Reporter Appearance
Fee." These are not taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. Section 1920. The
Fair Credit Reporting Act has fee-shifting language identical to
that of the FDCPA. Accordingly, the Judge finds that the FDCPA
similarly allows for recovery of out-of-pocket expenses that would
normally be charged to a fee paying client. Accordingly, he awards
the requested $1,239.70 in costs.

Conclusion

The Plaintiffs' Motions for Attorney's Fees and Bill of Costs are
granted in part. The Plaintiffs are awarded $172,665.15 in fees and
$1,239.70 in costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2563bpn7 from Leagle.com.

Bret Knewtson -- bknewtson@yahoo.com -- in Hillsboro, Oregon, Mark.
G. Passannante , Boer & Passannante, P.S., in Portland, Oregon,
Nicholas A. Kahl -- nick@nickkahl.com -- Nick Kahl, LLC, in
Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.

Katie Jo Johnson -- katiejoj@mcewengisvold.com -- Jonathan M.
Radmacher, McGowen Grisvold, LLP, in Portland, Oregon, Attorneys
for the Defendant.


VISA INC: Court Grants Plaintiffs' Bids for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the three class action lawsuits filed against Visa Inc. et al.,
the Hon. Judge Richard J. Leon entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motions for class certification.

The lawsuits are captioned as:

   "NATIONAL ATM COUNCIL, INC. ef al., v. VISA INC. ef al., Case
   No. 11-1803-RJL (D.D.C.)"

   "LYNNE BARTRON, et al., v. VISA INC. et al., Case No. 11-
   1831-RJL (D.D.C.)"

   PETER BURKE, et al., v. VISA INC. et al., Case No. 11-1882-
   RJL (D.D.C.)"

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in Foster City, California, United
States. It facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the
world, most commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards
and prepaid cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xOLcrS https://bit.ly/3xOLcrS
at no extra charge.[CC]

WALLICK PROPERTIES: Class Action Lawsuit Certified in Fire Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Behrens at athensmessenger.com reports that the Athens County
Court of Common Pleas certified a class for a class action lawsuit
against the company that owned the Carriage Hill Apartments, which
burned down in 2017.

In early 2017, at least 36 units had to be vacated due to the Feb.
26, 2017 fire, according to the suit. There were no reports of
physical damage from the fire.

The hilltop complex off of Richland Avenue is now called Campus
Heights.

The lawsuit, filed by Athens lawyer Michael Fradin on behalf of
what is now 48 former tenants, alleges the property owners failed
to exercise "due care" and failed to follow "appropriate
fire-safety precautions and procedures" at the apartment complex.

The defendants in the suit are Wallick Properties Midwest LLC,
Wallick Properties LLC, The Wallick Companies LLC, Athens Carriage
Hill Apartments LLC, and Southeast Development Company - all based
out of the Columbus area.

Fradin said he was honored to represent a class-action lawsuit
against the owners and managers of the property, and said the
former residents were interested in group litigation from the very
beginning.

"Which shouldn't be taken for granted because when you have cases
like this, plaintiffs may look into resolving it on an individual
basis, but these plaintiffs never had an inkling of that," Fradin
said.

The lawsuit alleges extreme negligence in fire safety, as well as
liability to the companies for the disruption to tenant's lives and
destruction of personal property in the fire.

The original complaint, filed in Feb. 2019, argues a litany of
violations in fire code that the plaintiffs say amounts to
negligence.

The NEWS previously reported that one of the buildings, Building 12
- the one that caught fire initially - was a "total loss," with 30
units in it. At the time, The NEWS reported that 41 people had been
displaced by the fire.

The lawsuit notes public records showing that the city of Athens'
Code Enforcement Department issued a notice of violation to the
Carriage Hill Apartments owners after a Jan. 30, 2017 inspection,
the complaint shows.

That notice referenced at least five specific violations concerning
"smoke detectors/smoke alarms that were not in working condition
and at least one reference to the specific violation of a fire
extinguisher in need of inspection and tagging."

All of the units mentioned in that notice were in Building 12, the
suit alleges, including the unit where the fire is believed to have
originated.

Fradin said the class-action suit process is "lengthy," as
evidenced from the four-year gap from the fire to the certification
of the suit.

The attorney representing the defendants could not be reached for
comment by publication time.[GN]

WARTBURG COLLEGE: Iowa Court Narrows Claims in Warner Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SYDNEY WARNER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WARTBURG COLLEGE, Defendant, Case
No. 21-CV-2029-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), Judge C.J. Williams of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Eastern Division,
grants in part and denies in part Wartburg's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff Warner's petition.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Iowa and, during the relevant time
period, was a full-time undergraduate student at Wartburg pursuing
a music degree. She brings the class action on behalf of herself
and "all people who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020
Semester at Wartburg." She alleges that she and other students
"lost the benefit of the education and services for which they
paid" due to defendant's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff "entered into a contractual agreement with Wartburg"
to enroll in the Spring 2020 Semester. Approximate tuition costs at
Wartburg for the Spring 2020 Semester were $21,750 for full-time
undergraduate students. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's
Academic Catalog, website, and marketing materials comprise the
terms of her contract with the Defendant. She alleges that such
terms entitled her, upon the payment of tuition and fees, to an
on-campus college education, including "access to campus facilities
and activities, and in-person instruction in a physical
classroom."

In February 2020, the Spring 2020 Semester began at Wartburg. On
March 16, 2020, the Defendant announced that, because of the
Pandemic, all in-person classes would be suspended effective March
18, 2020. Thus, on March 18, 2020, all classes transitioned to an
online, remote format for the remainder of the Spring 2020
Semester, which ended in May 2020. While online courses were taking
place, the Defendant's campus was closed. Despite the shift to
online learning and closure of its facilities, the Defendant did
not refund any portion of the tuition or fees paid by the Plaintiff
and other students.

On March 15, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her petition against the
Defendant in the Iowa District Court for Bremer County. On April
19, 2021, the Defendant removed the case to the Court under Title
28, United States Code, Section 1332(d). In her petition, the
Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract against the
Defendant as well as an alternative claim for unjust enrichment.

Analysis

Judge Williams first addresses the Paintiff's breach of contract
claim before turning to her alternative unjust enrichment claim. As
an initial matter, there is no dispute between the parties that the
Plaintiff's claims arise under Iowa law. Thus, the Judge applies
Iowa law.

A. Breach of Contract

In her breach of contract claim, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Academic Catalog constituted an offer by the Defendant to the
Plaintiff and other students to enter a contract. By paying tuition
and fees and selecting courses for the Spring 2020 Semester offered
in the Academic Catalog, the Plaintiff alleges that under the terms
of that contract she and others "were entitled to in-person
educational services at Wartburg through the end of the Spring 2020
Semester." She concludes that moving classes online and closing
campus deprived her and other students of the in-person educational
benefits they paid for. Thus, the Plaintiff requests that defendant
"return the pro-rated portion of any Spring 2020 Semester tuition
and fees for education services not provided since Wartburg shut
down on March 18, 2020."

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim
fails for three reasons. First, it amounts to a non-justiciable
educational malpractice claim. Second, the Plaintiff fails to
identify any contractual language entitling her and other students
to in-person, on-campus instruction and services. Last, no breach
occurred because the Defendant reserved the right to modify its
courses and programs under the contract.

Judge Williams rejects the Defendant's argument that the
Plaintiff's claim is one of educational malpractice.  The Plaintiff
does not merely allege that she did not receive educational
services at all, but rather, that she contracted for in-person
services and did not receive them.  That is a breach of contract
claim, not an educational malpractice claim.

As to the Defendants second argument, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that she and other students
were entitled to in-person classroom instruction for every class,
but has plausibly alleged that such students were entitled
in-person field experience if enrolled in an applicable course, the
opportunity to live in the residence halls, and the opportunity to
access other on-campus facilities such as dining halls. The Judge
must, however, consider these allegations in light of the
Defendant's reservation of rights.

With respect to the Defendant's last argument, the Judge finds that
the Defendant's reservation of rights in the Academic Catalog does
not, at least at this stage, bar the Plaintiff's breach of contract
claim as that claim relates to field experience courses, living in
the residence halls, or accessing certain on-campus facilities.
She explains that the reservation clause does specifically
establish defendant's right to "modify the courses of instruction
or programs of study." This right to modify can plausibly be read
to concern only "small changes." Such small changes might concern,
for example, changing the hours a class meets, the location where a
class meets, or the number of students allowed in a class. But
classes such as MU 281 fundamentally concern field experience in a
school setting. Thus, changing that type of class from an in-person
to remote experience could plausibly go beyond a mere modification
and instead constitute a fundamental alteration of the course which
is not encompassed by the reservation clause.

B. Unjust Enrichment

In her alternative unjust enrichment claim, the Plaintiff asserts
that she and others paid tuition and fees to the Defendant that
were "intended to cover in-person educational services" for the
Spring 2020 Semester at Wartburg, that the Defendant failed to
provide such in-person educational services, and that the Defendant
has inequitably retained the entirety of the tuition and fees paid.
Thus, the Plaintiff concludes that the "Defendant should be
required to disgorge all profits resulting from such overpayments
and establish a constructive trust from which the Plaintiff and the
Class Members may seek restitution.

First, the Defendant argues that plaintiff has not sufficiently
alleged that it "was unjustly enriched or enjoyed any undeserved
benefit as a result of its transition to remote learning."

Judge Williams finds the Plaintiff's petition sufficient on rights
may not apply this point.  He says, the Plaintiff alleges that she
and other students paid tuition and fees for in-person, on-campus
educational services and that the Defendant failed to render the
services paid for but still retained the tuition and fees paid.
These specific facts and allegations are sufficient to raise the
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim above a speculative level at
this stage.

Second, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's breach of
contract claim precludes her unjust enrichment claim because the
two cannot coexist with respect to the same subject matter. The
Plaintiff responded that dismissal of her unjust enrichment claim
is only appropriate if the Defendant agrees that a contract existed
between the parties. In its reply, the Defendant clarifies that it
does not dispute the existence of a contract.

Because the existence of a contract is no longer in dispute, Judge
Williams holds that the Plaintiff cannot also maintain her unjust
enrichment claim on the same subject matter. Thus, dismissal of her
unjust enrichment claim is proper.

C. Leave to Amend

The Plaintiff requests leave to amend her petition if defendant's
motion to dismiss is granted to any extent. The Defendant asserts
that amendment would be futile.

Because the Plaintiff agreed to dismissal of her unjust enrichment
claim if the existence of a contract is established, Judge Williams
need not consider whether amendment is appropriate as to that
claim. He, however, considers whether amendment is appropriate as
to the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim to the extent it is
based on an entitlement to in-person educational services for every
class.

Judge Williams finds that leave to amend would be futile. As he
discussed, there is no contractual language which can plausibly be
read to constitute an entitlement to in-person educational services
in every class.  The Plaintiff has failed to identify any such
statement in her petition or brief. The Court's own review of the
Academic Catalog and marketing materials provided revealed no such
statement. Thus, although the Court recognizes the liberal policy
of allowing amendments, it sees no practical reason to grant leave
to amend on this issue. Thus, the Plaintiff's alternative request
for leave to amend is denied.

Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge Williams grants in part and denies in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  He grants the Defendant's
motion as to the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim as it relates
to rendering in-person educational services for every class and as
to the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim. He denies the
Defendant's motion as to the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim
as it relates to in-person field experience courses, living in the
residence halls, and accessing certain on-campus facilities. The
Plaintiff's alternative request for leave to amend is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4au7d793 from Leagle.com.


WASHINGTON: Urs Must File Class Certification Bid by Nov. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.S. by and through her
next friend TARA URS; et al., v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES; et al., Case No. e 2:21-cv-00113-BJR
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara J. Rothstein enters an order
that:

   1. The stipulation of the parties is approved and adopted.

      -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is to
         be filed on or by November 2, 2021.

   2. Discovery in this matter is stayed until August 27, 2021,
      meaning that neither party has the duty to answer or
      respond to discovery requests served on them, with
      following exceptions:

      a. Defendants' production of Named Plaintiff H.A's case
         file as soon as possible, including the potential
         disclosure of email correspondence after exchange of
         search terms by the parties and discussions regarding
         volume to be produced;

      b. Plaintiffs' taking of two depositions related to the
         H.A. case file;

      c. Defendants' production of the RDA Phase 1 data report
         and other data related to youth who are staying in
         hotels, motels, or offices or for one-night stays, as
         agreed by the parties; and

      d. Defendants' continuation of their efforts to assemble
         case file information on the other named Plaintiffs by
         the end of the stay of discovery.


DCYF is a cabinet-level agency focused on the well-being of
children.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37MiCgo at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Susan Kas, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON
          315 5th Avenue South, Suite 850
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 324-1521
          Facsimile: (206) 957-0729
          E-mail: susank@dr-wa.org

               - and -

          Christopher Carney, Esq.
          CARNEY GILLESPIE PLLP
          600 1st Avenue, Suite LL08
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 445-0212
          Facsimile: (206) 238-9987
          E-mail: christopher.carney@carneygillespie.com

               - and -

          Leecia Welch, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW
          1212 Broadway, Suite 600
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 835-8098
          Facsimile: (510) 835-8099
          E-mail: lwelch@youthlaw.org

The Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Daniel J. Judge, Esq.
          William McGinty, Esq.
          James M. Richardson III, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          7141 Cleanwater Drive SW
          PO Box 40124 Olympia, WA 98504-0124
          Telephone: (360) 586-6565
          Facsimile: (360) 586-6659
          E-mail: Daniel.Judge@atg.wa.gov
                  William.McGinty@atg.wa.gov
                  James.RichardsonIII@atg.wa.gov

WAWA INC: Class Settlement in Data Security Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION, Civil
Action No. 19-6019 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
provisionally certifies the class for settlement purposes and
preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement, subject to a final
approval hearing.

Hackers accessed Wawa's point-of-sale systems and installed malware
targeting in-store payment terminals and gas station fuel
dispensers in March 2019. Over the next several months, the hackers
obtained customer payment card information, which they later
offered for purchase on the "dark web." Wawa, which operates a
chain of convenience stores and gas stations throughout the eastern
United States, disclosed the data breach in December 2019 and
litigation followed.

The case is proceeding with three distinct tracks for the class
action litigation: The Consumer Track, the Employee Track, and the
Financial Institution Track. The Memorandum addresses the Consumer
Track Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement and provisional certification of the settlement
class.

The Consumer Track Plaintiffs have negotiated a settlement. In the
settlement, Wawa agrees to three tiers of possible compensation for
consumers in the form of Wawa gift cards and cash payments.
Additionally, Wawa agrees to strengthen its payment processing
systems and enhance its data security practices. The terms of the
settlement are set out in a settlement agreement dated Feb. 9,
2021, executed by the parties and their counsel, and later amended
on April 27, 2021.

The Consumer Plaintiffs filed their Motion for an Order
Preliminarily Approving the Class Action Settlement, Provisionally
Certifying the Settlement Class, and Directing Notice on Feb. 19,
2021. The Employee Track Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
Consumer Plaintiffs' Motion; several generations of briefing
followed. The Consumer Plaintiffs filed a Notice of an Amended
Settlement Agreement, noting that the scope of the release had been
clarified.

The Court held a preliminary approval hearing on May 5, 2021,
during which the Court urged various changes leading to the parties
tiling a joint status report informing the Court that language will
be added to the notice to the class regarding the limited use of
personal information and also agreeing that an email reminder will
be sent nine months after the gift cards have been issued to
claimants who had not by then used the full value of their gift
cards.

Discussion

I. Motion for Preliminary Certification of the Class for Settlement
Purposes

The parties negotiated a settlement concerning all of the Consumer
Plaintiffs' claims asserted in the litigation. The Settlement
Agreement provides for monetary relief to proposed class members
via a three-tier system, that includes the distribution of Wawa
gift cards or cash payments to those who experienced out-of-pocket
losses as a result of the data breach. The Settlement Agreement
also includes injunctive relief designed to strengthen Wawa's data
security systems.

The proposed Settlement Class is defined as: All residents of the
United States who used a credit or debit card at a Wawa location at
any time during the Period of the Data Security Incident of March
4, 2019 through Dec. 12, 2019.

The Consumer Plaintiffs assert that the proposed Settlement Class
meets the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), so they ask the
Court to certify the proposed class for settlement purposes only.

Judge Pratter concludes that the Consumer Plaintiffs have
established that their proposed class warrants preliminary class
certification for the purposes of settlement having met the
requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3). As to Rules 23(a), the
Judge finds that (i) the over 22 million potential class members is
more than enough to meet Rule 23(a)(1)'s numerosity requirement;
(ii) the facts surrounding the data security incident are the key
issues in the case; (iii) the claims arc typical of the class
delineated for the proposed settlement; and (iv) the named
Plaintiffs and their counsel will adequately represent the
interests of the proposed class.

With respect to Rule 23(b)(3), the Judge holds that (i) there is a
myriad of questions of law and fact that predominate, including
whether Wawa owed a duty to class members to safeguard their
payment card information and whether Wawa breached that duty; and
(ii) the proposed settlement provides class members with an
immediate tangible benefit in the form of a Wawa gift card or cash
payment in addition to improved security when using a payment card
at Wawa.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Pratter concludes that the Consumer
Plaintiffs have established that their proposed class warrants
preliminary class certification for the purposes of settlement
having met the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

II. Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement

The parties also ask the Court to preliminarily approve their
settlement in accordance with Rule 23(e). The Consumer Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint alleges that Wawa breached its duties by failing
to secure its point-of-sale systems which resulted in the
compromise of customers' payment card data. A few months after
filing the Amended Complaint and after a day-long mediation, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle. The terms of
the settlement are set out in a settlement agreement, executed by
the parties and their counsel, and later amended.

The Settlement Agreement provides for three tiers of relief among
the class members as well as injunctive relief by way of
enhancements to Wawa's payment processing procedures and terminals.
All class members who do not opt out of the settlement then release
any claims against Wawa arising from the data breach.

Tier One provides a $5 Wawa Gift Card for customers who used a
debit or credit card to make a purchase at Wawa between March 4,
2019 to Dec. 12, 2019 and who attest that they spent at least some
time monitoring their payment card as a result. Total Tier One
compensation is subject to a $6 million cap and a $1 million
floor.

Tier Two provides a $15 Wawa Gift Card to customers who used a
payment card at Wawa during the relevant time period, had a
subsequent fraudulent charge on their card, and spent at least some
time addressing the fraudulent transaction or otherwise monitoring
their account. Total Tier Two compensation is subject to a $2
million cap and no floor.

Gift cards under both Tiers One and Two will be fully transferable,
valid for one year, and usable toward the purchase of any item sold
in a Wawa convenience store (except tobacco products), including
fuel if payment is completed inside the store.

Tier Three provides cash payments up to $500 for customers who can
demonstrate certain expenditures they made or other out-of-pocket
losses resulting from the data breach. The maximum total payments
for Wawa for claims in this Tier is $1 million in aggregate.

The Settlement Agreement also provides for injunctive relief. These
provisions will require Wawa to strengthen its data security
systems, and its in-store and fuel dispenser payment terminals, to
help prevent future data breaches. Other enhancements will include
an annual compliance assessment/audit and vulnerability testing.
The upgraded systems and other security measures are estimated to
cost at least $35 million.

As to the claims process, class members will be able to fill out a
claim form online and select under which tier they are filing their
claim. Wawa will be responsible for generating and distributing the
Wawa gift cards to claimants.

Aside from class member compensation, Wawa has agreed to pay a lump
sum of $3.2 million to cover attorneys' fees and expenses, class
representative awards, and the costs of settlement administration.
The named plaintiffs (and one additional state court plaintiff) are
also applying for $1,000 service awards to recognize their time,
effort, and commitment on behalf of the Settlement Class, including
the production of documents and information throughout litigation.
They request that the Court appoints KCC, LCC to serve as the
Settlement Administrator to oversee notice and to administer the
claims process.

The proposed notice program includes posting signs at Wawa's
payment terminals inside stores and at fuel pumps, information
posted on Wawa's website, a comprehensive settlement website, a
press release, and resulting media coverage.

Judge Pratter holds that (i) she is satisfied that the settlement
negotiations between the parties indeed took place at an
arm's-length; (ii) she sees no reason to doubt that the settlement
will provide a tangible benefit to the Plaintiffs and proposed
class members while avoiding the costs and risks associated with
continued litigation; (iii) she is satisfied that there are
multiple pathways through which a class member could successfully
file his or her claim, either online through the website or via a
mailed paper form; (iv)  the notice program set forth by the
settlement represents suitable and practicable notice under the
circumstances; (v) she declines to further address attorneys' fees
issues because a formal motion will be filed at a later date, at
which time she can fully analyze the request and any opposition to
it; and (vi) the three tiers delineate between class members who
experienced fraud or attempted fraud and provides cash compensation
to those class members who can demonstrate out-of-pocket expenses;
it also provides injunctive relief to all.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pratter preliminarily certifies
the class for settlement purposes and preliminarily approves the
parties' Settlement Agreement. An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 30, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4dkxrt25 from Leagle.com.


WELLPET LLC: Nov. 2 Extension for Renewed Class Cert. Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ZEIGER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
WELLPET LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-04056-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), the parties stipulate and asks the Court to enter
anorder regarding plaintiff's amended damages report and renewed
class certification briefing as follows:

                                   Current         Proposed
                                  Deadline         New Deadline

   Plaintiff's amended damages   Oct. 3, 2021      Nov. 2, 2021
   reports

   Plaintiff's renewed class     Oct. 3, 2021      Nov. 2, 2021
   certification motion

   Defendant's rebuttal          Nov. 29, 2021     Jan. 7, 2022
   reports

   Defendant's opposition to     Nov. 29, 2021     Jan. 7, 2022
   Plaintiff's amended
   damages reports and
   renewed class certification
   motion

   Plaintiff's reply in          Dec. 27, 2021     Jan. 26, 2022
   support of his renewed
   class certification
   motion

WellPet is a pet food company formed by the combination of Wellness
Natural Pet Food, Holistic Select Natural Pet Food, Eagle Pack
Natural Pet Food and Old Mother Hubbard Natural Dog Snacks,
purchased by Berwind Corporation. WellPet is headquartered outside
of Boston, in Tewksbury, Massachusetts.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Aug. 4, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VY2rtZ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amir Nassihi, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          One Montgomery, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104-4505
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0291
          E-mail: anassihi@shb.com

WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Caustic Soda Class Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Westlake Chemical Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend multiple purported class action suits related
to alleged price-fixing of caustic soda.

The Company and other caustic soda producers were named as
defendants in multiple purported class action civil lawsuits filed
since March 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York. The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda,
restrict domestic (U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate
caustic soda customers.

The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Olin Corporation,
K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Olin),
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation
d/b/a OxyChem, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated,
Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation,
U.S.A. Each of the lawsuits is filed on behalf of the respective
named plaintiff or plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of
either direct purchasers or indirect purchasers of caustic soda in
the U.S.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss the direct
purchaser lawsuits was denied and the cases have proceeded to
discovery.

Beginning in October 2020, similar class action proceedings were
also filed in Canada before the Superior Court of Quebec as well as
before the Federal Court.

These proceedings seek the certification or authorization of a
class action on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased
caustic soda (including, in one of the cases, those who merely
purchased products containing caustic soda) from October 1, 2015
through the present or such date deemed appropriate by the court.

Westlake said, "At this time, the Company is not able to estimate
the impact, if any, that these lawsuits could have on the Company's
consolidated financial statements either in the current period or
in future periods."

Westlake Chemical Corporation manufactures and markets basic
chemicals, vinyls, polymers, and fabricated products. The Company
serves a range of consumer and industrial markets, including
flexible and rigid packaging, automotive products, coatings, and
residential and commercial construction.


YALLA GROUP: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of October 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a
securities class action lawsuit against Yalla Group Limited (NYSE:
YALA) ("Yalla" or the "Company") and its Chief Executive Officer
("CEO"), Tao Yang, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Sec78j(b) and 78t(a)) and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. Sec240.10b-5). The
action was filed in the Southern District of New York, and is
captioned Crass v. Yalla Group Limited, No. 1:21-cv-06854, and
states a "Class Period" of September 30, 2020 through August 9,
2021, inclusive.

If you purchased Yalla American Depositary Shares ("shares")
between September 30, 2020 and August 9, 2021, and have suffered a
loss, realized or unrealized, you are encouraged to contact
Jonathan Zimmerman for additional information at (888) 398-9312 or
jzimmerman@scott-scott.com.

Yalla is a voice-centric social networking and entertainment
platform that operates mainly in the Middle East and Northern
Africa ("MENA") region. Its shares trade on the NYSE under the
ticker YALA.

The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Yalla and
its CEO made materially false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business and financial metrics. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements regarding,
and/or failed to disclose that the Company overstated its user
metrics and revenue and, as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On May 19, 2021, Swan Street Research ("Swan Street") published a
report (the "Swan Street Report") addressing Yalla, entitled "Is
Yalla Group a Multi $B Fraud? The 'Clubhouse of the Middle East'
UAE Tech Unicorn that Never Was." The Swan Street Report alleged,
among other things, that the Company has been inflating its
financial metrics, including its user data and its revenue, and
characterized Yalla's financial statements as "not credible." On
this news, the price of Yalla shares fell $1.31 per share, or
7.15%, to close at $17.01 per share on May 19, 2021.

The next day, May 20, 2021, analyst The Bear Cave issued a report
entitled, "Problems at Yalla Group," and Gotham City Research also
tweeted that it was shorting Yalla shares. On this news, the price
of Yalla shares fell an additional 6% on May 20 to close at
$15.96.

Then, on August 9, 2021, after the markets closed, Yalla issued a
press release entitled, "Yalla Group Limited Announces Unaudited
Second Quarter 2021 Financial Results," announcing its financial
results for the second quarter of 2021 ("2Q21 Results"). The 2Q21
Results disclosed that Yalla had quarterly revenue of $66.62
million, which did not meet analysts' expectations. On this news,
the price of Yalla shares fell nearly 18.9% on August 10, 2021,
closing at $10.99, down from its previous close price of $13.55.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline

The Lead Plaintiff deadline in this action is October 12, 2021. Any
member of the proposed Class may seek to serve as Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed Class.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Yalla shares between September 30, 2020, and
August 9, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your
legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Jonathan
Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com.

                        About Scott+Scott

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the
United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations,
individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York,
London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Virginia, and Ohio.

This may be considered Attorney Advertising.[GN]

ZOOM VIDEO: Settles Consumer Data Sharing Class Suit for $85MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zoom has settled a class-action lawsuit for $85 million, which
accused the firm of inappropriately disclosing customer data
through third-party software connections with multiple digital
platforms. The tentative settlement [PDF] was filed over the
weekend and is awaiting approval from the court.

Between March and May of last year, 14 lawsuits were filed against
Zoom, which was consolidated into a class-action lawsuit. According
to the lawsuit, Zoom allegedly misled customers about its
encryption capabilities, shared user data with digital platforms
without an agreement, and had insufficient security and privacy
safeguards, resulting in unwanted and unauthorised interruptions of
Zoom meetings by outsider participants, popularly termed as
Zoombombings. The US Department of Justice last year made
zoombombing a crime, with anyone who do it facing fines or
penalties on several state and federal offences.

If authorised, the $85 million would be allocated so that users who
paid for an account between April and October 2020 would be
entitled to the greater of 15% of the money they paid to Zoom for
their main Zoom Meetings subscription or $25. Other customers who
did not have a paying account, on the other hand, may be able to
get up to $15.

Although class members paid Zoom $1.3 billion in subscriptions, the
plaintiffs' lawyers argued the $85 million settlement was
appropriate given the litigation's severe risks.

Zoom has committed to making certain adjustments aimed at boosting
security, bolstering privacy, and safeguarding user data in
addition to paying the $85 million fine. By alerting users when a
meeting host or another participant uses a third-party application
during a meeting, the firm has committed to deliver in-meeting
notifications to make it easier for users to understand who can
see, save, and share Zoom users' information and material.

For a year, Zoom will not incorporate the Facebook software
development kit (SDK) for iOS into Zoom meetings and will request
that Facebook remove any US customer data received through the SDK.
The plaintiffs have also demanded that Zoom pay its legal fees,
which would amount to an additional $21.25 million in the
settlement motion.

Zoom will have disputed any wrongdoings charged in the case if the
settlement is approved. [GN]

ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Privacy Violation Related Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit related to the company's use of
Illinois residents' names in public-facing web pages

On April 15, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against ZoomInfo Technologies LLC in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division)
alleging ZoomInfo's use of Illinois residents' names in
public-facing web pages violates the Illinois Right of Publicity
Act, and seeking statutory, compensatory and punitive damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

This litigation is still in its earliest stages.

ZoomInfo said, "Based on the information known by the Company as of
the date of this filing, it is not possible to provide an estimated
amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. provides a go-to-market platform that
combines intelligence, orchestration, and engagement technologies
to deliver insight-driven automation that helps sales, marketing,
and recruiting professionals succeed. The company is based in
Vancouver, Washington."


ZYMERGEN INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds of October 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Zymergen Inc.
(NASDAQ: ZY).

Shareholders who purchased shares of ZY during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

CONTACT US HERE:

https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/zymergen-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=18512&from=5

This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased ZY common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the documents issued in
connection with the Company's April 2021 initial public offering.

ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) during the qualification
process for the Company's optical film product, Hyaline, key
customers had encountered technical issues, including product
shrinkage and incompatibility with customers' processes; (2) though
the qualification process was critical to achieving market
acceptance for Hyaline and generating revenue, Zymergen lacked
visibility into the qualification process; (3) as a result, the
Company overestimated demand for its products; (4) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's product delivery timeline was
reasonably likely to be delayed, which in turn would delay revenue
generation; 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.

DEADLINE: October 4, 2021 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/zymergen-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=18512&from=5

NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of ZY during the timeframe listed above, you will
be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with
status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline
to seek to be a lead plaintiff is October 4, 2021. There is no cost
or obligation to you to participate in this case.

WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

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

ZYMERGEN INC: Thornton Law Reminds of October 4 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors who purchased Zymergen Inc.
common stock (NASDAQ: ZY) pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
April 2021 initial public offering may seek to participate in the
case as a Lead Plaintiff. Interested investors may contact the
Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Zymergen for more information. Investors may
also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. A class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of ZY.
Investors do not need to be the Lead Plaintiff to recover as class
members if the case is successful.

The case alleges that Zymergen's Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted to state that: (i)
during the qualification process for Hyaline, key customers had
encountered technical issues, including product shrinkage and
incompatibility with customers' processes; (ii) though the
qualification process was critical to achieving market acceptance
for Hyaline and generating revenue, Zymergen lacked visibility into
the qualification process; (iii) as a result, Zymergen
overestimated demand for its products; and (iv) consequently,
Zymergen's product delivery timeline was reasonably likely to be
delayed, which in turn would delay revenue generation.

Interested ZY investors have until October 4, 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. 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]

ZYMERGEN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of October 4 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
investors that purchased or otherwise acquired Zymergen Inc.
("Zymergen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ZY) securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the offering documents issued in connection
with Zymergen's April 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO").

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

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Zymergen Inc., you
may, no later than October 4, 2021, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
Zymergen Inc.

In April 2021, Zymergen completed its IPO, selling approximately
18.5 million shares of common stock at $31 per share.

On August 3, 2021, after the market closed, Zymergen issued a
business update stating that it "recently became aware of issues
with its commercial product pipeline that will impact the Company's
delivery timeline and revenue projections." Specifically, "several
key target customers encountered technical issues in implementing
Hyaline into their manufacturing processes," and Zymergen also
found that its total addressable market appears to be smaller than
previously expected. As a result, Zymergen "no longer expects
product revenue in 2021, and expects product revenue to be
immaterial in 2022." The Company also announced that its CEO was
stepping down, effective immediately.

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $26.58 per share, or
76%, to close at $8.25 per share on August 4, 2021, representing a
nearly 73% decline from the IPO price.

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

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

[*] Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. Joined Class Suit Over Opioid Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Della-Mattia at saultstar.com reports that the city's legal
department has been asked to explore the possibility of the City of
Sault Ste. Marie formally joining a class-action lawsuit against
opioid manufacturers and distributors.

He told council that the City of Grande Prairie, Alta., filed a
$10-billion class-action lawsuit in June 2020 against opioid
manufacturers and distributors.

The aim of the lawsuit is to recoup municipal costs associated with
the opioid crisis on behalf of Canadian municipalities.

Staff has now been charged with exploring the possibility of
joining the lawsuit, the benefits, and/or risks of doing so and
report back on its findings and recommendations. It's believed the
report will be completed for a late September or early October
council meeting.

The city's legal staff would not comment on the matter until a
report is completed for city council.

Jeffrey Broadbent, a local lawyer who also serves as chair of
Willow Addiction Support Services, a non-profit organization
creating the first safe consumption facility in Sault Ste. Marie,
said class proceedings are different from other law proceedings
because they are brought on behalf of all people, groups,
organizations and even municipalities, with common issues.

Class proceedings must be "certified" by the court, he said, and
that may take some time to complete.

The Calgary-based law firm is reportedly the lead firm in the
class-action proceedings and is working with a U.S.-based firm with
similar experience, earlier reports have indicated.

"I find it peculiar that there is nothing on their website about
it, or it may have been removed, but usually you want to attract
attention to the matter to bring forward other potential claimants
and witnesses," Broadbent told The Sault Star.

But Matthew Farrell, one of two Guardian Law lawyers handling the
case, said the firm's website class action suit information is
geared toward those legal matters that are consumer oriented and
that the case is very much alive.

He said the firm is in the process of finalizing its service on the
40 international companies named in the claim.

"As you can imagine, we would expect some resistance from them but
we hope to have that finalized in the next month or so," Farrell
told The Sault Star.

On a second front, Farrell said his firm is closely watching the
current Perdue Pharma bankruptcy trial in New York.

The family that owns Perdue, the makers of OxyContin, have filed
for bankruptcy after a number of municipalities in both Canada and
the United States sued them in connection with the opioid epidemic.
Their proposed settlement would see a new company formed and the
profits of the existing company dedicated to fulfilling lawsuit
claims - but only to U.S. companies. They also want to be exempt
from further lawsuits from others.

Grande Prairie is also leading the charge for Canadian
municipalities, but the issue, said Farrell, is that the proposed
settlement only deals with the United States government and
communities and leaves Canada out of the picture.

Farrell said he argues that is both illegal and unfair.

"What that means is that Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, would receive
between $4 and $5 billion for Perdue because they are an American
city but, on your side of the river, or the International Bridge,
you're not getting a dime," he said. "The reality is that these
manufacturers and distributors should treat similar creditors in a
similar fashion but, in this case, they are trying to cut a deal
with the U.S., presenting that deal to the world and not
considering anyone else, so we spoke up."

Farrell said he thinks it's 'wonderful' that city council is
interested in learning more and perhaps joining the class action.

"As your community is aware, the problem is that these companies
said that OxyContin and other opioids were not addictive and that
is false information and that information didn't stop at the
border, and neither did the opioids," he said.

Farrell said it is unfair and unjust that communities in the U.S.
are getting billions of dollars and those companies are trying to
cut out Canada.

Broadbent said he believes it is a good idea for the municipality
to explore the option of joining the class proceedings, although
most recent law doesn't require it to.

In fact, if the class proceeding is certified and the class is
defined in the court order, claimants meeting the criteria are
automatically opted in, and should they choose they don't want to
participate, can opt out.

"If the action, by definition includes the City of Sault Ste.
Marie, that can be successful and economical too," he said.

There's no risk to a claimant and the city wouldn't be at risk for
adverse legal costs that may become expensive in individual
claims.

"I think the value of a community like a border town like Sault
Ste. Marie to step up is important. It gives the statement, 'What
difference does a border make,'" Farrell said.

Gardi agreed. "I doubt a community in this country, from coast to
coast, has been unscathed from the opioid epidemic," he told
council.

Canadian municipalities, including Sault Ste. Marie, have spent
millions and millions of dollars on health care, including
emergency ambulance and fire service calls to respond to
opioid-related overdoses, increases in policing associated with
crime related to opioid use and an escalation in homelessness as a
result of the crisis.

In addition, more money has been spent on treatment and addiction
centres and on targetting the crisis.

In the meantime, his preamble notes, drug companies that
manufactured prescription opioids have participated in extensive
marketing campaigns to expand their markets, their market share and
has garnered billions of dollars of profits from this effort for
both manufacturers and distributors.

Grande Prairie noted in the lawsuit that Canadian municipalities
have been "ravaged by the national opioid crisis."

The lawsuit names more than 40 companies as defendants.

To date, the representative plaintiffs are Grande Prairie and
Brantford, Ont.

Brantford had said it wanted to take a stand and hold
pharmaceutical companies accountable for the negative impacts
suffered by municipalities as a result of the opioid crisis.

This is believed to be the first of its kind of lawsuit in Canada
although it has been litigated in the United States a number of
times.

This class-action lawsuit is separate from one filed in 2018 by the
Province of British Columbia on behalf of provincial health
insurers. That lawsuit is seeking health costs incurred by the
provinces in treating people who suffer from the crisis.[GN]


                            *********

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

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

Copyright 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 ***