---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 23, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 162

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Saldivar Claims
3M COMPANY: Justice Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: McCune Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Agreement Signed in Fulcher Suit
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Briefing on Appeal to be Completed Sept. 9

AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Karth Bid for Certiorari Due Sept. 17
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Loper Suit Over Drop in Share Price Underway
ALASKA: Gaston Consumer Suit Removed From State Court to D. Alaska
AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Amend NY Consolidated Class Suit Pending
AMERICAN FINANCE: Dismissal of St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Upheld

AMERITAS MUTUAL: Weisenberger Files Suit in D. Nebraska
ANGRY ORCHARD: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Bystolic Related Suit Pending
APA CORPORATION: Royalty Payments Related Suits Underway
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Sept. 1 Hearing on Bid to Junk Securities Suit

ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Glumetza Related Class Suits Underway
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Huang Putative Class Suit
ATI PHYSICAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
BAUDAX BIO: Class Action Against Recro Pharma Underway
BAYADA HOME: Final Certification of Sub-Classes in Ivanovs Granted

BOB'S DISCOUNT: Mason Seeks Blind Buyers' Equal Website Access
BOOT BARN: Faces Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
BOTANIKA BEAUTY: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAPITAL MEDICAL: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Katz Suit
CECIL STEAKHOUSE: Former Employees File Wage Theft Class Action

CHILDREN OF THE NIGHT: Massey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CONDUENT INC: Continues to Defend ERS Puerto Rico Electric Suit
CONFIDENTIAL GENTLEMEN'S: Robinson Sues Over Dancers' Unpaid Wages
CORMEDIX INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 20 Deadline
COTY INC: Averts Shareholder Class Action Over P&G Beauty Deal

COVETRUS INC: Court Narrows Claims in HPORS' Securities Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Objectors Appeal Final Approval of Chalian Suit Deal
CYCLEOPS INC: Faces Rukus Suit Over Trademark Infringement
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Under Appeal
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Forsyth Wins Bid for Initial Certification

DXC TECHNOLOGY: Hearing on Bid to Nix CA Class Suit Set for October
ELECTROCORE INC: Dismissal of Kuehl Class Suit Under Appeal
EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Ligon Seeks Deaf Users' Equal Website Access
EVENTBRITE INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Snow Suit Pending
EVENTBRITE INC: Terminates Settlement Agreement in IPO Suit

EVERLAST SIGN: Faces Rafter Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
EVOLENT HEALTH: Seeks Reconsideration of Ruling in PCRS Suit
EVOLVE MORTGAGE: Underpays Mortgage Underwriters, Medina Suit Says
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Calise Suit Over Deceptive Facebook Ads
FEDERAL EXPRESS: 3rd Cir. Revives Military Leave Class Action

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Denial of Bid to Amend Complaint Appealed
FUNKO INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Ferreira-Nahas Suit Pending
FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Kanugonda Class Suit
FUNKO INC: Dismissal of Stockholders' Class Suit Under Appeal
GATESTONE & CO: Khizgilov Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

GENERAL MOTORS: Schramm Sues Over Defective Tail Lamp Assembly
GENERAL MOTORS: Tucker Appeals Case Dismissal to 8th Circuit
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Agreement in Principle to Settle Halcom Reached
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Burkhart Class Action Pending
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: McMillan Putative Class Suit vs. GLAIC Underway

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for April 2022
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: TVPX ARX Class Suit in Virginia Underway
GETTY ADVANCE: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
GODADDY INC: Approval of Class Settlement Under Appeal
GODINGER SILVER: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GOGO INC: Bid to Dismiss Pierrelouis Putative Class Suit Tossed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Uber IPO Related Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Corporate Bonds Antitrust Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix GoHealth IPO-Related Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Narrows Claims in Venator IPO-Related Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: DiDi IPO-Related Securities Class Suit Underway
GOOGLE LLC: Negron Antitrust Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Sabatini Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Merger Deal
GREENSKY INC: Securities Suit Settlement Amount Paid by Insurers
GROUPON INC: Bid to Amend Securities Class Suit in Illinois Pending

HECLA MINING: Bid to Dismiss New York Putative Class Suit Pending
HIPPO HOLDINGS: Kalair Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
HOLYOKE SOLDIERS: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Outbreak
IBERDROLA SA: Maine Court Narrows Claims in Levesque Class Suit
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Seeks 5th Circuit Review in Slocum Suit

JAMES RIVER: Faces Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund Suit
JAMES RIVER: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 7 Deadline
JC MASTER: Faces Bao Yu Yang Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
JOHN HANCOCK: Isaacson Sues Over Unreturned Pay on Cancelled Trips
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Phillips Sues Over Mouthwash's Natural Labels

KADMON HOLDINGS: Tadros Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Suit Over SOPRA Study Dismissed
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Patel Sues Over 3.98% Drop of Stock Price
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Oct. 15 Deadline

KROGER CO: Sept. 20 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
LG CORP: Class Action Over Defective Refrigerators Pending
LHC GROUP: George FLSA Suit Moved From D. Colo. to D. Ariz.
LIPOCINE INC: Bid to Dismiss Abady Class Suit Still Pending
LIVE VENTURES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 12 Deadline

LIVE VENTURES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of October 12 Deadline
LIVE VENTURES: Sieggreen Sues Over 69% Decline of Stock Price
LIVENT CORP: Settlement in IPO Related Suit Granted Final Approval
LUCKIN COFFEE: Kingstown Appeals Denial of Bid to Intervene
LUCY PARIS: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MAVERICK EXTERIORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Alleges
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Decertify Class in Harris Denied
MKS INSTRUMENTS: Appeal in Newport Merger Related Suit Pending
MOZO EXCAVATION: Zavala Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Machine Operators
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Deal in Contepo Related Suit Gets Final Nod

NCAA: Cupal Suit Transferred to in N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Harris Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Meyers Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Smith Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Sorenson Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: 2nd Cir. Revives Retirement Plan Class Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Ogleton Suit Seeks Unpaid OT for Supervisors
NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Hall
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Discovery Ongoing in Local TV Ads Antitrust Suit
NEXTCURE INC: Bid to Dismiss Zhou Putative Class Suit Pending

NINE ENERGY: Rodriguez Class Action Underway
NRG ENERGY: Bid to Nix Burk and Dickson Suits Pending
NRG ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Against XOOM in New York
NRG ENERGY: Suits Against Direct Energy Underway
NTT DATA: Tam Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Senior Desktop Support

ONTRAK INC: Dick Purported Securities Class Suit Underway
OPEN TEXT: Parties in Carbonite Suit Awaits 1st Cir. Decision
OVERSTOCK.COM: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Missouri Suit Pending
OVERSTOCK.COM: Bid to Dismiss Mangrove Partners Suit Pending
PLAYAGS INC: Bid to Junk OPPRS Consolidated Suit Pending

POHANKA HYUNDAI: Foreman Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
PPL CORP: Talen Montana Class Suit Remains Stayed
PROFFESIONAL BUSINESS: Commisso Files Suit in W.D. New York
PROPETRO HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Logan Class Suit Pending
PROVENTION BIO: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Griffin Suit Pending
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Objects to Proposed Judgment in Hsu Suit
REDFIN CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bell Class Suit Pending
RENEWABLE ENERGY: BTC Restatement Related Suit Ongoing
RESIDEO TECH: Agreement in Principle Reached in Securities Suit

REVOLVE GROUP: Settlement in Wage-and-Hour Suit Gets Final OK
SANA DELI CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guaman Suit Alleges
SCHEAR CONSTRUCTION: Torres Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
SCHUBERT & SCHUBERT: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SELECTQUOTE INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action

SEMPRA ENERGY: Continues to Defend Property & Business Class Suits
SEMPRA ENERGY: Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Upheld
SEMPRA ENERGY: Trial in Aliso Canyon Leak Suit Set for Feb. 2022
SP STAR: Fails to Properly Pay Exotic Dancers, Arciga Suit Says
SPARK ENERGY: Glikin Putative Class Suit Underway

SPARK ENERGY: Initial Approval of Verde Matters Settlement Pending
SPRAGUE RESOURCES: Oil & Natural Gas Facility Related Suit Underway
SPROUTS FARMERS: Individual Claims in Phishing Scam Suit Settled
STAGE COACH: Romero Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Inn Hosts
STONEFIRE GRILL: Improperly Pays Restaurant Cooks, Alejandro Says

SUBURBAN PROPANE: NY Suit Over Gas & Electricity Business Ongoing
SUNRUN INC: Agreement Reached in Suit vs. Vivint Solar
SUNRUN INC: Dekker Suit Against Vivint Solar Ongoing
SUNRUN INC: Settlement in Loftus Suit Gets Final Approval
SYSCO SAN FRANCISCO: Drake Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California

TAL EDUCATIONAL: November 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TAPESTRY INC: Court Certifies Store Employees Class in Ornelas Suit
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Portnoy Law Reminds of August 21 Deadline
THERMON GROUP: Settlement Reached in THS Heating Elements Suit
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Oct. 18 Status Hearing on Shareholders' Suit Set

TREEHOUSE FOODS: Preliminary Settlement Reached in Negrete Suit
TREK BICYCLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Reyes Suit Alleges
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Bid to Nix Class Suit in Florida Pending
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Australian Law Firm's Class Suits Underway
UNDER ARMOUR: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in Maryland

UNITI GROUP: Seeks Reconsideration of Ruling Denying Bid to Dismiss
US PREMIUM: Antitrust and Labelling Suits Against NBP Underway
USA WASTE-MANAGEMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Krenzer Claims
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Lavin Class Action in New York Underway
VISTRA CORP: Gas Index Pricing Related Suits Underway in Wisconsin

VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Imran Appeals False Ad Suit Dismissal
WALMART INC: Bays Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
WIBARGAIN LLC: Miller Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WIDEOPENWEST INC: Settlement Reached in Kirkland Class Suit
XEROX CORPORATION: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Carrigan Alleges

YALLA GROUP: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of October 12 Deadline
YALLA GROUP: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 12 Deadline
ZILLOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Shotwell Class Action
ZINUS INC: Faces Class Action Over Mattress Fiberglass Particles
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Gregory Class Suit

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Evans Class Suit in Post-Pleading Phase
ZYMERGEN INC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ZYMERGEN INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of October 4 Deadline

                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Saldivar Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO SALDIVAR, 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-02616-RMG (D.S.C., August 16, 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
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 military members, 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 says.

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

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: Justice Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD JUSTICE, 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-02606-RMG
(D.S.C., August 13, 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 prostate 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: McCune Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MCCUNE, 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-02605-RMG
(D.S.C., August 13, 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 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 says.

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

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

ACLARIS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Agreement Signed in Fulcher Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the parties in the
consolidated Fulcher v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al. suit
have signed a settlement agreement.

On July 30, 2019, plaintiff Linda Rosi, or Rosi, filed a putative
class action complaint captioned Rosi v. Aclaris Therapeutics,
Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the company and certain of the company's
executive officers.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose an
alleged likelihood that regulators would scrutinize advertising
materials related to ESKATA (hydrogen peroxide) topical solution,
40% (w/w), or ESKATA, the company's non-marketed FDA-approved
product, and find that the materials minimized the risks or
overstated the efficacy of the product.  

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of
Rosi and all other persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's securities between May 8, 2018 and June 20,
2019.

On September 5, 2019, an additional plaintiff, Robert Fulcher, or
Fulcher, filed a substantially identical putative class action
complaint captioned Fulcher v. Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., et al.
in the same court against the same defendants.

On November 6, 2019, the court consolidated the Rosi and Fulcher
actions, or together, the Consolidated Securities Action, and
appointed Fulcher "lead plaintiff" for the putative class.

On January 24, 2020, Fulcher filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the Consolidated Securities Action, naming two additional
executive officers as defendants, extending the putative class
period to August 12, 2019, and adding allegations concerning, among
other things, alleged statements and omissions throughout the
putative class period concerning ESKATA's risks, tolerability and
effectiveness.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on April 17, 2020.

Following briefing and oral argument on February 25, 2021, the
motion was granted in part and denied in part on March 29, 2021,
and the issues in dispute significantly narrowed.

The defendants filed an answer to the remaining aspects of the
consolidated amended complaint on April 19, 2021.

In June 2021, the defendants and the plaintiffs agreed to settle
the Consolidated Securities Action. The parties signed and filed a
settlement agreement in July 2021.

The settlement agreement is subject to preliminary approval by the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, notice
to the putative class, and subsequent final approval by the court.


Aclaris said, "We expect our financial obligation to be within the
limits of our insurance coverage."

Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., incorporated on July 13, 2012, is a
dermatologist-led, biopharmaceutical company. The Company is
focused on identifying, developing and commercializing
differentiated drugs for the treatment of dermatological
indications. The company is based in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Briefing on Appeal to be Completed Sept. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that briefing on the appeal
in the consolidated purported class action suit entitled,  In re
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is ongoing and is currently
scheduled to be complete on September 9, 2021.

On June 28, 2018, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Keryx and Alpha Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the
Merger Sub, pursuant to which the Merger Sub would merge with and
into Keryx, with Keryx becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
company or the Merger. On December 12, 2018, the company completed
the Merger.

In October and November 2018, four purported shareholders of Keryx
filed four separate putative class actions, or the Merger
Securities Actions, against Keryx, a former officer and director of
Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison), former directors of Keryx (Kevin J.
Cameron, Mark J. Enyedy, Steven C. Gilman, Michael T. Heffernan,
Daniel P. Regan and Michael Rogers, some of whom are current
members of our Board of Directors), and, with respect to the
Rosenblatt action discussed below, the Merger Sub and Akebia,
challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger.

Three of the Merger Securities Actions were filed in the Delaware
District Court: Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(filed October 16, 2018); Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. (filed October 24, 2018); and Andreula v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed November 1, 2018). The
fourth Merger Securities Action was filed in the Massachusetts
District Court: Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al. (filed October 23, 2018).

On February 19, 2019, the plaintiff in the Rosenblatt action filed
a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. On
March 27, 2019, the plaintiff in the Van Hulst action filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.

On April 2, 2019, the Delaware District Court granted Abraham
Kiswani, a member of the putative class in both the Andreula and
Corwin actions, and plaintiff John Andreula's motion to consolidate
the remaining two Merger Securities Actions pending in the Delaware
District Court and consolidated the Corwin and Andreula cases under
the caption In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or the
Consolidated Action.

The Delaware District Court also appointed Kiswani and plaintiff
Andreula as lead plaintiffs for the Consolidated Action.

On June 3, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the Consolidated Action, or the Consolidated
Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint generally alleged that the
registration statement filed in connection with the Merger
contained allegedly false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of
Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.

The alleged misstatements or omissions related to (i) certain
financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial
analyses performed by our advisors and (ii) any alleged
negotiations that may have taken place regarding the conversion of
certain convertible notes of Keryx in connection with the Merger.

The Consolidated Complaint sought compensatory and/or rescissory
damages, a declaration that the defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and an
award of lead plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

The defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice on August
2, 2019. On April 15, 2020, the Delaware District Court granted the
defendants' motion and dismissed the Consolidated Complaint in its
entirety.

On July 2, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint or the Second Consolidated Complaint.

The Second Consolidated Complaint (i) asserts the same claims under
the Exchange Act as the Consolidated Complaint, (ii) names the same
defendants as the Consolidated Complaint, (iii) seeks the same
relief as the Consolidated Complaint and (iv) as with the
Consolidated Complaint, challenges as false or misleading alleged
misstatements or omissions related to certain financial projections
for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by
our advisors.

The defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in its entirety with
prejudice on August 10, 2020.

On April 1, 2021, the Delaware District Court granted the
defendants' motion and dismissed the Second Consolidated Complaint
in its entirety.

On April 29, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Briefing on the appeal is ongoing and is currently scheduled to be
complete on September 9, 2021.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Karth Bid for Certiorari Due Sept. 17
----------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that plaintiff in Karth v.
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., has until September 17,
2021 to file a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court to the extent Plaintiff wishes to seek any further appellate
review.

On June 28, 2018, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Keryx and Alpha Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the
Merger Sub, pursuant to which the Merger Sub would merge with and
into Keryx, with Keryx becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the
company, or the Merger. On December 12, 2018, the company completed
the Merger.

Four putative class action lawsuits were filed against Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. Keryx, and certain of its former officers
(Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James
Oliviero) and consolidated in the Massachusetts District Court,
captioned Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed
October 26, 2016, with an amended complaint filed on February 27,
2017).

Plaintiff sought to represent all stockholders who purchased shares
of Keryx common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016.

The complaint alleges that Keryx and the named individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or
misleading statements concerning Keryx, its supplier relationships,
and future prospects, and that the allegedly misleading statements
were not made known to the market until Keryx's August 1, 2016
announcement of an interruption in its supply of Auryxia.

On September 23, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court issued a
Memorandum and Order denying plaintiff's motion for class
certification, granting defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings, and denying plaintiff's motion for leave to further
amend his Complaint.

That same day, the Massachusetts District Court entered a final
judgment in favor of defendants on all claims.

On September 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On June
21, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment
in its entirety.

The time for plaintiff to seek a rehearing before the First Circuit
has now lapsed.

Plaintiff has until September 17, 2021 to file a petition for
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to the extent
Plaintiff wishes to seek any further appellate review.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Loper Suit Over Drop in Share Price Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Loper v. Akebia
Therapeutics Inc., et al.

On July 15, 2021, a purported former Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.
stockholder filed a putative class action, or the State Merger
Securities Action, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
against Akebia, a current officer of Akebia (John P. Butler), a
former officer of Akebia (Jason A. Amello), former directors of
Akebia (Muneer A. Satter, Scott A. Canute, Michael D. Clayman,
Maxine Gowen, Duane Nash, Ronald C. Renaud, Jr., and Michael S.
Wyzga), a current director of Akebia (Cynthia Smith), a former
director and officer of Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison), a former officer
of Keryx (Scott A. Holmes) and former directors of Keryx (Michael
Rogers, Kevin J. Cameron, Steven C. Gilman, Daniel P. Regan, Mark
J. Enyedy, and Michael T. Heffernan, some of whom are current
members of our Board of Directors).

The State Merger Securities Action is captioned Loper v. Akebia
Therapeutics Inc., et al. The complaint in the State Merger
Securities Action alleges that the registration statement filed in
connection with the Merger contained allegedly false and misleading
statements or failed to disclose certain allegedly material
information in violation of Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The alleged misstatements or omissions relate to the safety,
approvability, and commercial viability of vadadustat.

The complaint in the State Merger Securities Action seeks damages
including interest thereon, an award of plaintiffs' and the class's
costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and
rescission, disgorgement, or such other equitable or injunctive
relief that the Court deems appropriate.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


ALASKA: Gaston Consumer Suit Removed From State Court to D. Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BARBARA GASTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. STATE OF ALASKA v. 3M COMPANY, E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC, DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC., CORTEVA, INC., TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, CHEMGUARD, INC., JOHNSON CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL, PLC,
CENTRAL SPRINKLER, LLC, FIRE PRODUCTS GP HOLDING, LLC,
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, INC., CHUBB FIRE, LTD., UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC., RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., ANGUS
INTERNATIONAL SAFETY GROUP, LTD, BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
ARKEMA, INC., BASF CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., DYNAX
CORPORATION, CLARIANT CORPORATION, CHEMICALS INCORPORATED, NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, AGC, INC., AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S.,
INC., and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-49, Case No. 4FA-19-02411CI, was
removed from the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Fourth
Judicial District at Fairbanks, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Alaska on August 16, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Alaska assigned Case No.
4:21-cv-00019-JWS to the proceeding.

In this class action, the Plaintiff alleges that the State of
Alaska contaminated properties owned by herself and putative class
members with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) due at
least in part to discharge of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) for
emergency response and training exercises at the Fairbanks
International Airport and the Gustavus Airport. The Third-Party
Defendants allegedly designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed,
and/or sold AFFF products containing PFAS.

State of Alaska is a state in the Western United States.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Johnson Controls International, PLC is a heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning (HVAC) company, headquartered in Cork, Ireland.

Central Sprinkler, LLC is a manufacturer of fire sprinkler systems
doing business in the U.S.

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.

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

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.

Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an American multinational
aerospace and defense conglomerate headquartered in Waltham,
Massachusetts.

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

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.

Angus International Safety Group, Ltd is a capital markets company
based in Lancaster, United Kingdom.

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.

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

BASF Corporation is a multinational chemical company in Germany.

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

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

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

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

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

AGC, Inc. is a global glass manufacturing company, headquartered in
Tokyo, Japan.

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

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

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

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

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Brewster H. Jamieson, Esq.
         Michael B. Baylous, Esq.
         LANE POWELL LLC
         1600 A Street, Suite 304
         Anchorage, AK 99501
         Telephone: (907) 264-3325
         Facsimile: (907) 276-2631
         E-mail: jamiesonb@lanepowell.com
                 baylousm@lanepowell.com

AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Amend NY Consolidated Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that plaintiffs' motion
to amend the consolidated putative class action suit in New York,
is pending.

On October 26, 2018, Terry Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the
Advisor, the Former Chairmen, the Company's chief financial officer
at the time of the Merger and each of the Company's directors
immediately prior to the Merger.

All of the directors immediately prior to the Merger, except for
David Gong, currently serve as directors of the Company. The
complaint alleged that the registration statement pursuant to which
RCA shareholders acquired shares of the Company during the Merger
contained materially incomplete and misleading information.  

The complaint asserted violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended against the Company's chief financial
officer at the time of the Merger and each of the Company's
directors immediately prior to the Merger, violations of Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against the Company and the
Company's current chief executive officer, president and chair of
the board of directors, and control person liability against the
Advisor, AR Global and the Former Chairmen— under Section 15 of
the Securities Act.

The complaint sought unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement.

On March 6, 2019, Susan Bracken, Michael P. Miller and Jamie
Beckett, purported stockholders of the Company, filed a putative
class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York
County, on behalf of themselves and others who purchased shares of
common stock through the Company's then effective distribution
reinvestment plan, against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, the
Former Chairmen, the Company's chief financial officer at the time
of the Merger and each of the Company's directors immediately prior
to the Merger.

The complaint alleged that the April and December 2016 registration
statements pursuant to which class members purchased shares
contained materially incomplete and misleading information.

The complaint asserted violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against the Company, the Company's chief financial officer at
the time of the Merger and each of the Company's directors
immediately prior to the Merger, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act against the Company and the Company's current
chief executive officer, president and chair of the board of
directors, and control person liability against the Advisor, AR
Global and the Former Chairmen under Section 15 of the Securities
Act.

The complaint sought unspecified damages and either rescission of
the Company's sale of stock or rescissory damages.

On April 30, 2019, Lynda Callaway, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the
Advisor, the Former Chairmen, the Company's chief financial officer
at the time of the Merger and each of the Company's directors
immediately prior to the Merger.

The complaint alleged that the registration statement pursuant to
which plaintiff and other class members acquired shares of the
Company during the Merger contained materially incomplete and
misleading information.

The complaint asserted violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against the Company, the Company's chief financial officer at
the time of the Merger and each of the Company's directors
immediately prior to the Merger, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act against the Company and the Company's current
chief executive officer, president and chair of the board of
directors, and control person liability under Section 15 of the
Securities Act against the Advisor, AR Global, and the Former
Chairmen. The complaint sought unspecified damages and rescission
of the Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration
statement.

On July 11, 2019, the New York State Supreme Court issued an order
consolidating the three above-mentioned cases: Terry Hibbard,
Bracken, and Callaway. The Court also stayed the Consolidated Cases
pending a decision on the motions to dismiss in the St.
Clair-Hibbard litigation pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

Following the federal court's decision on St. Clair-Hibbard the
motions to dismiss, on October 31, 2019 plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint in the Consolidated Cases
seeking substantially similar remedies from the same defendants.
The Company moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on
December 16, 2019.

After the parties completed briefing on this motion, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision
affirming dismissal of the St. Clair-Hibbard action.

Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint, purportedly to limit it
to claims still viable in spite of the results of the federal
action. The proposed second amended complaint no longer contains
direct claims against the Company.

Instead, plaintiffs seek to pursue state law claims derivatively
against the Advisor, AR Global, the Company's initial chief
executive officer and chair of the board of directors, the
Company's current directors and David Gong, a former director, with
the Company as a nominal defendant.

Plaintiffs' motion to amend has been fully briefed, and oral
argument was held in November 2020.

The parties are now awaiting a decision from the Court.

The Company believes that the proposed second amended complaint is
without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously.

American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation,
no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible losses
are determinable at this time."

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

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly- -traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution-related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERICAN FINANCE: Dismissal of St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the lower
court's dismissal of the complaint initiated by Carolyn St.
Clair-Hibbard.

On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, and both
individuals who previously served as the Company's chief executive
officer and chair of the board of directors.

On February 23, 2018, the complaint was amended to, among other
things, assert some claims on the plaintiff's own behalf and other
claims on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
shareholders of the Company as a class. On April 26, 2018,
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The
second amended complaint alleges that the proxy materials used to
solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the Company's 2017
annual meeting were materially incomplete and misleading.

The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act against the Company, as well as control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and the Former Chairmen under
20(a).

It also asserts state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and abetting such
breaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR Global and the
Former Chairmen.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission of the
Company's advisory agreement with the Advisor which became
effective when the Merger became effective, and a declaratory
judgment that certain provisions of the Advisory Agreement are
void.

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

On June 22, 2018, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On August 1, 2018, plaintiff filed an opposition to
defendants' motions to dismiss. Defendants filed reply papers on
August 22, 2018, and oral argument was held on September 26, 2018.
On September 23, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the plaintiff appealed.


On May 5, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint.

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

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly-traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution-related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.


AMERITAS MUTUAL: Weisenberger Files Suit in D. Nebraska
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ameritas Mutual
Holding Company. The case is styled as Cynthia Weisenberger,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
Ameritas Mutual Holding Company, Case No. 4:21-cv-03156-JMG-SMB (D.
Neb., Aug. 17, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Fiduciary
Duties.

Ameritas Mutual Holding Company -- https://www.ameritas.com/ --
operates as a holding company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO, RATHOD LAW FIRM
          412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: (202) 470-3520
          Fax: (202) 800-2730
          Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
                 nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          Vincent M. Powers, Esq.
          POWERS LAW FIRM
          411 South 13th Street, Suite 300
          Lincoln, NE 68508
          Phone: (402) 474-8000
          Fax: (402) 474-5006
          Email: Vince@Vpowerslaw.com


ANGRY ORCHARD: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Angry Orchard Cider
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Angry Orchard Cider Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04623
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2021).

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

Angry Orchard -- https://www.angryorchard.com/ -- is a hard cider
company located near Walden, New York, United States, owned by the
Boston Beer Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Bystolic Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action suit initiated by putative
classes of direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Bystolic.

On December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the
Company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect
purchasers of the drug Bystolic.

On December 23, 2020, six individual purchasers of Bystolic, CVS,
Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger, Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed complaints
against the Company. On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs in these
actions filed amended complaints. All amended complaints are
substantively identical.  

The plaintiffs in these actions allege that beginning in 2012,
Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into
anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related
to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version
of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen,
Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors,
subsidiaries, and affiliates.  

ANI itself was not a party to patent litigation with Forest
concerning Bystolic and did not settle patent litigation with
Forest.

The plaintiffs named the Company as a defendant based on the
Company's January 8, 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement with Amerigen.

The complaints allege that the 2013 patent litigation settlement
agreement between Forest and Amerigen violates federal and state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by delaying the
market entry of generic versions of Bystolic.

Plaintiffs allege they paid higher prices as a result of delayed
generic competition. Plaintiffs seek damages, trebled or otherwise
multiplied under applicable law, injunctive relief, litigation
costs and attorneys' fees.

The complaints do not specify the amount of damages sought from the
Company or other defendants and the Company at this early stage of
the litigation cannot reasonably estimate the potential damages
that the plaintiffs will seek.

The cases have been consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York as In re Bystolic
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 20-cv-005735 (LJL).  

On April 23, 2021, the Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaints, which are pending before the
court for decision.

The Company disputes any liability in these matters.

ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an integrated specialty pharmaceutical
company developing, manufacturing and marketing branded and generic
prescription pharmaceuticals. The company is based in Baudette,
Minnesota.


APA CORPORATION: Royalty Payments Related Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
APA Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend suits related to royalty payments.

The Company is a party to two purported class actions in Oklahoma
styled Bigie Lee Rhea v. Apache Corporation, Case No.
6:14-cv-00433-JH, and Albert Steven Allen v. Apache Corporation,
Case No. CJ-2019-00219.

The Rhea case has been certified and includes a class of royalty
owners seeking damages in excess of $250 million for alleged breach
of the implied covenant to market relating to post-production
deductions and alleged natural gas liquids (NGL) uplift value.

The Allen case has not been certified and seeks to represent a
group of owners who have allegedly received late royalty and other
payments under Oklahoma statutes.

The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable.

APA said, "While adverse judgments against the Company are
possible, the Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits
and claims.

APA Corporation is an independent energy company that explores for,
develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas
liquids (NGLs). The company is based in Houston, Texas.


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Sept. 1 Hearing on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Arlo Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the hearing on the
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit entitled, In
re Arlo Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 18CV339231,
is scheduled for September 1, 2021.

Beginning on December 11, 2018, purported stockholders of Arlo
Technologies, Inc. filed six putative securities class action
complaints in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, and one complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its executives and directors.

Some of these actions also name as defendants the underwriters in
the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") and NETGEAR, Inc.
("NETGEAR").

The actions pending in state court are Aversa v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 18CV339231, filed Dec. 11, 2018; Pham v. Arlo
Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19CV340741, filed January 9, 2019;
Patel v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV340758, filed January 10,
2019; Perros v. NetGear, Inc., No. 19CV342071, filed February 1,
2019; Vardanian v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV342318, filed
February 8, 2019; and Hill v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No.
19CV343033, filed February 22, 2019.

On April 26, 2019, the state court consolidated these actions as In
re Arlo Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 18CV339231
(the "State Action").

The action in federal court is Wong v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et
al., No. 19-CV-00372 (the "Federal Action").
    
The plaintiffs in the State Action filed a consolidated complaint
on May 1, 2019. The plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to
adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse sales
trends ahead of its IPO, violating the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief
on behalf of investors who purchased Company common stock issued
pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO.

On June 21, 2019, the court stayed the State Action pending
resolution of the Federal Action, given the substantial overlap
between the claims.

In the Federal Action, the court appointed a shareholder named
Matis Nayman as lead plaintiff.

On June 7, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Lead
Plaintiff alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based
on alleged materially false and misleading statements about the
Company's sales trends and products.

In the amended complaint, lead plaintiff sought to represent a
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock (i) during the period between August 3, 2018 through
December 3, 2018 and/or (ii) pursuant to or traceable to the IPO.

Lead plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified
damages, an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees,
and other further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On August 6, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The
federal court granted that motion, and lead plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint.

On June 12, 2020, lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement for $1.25
million, which was also the amount that the Company had accrued for
loss contingency.

On September 24, 2020, the federal court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement. On February 5, 2021, lead
plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of the settlement.

In October 2020, the Company made a $1.25 million payment an escrow
account administered by the court and plaintiff's counsel (the
"Settlement Fund").

The Settlement Fund shall be deemed to be in the custody of the
court and shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of the court
until such time as the Settlement Fund is distributed pursuant to
the settlement agreement and/or further order of the court.

On February 5, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a motion for final
approval of the settlement.

In advance of the final approval hearing, three of the named
plaintiffs in the State Action requested exclusion from the
settlement. The court held a final approval hearing on March 11,
2021, and, on March 25, 2021, entered an order and final judgment
approving the settlement and, among other things, dismissing with
prejudice all claims of lead plaintiff and the Settlement Class.

On April 19, 2021, the Court issued an amended order and corrected
judgment to include defendant NETGEAR, who had been inadvertently
omitted from the prior order and final judgment. The Federal Action
is now closed.

In the State Action, on May 5, 2021, the court held a status
conference. At that conference, the state court instructed
plaintiffs Perros, Patel, and Pham, who were the only Arlo
stockholders to opt out of the federal settlement, to file an
amended complaint by June 4, 2021.

Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on June 4, 2021,
asserting their individual Securities Act claims, but also
purporting to represent a new class of Arlo stockholders who
purchased Arlo shares between December 3, 2018 and February 22,
2019 and fell outside the Settlement Class.

On June 21, 2021, the Arlo defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
State Action (for forum non conveniens) based on the federal forum
provision in Arlo's certificate of incorporation.

Plaintiffs' opposition is due on July 28, 2021, and the Arlo
defendants' reply is due on August 13, 2021.

A hearing on this motion to dismiss is scheduled for September 1,
2021.

On July 6, 2021, defendants filed multiple demurrers to the second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs oppositions are due on August 12,
2021, and defendants' replies are due on August 27, 2021. A hearing
on the demurrers is scheduled for September 15, 2021.

Arlo Technologies, Inc. provides smart connected devices to monitor
the environments in real-time with a Wi-Fi or a cellular network
Internet connection in the Americas, Europe, the Middle-East and
Africa, and the Asia Pacific regions. Arlo Technologies, Inc. was
incorporated in 2018 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Glumetza Related Class Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend antitrust class actions and related direct antitrust actions
related to the company's former drug Glumetza(R).

Antitrust class actions and related direct antitrust actions have
been filed in the Northern District of California against the
Company and several other defendants relating to the company's
former drug Glumetza(R).

The named class representatives in the currently pending actions
include Meijer, Inc., Bi-Lo, LLC, Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc., City
of Providence, and KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. These class
representatives seek to represent a putative class of direct
purchasers of Glumetza.

In addition, several retailers, including CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Rite
Aid Corporation, Walgreen Co., the Kroger Co., the Albertsons
Companies, Inc., H-E-B, L.P., and Hy-Vee, Inc., have filed
substantially similar direct antitrust claims based on alleged
assignments of claims from direct purchaser wholesalers.

On December 23, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all
claims in the actions. That motion was heard by the District Court
on February 20, 2020.

On March 5, 2020 the District Court issued an order denying the
motion to dismiss.

However, based on the order on the motion, claims previously filed
by a putative class of end payor plaintiffs were voluntarily
dismissed.

Assertio Holdings, Inc. a commercial pharmaceutical company
offering differentiated products to patients. The company's
commercial portfolio of branded products focuses on three areas:
neurology; hospital; and pain and inflammation. The company is
based in Lake Forest, Illinois.


ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Huang Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that a settlement has been
reached in the purported class action suit entitled, Huang v.
Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D. Cal.

On August 23, 2017, the Company, two individuals who formerly
served as its chief executive officer and president, and its former
chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported
federal securities law class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The action (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D.
Cal.) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its
business, compliance, and operational policies and practices
concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products and
contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations
affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages
and other relief.

In an amended complaint filed on February 6, 2018, the lead
plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the Depomed Investor
Group), which seeks to represent a class consisting of all
purchasers of Company common stock between July 29, 2015 and August
7, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out of the same and
similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as
were involved in the original complaint.

The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on April 9, 2018. On March 18, 2019, the District
Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, and the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 2, 2019.

The second amended complaint asserted the same claims arising out
of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the
same individuals as were involved in the original complaint.

The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint on June 17, 2019, and the District Court
granted that motion with prejudice on March 11, 2020. On April 9,
2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties
completed their briefing of the appeal on December 14, 2020.

On March 1, 2021, the court granted the parties' joint motion to
stay the appeal pending settlement discussions.

On July 30, 2021, the Company reached an agreement to settle the
matter subject to District Court approval.

The parties are in the process of seeking preliminary District
Court approval.

Assertio Holdings, Inc. a commercial pharmaceutical company
offering differentiated products to patients. The company's
commercial portfolio of branded products focuses on three areas:
neurology; hospital; and pain and inflammation. The company is
based in Lake Forest, Illinois.


ATI PHYSICAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on Aug. 16 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois captioned Burbige et
al. v. ATI Physical Therapy, Inc. f/k/a Fortress Value Acquisition
Corp. II, et al., (Case No. 21-cv-4349) on behalf of persons and
entities that: (a) purchased or otherwise acquired ATI Physical
Therapy, Inc. ("ATI" or the "Company") (NYSE: ATIP) f/k/a Fortress
Value Acquisition Corp. II ("FVAC") securities between April 1,
2021 and July 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b)
held FVAC Class A common stock as of May 24, 2021 and were eligible
to vote at FVAC's June 15, 2021 special meeting. Plaintiff pursues
claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 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 ATI 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/ati-physical-therapy-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your
rights.

ATI is an outpatient physical therapy company. It owns and operates
nearly 900 physical therapy clinics across 25 states.

On June 17, 2021, ATI became public via a business combination with
FVAC ("Business Combination").

On July 26, 2021, before the market opened, ATI reported its
financial results for second quarter 2021, the period in which the
Business Combination was completed. Among other things, ATI
reported that "the acceleration of attrition among [its] therapists
in the second quarter and continuing into the third quarter,
combined with the intensifying competition for clinicians in the
labor market, prevented us from being able to meet the demand we
have and increased our labor costs." Though ATI was implementing
certain remedial actions, the Company reduced its fiscal 2021
forecast due to the foregoing factors.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.62, or 43%, to
close at $4.72 per share on July 26, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The share price continued to decline the next
trading session by as much as 19%. As a result, FVAC investors who
could have voted against the Business Combination and redeemed
their shares at $10.00 per share suffered a loss of $5.28 per
share.

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 ATI was experiencing attrition among its
physical therapists; (2) that ATI faced increasing competition for
clinicians in the labor market; (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company faced difficulties retaining therapists and
incurred increased labor costs; (4) that, as a result of the labor
shortage, the Company would open fewer new clinics; and (5) that,
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired ATI securities during the
Class Period and/or held FVAC Class A common stock as of May 24,
2021, 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.

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]

BAUDAX BIO: Class Action Against Recro Pharma Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Baudax Bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the class action suit
against Recro Pharma, Inc. is ongoing.

On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against Recro Pharma, Inc. and certain of Recro's officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a
claim for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on
statements made by Recro concerning the new drug application (NDA)
for ANJESO.

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

On December 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but
included new allegations and named additional officers as
defendants.

On February 8, 2019, Recro filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed on
April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, Recro filed its response and
briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss.

In response to questions from the Judge, the parties submitted
supplemental briefs with regard to the motion to dismiss the
amended complaint during the fall of 2019.

On February 18, 2020, the motion to dismiss was granted without
prejudice. On April 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.

Recro filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
June 18, 2020. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss on August 17, 2020.

On September 16, 2020, Recro filed a reply in support of the motion
to dismiss. On March 1, 2021, Recro's second motion to dismiss was
denied.

On June 21, 2021, the defendants filed an answer and affirmative
defenses to the second amended complaint. The parties are in the
beginning stages of discovery.

A Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held on August 3, 2021.

In connection with the Separation, the Company accepted assignment
by Recro of all of Recro's obligations in connection with the
Securities Litigation and agreed to indemnify Recro for all
liabilities related to the Securities Litigation. Recro and the
Company has recorded a liability equal to the estimated fair value
of the indemnification to Recro related to this Securities
Litigation.

The Company believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it, unless and until a resolution
satisfactory to Recro and the Company can be achieved.

Baudax said, "At this time, no assessment can be made as to its
likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to the
Company. As of June 30, 2021, the Company has recorded a guarantee
liability of $620, which represents the present value estimate of
our expected obligation related to this matter."

Baudax Bio, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, develops and
commercializes innovative products for acute care settings. The
Company is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.


BAYADA HOME: Final Certification of Sub-Classes in Ivanovs Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SONYA IVANOVS and KATIE HOFFMAN, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs
v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-01742-NLH-AMD (D.N.J.), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the
Plaintiffs' motion for final certification, and denies the
Defendant's motion to decertify the collection action.

On Sept. 24, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for the
conditional certification of a collective action arising from
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. ("FLSA"), with regard to how the
Defendant classifies its Client Service Managers as exempt from the
minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA. Notice to
potential opt-in plaintiffs was issued, 73 plaintiffs "opted-in,"
and the parties engaged in extensive discovery.

Plaintiffs Ivanovs and Hoffman, on behalf of themselves and all
those similarly situated, allege that Defendant, BAYADA Home Health
Care, Inc., unlawfully classifies all of its Client Service
Managers ("CSMs") nationwide as exempt from the minimum wage and
overtime requirements of the FLSA.

According to the Plaintiffs, BAYADA is a home healthcare provider
with more than 330 office locations in 21 States, and its
operations are generally divided into two primary business lines:
Home Health and Home Care. The Home Health business line offices
provide home visit services (typically one hour or less) by various
medical professionals and paraprofessionals providing nursing,
therapeutic, and rehabilitative care primarily on a short-term
basis. The Home Care business line offices provide nursing and
personal care to people with chronic illness, injury, or
disability, primarily on an ongoing shift (two hours or more)
basis.

Each office location typically employs one or more CSM. Plaintiff
relates that Home Health CSMs and Home Care CSMs perform the same
primary duty -- filling shifts for nursing and medical
paraprofessional care in clients' homes -- but the method by which
that duty is carried out differs slightly between Home Health CSMs
and Home Care CSMs, as do their secondary duties. Ivanovs was a
Home Health CSM and Hoffman was a Home Care CSM.

The Plaintiffs claim that BAYADA classifies CSMs as exempt despite
the fact that it requires CSMs to perform non-exempt duties as
their primary duties, including but not limited to: Scheduling
health care professionals for patients, calling health care
professionals for assignments, performing patient intake calls,
contacting patient referrals, and verifying insurance coverage for
patients. The Plaintiffs claim that based upon this unlawful exempt
classification, BAYADA has willfully refused to pay the CSMs the
required overtime compensation for overtime hours worked.

Previously, the Court conditionally certified the Plaintiffs' FLSA
collective action with two nationwide sub-classes: Sub-class 1 is
BAYADA Home Health CSMs who worked for BAYADA at any location
nationwide during the three years prior to the Court's order
allowing notice; Sub-class 2 is the BAYADA Home Care CSMs who
worked for BAYADA at any location nationwide during the three years
prior to the Court's order allowing notice.

Currently pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for
final certification of their collective action, and the Defendant's
motion to decertify the collective action. As the Defendant argued
in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification, the Defendant again contests final certification
because, among other things, the Defendant contends that the duties
of CSMs differ significantly across its 330 offices, and the
determination of whether an employee should be classified as exempt
or non-exempt requires a very fact-specific analysis, which is not
conducive of a collective action.

Discussion

The standard to be applied on final certification is whether the
proposed collective plaintiffs are "similarly situated." Plaintiffs
must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that members of
a proposed collective action are similarly situated in order to
obtain final certification and proceed with the case as a
collective action." This standard is different from a determination
of the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Hillman finds that the primary difference between the
conditional certification motion and now is that now there is just
far more evidence concerning similarity of the Opt-Ins factual and
employment settings. Whether the Plaintiffs will prevail on the
merits of their claims remains to be seen, but the Plaintiffs have
readily met their burden of showing they are sufficiently similarly
situated to proceed as a collective action rather than 73
individual cases. Accordingly, the Judge restates the basis for
granting conditional certification, and adds supplemental evidence
to support the Court's determination that final certification is
warranted.

Conclusion

Judge Hillman concludes that the Plaintiffs have met the standard
for final certification of their two proposed sub-classes on their
claims that the Defendant violated the FLSA by classifying Home
Health CSMs and Home Care CSMs as exempt instead of non-exempt.
For these reasons, the Judge grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
final certification, and denies the Defendant's motion to decertify
the collection action.

An accompanying Order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/6p2snjhm from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL JOHN PALITZ SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A., NEW YORK, NY, GREGG I.
SHAVITZ -- gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com -- (admitted pro hac vice) ALAN
L. QUILES -- aquiles@shavitzlaw.com -- (admitted pro hac vice)
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A., in BOCA RATON, FLORIDA, On behalf of
Plaintiffs.

MICHAEL D. HOMANS -- MHomans@HomansPeck.com -- DAVID M. EISEN --
DEisen@HomansPeck.com -- HOMANS PECK LLC, in PHILADELPHIA,
PENNSYLVANIA, On behalf of Defendant.


BOB'S DISCOUNT: Mason Seeks Blind Buyers' Equal Website Access
--------------------------------------------------------------
PORTIA MASON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-06618-VAP-JDE (C.D.
Cal., August 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.mybobs.com/, allegedly contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (a) lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent;
empty links that contain no text, redundant links where adjacent
links go to the same uniform resource locator (URL) address, and
linked images missing alt-text.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.

Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC is a furniture seller, with its
headquarters in Manchester, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thiago Coelho, Esq.
         Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
         Binyamin Manoucheri, Esq.
         WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
         3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (213) 381-9988
         Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
         E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com

BOOT BARN: Faces Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------
Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 26, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit related to violations of California's
wage and hour, overtime, meal periods and rest breaks, and an
alleged violation of the suitable seating requirement as per
California Labor Law among other things.  

On February 27, 2020, one employee, on behalf of themself and all
other similarly situated employees, filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company, which includes claims for penalties under
California's Private Attorney General Act, in the Sacramento County
Superior Court, Case No. 34-2019-00272000-CU-OE-GDS, alleging
violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal periods
and rest breaks, and an alleged violation of the suitable seating
requirement as per California Labor Law among other things.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties.


The Company intends to defend this claim vigorously.

Boot Barn said, "At present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate
the loss that may arise from this matter, but has recorded as of
June 26, 2021 an amount for the estimated probable loss, which is
not material to the condensed consolidated financial statements.
Depending on the actual outcome of pending litigation, charges in
excess of such recorded amount could be recorded in the future,
which may have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
position, results of operations or liquidity."

Boot Barn Holdings, Inc., a lifestyle retail chain, operates
specialty retail stores in the United States. The company's
specialty retail stores offer western and work-related footwear,
apparel, and accessories for men, women, and kids. The company was
formerly known as WW Top Investment Corporation and changed its
name to Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. in June 2014. Boot Barn Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1978 and is based in Irvine, California.


BOTANIKA BEAUTY: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Botanika Beauty LLC.
The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Botanika Beauty LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-06934 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2021).

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

Botanika Beauty LLC -- https://botanikabeauty.com/ -- is in the
Toiletries, Cosmetics, and Perfumes business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAPITAL MEDICAL: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Katz Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Bruce E. Katz, M.D., P.C., d/b/a JUVA Skin and Laser
Center, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Capital Medical Education, LLC, a South
Carolina limited liability company, Defendant, Civil Action No.
3:20-cv-02524-JMC (D.S.C.), Judge J. Michelle Childs of the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia
Division, denies without prejudice JUVA's Motion for Class
Certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and denies as moot its Motion to Appoint Class Counsel
and Motion to Appoint Class Representative.

Plaintiff JUVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed the instant putative class action seeking damages
and injunctive relief from Defendant Capital Medical Education
("CMEL") for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005 ("JFPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and the
regulations promulgated under the TCPA by the United States Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC").

JUVA is a "dermatology and cosmetic surgery practice" "located in
the heart of New York City and serving nearby locations like
Manhattan." CMEL provides topical educational courses for aesthetic
medical practices.

On Oct. 31, 2019, JUVA alleges that it received an unsolicited fax.
JUVA asserts that similar unsolicited faxes were sent by or on
behalf of CMEL to "more than 40 other recipients without first
receiving the recipients' express permission or invitation."

On July 3, 2020, JUVA filed a putative Class Action Complaint in
the Court alleging violation of the TCPA. Although it was served on
Aug. 3, 2020, CMEL did not answer the Complaint or otherwise plead.
On Dec. 24, 2020, JUVA filed the instant Rule 23 Motions.

Analysis

1. Motion for Class Certification

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, JUVA
moves the court to certify the following proposed class: "All
persons who (1) on or after July 3, 2016, (2) were sent, by
Defendant or on Defendant's behalf, (3) a telephone facsimile
message substantially similar to Exhibit A, (4) from whom Defendant
claims itt obtained prior express permission or invitation to send
those faxes in the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained
prior express consent to fax the Plaintiff, or for whom Defendant
has no prior express permission or invitation."

In support of its Motion, JUVA asserts that it satisfies Rule
23(a)'s criteria because (1) CMEL "sent the same or substantially
similar fax advertisements to thousands of class members"; (2) JUVA
and the class share "multiple common issues of law and fact"2; (3)
and CMEL subjected JUVA and the class "to a nearly identical course
of conduct." JUVA further asserts that this case satisfies Rule
23(b) because (1) common questions regarding the transmission of
unsolicited fax advertisements predominate over any individual
issues and (2) a class action is the more manageable and superior
method of adjudicating mass JFPA violations. In this regard, JUVA
asserts that it "seeks statutory damages in the amount of $500 per
violation -- a small amount that renders individual suits
prohibitively expensive."

In considering the totality of information presented, without a
feasible method for identification of fax recipients, Judge Childs
cannot ascertain the members of JUVA's proposed class. Therefore,
because JUVA is unable to carry its burden of establishing that the
class is ascertainable, class certification is inappropriate.
Accordingly, the Judge finds that JUVA cannot satisfy all the
requirements of Rule 23(a).

Because JUVA cannot satisfy all of Rule 23(a)'s requirements,
consideration of whether it meets Rule 23(b)'s requirements of
predominance and superiority is futile.

2. Motion to Appoint Class Representative

JUVA contends that Dr. Bruce E. Katz should be appointed class
representative, as he has no conflicts with class members, has
"spent significant time and resources in the investigation and
prosecution of this action," and "will continue to adequately
represent the class."

Because Judge Child did not certify a putative class, JUVA's
pending Motion to Appoint it Class Counsel is now moot.

3. Motion to Appoint Class Counsel

JUVA contends that Patrick H. Peluso of Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
should be appointed class counsel, as he has no conflicts with
class members, has "spent significant time and resources in the
investigation and prosecution of this action," "will continue to
adequately represent the class," has "experience litigating class
actions, including class actions under the TCPA, and they have the
resources necessary to conduct litigation of this nature."

As a result of her decision to deny the Motion for Class
Certification, Judge Childs finds JUVA's Motion to Appoint Class
Counsel is moot.

Conclusion

Upon careful consideration of the entire record and the arguments
presented, Judge Childs denies without prejudice the Motion for
Class Certification of Plaintiff JUVA. Further, she denies as moot
the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Class Counsel and Motion to
Appoint Class Representative.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Order & Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ys46twh8 from Leagle.com.


CECIL STEAKHOUSE: Former Employees File Wage Theft Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Fortney, writing for Eater New York, reports that former
employees of the Cecil Steakhouse allege the popular Harlem
restaurant engaged in wage theft and other illegal practices that
shortchanged staffers' pay. The allegations, which surfaced as part
of a class-action lawsuit filed with the New York Supreme Court on
August 11, date back to March 2021 and involve approximately 50
current and former employees of the restaurant.

The suit was filed against the Cecil Steakhouse's parent company,
Arts in Common LLC, on behalf of Elijah Hardwell, an employee who
worked at the restaurant from March to June 2021. He and other
employees allege the restaurant engaged in illegal payment
practices over the course of his employment, including time
shaving, in which the restaurant reportedly deducted an hour from
employee time cards for a lunch break, regardless of whether
workers took less or no time off; paying workers below New York
City's tipped minimum wage of $10 per hour; and failing to provide
staff with proper documentation of their hourly and overtime pay
rates when they started working for the restaurant.

Additionally, the suit alleges that Hardwell was illegally paid on
a bi-weekly basis. The suit argues that Hardwell is technically a
"manual laborer" who must be paid weekly in accordance with New
York State Labor Laws because he spent at least 25 percent of his
shift performing "physical tasks." Eater has reached out to the
Cecil Steakhouse for comment.

The class-action suit seeks "an amount to be determined at trial,
plus interest, attorneys' fees, and cost." As many as 50 employees
may have been affected by the alleged incidents, according to
Lawrence Spasojevich, an attorney with Aidala, Bertuna and Kamins
who is representing Hardwell. He estimates that certain workers may
be entitled to as much as $10,000 each, not including delayed
payments and other damages.

The Cecil Steakhouse comes from Richard Parsons, a former chairman
and CEO of Time Warner Cable, who opened the establishment under
the name the Cecil with restaurateur Alexander Smalls in 2013.
(Smalls departed from the restaurant in 2016.) Helmed by
then-up-and-coming chef JJ Johnson, the Harlem restaurant received
nearly unceasing praise in its first three years of business. But
despite the early acclaim, the Cecil closed its doors in 2016 as
part of a consolidation that turned Minton's, a jazz club from the
same team located next door, into a restaurant of its own.

Johnson -- who now owns and operates three locations of FieldTrip,
his hit fast-casual rice bowl restaurant -- departed from the
Harlem establishment before it opened under the name the Cecil
Steakhouse in 2017.

This story will be updated as more information becomes available.
[GN]

CHILDREN OF THE NIGHT: Massey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Children of the
Night, Inc. The case is styled as Akanksha Massey as an aggrieved
employee on behalf of other similarly situated aggrieved employees
under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 v.
Children of the Night, Inc. a California Corporation, Case No.
21STCV30464 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 17, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Children of the Night -- https://www.childrenofthenight.org/ -- is
a privately funded non-profit organization established in 1979 with
the specific purpose to provide intervention in the lives of
children who are sexually exploited and vulnerable to or involved
in prostitution and pornography.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd, Ste. 203
          Encino, CA 91436-4535
          Phone: 818-582-3086
          Fax: 818-582-2561
          Email: david@spivaklaw.com


CONDUENT INC: Continues to Defend ERS Puerto Rico Electric Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conduent Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Employees' Retirement
System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority et al v.
Conduent Inc. et al.

On March 8, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of certain federal securities laws in connection with
the company's statements and alleged omissions regarding the
company's financial guidance and business and operations was filed
against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its
former Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities from
February 21, 2018 through November 6, 2018, and also seeks
unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The company moved to dismiss the class action complaint in its
entirety. In June 2020, the court denied the motion to dismiss and
allowed the claims to proceed. The company intends to defend the
litigation vigorously.

Conduent said, "The Company maintains insurance that may cover any
costs arising out of this litigation up to the insurance limits,
and subject to meeting certain deductibles and to other terms and
conditions thereof. The Company is not able to determine or predict
the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or reasonably provide an
estimate or range of estimate of the possible outcome or loss, if
any, in excess of currently recorded reserves."

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

Conduent Incorporated is a business process services company. The
Company provides business process services with expertise in
transaction-intensive processing, analytics and automation. The
company is based in Florham Park, New Jersey.


CONFIDENTIAL GENTLEMEN'S: Robinson Sues Over Dancers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIQUE ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONFIDENTIAL GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-04171-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, August 13,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Wage Law by
failing to pay statutory minimum wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a female exotic
dancer at its Confidential Gentlemen's Club in Columbus, Ohio from
2017 until March 2021.

Confidential Gentlemen's Club, LLC is a company that operates a
gentlemen's club at the address 1962 Lake Club Drive, Columbus,
Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Thomas P. Sexton, Esq.
         THOMAS P. SEXTON LAW OFFICE
         580 South High Street, Suite 130
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Telephone: (614) 221-4788
         Facsimile: (614) 221-0139
         E-mail: tom@legalprac.com

               - and -
                  
         Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
         ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG, LLC
         8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
         Silver Spring, MD 20910
         Telephone: (301) 587-9373
         Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
         E-mail: GGreenberg@zagfirm.com

CORMEDIX INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
September 20, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased CorMedix Inc.
securities between July 8, 2020 and May 13, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Investors suffering losses on their CorMedix 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 July 2020, CorMedix filed its New Drug Application ("NDA") with
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for DefenCath, an
antibacterial and antifungal solution, as a catheter lock solution
with an initial indication for use of preventing certain
catheter-related bloodstream infections.

On March 1, 2021, CorMedix announced the NDA would not be approved
"in its present form" due to "concerns at the third-party
manufacturing facility." Moreover, the FDA "is requiring a manual
extraction study to demonstrate that the labeled volume can be
consistently withdrawn from the vials despite an existing
in-process control to demonstrate fill volume within
specifications."

On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $5.98 per share, or
39.87%, to close at $9.02 per share on March 1, 2021.

Then, on April 14, 2021, CorMedix announced it would have to take
additional steps to meet the FDA's requirements for DefenCath's
manufacturing process, including "[a]ddressing FDA's concerns
regarding the qualification of the filling operation [that] may
necessitate adjustments in the process and generation of additional
data on operating parameters for manufacture of DefenCath."

On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.44 per share, or
15.37%, to close at $7.93 per share on April 14, 2021.

Then, on May 13, 2021, CorMedix announced that "[b]ased on our
analyses, we have concluded that additional process qualification
will be needed with subsequent validation to address the
deficiencies identified by FDA." Among other things, the Company
was required "to generate sufficient data to demonstrate that [the
filling] process is a controlled process and is consistent with the
agency's requirements for good manufacturing practice."

On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or
19.97%, to close at $6.05 per share on May 14, 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
the following: (1) deficiencies existed with respect to DefenCath's
manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for
manufacturing DefenCath; (2) in light of the foregoing
deficiencies, the FDA was unlikely to approve the DefenCath NDA for
CRBSIs in its present form; (3) Defendants had downplayed the true
scope of the deficiencies with DefenCath's manufacturing process
and/or at the facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and
(4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired CorMedix securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September
20, 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. [GN]

COTY INC: Averts Shareholder Class Action Over P&G Beauty Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Fashion Law reports that Coty and a handful of its
highly-ranking officers and directors have managed to escape the
proposed class action lawsuit that was waged against it last year
for allegedly running afoul of U.S. federal securities laws in
connection with its P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie
Cosmetics acquisitions. In the complaint that she filed against the
NYSE-traded beauty giant in a New York federal court in September
2020, Coty shareholder Crystal Garrett-Evans argued that the
defendants engaged in "a fraudulent scheme and course of business
that operated [to deceive] purchasers of Coty shares by
disseminating materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
concealing material adverse facts . . . about Coty's business,
operations, and prospects."

Among the things that Coty allegedly misrepresented and/or failed
to disclose? "Despite being no stranger to beauty brand
acquisitions," Garrett-Evans asserted that "Coty did not have
adequate processes and procedures in place to assess and properly
value" its 2016 and 2019 acquisitions of P&G Specialty Beauty
Business and Kylie Cosmetics." As a result, "Coty overpaid for
[them]." More than that, Garrett-Evans claimed in the suit -- which
was filed a several months after Forbes reported that Jenner and
her team had been "inflating the size and success of her [Kylie
Cosmetics] business for years" -- that the defendants were either
"aware or severely reckless in not knowing that Coty did not have
adequate processes and procedures in place to assess and properly
value acquisitions."

In January 2021, after being appointed lead plaintiff (because she
had the largest damages claim), Coty shareholder Susan Nock filed
an amended complaint, shifting the focus away from Coty's
acquisition of Kylie Cosmetics entirely (the amended complaint was
devoid of any mention of Jenner's brand), and centering her claims
exclusively on its October 2016 purchase of the P&G Specialty
Beauty Business for $12.5 billion, or what Reuters characterized at
the time as "the biggest cosmetics merger in recent history."

(Counsel for Ms. Nock at Rosen Law told TFL early this year that in
opting to focus exclusively on the P&G Specialty Beauty Business
deal, they were "not taking the position that the allegations over
Kylie Jenner's [brand] are not true," but simply that the causes of
action related to the P&G Beauty deal were the best for their
client "at this time.")

After the Coty/P&G deal closed, Nock argued that "Coty struggled to
integrate P&G's consumer beauty brands, and its business suffered
over the next three years," thereby, leading to a $4 billion
"impairment of the value of [Coty's] goodwill and intangible
assets." All the while, Nock asserted that Coty and the other
defendants "made statements about the acquisition and integration
of the P&G businesses in Coty' s earnings calls and SEC filings
that omitted material facts necessary to make those statements not
misleading."

This spring, the defendants sought to get the amended complaint
tossed out in its entirety, arguing in a March 2021 motion to
dismiss that plaintiffs failed to allege actionable omissions and
scienter (i.e., intent or knowledge of wrongdoing), and in an
opinion and order dated August 3, Judge Louis Stanton of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York agreed.

Primarily, the court sided with Coty and co. in connection with
their alleged failed to disclose that the company "did not have
adequate infrastructure to smoothly integrate and support the
beauty business that it acquired from P&G." Beyond that, the
plaintiffs argued that Coty failed to alert shareholders that
"integration issues existed, including supply chain issues, [and]
that they were pervasive and continuing, and not 'short-term,'" and
that they failed to make such disclosures in a timely manner, as
they "were duty bound to disclose that integration issues had
already arisen before [it began discussing such issues in] November
9, 2016."

In terms of these disclosures, the court held that Nock failed to
make her case, as she did not allege a "specific omission that
makes defendants' statements about Coty's integration of the P&G
businesses false or misleading." In fact, Judge Stanton stated in
his decision earlier this month that Coty "consistently updated
investors with integration-related problems and the negative
financial effects those problems were having on the overall
business," and as a result, Nock failed to plausibly allege any
integration omissions on the part of the cosmetics giant and its
management.

Nock similarly failed to show that the defendants misled
shareholders by way of its statements about improving its digital
and e-commerce marketing and sales capabilities. The plaintiffs
asserted that Coty "failed to disclose that [it] was not in a
position to capitalize on the new brands it acquired in the P&G
acquisition because . . . its marketing strategy was outdated and
underfunded." The problem with the plaintiffs' claims, according to
the court, is that Coty "repeatedly disclosed how much [it] spent
on marketing and that [its management] thought it was adequate
because digital marketing had a greater return on investment."

In light of such consistent disclosures by Coty, including in
various earnings calls in 2017 and 2018, the court determined that
"Nock does not plausibly allege that defendants withheld from
investors information about Coty' s marketing program."

Finally, the court sided with Coty with regards to the plaintiffs'
claim that the company's financial statements for the second and
third quarter of fiscal year 2019 "were materially false because in
each quarter Coty failed to take the $3 billion impairment it would
eventually announce on July 1, 2019." In addition to noting that
"an allegation that defendants delayed a goodwill impairment does
not, on its own, rise to the level of securities fraud," Judge
Stanton found that Nock failed to allege facts that "justify the
inference that defendants delayed the second impairment with
conscious recklessness or fraudulent intent."

Given that the plaintiffs "failure to allege plausibly any
actionable omissions" on behalf of Coty and the other defendants,
the court granted the company's motion to dismiss, thereby, doing
away with the amended class action complaint -- and the case -- in
its entirety.

The case is Crystal Garrett-Evans v. Coty, Inc., et al,
1:20-cv-07277 (SDNY).

COVETRUS INC: Court Narrows Claims in HPORS' Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Covetrus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Court in the
putative securities class action suit initiated by the City of
Hollywood (Florida) Police Officers' Retirement System, issued an
order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motions to
dismiss.

On September 30, 2019, the City of Hollywood (Florida) Police
Officers' Retirement System filed a putative securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of
Covetrus common stock from February 8, 2019 through August 12,
2019, against the Defendants.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions, primarily regarding the
Company's financial prospects and the integration costs relating to
the business combination involving the Animal Health Business and
Vets First Choice.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.

On August 3, 2021, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants' motions to dismiss.

In particular, the Court dismissed, with prejudice, all claims
asserted against the company's Former Chief Financial Officer, a
director, and the company's Former Parent, as well as certain
claims based on alleged misrepresentations attributed to the
Company and its Former Chief Executive Officer.

Covetrus said, "We intend to continue to defend the remaining
claims vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of
loss that may result from this action."

Covetrus, Inc. is a global animal-health technology and services
company dedicated to supporting the companion, equine, and
large-animal veterinary markets. Its mission is to provide the best
products, services, and technology to veterinarians and
animal-health practitioners across the globe, so they can deliver
exceptional care to their patients when and where it is needed. The
company is based in Portland, Maine.


CVS PHARMACY: Objectors Appeal Final Approval of Chalian Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors Trent Andrews, Cynthia Cardenas, Victoria Cosio,
Elizabeth Garcia and Ryan Hyams filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled SEVAG CHALIAN, et al., Plaintiffs v.
CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island corporation CVS RX SERVICES,
INC., a New York corporation; GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC, a California
limited liability company; and DOES 1 dun 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-08979-AB-AGR, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 30, 2021, Judge
Andre Birotte, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Award of
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Incentive/Service
Awards in the case.  

The Objectors seek a review of this Order.

As previously reported, this matter came before the Court for
hearing on Dec. 4, 2020, for final approval of the Settlement. The
parties have submitted their Global Settlement Agreement evidencing
their proposed settlement, which the Court preliminarily approved
in its Aug. 5, 2020 Order. Overruling objections, Judge Birotte
granted final approval of the Settlement, the Maximum Settlement
Amount of which is equal to $9,750,000.

The appellate case is captioned as Sevag Chalian, et al. v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc, et al., Case No. 21-55817, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Aug. 2, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Trent Andrews, Cynthia Cardenas, Victoria Cosio,
Elizabeth Garcia and Ryan Hyams Mediation Questionnaire was due
August 9, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by August 30, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on September 28, 2021;

   -- Appellants Trent Andrews, Cynthia Cardenas, Victoria Cosio,
Elizabeth Garcia and Ryan Hyams opening brief is due on November 8,
2021;

   -- Appellees CVS Pharmacy, Inc, CVS RX Services, Inc, Sigfredo
Cabrera, Sevag Chalian, Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, Christine McNeely
and Enko Telahun answering brief is due on December 8, 2021; and

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

Objectors-Appellants TRENT ANDREWS, CYNTHIA CARDENAS, VICTORIA
COSIO, ELIZABETH GARCIA and RYAN HYAMS are represented by:

          Jennifer R. Kramer, Esq.
          JENNIFER KRAMER LEGAL APC
          5015 Eagle Rock Boulevard, Suite 202
          Los Angeles, CA 90041
          Telephone: (213) 955-0200

Plaintiffs-Appellees SEVAG CHALIAN, SIGFREDO CABRERA, ENKO TELAHUN,
and CHRISTINE MCNEELY, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, and
all other persons similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael Hagop Boyamian, Esq.
          BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
          550 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5300
          E-mail: mike.falveylaw@gmail.com  

               - and -

          R. Craig Clark, Esq.
          Alicja Urtnowski, Esq.
          CLARK LAW GROUP
          3258 Fourth Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 239-1321

               - and -

          Thomas Falvey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
          550 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5200
          E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com

               - and -

          Armand Raffi Kizirian, Esq.
          KIZIRIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          550 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 221-2800
          E-mail: armand.falveylaw@gmail.com   

               - and -

          Michael Scott Morrison, Esq.
          ALEXANDER MORRISON & FEHR LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 394-0888
          E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com  

Defendants-Appellees CVS PHARMACY, INC, a Rhode Island corporation;
CVS RX SERVICES, INC, a New York corporation; and GARFIELD BEACH
CVS, LLC, a California limited liability company, are represented
by:

          Tyler Ryan Andrews, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 732-6500
          E-mail: andrewst@gtlaw.com  

               - and -

          James N. Boudreau, Esq.
          Christiana Signs, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 400
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-7833
          E-mail: boudreauj@gtlaw.com
                  signsc@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Hagop Boyamian, Esq.
          BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
          550 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5300
          E-mail: mike.falveylaw@gmail.com

CYCLEOPS INC: Faces Rukus Suit Over Trademark Infringement
----------------------------------------------------------
RUKUS CYCLE FRANCHISING, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUZANNE MICHELLE BOLDEN, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, and CYCLEOPS, INC.
d/b/a RUKUS CYCLING STUDIOS-ST. JOHNS, Defendants, Case No.
6:21-cv-01321 (M.D. Fla., August 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for federal trademark infringement, unfair
competition, tortious interference with a contract and business
relationship, breach of franchise agreement and guaranty, breach of
equipment finance agreement and personal guaranty, and preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief.

According to the complaint, Defendant Bolden willfully,
intentionally and fraudulently mislead the Plaintiff into entering
into a franchise agreement with her and CycleOps to gain access to
Rukus' intellectual property and business model so that she could
steal them and open her own cycling brand. On July 2, 2021,
Defendant Bolden willfully and fraudulently filed a Florida LLC
called "Rukus Cycling Franchise, LLC" which infringes on the Rukus
trademarks. Moreover, the Defendants fraudulently and intentionally
damaged the Plaintiff's business reputation in an effort to shut
down the Rukus business and brand, the suit alleges.

Rukus Cycle Franchising, LLC is an owner and operator of cycling
studios, with its principal offices in Orange County, Florida.

CycleOps, Inc., doing business as Rukus Cycling Studios-St. Johns,
is a cycling business in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Nicolette C. Vilmos, Esq.
         NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
         390 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 1400
         Orlando, FL 32801
         Telephone: (407) 839-4200
         E-mail: nicolette.vilmos@nelsonmullins.com

DXC TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal on the order
of dismissal of the purported class action suit entitled In re DXC
Technology Company Securities Litigation, is pending.

On December 27, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against the Company and two of its current officers.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged
non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class
period of February 8, 2018 to November 6, 2018.

The Company moved to dismiss the claims in their entirety, and on
June 2, 2020, the court granted the Company's motion, dismissing
all claims and entering judgment in the Company's favor.

On July 1, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The appeal has been fully briefed and is scheduled for oral
argument in September 2021.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC
Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
Tysons, Virginia.


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Forsyth Wins Bid for Initial Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court in Forsyth, et
al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise granted Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary certification and lifted the previously
imposed stay of the action, granted Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary certification and lifted the previously imposed stay of
the action.

On August 18, 2016, this purported class and collective action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP and HPE alleging violations of the Federal
Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the
California Business and Professions Code.

Former business units of HPE now owned by the Company may be
proportionately liable for any recovery by plaintiffs in this
matter.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA
comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had
their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction
("WFR") plan and who were 40 years of age or older at the time of
termination.

The class seeks to cover those impacted by WFRs on or after
December 2014.

Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years of age or older employed by
defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

In January 2017, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss and a
motion to compel arbitration of claims by certain named and opt-in
plaintiffs who had signed release agreements as part of their WFR
packages.

In September 2017, the Court denied the partial motion to dismiss
without prejudice, but granted defendants' motions to compel
arbitration for those named and opt-in plaintiffs.

The Court stayed the entire action pending arbitration for these
individuals, and administratively closed the case.

A mediation was held in October 2018 with the 16 named and opt-in
plaintiffs who were involved in the case at that time.

A settlement was reached, which included seven plaintiffs who were
employed by former business units of HPE that are now owned by the
Company.

In June 2019, a second mediation was held with 145 additional
opt-in plaintiffs who were compelled to arbitration pursuant to
their release agreements. In December 2019, a settlement was
reached with 142 of the opt-in plaintiffs, 35 of whom were employed
by former business units of HPE that are now owned by the Company,
and for which the Company was liable.

In December 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
certification of the collective action, which Defendants opposed.

In April 2021, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
certification and lifted the previously imposed stay of the
action.

DXC said, "Former business units of the Company now owned by
Perspecta may be proportionately liable for any recovery by
plaintiffs in this matter."

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

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC
Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
Tysons, Virginia.


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Hearing on Bid to Nix CA Class Suit Set for October
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the hearing on the
Company's motion to dismiss the purported class action in
California is scheduled for October 2021.

On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former
officer of the Company, among other defendants.

On September 16, 2019, a substantially similar purported class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, directors
of the Company, and a former officer of the Company, among other
defendants.

On November 8, 2019, a third purported class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Mateo, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a
former officer of the Company, among other defendants.

The third lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff and
re-filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara on November 26, 2019, and thereafter was
consolidated with the earlier-filed action in the same court on
December 10, 2019.

The California lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and are premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged
non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's prospects
and expected performance.

Plaintiff in the federal action filed an amended complaint on
January 8, 2020.

The putative class of plaintiffs in these cases includes all
persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock pursuant
to the offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the April 2017 transaction that
formed DXC.

On July 15, 2020, the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, denied the Company's motion to stay the state court case but
extended the Company's deadline to seek dismissal of the state
action, until after a decision on the Company's motion to dismiss
the federal action.

The Company has since moved to dismiss the state action, and the
court has continued the motion until after the outcome of the
federal action.

On July 27, 2020, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
federal action. The Court's order permitted plaintiffs to amend and
refile their complaint within 60 days, and on September 25, 2020,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On November 12, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On April 30, 2021, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, while granting
Plaintiffs leave to again amend and refile their complaint within
30 days.

On June 1, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint,
which the Company has moved to dismiss.

A hearing on the Company's motion is scheduled for October 2021.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC
Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
Tysons, Virginia.


ELECTROCORE INC: Dismissal of Kuehl Class Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
electroCore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal on the order
of dismissal in the consolidated case entitled, Paul Kuehl vs.
electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19 , is
pending.

On July 8, 2019 and August 1, 2019, purported stockholders of the
company served putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court
of New Jersey for Somerset County, captioned Paul Kuehl vs.
electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19 and Shirley
Stone vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 001007-19,
respectively.

In addition to the company, the defendants included present and
past directors and officers, Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor
Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the
underwriters for the company's initial public offering (IPO); and
two of the company's stockholders.

On August 15, 2019, the Superior Court entered an order
consolidating the Kuehl and Stone actions, which proceeded under
Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19.

Each plaintiff was appointed a co-lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint, which sought certification
of a class of stockholders who purchased the company's common stock
in its IPO or whose purchases are traceable to that offering.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with
respect to the registration statement and related prospectus for
the IPO.

The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.

On October 31, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative to stay the
action in favor of the pending federal action.

On February 21, 2020 the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On March
2, 2020 the court entered an amended order dismissing the
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.

On March 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
N.J. Superior Court - Appellate Division. The appeal was fully
briefed as of July 17, 2020.

The date for argument of the appeal has not yet been set.

electroCore, Inc., a bioelectronic medicine company, engages in
developing a range of patient-administered non-invasive vagus nerve
(VNS) stimulation therapies for the treatment of various conditions
in neurology, rheumatology, and other fields. The company was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.


EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Ligon Seeks Deaf Users' Equal Website Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENETTE J. LIGON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. d/b/a
CRATE & BARREL, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-06876 (S.D.N.Y., August
16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other deaf and
hard-of-hearing individuals. Allegedly, the videos on the
Defendant's website, http://www.crateandbarrel.com,do not have
closed captioning needed by the Plaintiff and Class members in
order to understand the audio components of video content.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek declaratory relief to require
the Defendant to correct the barriers for them to enjoy the website
as the general public is able to do.

Euromarket Designs, Inc. is a company that owns and operates Crate
& Barrel Stores, with its principal place of business at 1250
Techny Road, Northbrook, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

EVENTBRITE INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Snow Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eventbrite, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to compel
arbitration in Snow, et al. v. Eventbrite, Inc., Case No.
20-cv-03698, is still pending.

On June 4, 2020, three plaintiffs, seeking to represent a proposed
class of individuals who purchased tickets on or after June 3,
2016, filed suit against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, in a case captioned
Snow, et al. v. Eventbrite, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-03698 (the Class
Action).

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

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

The Company denies the allegations and intends to defend the case
vigorously. The case is in its early stages. Prior to answering
Plaintiffs' complaint, Eventbrite brought a motion to compel
arbitration pursuant to its Terms of Service. The Court denied that
motion.

The Company thereafter answered Plaintiffs' Complaint and brought a
second motion to compel arbitration, based in part on facts
established via the Company's Answer. That motion remains pending.
No other motions have been made, and no other rulings have been
issued.

The Company is unable to predict the likely outcome at this point.

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


EVENTBRITE INC: Terminates Settlement Agreement in IPO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eventbrite, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company gave notice
to the lead plaintiff in the Federal action that, in light of the
denial of the preliminary approval motion, it was terminating the
settlement agreement.

Beginning on April 15, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company
filed two putative securities class action complaints in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, and
three putative securities class action complaints in the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Mateo, against the
Company, certain of its executives and directors, and its
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering (IPO).

Some of these actions also name as defendants venture capital firms
that were investors in the Company as of the IPO.

On August 22, 2019, the federal court consolidated the two pending
actions (the Federal Action). On October 11, 2019, the lead
plaintiffs in the Federal Action filed an amended consolidated
complaint.

That complaint alleged that the Company misrepresented and/or
omitted material information in its IPO offering documents in
violation of the Securities Act. It also challenged public
statements made after the IPO in violation of the Exchange Act.

The amended complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of investors.

On December 11, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On April 28, 2020, the court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss in its entirety with leave to amend and set a
deadline of June 24, 2020 for lead plaintiff to file its second
amended consolidated complaint.

On June 22, 2020, the Court extended lead plaintiff's deadline to
file its second amended consolidated complaint to August 10, 2020.

On July 29, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the lead plaintiff in the Federal Action. On August 27, 2020,
the lead plaintiff in the Federal Action filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.

On October 21, 2020, the Court vacated the preliminary approval
hearing, and on October 30, 2020, the Court issued an order
continuing the preliminary approval hearing, tentatively
rescheduling the hearing for March 18, 2021.

On January 22, 2021, the Court issued an order denying without
prejudice the motion for preliminary approval.

On February 9, 2021, the Company gave notice to the lead plaintiff
that, in light of the denial of the preliminary approval motion, it
was terminating the settlement agreement.

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

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


EVERLAST SIGN: Faces Rafter Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
FRANK RAFTER JR., THOMAS KELLY, and SEFU SIMMS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EVERLAST
SIGN & SERVICE INC., ANN TIEFENWORTH, ALEXA TIEFENWORTH, LISA
PIAONE, FRANK PIAONE, and ARTHUR FLYNN, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-04588 (E.D.N.Y., August 15, 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
compensation, failure to provide wage notices, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, failure to pay spread-of-hours premium,
failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to pay minimum
wages for all hours worked.

The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants as non-exempt employees
at any time between 2004 and 2020.

Everlast Sign & Service Inc. is a company specializing in, inter
alia, the delivery, installation, maintenance, and removal of real
estate signage, with its principal place of business located at 233
Robbins Ln., No. 5, Syosset, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Brian L. Greben, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN
         316 Great Neck Road
         Great Neck, NY 11021
         Telephone: (516) 304-5357

EVOLENT HEALTH: Seeks Reconsideration of Ruling in PCRS Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evolent Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company and the
plaintiffs in Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health,
Inc., Frank Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie
Spencer, and Steven Wigginton, filed separate motions to reconsider
the Eastern District of Virginia's decision in granting in part and
denying in part defendants motion to dismiss.

On August 8, 2019, a shareholder of the Company filed a class
action complaint against the Company, asserting claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in
the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division.

An amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2020, and a second
amended complaint was filed on June 8, 2020.

The case, Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health,
Inc., Frank Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie
Spencer, and Steven Wigginton, alleges that the Company's
executives made false or misleading statements regarding its
business with Passport.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint,
and the Eastern District of Virginia granted in part and denied in
part the motion on March 24, 2021.

The Company and Plaintiffs then filed separate motions to
reconsider that are pending.

Evolent said, "While the scope of the allegations that remain is
still unclear pending the court's further decision, the case will
proceed to discovery. Based on the Company's investigation so far,
we believe the case has little legal or factual merit. However, the
outcome of any litigation is uncertain, and at this stage, the
Company is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of potential loss, if any, associated with this
lawsuit."

Evolent Health, Inc., through its subsidiary, Evolent Health LLC,
provides health care delivery and payment solutions in the United
States. The company operates through two segments, Services and
True Health. Evolent Health, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is
headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.


EVOLVE MORTGAGE: Underpays Mortgage Underwriters, Medina Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLVE MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 8:21-cv-01338 (C.D. Cal., August 13, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California
Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to pay proper meal period premiums, failure
to provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay earned wages
upon discharge, waiting time penalties, and unfair business
practices.

Ms. Medina worked for the Defendant as a mortgage underwriter from
August of 2020 until February of 2021.

Evolve Mortgage Services, LLC is an onshore provider of outsourced
mortgage services and technologies, doing business in California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
         Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
         NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
         235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 277-7235
         Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
         E-mail: helland@nka.com
                 dbrome@nka.com

FACEBOOK INC: Faces Calise Suit Over Deceptive Facebook Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER CALISE; and ANASTASIA GROSCHEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FACEBOOK,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-06186-KAW (N.D. Cal., Aug. 11,
2021) seeks to put an end to the Defendant's policy of actively
soliciting, encouraging, and assisting scammers it knows, or should
know, are using its platform to defraud Facebook users with
deceptive ads, and compel Facebook to either compensate Facebook
users for their losses or disgorge the billions of dollars in
profits it has unjustly earned from such misconduct.

According to the complaint, Facebook collects vast amounts of data
from each Facebook user. While Facebook does not pay users for it,
this data has enormous financial value since it enables Facebook to
sell precisely targeted ads to millions of advertisers. Scammers
discovered they could exploit these targeting capabilities to get
deceptive, false and misleading ads viewed by the Facebook users
most likely to click those ads and be lured into bait-and-switch
and other fraudulent schemes (the "Deceptive Facebook Ads"). As
various scammers told Bloomberg News in 2017, Facebook has
"revolutionized scamming," the suit says.

Given the foreseeability of material harm to Facebook users from
scammers, Facebook should have promptly shut down these scammers as
soon as they started surfacing on its platform. Facebook had and
continues to have a duty to do so given, among other factors, (i)
promises in its Terms of Service to remove false and misleading
ads, (ii) advertising policies strictly prohibiting such ads, and
(iii) the vast investigative, technical, and financial capabilities
and resources at Facebook's disposal to combat fraud. But Facebook
refuses to drive scammers off its platform because it generates
billions of dollars per year in revenue from Deceptive Facebook
Ads, added the suit.

Facebook, Inc. operates a social networking website. The Company
website allows people to communicate with their family, friends,
and coworkers. Facebook develops technologies that facilitate the
sharing of information, photographs, website links, and videos.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          388 Market Street, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 373-1671
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: aapton@zlk.com

               -and-

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
                  cmaccarone@zlk.com

FEDERAL EXPRESS: 3rd Cir. Revives Military Leave Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler S. Laughinghouse, Esq., and Ryan A. Glasgow, Esq., of Hunton
Andrews Kurth, in an article for The National Law Review, report
that on August 10, 2021, the Third Circuit in Travers v. Federal
Express Corporation revived a class action lawsuit under the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act of 1994
("USERRA"), holding that employers must provide servicemembers with
pay during military leave when employers pay employees on
"comparable types of leave."

The Third Circuit's opinion rested on its reading of two provisions
of USERRA: Section 4316(b)(1) and Section 4303(2).

Section 4316(b)(1) entitles service members to "rights and benefits
[that] are generally provided by the employer . . . to employees
having similar seniority, status, and pay who are on furlough or
leave of absence under a contract, agreement, policy, practice, or
plan . . ."

Section 4303(2) defines "rights and benefits" broadly to include
"the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including any
advantage, profit, privilege, gain, status, account, or interest
(including wages or salary for work performed) that accrues by
reason of an employment contract or agreement or an employer
policy, plan, or practice and includes rights and benefits under a
pension plan, a health plan, an employee stock ownership plan,
insurance coverage and awards, bonuses, severance pay, supplemental
unemployment benefits, vacations, and the opportunity to select
work hours or location of employment."

The district court had concluded that paid military leave was never
required under USERRA because it was not a defined "benefit" or
"right" under the statute. The Third Circuit disagreed and held
that "the best reading of USERRA directs employers to provide the
benefit of compensation when they choose to pay other employees for
comparable forms of leave."

To that end, the Third Circuit held that "USERRA does not allow
employers to treat servicemembers differently by paying employees
for some kinds of leave while exempting military service." Rather,
"USERRA entitles employees taking military leave to the ‘other
rights and benefits' their employers give to employees taking
similar kinds of leave," including pay during leave.

In reaching this conclusion, the Third Circuit rejected the
argument that paid military leave was not available because it was
not expressly listed in the statute. The Third Circuit held,
instead, that USERRA's definition of "rights and benefits" was
expansive and that the types of benefits listed in the statute were
merely illustrative, not exhaustive.

Though the Third Circuit affirmatively held that pay during
military leave could be a "benefit" or "right" under the statute
when the employer offered paid leave to employees on "comparable
types of leave," the Court did not answer the more difficult
question of what constitutes "comparable types of leave." The Third
Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine
whether the paid sick leave, paid jury duty leave, and paid
bereavement leave at issue in the case are "comparable" to military
leave.

The Third Circuit's decision is likely to increase the number of
class action lawsuits challenging unpaid military leave policies.
Employers should revisit their military leave policies to determine
what obligation, if any, they may have to provide paid military
leave as a result of their other paid leave policies. [GN]

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Denial of Bid to Amend Complaint Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal
on the court's denial of plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint
in the consolidated class action suit related to the CTF
Acquisition, is pending.

On April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against
Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers
and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings.

The complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired
Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28,
2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or
Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to
Frontier's offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or
about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015.

The complaint asserted, among other things, violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection
with certain disclosures relating to the CTF Acquisition.

The complaint sought, among other things, damages and equitable and
injunctive relief.

On March 8, 2019, the District Court granted in its entirety
Frontier's motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court
dismissed with prejudice a number of claims and with respect to
certain other claims that were not dismissed with prejudice,
Plaintiffs were permitted to seek the court's permission to refile.


On May 10, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend along
with a proposed amended complaint that is narrower in scope than
the dismissed complaint. On March 24, 2020, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, finding that they had not
pled a viable claim.

Plaintiffs appealed and the case is pending with the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals. Following Frontier's emergence from bankruptcy,
the Second Circuit set a briefing schedule completed in July 2021,
with oral argument likely in the fall of 2021.  

Frontier said, "We continue to dispute the allegations and intend
to vigorously defend against such claims."

Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. offers a variety of broadband
and communications services over the company's fiber-optic and
copper networks in the United States, with approximately 3.5
million customers, 2.8 million broadband customers and
approximately 16,000 employees, operating in 25 states as of June
30, 2021. The company is based in Norwalk, Connecticut.


FUNKO INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Ferreira-Nahas Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss filed in the
consolidated Ferreira-Nahas putative class action suit, is
pending.

On March 10, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California against the Company and
certain of its officers, entitled Ferreira v. Funko, Inc. et al.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended as well as
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making allegedly materially
misleading statements in its earnings announcement and Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2019, as
well as by omitting material facts necessary to make the statements
made therein not misleading.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Two additional complaints making substantially similar
allegations—Nahas v. Funko, Inc. et al. and Dachev v. Funko, Inc.
et al.—were filed April 3, 2020 in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California and April 9, 2020 in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, respectively.

On June 25, 2020, the Dachev action was voluntarily dismissed.

On June 11, 2020, the Central District of California actions were
consolidated for all purposes into one action under the Ferreira
caption, and lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Lead
plaintiffs filed the consolidated complaint on July 31, 2020,
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, as
well as entities affiliated with ACON Funko Investors, L.L.C.

The consolidated complaint added Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims
based on the Company's earnings announcement and Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2019, as well as claims
under Section 20A of the Exchange Act.

All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action on October
2, 2020, and briefing on the motions to dismiss concluded on
January 29, 2021. On February 25, 2021, the Court granted all
defendants' motions to dismiss the Ferreira action, allowing the
lead plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint.

Lead plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on March 29, 2021.

On May 7, 2021, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint; briefing on those motions concluded on July 17, 2021. A
decision remains pending.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Kanugonda Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit entitled, Kanugonda v. Funko, Inc. et al.

On June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Kanugonda
v. Funko, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and certain other
defendants.

On January 4, 2019, a lead plaintiff was appointed in that case. On
April 30, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against the previously named defendants.

The parties to the federal action, now captioned Berkelhammer v.
Funko, Inc. et al., have agreed to a stay of that action pending
developments in the state case.

The complaints in Washington state court and Berkelhammer v. Funko,
Inc. et al. allege that the Company violated Sections 11, 12, and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly
materially misleading statements in documents filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Company's
initial public offering (IPO) and by omitting material facts
necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading.

The lawsuits seek, among other things, compensatory statutory
damages and rescissory damages in account of the consideration paid
for the Company's Class A common stock by the plaintiffs and
members of the putative class, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


FUNKO INC: Dismissal of Stockholders' Class Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in the consolidated class
action suit entitled, In re Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation, is
penidng.

Between November 16, 2017 and June 12, 2018, seven purported
stockholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits in
the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental
Capital, LLC and Funko International, LLC, the underwriters of its
initial public offering (IPO), and certain other defendants.

On July 2, 2018, the suits were ordered consolidated for all
purposes into one action under the title In re Funko, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental, and certain other defendants.

On October 1, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the action. The
motion was fully briefed as of November 30, 2018, and oral argument
on the motion was held on May 3, 2019. On August 2, 2019, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the action, allowing
plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint.

The Court found, inter alia, that "Funko's statements regarding its
financial disclosures were not materially false or misleading" and
that "plaintiffs have not shown that Funko's 'opinion statements'
were false or that such statements were not simply corporate
optimism or puffery."

On October 3, 2019, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
complaint. The Company moved to dismiss that complaint on December
5, 2019. The motion was fully briefed as of March 17, 2020, and
oral argument on the motion was held on May 15, 2020. On August 5,
2020, the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County
dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Washington Court of
Appeals on September 4, 2020 and their opening brief on February
12, 2021. Briefing on the appeal concluded on June 1, 2021.

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


GATESTONE & CO: Khizgilov Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gatestone & Co.
International Inc. The case is styled as Vadim Khizgilov,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Gatestone & Co. International Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04636
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2021).

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

Gatestone & Co. International -- https://www.gatestoneco.com/ --
has been providing Customer Contact Center and Business Process
Outsourcing (BPO) solutions to a variety of markets globally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
          14441 70th Road
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (718) 705-8706
          Fax: (718) 705-8705
          Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Schramm Sues Over Defective Tail Lamp Assembly
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE SCHRAMM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-06463 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 11, 2021) Case No. 2:21-cv-06463
(Aug. 11, 2021) is a class action arises out of a defect in the
tail lamp assembly of GM Model Year 2017-2019 Yukon, Yukon XL,
Yukon Denali, and Yukon Denali XL vehicles ("Class Vehicles")
whereby the tail lamps or particular components within the tail
lamp housing or assembly become inoperative ("Tail Lamp Assembly
Defect" or "Defect").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that GM has refused to take
any action to correct this concealed Defect when it manifests in
Class Vehicles outside the limited warranty period, despite GM's
knowledge of the Defect and its awareness of the safety
consequences of its inaction. Given Defendant's superior knowledge
of this concealed, safety-related Defect, unequal bargaining power,
and other factors discussed below, any attempt by GM to limit the
warranty with respect to the Tail Lamp Assembly Defect is
unconscionable here, the Plaintiff contends.

Allegedly, to date, GM has concealed and intentionally failed to
disclose the Defect and refused to properly remedy this significant
safety hazard. Despite its longstanding knowledge of the Defect, GM
has routinely refused to repair the Class Vehicles without charge
when the Defect manifests and has refused to offer to reimburse its
customers, like Plaintiff, who have incurred out-of-pocket expenses
to repair the Tail Lamp Assembly Defect. Not only did GM conceal
the material fact that the tail lamp assembly or particular
components within the tail lamp assembly are defective and require
costly repairs to fix, GM also did not reveal that the existence of
the Tail Lamp Assembly Defect would diminish the intrinsic and
resale value of the Class Vehicles and lead to the safety concerns
described.

As a result of Defendant's alleged unfair and deceptive business
practices, owners of Class Vehicles, including Plaintiff, have
suffered an injury in fact and an ascertainable loss of money and
property and have otherwise been harmed by GM's conduct. The unfair
and deceptive trade practices committed by Defendant were conducted
in a manner giving rise to substantial aggravating circumstances,
added the suit.

General Motors LLC designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts. The Company offers vehicle
protection, parts, accessories, maintenance, satellite radio, and
automotive financing services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15 th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 432-8492
          E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
                  abasser@pomlaw.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Tucker Appeals Case Dismissal to 8th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Michael Tucker, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Michael Tucker and Robert
Riddle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. General Motors LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00254-SNLJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs each own GM vehicles
featuring Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 engines. The
Plaintiffs allege that those engines contain defective piston rings
that cause excessive oil consumption. That "Oil Consumption Defect"
causes reduced engine lubricity, which, in turn, causes engine
damage and malfunction. The Plaintiffs assert that GM knew about
the defect but failed to disclose it to the people who bought
trucks and SUVs containing the Gen IV 5.3L engines, and GM has
refused to offer an effective repair.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Memorandum and
Order dated June 29, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Tucker, et al. v.
General Motors LLC, Case No. 21-2698, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on July 30, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appendix is due on September 8, 2021;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Robert Riddle and Michael Tucker is due on
September 8, 2021; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Michael Tucker and Robert Riddle,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
          James Mitch Williams, Esq.
          BEASLEY & ALLEN
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 296-2343
          E-mail: clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com
                  dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
                  mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com  

               - and -

          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          DICELLO & LEVITT
          10 N. Dearborn Street, 6th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                    
               - and -

          Greg G. Gutzler, Esq.
          DICELLO & LEVITT
          One Grand Central Place, Suite 2400
          60 E. 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (314) 833-6645
          E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com

Defendant-Appellee General Motors LLC is represented by:

          Lizabeth M. Conran, Esq.
          GREENSFELDER & HEMKER
          10 S. Broadway, Suite 2000
          Saint Louis, MO 63102-0000
          Telephone: (314) 241-9090
          E-mail: lmc@greensfelder.com

               - and -

          Rachel Paige Raphael, Esq.
          April N. Ross, Esq.
          Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-0000
          Telephone: (202) 624-2500   
          E-mail: rraphael@crowell.com
                  aross@crowell.com
                  ksooy@crowell.com

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Agreement in Principle to Settle Halcom Reached
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that an agreement in
principle to settle the putative class action suit entitled, Judy
Halcom, Hugh Penson, Harold Cherry, and Richard Landino,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Genworth Life Insurance Company and Genworth Life Insurance Company
of New York.

In January 2021, GLIC and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New
York were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia captioned Judy Halcom, Hugh Penson, Harold
Cherry, and Richard Landino, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Company and
Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York.

Plaintiffs seek to represent long-term care insurance
policyholders, alleging that the defendants made misleading and
inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term
care insurance policies. The complaint asserts claims for breach of
contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and
seeks damages in excess of $5 million.

The trial is scheduled to commence on June 1, 2022.

On June 18, 2021, following two days of mediation, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter on a
nationwide basis.

The parties will need to enter into a definitive settlement
agreement, file for approval of the settlement with the Court and
have the Court approve the settlement in order to finalize the
settlement of this matter.

No assurance can be given that a final settlement will be reached.


Genworth said, "If we enter into a settlement agreement consistent
with the agreement in principle we reached on June 18, 2021, we do
not anticipate the result to have a material negative impact on our
results of operations or financial position. If we do not enter
into a final settlement, we intend to continue to vigorously defend
this action."

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


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Burkhart Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company moved to
dismiss the three new causes of action asserted in Richard F.
Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt,
Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Genworth et al., and answered the balance of
the second amended and supplemental class action complaint.

In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth
North America Corporation, Genworth Financial International
Holdings, LLC ("GFIH") and Genworth Life Insurance Company ("GLIC")
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Richard
F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt,
Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Genworth et al.

Plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and
engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain
inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC
policyholders and agents.

The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent
transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer, and seeks injunctive
relief.

The company moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On
January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their
complaint. On March 12, 2019, the company moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint.

On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to
the company's motion to dismiss, which the company replied to on
June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then
planned sale of its shares in Genworth MI Canada Inc. from being
transferred out of GFIH.

On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking
the same relief from their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception
that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds
from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth
Holdings to allow the pay-off of a senior secured term loan
facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the
borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties
thereto.

Oral arguments on the company's motion to dismiss and plaintiffs'
motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and plaintiffs' motion was
denied. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part the
company's motion to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395
million in dividends GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out
of the $410 million in total dividends subject to plaintiffs'
claims). The Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss
leaving a claim relating to $15 million in dividends and
unquantified claims relating to the 2016 termination of a
reinsurance transaction.

On March 27, 2020, the company filed its answer to plaintiffs'
amended complaint.

On May 26, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended and
supplemental class action complaint adding additional factual
allegations and three new causes of action.

On July 26, 2021, the company moved to dismiss the three new causes
of action and answered the balance of the second amended and
supplemental class action complaint.

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

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


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: McMillan Putative Class Suit vs. GLAIC Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that

In January 2021, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company
(GLAIC), the company's indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named
as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon captioned
Patsy H. McMillan, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company.


Plaintiff seeks to represent life insurance policyholders, alleging
that GLAIC impermissibly calculated cost of insurance rates to be
higher than that permitted by her policy.

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

On April 5, 2021, the company filed an answer to the plaintiff's
complaint.

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

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


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for April 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that trial in the
consolidated Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier cases, is set to
commence on April 1, 2022.

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

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

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

On July 17, 2020, the Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint, alleging that GLAIC subjected
policyholders to an unlawful and excessive cost of insurance
increase. The consolidated complaint asserts claims for breach of
contract and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5
million.

On August 31, 2020, the company filed an answer to plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint.

The trial is scheduled to commence on April 1, 2022.

We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

Genworth said, "No further updates were provided in the Company's
SEC report."

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


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: TVPX ARX Class Suit in Virginia Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Genworth Life and
Annuity Insurance Company ("GLAIC") continues to defend itself in a
putative class action suit entitled, TVPX ARX INC., as Securities
Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and
Annuity Insurance Company.

In September 2018, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company
("GLAIC"), the company's indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was
named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia captioned TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for
Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance
Company.

Plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges
were imposed on policyholders.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that
Genworth improperly considered non-mortality factors when
calculating cost of insurance rates and failed to decrease cost of
insurance charges in light of improved expectations of future
mortality, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and
equitable relief.

On October 29, 2018, the company filed a motion to enjoin the case
in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and
motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia.

The company moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District
of Virginia action on the basis that it involves claims released in
a prior nationwide class action settlement (the "McBride
settlement") that was approved by the Middle District of Georgia.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018.

On December 6, 2018, the company moved the Middle District of
Georgia for leave to file its counterclaim, which alleges that
plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the prior
settlement agreement by filing its current action.

On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted the
company's motion to enjoin and denied the company's motion for
leave to file our counterclaim. As such, plaintiff is enjoined from
pursuing its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia.

On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle
District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the
order granting our motion to enjoin.

On March 29, 2019, the company filed its notice of cross-appeal in
the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of our
cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order
denying the company's motion for leave to file its counterclaim.

On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the
case without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to refile an
amended complaint only if a final appellate Court decision vacates
the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia's
opinion. On May 21, 2019, plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum
in support of the Eleventh Circuit. The company filed its response
to plaintiff's appeal memorandum on July 3, 2019.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on
plaintiff's appeal and our cross-appeal on April 21, 2020. On May
26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Middle
District of Georgia's order enjoining Plaintiff's class action and
remanded the case back to the Middle District of Georgia for
further factual development as to whether Genworth has altered how
it calculates or charges cost of insurance since the McBride
settlement. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach a
decision on Genworth's counterclaim.

On June 30, 2021, the company filed in the Middle District of
Georgia its renewed motion to enforce the class action settlement
and release, and renewed its motion for leave to file a
counterclaim.

Genworth said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend the
dismissal of this action."

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


GETTY ADVANCE: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Getty Advance II LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Getty Advance II LLC,
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
2:21-cv-06642 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 17, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Getty Advance -- https://gettyadvance.com/ -- is a Merchant Cash
Advance Company located in NYC that provide small businesses with
working capital.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


GODADDY INC: Approval of Class Settlement Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
GoDaddy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the objector's appeal on the class action
settlement, is pending.

On June 13, 2019, the company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle the class action complaint, Jason Bennett v.
GoDaddy.com (Case No. 2:16-cv-03908-DLR) (D.Ariz.), filed on June
20, 2016. The complaint alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the TCPA). On September 23, 2019, the
parties fully executed a written settlement agreement.

On December 16, 2019, the company amended the settlement agreement
to include two additional putative class action cases, which also
alleged violations of the TCPA: John Herrick v. GoDaddy.com, LLC
(Case No. 2:16-cv-00254 (D. Ariz.), appeal pending 18-16048 (9th
Cir.)) and Susan Drazen v. GoDaddy.com, LLC (Case No 19-cv-00563)
(S.D. Ala.).

In 2019, the company recorded an $18.1 million charge to general
and administrative expense, representing our original estimated
loss provision for this settlement.

Under the terms of the final settlement agreement, the company made
available a total of up to $35.0 million to pay: (i) class members,
at their election, either a cash settlement or a credit to be used
for future purchases of products from the company; (ii) an
incentive payment to the class representatives; (iii) notice and
administration costs in connection with the settlement; and (iv)
attorneys' fees to legal counsel representing the class.

On April 22, 2020, the parties filed statements in response to a
request from the S.D. Ala. Court to refine the class definition,
resulting in a reduction in the total number of class members from
the original estimated class.

On May 14, 2020, the Court granted approval of the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for preliminary certification of the settlement
class, subject to the parties' execution of an amended settlement
agreement to remove John Herrick as a class representative.

The parties executed such amendment on May 26, 2020, and on June 9,
2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the final
settlement agreement. The Court's order also set October 7, 2020 as
the deadline for class members to submit claims and December 14,
2020 as the hearing date regarding final approval of the
settlement.

On September 1, 2020, the Court issued an amended order reducing
the attorneys' fees to be paid to legal counsel representing the
class. Additionally, the actual number of claims made by class
members through the October 7, 2020 deadline was lower than our
original estimates.

On December 23, 2020, the Court issued a final judgment and order
approving the class settlement, which further reduced the
attorneys' fees to be paid to legal counsel representing the class
and denied the plaintiffs' request for an incentive payment.

Additionally, the actual notice and administration costs were lower
than originally estimated.

As a result of the above developments, during 2020, the company
recorded a cumulative $10.0 million reduction to general and
administrative expense, lowering our estimated loss provision for
this settlement to $8.1 million as of December 31, 2020.

On January 19, 2021, a single objector to the settlement filed a
notice of appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which
remains pending as of the date of this filing.

The company made no changes to its estimated loss provision for
this settlement during the three or six months ended June 30, 2021.
The timing of any settlement payments is pending resolution of the
appeal.

The company had denied and continues to deny the allegations in the
complaint. Nothing in the final settlement agreement shall be
deemed to assign or reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or
liability, or of the appropriateness of a class action in such
litigation.

GoDaddy said, "We received a full release from the settlement class
concerning the claims asserted, or that could have been asserted,
with respect to the claims released in the final settlement
agreement. Our legal fees associated with this matter have been
recorded to general and administrative expense as incurred and were
not material."

GoDaddy Inc., incorporated on May 28, 2014, is a technology
provider to small businesses, Web design professionals and
individuals. The Company delivers cloud-based products and
personalized customer care. The Company operates a domain
marketplace, where its customers can find the digital real estate
that matches their idea. The company is based in Scottsdale,
Arizona.


GODINGER SILVER: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Godinger Silver Art
Ltd. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Godinger Silver Art Ltd.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06935 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2021).

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

Godinger Silver Art -- https://www.godinger.com/ -- has specialized
in handcrafted silver, pewter, crystal and exclusive gift
items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOGO INC: Bid to Dismiss Pierrelouis Putative Class Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gogo Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the putative class
action suit entitled, Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., has been denied.

On June 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division styled
Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its former Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, its current Chief
Financial Officer and its then-current President, Commercial
Aviation as defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of
our securities from February 27, 2017 through May 4, 2018.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by
the company purporting to relate to the reliability of and
installation and remediation costs associated with CA's 2Ku
antenna.

The plaintiffs seek to recover from the company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages. In December 2018 the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in February 2019, the
company filed a motion to dismiss such amended complaint.

In October 2019 the judge granted the motion to dismiss on two
independent grounds, finding that plaintiffs failed to plausibly
allege that defendants made materially false or misleading
statements and that plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity
that defendants acted with scienter.

The amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and in
December 2019, defendants filed a second amended complaint.

In July 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting leave to file a
proposed third amendment complaint, which was granted by the Court.
Plaintiffs proceeded to file the third amended complaint in July
2020 and the company filed a motion to dismiss in September 2020.

In April 2021, the Court denied the company's motion to dismiss.

The company believes that the claims are without merit and intend
to continue to defend them vigorously.

Gogo said, "In accordance with Delaware law, the company will
indemnify the individual named defendants for their defense costs
and any damages they incur in connection with the suit. The company
had filed a claim under our Directors' and Officers' insurance
policy with respect to this suit. No amounts have been accrued for
any potential losses under this matter, as the company cannot
reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential
losses. The company expect any material financial exposure for this
suit, whether for defense costs or, if applicable, any damages,
judgements or settlements, to be borne by our insurance carriers,
although they have reserved their rights under the policies."

Gogo Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadband
connectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviation
industry in the United States and internationally. It operates
through three segments: Commercial Aviation North America (CA-NA),
Commercial Aviation Rest of World (CA-ROW), and Business Aviation
(BA). The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Uber IPO Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in the putative class action
suit related to Uber Technologies, Inc.'s $8.1 billion May 2019
initial public offering, is pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC  (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named
as defendants in several putative securities class actions filed
beginning in September 2019 in California Superior Court, County of
San Francisco and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, relating to Uber Technologies, Inc.'s $8.1 billion
May 2019 initial public offering.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Uber and
certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 35,864,408
shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $1.6 billion.

On November 16, 2020, the court in the state court action granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
filed on February 11, 2020, and on December 16, 2020, plaintiffs
appealed.

On August 7, 2020, defendants' motion to dismiss the district court
action was denied.

On September 25, 2020, the plaintiffs in the district court action
moved for class certification. On December 5, 2020, the plaintiffs
in the state court action filed a complaint in the district court,
which was consolidated with the existing district court action on
January 25, 2021.

On May 14, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in
the district court, and on June 28, 2021, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Corporate Bonds Antitrust Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 motion to
dismiss filed in the consolidated putative class action suit
related to the secondary market for odd-lot corporate bonds, is
pending.

The company (Group Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) are
among the dealers named as defendants in a putative class action
relating to the secondary market for odd-lot corporate bonds, filed
on April 21, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The amended consolidated complaint, filed on October 29, 2020,
asserts claims under federal antitrust law in connection with
alleged anti-competitive conduct by the defendants in the secondary
market for odd-lots of corporate bonds, and seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages,
including treble and punitive damages and restitution. Defendants
moved to dismiss on December 15, 2020.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix GoHealth IPO-Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 motion to
dismiss the consolidated putative securities class action suit
related to GoHealth, Inc.'s $914 million July 2020 initial public
offering, is pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions filed beginning on
September 21, 2020 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois relating to GoHealth, Inc.'s
(GoHealth) $914 million July 2020 initial public offering.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include GoHealth,
certain of its officers and directors and certain of its
shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 11,540,550 shares of common stock
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $242
million.

On February 25, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint. On April 26, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Narrows Claims in Venator IPO-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 court handling
the consolidated putative securities class action suit related to
Venator Materials PLC's $522 million August 2017 initial public
offering and $534 million December 2017 secondary equity offering
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions in Texas District
Court, Dallas County, New York Supreme Court, New York County, and
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, filed
beginning in February 2019, relating to Venator $522 million August
2017 initial public offering and $534 million December 2017
secondary equity offering.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Venator,
certain of its officers and directors and certain of its
shareholders.

GS&Co. underwrote 6,351,347 shares of common stock in the August
2017 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $127 million and 5,625,768 shares of common
stock in the December 2017 secondary equity offering representing
an aggregate offering price of approximately $127 million.

On January 21, 2020, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the Texas
District Court and dismissed the claims against the underwriter
defendants, including GS&Co., in the Texas state court action for
lack of personal jurisdiction.

On March 22, 2021, the defendants' motion to dismiss the New York
state court action was granted and the plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal.

On July 7, 2021, the court in the federal action granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: DiDi IPO-Related Securities Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman Sachs (Asia)
L.L.C. is facing two putative securities class actions related to
DiDi Global Inc.'s $4.4 billion June 2021 initial public offering
of American Depositary Shares (ADS).

Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. is among the underwriters named as
defendants in two putative securities class actions filed on July
6, 2021 in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of
New York and the Central District of California relating to DiDi
$4.4 billion June 2021 initial public offering of ADS.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include DiDi and
certain of its officers and directors. Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C.
underwrote 104,554,000 ADS representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $1.5 billion.

On July 9, 2021, plaintiffs in the California district court action
filed an amended complaint.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOOGLE LLC: Negron Antitrust Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KIMBERLY NEGRON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00801,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on August 16, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-06870-PKC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of Section
1 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act by
engaging in unlawful agreement with Facebook, Inc. in order to
manipulate advertising auctions on the advertising exchange.

Google LLC is an online advertising technology company, with its
principal place of business in Mountain View, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
         Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
         CERA LLP
         595 Market St. Suite 1350
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 777-2230
         Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
         E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                 pmarkert@cerallp.com

                - and –

         Fred T. Isquith, Sr., Esq.
         Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
         Sona R. Shah, Esq.
         ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
         41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
         New York, NY 10010
         Telephone: (212) 223-3900
         Facsimile: (212) 371-5969
         E-mail: ftisquith@zsz.com
                 rschachter@zsz.com
                 sshah@zsz.com

                - and –

         Dan Drachler, Esq.
         Henry Avery, Esq.
         ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
         1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 223-2053
         Facsimile: (206) 343-9636
         E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com
                 havery@zsz.com

                - and –

         Fred T. Isquith, Jr., Esq.
         ISQUITH LAW
         220 East 80th Street
         New York, NY 10075
         Telephone: (607) 277-6513
         E-mail: isquithlaw@gmail.com

                - and –

         Richard Vita, Esq.
         VITA LAW OFFICES, P.C.
         100 State Street, Suite 900
         Boston, MA 02109
         Telephone: (617) 426-6566
         E-mail: rjv@vitalaw.com

                - and –

         Heidi Silton, Esq.
         LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.
         100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
         Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
         Telephone: (612) 596-4092
         E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com

GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Sabatini Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREENLANE HOLDINGS, INC., AARON LOCASCIO,
ADAM SCHOENFELD, NEIL CLOSNER, RICHARD TANEY, and JEFF UTTZ,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-06571 (C.D. Cal., August 13, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance
of a materially false and misleading prospectus with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to lure Greenlane
stockholders to vote in favor of the proposed acquisition of KushCo
Holdings, Inc. by Greenlane. The prospectus allegedly omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) Greenlane's and KushCo's financial projections and the
financial analyses supporting the fairness opinion provided by the
special committee of the board's financial advisor, Canaccord
Genuity Corp.; (ii) potential conflicts of interest faced by
Canaccord; and (iii) the background of the proposed transaction.
Unless remedied, Greenlane's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the prospectus' material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting decision on the proposed transaction.
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed
transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured.

Greenlane Holdings, Inc. is a global seller of premium cannabis
accessories and liquid nicotine products, headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
         WEISSLAW LLP
         9100 Wilshire Blvd. #725 E.
         Beverly Hills, CA 90210
         Telephone: (310) 208-2800
         Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
         E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

GREENSKY INC: Securities Suit Settlement Amount Paid by Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
GreenSky, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that all amounts payable by
the Company under the settlement in the putative class action suit
entitled, In Re: GreenSky, Inc. Securities Litigation (Consolidated
Action), Case No. 1:2018-cv-11071-AKH (S.D.N.Y.) were paid by the
Company's insurers in July 2021.

The Company, together with certain of its officers and directors
and one of its former directors and certain underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) were named in a putative
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (In Re: GreenSky, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Consolidated Action), Case No. 1:2018-cv-11071-AKH (S.D.N.Y.)).

In April 2021, the parties in the case entered into a binding
Memorandum of Understanding to settle the matter and the proposed
settlement was preliminarily approved by the District Court in June
2021.

Substantially all amounts payable by the Company under the
settlement were paid by the Company's insurers in July 2021. The
payable under the approved settlement and the related insurance
proceeds are recorded in other liabilities and other assets,
respectively, in the Company's Unaudited Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets at June 30, 2021.

GreenSky, Inc., a technology company, provides point-of-sale
financing and payment solutions to merchants, consumers, and banks.
It offers a proprietary technology infrastructure that support the
full transaction lifecycle, including credit application,
underwriting, real-time allocation to bank partners, document
distribution, funding, settlement, and servicing functions. The
company was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


GROUPON INC: Bid to Amend Securities Class Suit in Illinois Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Groupon, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion for leave to
file an amended complaint in the securities fraud class action suit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, is pending.

On April 28, 2020, an individual plaintiff filed a securities fraud
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, and in July 2020, another individual
was appointed as lead plaintiff.

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

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

Groupon filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and, on April 28,
2021, the Court granted this motion and dismissed the complaint
without prejudice.

The Court provided the plaintiff with the opportunity to file a
motion to seek leave to file an amended complaint, and plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which
has the same allegations and class period as the prior complaint.

On June 23, 2021, Groupon filed an opposition to plaintiff's
motion.

Groupon said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend the case,
which we believe to be without merit."

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


HECLA MINING: Bid to Dismiss New York Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, is pending.

On May 24, 2019, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Hecla and certain of its executive
officers, one of whom is also a director.

The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Hecla common stock from March 19, 2018 through and including May 8,
2019, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and
expenses.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority
and control of the individual defendants, made certain material
false and misleading statements and omitted certain material
information regarding Hecla's Nevada Operations unit.

The complaint alleges that these misstatements and omissions
artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during
the class period, thus purportedly harming investors.

Filings with the court regarding the company's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit were completed in the first quarter of 2021.

Hecla said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail. We believe that
these claims are without merit and intend to defend them
vigorously."

Hecla Mining Company, together with its subsidiaries, discovers,
acquires, develops, and produces precious and base metal properties
worldwide. The company offers lead, zinc, and bulk flotation
concentrates to custom smelters and brokers; and unrefined gold and
silver bullion bars to precious metals traders. Hecla Mining
Company was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho.


HIPPO HOLDINGS: Kalair Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hippo Holdings Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August 5, 2021, that
the putative class action suit initiated by Nicholas Kalair, has
been voluntarily dismissed.

On June 4, 2021, Nicholas Kalair filed a putative class action
complaint against Hippo in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, individually and on behalf of a putative
nationwide class of individuals who received calls or voice
messages from Hippo or its agents in the four years prior to the
filing of the complaint.

Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice on
July 23, 2021.

Hippo Holdings Inc. is an American property insurance company based
in Palo Alto, California. Hippo offers homeowner's insurance that
covers the homes and possessions of the insurance holder as well as
liability from accidents happening in the insured property. The
company uses AI and big data to aggregate and analyze property
information.

HOLYOKE SOLDIERS: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Trowbridge, Audrey Russo, writing for WGGB/WSHM, report that
an employee at the Holyoke Soldiers' Home has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of his coworkers more than a year after the
deadly COVID-19 outbreak at the facility. On Aug. 13, the suit was
filed in federal court alleging the home's management at the time
of the outbreak placed the workers' lives and health in danger.

The attorney representing the employees said usually, workers can't
sue their employers for work-related injuries and illnesses due to
worker's compensation laws. However, he argued that in this case,
the employees' civil rights were put in jeopardy.

More trouble lies ahead for the former managers of the Holyoke
Soldiers' Home. The site of one of the country's deadliest COVID-19
outbreaks in a long-term care facility. A class action lawsuit has
been filed by one named employee in federal court, representing
other employees of the home.

Listed as the defendants are former Superintendent Bennett Walsh,
along with the former medical director and three upper-level
nursing managers. According to the lawsuit, obtained by Western
Mass News, the employee is seeking to certify a class of people who
"…Like the plaintiff, were employed at the Soldiers' Home during
the COVID-19 outbreak between February 1, 2020 and April 1, 2020
and suffered harm as a result."

The named employee who filed this lawsuit is Kwesi Ablordeppey, a
certified nursing assistant who Western Mass News has interviewed
in the past. When we spoke with him in October 2020, he explained
the distressing experiences he faced while working during the
outbreak

"I had to put two people in a body bag and send them to the
refrigerator truck," Ablordeppey said in October 2020.

Fast forward almost a year and this lawsuit filed on Aug. 13
alleges the home's management" . . . made a series of criminally
catastrophic decisions that led to the slow, agonizing, and
preventable deaths of seventy-seven (77) veterans."

Leonard Kesten, an attorney representing the class employees, said,
"It was beyond negligence. You know, they took affirmative steps to
damage the health of people."

Kesten spoke to us on behalf of Ablordeppey on Aug. 16. The lawsuit
filed says 83 employees caught COVID-19 at the home. Kesten argued
the defendant's actions, from misrepresenting the gravity of
COVID-19's effects and transmission to punishing employees for
wearing personal protective equipment, exceeds a typical worker's
compensation claim. He said they violated the workers' civil
rights.

"It's a high bar. It can't just be negligence. It has to shock the
conscience and we believe that that bar has been met here," Kesten
noted.

Shock and physical illness also led to emotional trauma outlined in
the lawsuit saying, "staff watched in horror as the veterans asked
God to let them die."

"We've been talking to a lot of people and we can feel their pain,"
Kesten added.

Two of the defendants named in the lawsuit, Bennett Walsh and David
Clinton, are already facing criminal charges stemming from this
outbreak brought by the state's attorney general. We reached out to
Walsh's attorney for a comment. [GN]

IBERDROLA SA: Maine Court Narrows Claims in Levesque Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK LEVESQUE, et al., Plaintiffs v. IBERDROLA, S.A.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00389-JDL (D. Me.), Judge Jon
D. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine issued
an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs Mark Levesque, Christie Decker, Michael Platt, Sylvia
Krainin, and Sally Trussell filed their Third Amended Complaint --
a putative class action -- against Defendants Iberdrola, S.A.;
Central Maine Power Co. ("CMP"); Avangrid, Inc.; and Douglas
Herling, on Jan. 31, 2020.  The Third Amended Complaint alleges
that the Defendants implemented a metering and billing system that
incorrectly measured and charged customers for electricity, and
that they then attempted to cover up problems that resulted from
their implementation of this allegedly defective system.

CMP is an electric utility headquartered in Augusta, Maine that
transmits and delivers electricity generated by various power
suppliers to over 624,000 customers in central and southern Maine.
Herling is CMP's Chief Executive Officer. CMP is a subsidiary of
Avangrid, a New York corporation headquartered in Connecticut.
Iberdrola is a Spanish corporation that owns the majority of
outstanding shares of Avangrid common stock.

In 2011, to dispense with the need for physical meter readings, CMP
introduced a system of "smart meters" designed to measure CMP
customers' use of electricity and transmit those measurements
remotely. In October 2017, CMP switched to a new "SmartCare" meter
and billing system that was designed to interface with the smart
meters. Beginning the following month, nearly 300,000 CMP customers
saw their bills increase, many by 50% or more. These billing
increases allegedly occurred without any actual increased use of
electricity by the customers.

The Third Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to
adequately test the SmartCare system prior to rollout, including
conducting "far fewer weeks of testing than planned and
recommended."  CMP allegedly billed customers despite knowing that
the SmartCare system was defective and inaccurate, and instructed
CMP customer service representatives (who were understaffed
following the rollout) to tell customers that the spikes in their
electricity bills were caused by other factors.

Following their complaints, some customers faced issues such as:
not receiving bills, not being able to access their online CMP
accounts, receiving disconnect notices, being placed on payment
arrangements that they did not agree to, having money withdrawn
from their bank accounts without their consent, being sent to debt
collectors, receiving a high bill after months of no bills, and
simply continuing to pay allegedly erroneously high bills.
Customers also suffered indirect harm, such as paying electricians
to investigate their energy usage, purchasing new appliances, and
severely limiting their energy usage.

According to the Third Amended Complaint, this was not the first
time an Iberdrola subsidiary had dealt with issues surrounding its
billing system. In 2014, another Iberdrola subsidiary, Scottish
Power, was investigated by the United Kingdom's Office of Gas and
Electricity Markets ("Ofgem") after its rollout of a billing system
similar to SmartCare. Scottish Power customers received late or
incorrect bills and experienced bill delays followed by a sudden
demand for high bills to be paid, and Scottish Power call centers
were overwhelmed by complaints and failed to respond to customers'
issues. Ultimately, Ofgem fined Scottish Power.

The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that there was an overlap
of key employees between Iberdrola, Avangrid, and CMP. The
SmartCare project was led by a team that included Iberdrola
employees, including employees located in Maine. Iberdrola
exercised significant influence over CMP and Avangrid, and the
SmartCare project was implemented at Iberdrola's direction. At
least one Avangrid employee was also involved in the Scottish Power
billing system rollout.

In response to complaints from CMP customers regarding their
receipt of high electricity bills following the SmartCare rollout,
the Maine Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") retained the Liberty
Consulting Group to conduct a forensic audit of CMP's metering,
billing, and related systems. In December of 2018, Liberty
published a report of its audit. Ultimately, Liberty concluded that
"CMP's meters produce accurate measurements of customer usage."
However, Liberty ultimately attributed CMP's customers' high bills
to extreme cold weather during the winter of 2017-2018 that
coincided with an increase in the price of electricity.

In January 2019, Herling sent a letter to CMP customers stating
that the Liberty audit concluded that "all systems from meter to
bill are working as intended and bills are accurate," and that the
only shortcoming identified by the Liberty audit was CMP's failure
to dedicate enough "staff, training, or management oversight" to
ensure adequate customer service after the SmartCare rollout. The
Third Amended Complaint alleges that this statement was false
because the Liberty audit also identified problems with CMP's
implementation of SmartCare, and not merely its customer service
following the rollout.

In May 2018, before the Liberty report was issued, Herling also
made statements to the Portland Press Herald and the Bangor Daily
News indicating that CMP had found nothing about the SmartCare
system that would artificially increase customer's usage. The Third
Amended Complaint alleges that these statements were also false,
that Herling knew or should have known that these statements would
instill a false sense of security in the minds of CMP customers and
curtail their desire to challenge their bills, and that customers
relied on both statements to their detriment by making their
electric payments, purchasing new appliances, paying electricians,
and travelling to observe CMP's meter testings.

In July 2018, Levesque commenced a class action lawsuit against CMP
in the Cumberland County Superior Court, alleging a single claim of
unjust enrichment based on CMP's alleged cover-up of the SmartCare
billing issues. Roughly a month later, he added a number of
additional plaintiffs and added Avangrid as a defendant. The case
was transferred to the Superior Court's Business and Consumer
Docket in September 2018. In February 2019, the Superior Court
stayed all proceedings in the matter pending the resolution of an
investigation into the overbilling claims by the PUC. On July 30,
2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, which added
new named plaintiffs, added Iberdrola and Herling as defendants,
and added additional claims. CMP and Avangrid filed a notice of
removal to this court on August 23, 2019.

The Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint on Jan. 31,
2020. The Third Amended Complaint presents claims for (1) unjust
enrichment; (2) breach of contract; (3) failure to comply with the
laws and regulations concerning the provision and billing of
electrical services pursuant to 35-A M.R.S.A. Section 1501 (West
2021); (4) fraud and intentional misrepresentation by the corporate
defendants; (5) fraud and intentional misrepresentation by Herling;
and (6) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C.A. Sections 1961-1968. On Feb.
26, 2020, the PUC issued the result of its investigation into CMP's
metering and billing issues. CMP, Avangrid, and Herling then filed
a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint without prejudice
or to stay the proceedings pending the Plaintiffs' exhaustion of
administrative remedies on Feb. 28, 2020. Following a hearing, I
denied the motion on Nov. 25, 2020.

On Aug. 7, 2020, Iberdrola filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On Feb. 1,
2021, Avangrid and CMP jointly filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. That same day, Herling also filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Judge Levy held a
consolidated hearing on all three motions on May 20, 2021.

Legal Analysis

Because Iberdrola raises the threshold issue of personal
jurisdiction, Judge Levy addresses this question first. He then
addresses the various parties' arguments as to whether the Third
Amended Complaint states a claim for unjust enrichment, fraud and
misrepresentation, violation of 35-A M.R.S.A. Sectio 1501, or
violation of RICO, as applicable, beginning with the broad argument
that all state law claims against Avangrid must be dismissed.

A. Personal Jurisdiction over Iberdrola

The Plaintiffs have essentially set forth two theories of
jurisdiction. First, they argue that the Court has personal
jurisdiction over Iberdrola as a parent company because of its
"general level of control" over its subsidiaries CMP and Avangrid
-- essentially, an argument that CMP/Avangrid, neither of which
have contested jurisdiction, are the "domestic alter ego" of
Iberdrola, citing City of Bangor v. Citizens Commc'ns Co., No. CIV.
02-183-B-S, 2003 WL 22183205, at *5 n.5 (D. Me. Sept. 22, 2003),
report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV. 02-183-B-S, 2003 WL
22913423 (D. Me. Dec. 1, 2003). Next, they argue that Iberdrola
itself had the requisite minimum contacts necessary to establish
specific personal jurisdiction.

a. The "Domestic Alter Ego" Theory

For a court to assert personal jurisdiction over a parent company
on a "domestic alter ego" theory, a plaintiff "must produce `strong
and robust' evidence of control by the parent company over the
subsidiary, rendering the latter a 'mere shell.'

Judge Levy holds that the facts of the case do not rise to the
level of the facts in City of Bangor. While there was some overlap
between the Boards of Directors of Iberdrola and Avangrid,
Iberdrola did not constitute the entirety -- or even the majority
-- of the Avangrid Board of Directors. While the Third Amended
Complaint references a metering system rollout in Scotland with
similar failures as the SmartCare rollout, the Plaintiffs have not
alleged that there has been any formal finding that Iberdrola has
disregarded its corporate formalities in the past or that it
otherwise exercised "pervasive or complete control" over Scottish
Power. Although Iberdrola was involved in the SmartCare rollout,
that involvement does not appear to rise to the level of rendering
CMP/Avangrid a "mere shell" of Iberdrola. Accordingly, the argument
that Iberdrola is subject to the Court's personal jurisdiction on a
"domestic alter ego" theory is unpersuasive.

b. The Minimum Contacts Theory

Even if CMP/Avangrid are not the "domestic alter ego" of Iberdrola,
Judge Levy holds that Iberdrola's direct contacts with Maine may be
sufficient to give rise to specific personal jurisdiction. He says,
specific personal jurisdiction may be asserted where the cause of
action arises directly out of, or relates to, the defendant's
forum-based contacts. To determine whether a plaintiff has alleged
facts sufficient to support a finding of specific personal
jurisdiction, this circuit divides the constitutional analysis into
three categories: relatedness, purposeful availment, and
reasonableness. Critically, an affirmative finding on each of the
three elements of the test is required to support a finding of
specific jurisdiction.

First, taking as true the Plaintiffs' contention that the SmartCare
rollout was flawed and led to erroneously high billing of some of
CMP's customers, Judge Levy finds that there appears to be a direct
line of causation between Iberdrola's executive oversight of the
SmartCare project and the ultimate harm alleged by the Plaintiffs.
While Iberdrola may not have had as large of a role in SmartCare's
alleged problems as CMP/Avangrid, its role was at least material to
SmartCare's allegedly rushed rollout.

Second, the Judge holds that multiple Iberdrola employees worked on
the SmartCare project, including at least one employee that
partially relocated to Maine for the task. It was certainly the
voluntary, deliberate act of Iberdrola to send its employees to
Maine to work on the SmartCare project, to incorporate the
SmartCare project in Maine into its global system, and to direct
CMP/Avangrid employees as to the timing of the SmartCare rollout.
Accordingly, the Judge concludes that Iberdrola did purposefully
avail itself of this forum.

Lastly, the Judge finds that while Iberdrola is located in Spain,
it clearly has the resources to have its representatives travel to
Maine, as it is a global energy company that has sent its
executives and employees to Maine on many occasions. As the
Plaintiffs note, the judiciary's response to the COVID-19 pandemic
has also demonstrated that many preliminary stages of civil
proceedings can effectively be conducted by video or telephone when
travel is not possible. In addition, this is a case in which Maine
has an exceptional interest in adjudicating this case, as Iberdrola
owns and influences the largest public utility in the state, which
is alleged to have harmed thousands of Maine customers. Maine is
where all of the Plaintiffs and CMP are located, and is clearly the
forum best-suited to resolve this dispute.

Ultimately, the Judge concludes that the Court has the authority to
exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Iberdrola based on its
active, targeted involvement in the SmartCare rollout in Maine.

B. All State Law Claims Pertaining to Avangrid

Avangrid argue that all state law claims against Avangrid must fail
because the Third Amended Complaint does not allege any wrongdoing
by the company. They note that the Third Amended Complaint makes no
allegation that Avangrid had a contract with the Plaintiffs, made
statements to the Plaintiffs, or was enriched by the Plaintiffs in
any way. The Plaintiffs argue that Avangrid is liable for the
actions of CMP on the theories of both veil-piercing and agency.

1. Veil-Piercing

Judge Levy rules that while the Third Amended Complaint paints a
picture of an involved parent company, it does not allege the
abuses of the corporate form that a veil-piercing theory would
require. He says while Avangrid may have been involved in the
SmartCare rollout -- and while it may have at times been difficult
for employees to distinguish the various corporate identities of
CMP and its parent companies from one another -- the Plaintiffs
have not alleged the lack of corporate formalities, improper
record-keeping, financial distress, or confused intermingling of
business activities that would allow this court to impute CMP's
actions to Avangrid on a veil-piercing theory. Accordingly, the
Judge does not find that Avangrid has abused the privilege of its
separate corporate identity to the extent that it should be held
liable for CMP's actions on a veil-piercing theory.

2. Agency

The Plaintiffs also argue that Avangrid is liable for the acts of
CMP on an agency theory.

The Third Amended Complaint, on the other hand, does not paint the
same picture of heavy-handed control of CMP by Avangrid. Judge Levy
finds that while the Third Amended Complaint alleges that Avangrid
wholly owns CMP, processed its finances, and cooperated in the
implementation of SmartCare, it alleges very little about
Avangrid's level of control over CMP. Ultimately, the Third Amended
Complaint fails to allege such an "interlocking of financial,
managerial, and business relationships" as to render CMP an agent
of Avangrid.

Accordingly, the Judge concludes that all state law claims against
Avangrid must be dismissed. Because he reaches this conclusion, he
doees not address the additional arguments raised regarding the
state law claims against Avangrid. He now turns to the other
Defendants' arguments regarding the Plaintiffs' state law claims.

C. Unjust Enrichment

The Third Amended Complaint alleges a claim for unjust enrichment
collectively against the "corporate defendants." CMP and Iberdrola
both argue that the binding terms and conditions of a contract
govern the dispute between the parties and therefore preclude
recovery on an unjust enrichment theory.

1. CMP

The existence of a contractual relationship between CMP and the
Plaintiffs is not in doubt. The Third Amended Complaint states that
"CMP enters into a contractual relationship with its customers when
it renders services to customers." CMP agrees that "a PUC-approved
set of terms and conditions governs the relationship between CMP
and the Plaintiffs." With respect to the unjust enrichment claim
against CMP, the Plaintiffs agree that they cannot recover on both
their breach of contract and their unjust enrichment claims; rather
they argue that they are entitled to plead unjust enrichment in the
alternative to their breach of contract claim. The Defendants argue
that, in light of the undisputed contractual relationship between
CMP and the Plaintiffs, the unjust enrichment count must be
dismissed.

Judge Levy holds that it is undisputed that the Plaintiffs and CMP
have a contractual relationship and that the Plaintiffs, if
successful in proving a breach of contract, will have a basis to
recover without any need to resort to unjust enrichment. Further,
the Plaintiffs have not put forth any argument as to how the
development of the record may alter this conclusion. Accordingly,
because there is no sound reason to permit the Plaintiffs to also
seek remedies based on unjust enrichment the same will be dismissed
as to CMP.

2. Iberdrola

Iberdrola argues that the Plaintiffs' contractual relationship with
CMP bars the Plaintiffs from maintaining an unjust enrichment
action against Iberdrola. The Plaintiffs do not meaningfully
address this argument, nor do they point to any case law -- from
Maine or any other jurisdiction -- addressing the question of
whether a parent company may be held liable on an unjust enrichment
theory based on its subsidiary's breach of contract. Instead, the
Plaintiffs note only that they "did not have a contract with
Iberdrola."

Judge Levy finds that the Plaintiffs have made various arguments
that Iberdrola used CMP as its domestic alter ego and/or its agent,
albeit not in the context of their unjust enrichment argument.
However, even assuming that CMP was Iberdrola's alter ego and/or
its agent in the context of the unjust enrichment claim, he still
concludes that the unjust enrichment claim against Iberdrola must
be dismissed because the claim against Iberdrola is entirely
derivative of the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim against CMP.
"To pursue unjust enrichment in equity, the plaintiff must lack an
adequate remedy at law." The breach of contract claim against CMP
provides the Plaintiffs with an adequate remedy at law.
Accordingly, the unjust enrichment claim against Iberdrola is
appropriately dismissed.

D. Fraud and Misrepresentation

All of the Defendants ask the Court to dismiss at least some of the
Plaintiffs' fraud claims against them. Iberdrola and CMP both
contend that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the heightened
pleading standard for fraud. Herling raises arguments distinct to
the allegations regarding his 2018 statements.

1. Iberdrola

Iberdrola contends that the Plaintiffs cannot meet the heightened
pleading standard for fraud because the Third Amended Complaint
fails to allege that Iberdrola -- as opposed to CMP and/or
Herling—made any representations to them, fraudulent or
otherwise. The Plaintiffs argue that their fraud claim "thoroughly
implicates Iberdrola under agency principles," and that "the other
Defendants' false claims about the accuracy of CMP billing
statements and of the SmartCare system are fairly attributable to
Iberdrola, as they were acting as Iberdrola's agents in Maine
throughout the SmartCare project."

While whether an individual has acted as an agent is a question of
fact which "may be disproved at a later stage of the proceeding,"
taking the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs,
Judge Levy concludes that the Third Amended Complaint adequately
pleads a fraud claim against Iberdrola, at least to the extent that
it states a fraud claim against CMP, which he turns to next.

2. CMP

CMP's argument concerns only Plaintiffs Krainin and Platt. They
contend that Krainin and Platt have not pleaded that they made any
payment on an incorrect bill, and that they have therefore failed
to plead detrimental reliance on a statement that they believed to
be true.

Judge Levy finds that the claims of both of the named Plaintiffs
satisfy the particularity standard. As to Platt, the Third Amended
Complaint alleges that he and his wife paid $400 to CMP in December
2017 in reliance on a bill that contained false or misleading
statements. While CMP argues that "it would seem indisputable that
Platt has in fact underpaid the amounts due," the Judge cannot
reach that conclusion based on the facts alleged in the Third
Amended Complaint alone. As to Krainin, the Third Amended Complaint
alleges that she was overbilled beginning in September 2017, and
that she believed she needed to pay the bills. While, with respect
to Krainin, the Third Amended Complaint does not specifically use
the phrase, "she paid the bills," this can fairly be implied from
the allegation that she was overbilled but believed she needed to
pay. Therefore, the Third Amended Complaint adequately pleads a
fraud claim by Krainin and Platt against CMP.

3. Herling

Herling makes two separate arguments with respect to the fraud
claim alleged against him. First, he argues that the Plaintiffs
fail to plead reliance on his statements in the newspapers in 2018
because none of the Plaintiffs allege seeing those statements.
Second, he argues that the Plaintiffs cannot base a fraud claim on
the letter sent by Herling to CMP customers in 2019 because the
Liberty audit was publicly available,11 the statements about the
audit in the letter were accurate, and only two of the Plaintiffs
allege seeing the letter. The Plaintiffs argue that they
"justifiably relied on any number of the false representations that
were a part of" a scheme to mislead CMP customers, and that they
"do not need to tether their reliance to each of Defendant
Herling's false statements that were also a part of the scheme."

The Plaintiffs' fraud claim against Herling must be dismissed,
Judge Levy rules. He states that while the Liberty audit—a
publicly available document—goes into greater detail regarding
certain inexplicable billing amounts, Herling's broad assertion
that the Liberty audit concluded that SmartCare is working as
intended and producing accurate bills does not contradict the
Liberty audit's overall findings. Moreover, while the Plaintiffs
argue that this statement implies that the Liberty audit found no
other shortcomings with the SmartCare system, the Judge does not
conclude that Herling had an affirmative duty to explain every
finding made by the Liberty audit.

E. Violation of 35-A M.R.S.A. Section 1501

The Plaintiffs allege that CMP violated 35-A M.R.S.A. Section 1501,
which states that "if a public utility violates this Title, causes
or permits a violation of this Title or omits to do anything that
this Title requires it to do it may be liable in damages to the
person injured as a result. Recovery under this section does not
affect a recovery by the State of the penalty prescribed for the
violation."

In "endeavoring to predict how a state's highest court would likely
decide a question," a "federal court should consult the types of
sources that the state's highest court would be apt to consult,
including decisions of lower courts in the state." While Deane v.
Central Maine Power Co., No. BCD-CV-20-20 is not binding Law Court
precedent, it is a recent, on-point decision from a specialized
Maine business and consumer court. Accordingly, Judge Levy adopts
Justice Murphy's reasoning, and concludes that the section 1501
claims against CMP must be dismissed because the statute does not
provide a cause of action.

F. Violation of RICO

CMP, Avangrid, and Herling contend that the RICO claim against them
must be dismissed for a number of reasons. First, they argue that a
RICO defendant must be "distinct" from the RICO enterprise. Second,
they argue that the Plaintiffs failed to plead facts from which the
Court could find that CMP, Avangrid, or Herling "conducted" the
affairs of their corporate parent "through" racketeering activity.

Judge Levy finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to make any
concrete allegations that the Iberdrola "enterprise" was distinct
from CMP/Avangrid/Herling. Thus, the RICO claim must be dismissed
on the grounds that it does not allege a "person" distinct from the
alleged "enterprise."

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege
participation in the operation or management of the enterprise by
CMP, Avangrid, or Herling. The Plaintiffs are clear that they
believe Iberdrola is the alleged enterprise. The Third Amended
Complaint alleges that CMP/Avangrid participated heavily in the
SmartCare program, but that project is not the same as the
Iberdrola "enterprise." CMP/Avangrid's participation in the
SmartCare rollout does not mean that CMP/Avangrid were
participating in the operation or management of Iberdrola.

Accordingly, the Judge concludes that the RICO claims against CMP,
Avangrid, and Herling must be dismissed.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Levy denied Iberdrola's Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Iberdrola's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is granted as to Count I,
denied as to Count IV, and denied as moot as to Counts III and VI,
which have been voluntarily dismissed. CMP and Avangrid's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is granted as to Count I,
granted with respect to Avangrid only as to Count II, granted as to
Count III, granted with respect to Avangrid and denied with respect
to CMP as to Count IV, and granted as to Count VI. Herling's Motion
to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is granted as to Counts V
and VI. Iberdrola's Response to Plaintiff's Notice of New
Developments and the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
in Excess of the Page Limit are denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ubtpz6dn from Leagle.com.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Seeks 5th Circuit Review in Slocum Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant International Paper Company filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled SHIRLEY SLOCUM, ET AL. v.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL.; DERRICK SANDERS, ET AL. v.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL.; and BRENT JARRELL, ET AL. v.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL., SECTION "L" (1), Case Nos.
2:16-CV-12563, 2:16-CV-12567, 2:16-CV-13793, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 2, 2021, the
District Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Experts
from the Phase I Negligence Trial in the mentioned lawsuits.

This set of cases arises from damages allegedly sustained by the
Plaintiffs due to the discharge of "black liquor" at the Bogalusa
Paper Mill on June 10, 2015. The Plaintiffs assert claims against
the Defendant, International Paper Company ("IP"). The Plaintiffs'
theories of liability sound in negligence, strict liability, and
nuisance.

Black liquor is a by-product of the paper making process. Black
liquor is typically recycled in evaporator tanks for repeated use
in the pulping process. On June 10, 2015, the sight glass on an
evaporator tank containing black liquor ruptured at the Bogalusa
Paper Mill, which resulted in a stream of black liquor erupting
several feet into the air and dispersing into the atmosphere. The
next day, the Defendants advised the media that there was a "slight
leak" in a process unit that led to the dispersal of diluted black
liquor, but that the Defendants were "confident that there is no
risk to human health or the environment."

The Plaintiffs disagree. They contend that the dispersal of black
liquor caused personal injury, property damage and/or emotional
distress, and argue the Defendants are liable for the Plaintiffs'
damages. For instance, the Welch Plaintiffs claim the dispersal
caused a black mist to descend on their house, and that the mist
stuck to the exposed skin of themselves and their children. For a
few days after, the Welches experienced itchy, burning, watery
eyes, and headaches with throat and upper respiratory irritation.
The Welches concede that their physical symptoms cleared in a short
period of time, but argue they continue to suffer emotional
distress and fear about a reoccurrence of the event. Other
Plaintiffs claim similar damages.

The Defendants now seek a review of the Order entered by the
District Court granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Experts
from the Phase I Negligence Trial.

The appellate case is captioned as Slocum v. International Paper
Company, Case No. 21-90036, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, filed on July 30, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner International Paper Company is represented
by:

          Tim D. Gray, Esq.
          Erin Rebekka Wedge Latuso, Esq.
          FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ, L.L.P.
          201 Saint Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 799-4386
          E-mail: laeservice@formanwatkins.com
                  erin.latuso@formanwatkins.com  

Plaintiffs-Respondents Shirley Slocum; Patricia Welch, spouse
of/and Cesar Welch, Sr., Individually and on behalf of/and as
Tutrix for his minor children, C W and TW; Billy Youngblood; Sam
Abram, spouse of/and Zipporah Abram; Elizabeth Simmons,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
persons; Derrick Jevone Sanders, Patricia McGowan Lewis, and Dione
Evette Peters, individually and collectively as Class
Representatives on behalf of all the others similarly situated;
Brent Jarrell, Individually and on behalf of/ and as Tutrix for his
minor child, LJ; Junior Lydonis Rowell; Percy Payne; Carl M.
Spicer, Spouse of/and Iantha Spicer; and Joyce Spicer, Individually
and on behalf of /and as Tutrix for her minor child, are
represented by:

          Shawn Pedersen Reed, Esq.
          HOWARD & REED
          516 N. Columbia Street
          Covington, LA 70433-0000
          Telephone: (504) 893-3607
          E-mail: sreed@howardandreed.com

JAMES RIVER: Faces Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
James River Group Holdings, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company is
facing a purported class action suit initiated by the Employees'
Retirement Fund of the City of Fort Worth.

On July 9, 2021, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in US
District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of
Employees' Retirement Fund of the City of Fort Worth against James
River Group Holdings, Ltd. and certain of its present and former
officers, alleging claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff alleges that it purchased James River common stock
between August 1, 2019 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the putative
Class Period), that Defendants failed to make appropriate
disclosures concerning reserves for policies that covered Rasier
LLC, a subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc. and that, as a result,
Plaintiff suffered unspecified damages.

James River said, "We believe that the Plaintiff's claims are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit."

James River Group Holdings, Ltd. is a Bermuda-based holding
company. The company owns and operates a group of specialty
insurance and reinsurance companies with the objective of
generating compelling returns on tangible equity while limiting
underwriting and investment volatility.


JAMES RIVER: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against James River
Group Holdings, Ltd. ("James River" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:
JRVR) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 1,
2019 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 7, 2021.

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

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. James River failed to maintain
appropriate reserves for its Uber policies. The Company's incorrect
reserve methodology materially understated its true exposure to
Uber claims. The Company was forced to increase reserves even as it
canceled Uber policies. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements throughout the class period were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about James River, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

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

CONTACT:

The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]

JC MASTER: Faces Bao Yu Yang Suit Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
BAO YU YANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JC MASTER NIU INC d/b/a Taste of North
China; XIN LI NIU a/k/a Xinli Niu a/k/a Linda Niu, WANG ZIXIN a/k/a
Wang Zi Xin, and ALEX "DOE", Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-15394
(D.N.J., August 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure
to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek, and failure to reimburse business expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a fry worker at
Taste of North China restaurant located at 75 Montgomery St.,
Jersey City, New Jersey from April 20, 2018 to February 13, 2019.

JC Master Niu, Inc. is a Chinese restaurant under the name Taste of
North China, with its principal address located at 75 Montgomery
Street, Store 1, Jersey City, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
         TROY LAW, PLLC
         41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103
         Flushing, NY 11355
         Telephone: (718) 762-1324
         E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com

JOHN HANCOCK: Isaacson Sues Over Unreturned Pay on Cancelled Trips
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVEN and LOURDES ISAACSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHN HANCOCK INSURANCE
AGENCY, INC., STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY, and SEVEN
CORNERS INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-11323-PBS (D. Mass.,
August 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, restitution and violation of the
California's Unfair Competition Law.

The case arises from the Defendants' systematic failure to return
the unused and unearned premium paid by the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated consumers who purchased the Defendants' travel
insurance policy for coverage of post-departure risks. The
Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered injury in the form of
monetary loss because they paid premiums for insurance coverages
that could not materialize due to cancellation of their trips.
Defendants were never exposed to, or assumed, any transferred risk
of loss, the suit says.

John Hancock Insurance Agency, Inc. is an insurance company, with
its principal place of business at 197 Clarendon St. Boston,
Massachusetts.

Starr Indemnity & Liability Company is an insurer with its
principal place of business in New York, New York.

Seven Corners Inc. is an insurance company headquartered in Carmel,
Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
         BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
         260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (617) 398-5600
         E-mail: jason@blockleviton.com

                - and –

         Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
         Y. Michael Twersky, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         E-mail: mitwersky@bm.net

                - and –

         John G. Albanese, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
         Telephone: (612) 597-5997
         E-mail: jalbanese@bm.net

                - and –

         Ingrid M. Evans, Esq.
         EVANS LAW FIRM, INC.
         3053 Fillmore Street, #236
         San Francisco, CA 94123
         Telephone: (415) 441-8669
         Facsimile: (888) 891-4906
         E-mail: ingrid@evanslaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Phillips Sues Over Mouthwash's Natural Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOBBY PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06866 (S.D.N.Y., August 15, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for Negligent Misrepresentation,
fraud, unjust enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied
warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and
violation of the New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
herbal mint mouthwash under its Listerine brand. The product's
front label claims which include "Listerine Naturals," "99%
Naturally Derived Formula," and "Free of Artificial Sweeteners &
Dyes" are misleading because even if the product's ingredients
begin with natural raw materials, they undergo significant
alterations through non-natural process like chemical reactions and
the use of catalysts. The value of the product that the Plaintiff
purchased was materially less than its value as represented by the
Defendant. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known the truth,
they would not have bought the product or would have paid less for
it, says the suit.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer
products, with its principal place of business in Skillman,
Somerset County, New Jersey. [BN]

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

KADMON HOLDINGS: Tadros Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kadmon Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Rafik Tadros filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal on his putative class action suit and
Judge Pamela K. Chen terminated the matter.

On April 2, 2021, Rafik Tadros, a purported stockholder of the
Company, and the Lead Plaintiff filed the above styled putative
class action complaint against the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer and its Chief Financial Officer, alleging that from October
1, 2020 through March 10, 2021, Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements to the Company's stockholders regarding
the Belumosudil New Drug Application and the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA's) review process related thereto.

The Defendants denied all allegations and believed they were
without merit.

On July 22, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal and the case was terminated by Judge Pamela K. Chen in
accordance therewith.

Kadmon Holdings, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, discovers,
develops, and commercializes small molecules and biologics within
autoimmune and fibrotic, oncology, and genetic diseases. The
Company is headquartered in New York, New York.


KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Suit Over SOPRA Study Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss the securities class action related to the disclosed
results from the Phase 2 SOPRA study and Part 2 of the Phase 2b
STORM study, has been granted.

The company was named as a defendant in a securities class action
litigation filed on July 23, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint was filed by the Allegheny County Employees'
Retirement System, against the company and certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors as well as the
underwriters of the company's public offerings of common stock
conducted in April 2017 and May 2018. This complaint was
voluntarily dismissed on March 12, 2020.

A second complaint was filed by Heather Mehdi on September 17,
2019, in the same court and against the same defendants with the
exception of the underwriters.

In April 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, Myo Thant, who
filed an amended complaint on June 29, 2020.

The amended complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws
based on our disclosures related to the results from the Phase 2
SOPRA study and Part 2 of the Phase 2b STORM study, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, including interest; reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' and expert fees; and such
equitable/injunctive relief or other relief as the court may deem
just and proper.

The company reviewed the allegations and believe they are without
merit. The company moved to dismiss the complaint on July 31, 2020
and concluded related briefing in September 2020.

Before the court ruled on this motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint. The company moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint on November 2, 2020.

On December 14, 2020, the company was named as a defendant in a
shareholder derivative suit based on allegations substantially
similar to those in the class action litigation.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, by Plaintiff Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust,
against us and certain of our current and former executive officers
and directors. On January 12, 2021, the shareholder derivative suit
was stayed pending the outcome of further proceedings in the
securities class action.

On July 21, 2021, the court issued a decision dismissing the
securities class action complaint, and an order of dismissal was
issued on the same date.

Karyopharm said, "We cannot predict whether Plaintiff will appeal
or seek other relief from the court's decision or the dismissal
order. The shareholder derivative suit remains stayed."

Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., incorporated on December 22, 2008, is
an oncology-focused pharmaceutical company. The Company is focused
on the discovery, development, and commercialization of drugs
directed against nuclear export and related targets for the
treatment of cancer and other diseases. The company is based in
Newton, Massachusetts.


KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Katapult Holdings,
Inc. ("Katapult" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KPLT) investors
concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the
federal securities laws.

If you suffered a loss on your Katapult 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/katapult-holdings-inc/.You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.

On August 9, 2021, Katapult, an e-commerce focused financial
technology company, announced its second quarter 2021 financial
results reporting, "net loss was $8.1 million, down from $5.1
million of net income in the second quarter of 2020. Adjusted net
income was $1.5 million, down 70.4% from $5.2 million in the second
quarter of 2020."

On this news, the Company's stock fell $5.47, or 56%, to close at
$4.26 per share on August 10, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Katapult should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.

                           About GPM

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

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

Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Patel Sues Over 3.98% Drop of Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUBHASH PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., FRANS VAN HOUTEN,
and ABHIJIT BHATTACHARYA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04597
(E.D.N.Y., August 16, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Koninklijke Philips' business,
operations, and compliance policies in order to trade Philips
securities at artificially inflated prices between February 25,
2020 and June 11, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants allegedly made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Philips had deficient product manufacturing controls or
procedures; (ii) as a result, the company's Bi-Level Positive
Airway Pressure (PAP) and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
(CPAP) devices and mechanical ventilators were manufactured using
hazardous materials; (iii) accordingly, the company's sales
revenues from the foregoing products were unsustainable; (iv) the
foregoing also subjected the company to a substantial risk of a
product recall, in addition to potential legal and/or regulatory
action; and (v) as a result, the company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

When Philips issued a voluntary recall of certain of its Bi-Level
PAP and CPAP devices, as well as mechanical ventilators, after
finding that the sound abatement foam used in the devices can
degrade and become toxic, potentially causing cancer, the company's
stock price fell $2.25 per share, or 3.98%, to close at $54.25 per
share on June 14, 2021, damaging investors, says the suit.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company
headquartered in the Netherlands. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
         J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
         Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         600 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 661-1100
         Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
         E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com
                 tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Oct. 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Koninklijke Philips N.V. ("Philips" or the
"Company") (NYSE: PHG) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-04606, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Philips securities
between February 25, 2020 and June 11, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Philips's securities during the Class Period, you have until
October 15, 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.

Philips operates as a health technology company in North America,
Greater China, and internationally. The Company's products include,
among others, Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure ("Bi-Level PAP")
and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure ("CPAP") devices, as well
as mechanical ventilators. Bi-Level PAP machines pump air under
pressure into the airway of the lungs. Bi-Level PAP machines have a
higher pressure when users breathe in and lower pressure when users
breathe out. CPAP machines keep users' airway open by providing a
continuous stream of air through a mask. CPAP machines are devices
prescribed to people with obstructive sleep apnea to keep their
airways open during sleep. Bi-Level PAP and CPAP machines use
Polyester-based polyurethane, a sound abatement foam, to reduce
sound and vibration.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Philips had deficient product
manufacturing controls or procedures; (ii) as a result, the
Company's Bi-Level PAP and CPAP devices and mechanical ventilators
were manufactured using hazardous materials; (iii) accordingly, the
Company's sales revenues from the foregoing products were
unsustainable; (iv) the foregoing also subjected the Company to a
substantial risk of a product recall, in addition to potential
legal and/or regulatory action; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On June 14, 2021, Philips issued a voluntary recall of certain of
its Bi-Level PAP and CPAP devices, as well as mechanical
ventilators, after finding that the sound abatement foam used in
the devices can degrade and become toxic, potentially causing
cancer.

On this news, Philips' stock price fell $2.25 per share, or 3.98%,
to close at $54.25 per share on June 14, 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.

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

KROGER CO: Sept. 20 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in the Kroger Bread Crumbs
Litigation, a class action lawsuit. The proposed settlement
establishes a $780,000 settlement fund.  Class members may be
eligible for cash payments estimated at $17.50.

On July 2, 2021, United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, Judge Jeffrey T. Miller, preliminarily
approved a settlement of a lawsuit between Kroger and California
purchasers of Kroger Bread Crumbs. The class action claims that
Kroger Bread Crumbs were falsely advertised and in violation of
California law. The defendant denies this, and the Court has made
no decision on these issues. The case was litigated for more than
five years, and rather than continue litigating the case in court,
the two sides have agreed to a class action settlement.

The proposed settlement establishes a $780,000 settlement fund and
eligible class members may be eligible for estimated cash payments
of up to $100 if they have a proof of purchase and up to $17.50 if
they do not have a proof of purchase. In addition, Kroger has also
agreed to make a donation to the American Heart Association.

You may be a member of the settlement class if you are a California
resident who purchased in California, Kroger Bread Crumbs, during
the Class Period of January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015. The
product must have been purchased for personal or household use and
not for resale or distribution.

You now have the following options. First, the attorney who filed
the case and was appointed to represent you recommends that you go
to the settlement website (KBCLawsuit.com) and file a claim, and
then receive a payment estimated at $17.50 if the Court approves
the settlement. Second, you can ignore this notice and do nothing.
You will not get a settlement payment, but you will give up the
right to sue Kroger over claims related to Kroger Bread Crumbs'
labels and advertising, though not for personal injury. Third, you
can exclude yourself. If you exclude yourself, you get no
settlement payment but keep the right to sue over these claims at
your own expense. Finally, you can object to the settlement and
tell the judge why you do not want the settlement to be approved.

You can make a claim at KBCLawsuit.com, as well as get more
detailed information about this case, the settlement, and your
options, as this is a summary only. If you need help, you can also
ask questions by mail by writing to Kroger Bread Crumbs Litigation,
c/o Classaura, 1718 Peachtree St NW #1080, Atlanta, GA 30309 or
call 1-833-427-8627. Do not contact Kroger or the Court, except if
you are serving and filing an objection. The deadline to file a
claim form is September 20, 2021.

Your rights and options -- and the deadlines to exercise them --
are only summarized in this press release.  A Long Notice
describes, in full, how to file a claim, object, or exclude
yourself, and provides other important information.  For more
information and to obtain a Long Notice, claim form or other
documents, visit KBClawsuit.com.

Location: San Diego, CA
Filed by: Classaura LLC
Phone: 833-427-8627 [GN]

LG CORP: Class Action Over Defective Refrigerators Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Davis, writing for Click2Houston, reports that when you
purchase a refrigerator, you expect it to keep your food cold for
years. Millions of consumers who purchased Kenmore fridges made
with LG parts are finding out the hard way that's not always the
case. Their expensive appliances are failing after just two to
three years.

KPRC 2 Investigates is uncovering alleged defects the companies
have known about since at least 2013.

That is the year consumers filed the first class action lawsuit
against LG over refrigerators built with the company's "smart
cooling system" and linear compressors. Years later, the company is
still installing the same defective compressors in Kenmore
refrigerators.

Fridges just stop cooling
Feeding April Dailey's family of six takes a fully stocked fridge.
For now, she's using a small refrigerator in her garage that she
got for free online from a neighbor. Her triple door smart Kenmore
Elite refrigerator she bought two and a half years ago stopped
cooling. Even though the digital read-out on the fridge says her
refrigerator is 33 degrees inside, an actual thermometer reveals it
is actually 64 degrees.

Warranty says customers must pay for repairs
When she called Sears Repair Center, they sent out a third-party
repair company who told her the LG compressor in her fridge needs
to be replaced. The good news is the compressor is covered under
the warranty. The bad news? The labor to put it in is not covered.
That would cost April at least $500.

"That just wasn't an option for us," Dailey said. "I just don't
have that money right now."

Dailey already spent $2,249 when she bought the refrigerator in
2018. About a year ago, she paid $380 to repair the ice maker that
stopped working. Even if she did pay the money to replace the LG
compressor, the chances are good that the new one will stop working
in 2 to 3 years. Sears and LG know that.

LG and Sears knew about the alleged defect
A class-action lawsuit against LG is pending right now over this
exact issue. LG settled two class actions alleging its
refrigerators were defective because of cooling problems with its
compressors.

While it paid consumers for damages in those cases, it did not
admit any wrongdoing continued to use the same compressors in
Kenmore refrigerators like April's.

"That's kind of, I guess, shady," said Dailey. "I mean, a big
corporation like that should be able to retract products and you
know, take care of their consumers."

When we reached out to Sears, a spokesperson sent this statement:

"At Sears, the satisfaction of our members and customers is our top
priority. Regarding the Dailey customer -- we have provided
responsive service on several occasions and they have opted to
forego the repair because they did not want to pay the charges they
were obligated to pay. It is important to note that the
manufacturer's warranty covers the part and it specifically notes
that labor is not covered. We contacted the Daileys on Aug. 16 to
explain this and we arranged to repair their refrigerator this
afternoon under the terms of their warranty. Our lead refrigeration
technician completed the replacement of the compressor this
afternoon and all is operating properly."

Sears wouldn't answer questions about penidng litigation, and the
spokesperson referred our questions about the LG compressor inside
the Kenmore fridge to LG.

"They're selling bad products, and they need to take care of their
customers," said Dailey. "Someone needs to pay because we've
already paid."

After we reached out to Sears, Dailey told us a technician came out
to her home and replaced the compressor for free. However, just as
Sears told KPRC 2 News, that is not standard and labor is typically
not covered under the warranty.

What can customers do?
The squeaky wheel gets the oil. We have seen evidence that Sears
does cover the labor and the parts when consumers push the issue.
That may mean escalating your issue and even filing in small claims
court to get the repair covered. [GN]

LHC GROUP: George FLSA Suit Moved From D. Colo. to D. Ariz.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEENA GEORGE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LHC GROUP, INC., inclusive, Case No.
1:20-cv-02760, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona on August 13, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Arizona assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-01402-RCC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated physical therapist assistants, certified
occupational therapy assistants, licensed practical nurses, and
other skilled care personnel overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

LHC Group, Inc. is a provider of home health services, with its
headquarters located at 901 Hugh Wallis Road South in Lafayette,
Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         James B. Zouras, Esq.
         Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
         Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
         Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
         Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
         STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
         100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 233-1550
         Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
         E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                 rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                 tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
                 cmitchell@stephanzouras.com
                 mshannon@stephanzouras.com

                - and –

         Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
         2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
         Fort Collins, CO 80528

LIPOCINE INC: Bid to Dismiss Abady Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lipocine Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's motion to
dismiss the class action suit entitled, Solomon Abady v. Lipocine
Inc. et al., 2:19-cv-00906-PMW, remains pending.

On November 14, 2019, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit, Solomon Abady v. Lipocine Inc. et al., 2:19-cv-00906-PMW,
filed in the United District Court for the District of Utah.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that our filing of
the new drug application (NDA) for TLANDO to the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) contained deficiencies and as a result the
defendants' statements about our business and operations were false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in violation of
federal securities laws. The lawsuit seeks certification as a class
action (for a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
securities from March 27, 2019 through November 8, 2019),
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and unspecified
equitable or injunctive relief.

The Company has insurance that covers claims of this nature. The
retention amount payable by the Company under our policy is $1.25
million.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit on
July 24, 2020.

In response, the plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit on September 22, 2020 and the
Company filed its reply to its motion to dismiss on October 22,
2020.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations and has not recorded a liability related to this
shareholder class action lawsuit as the outcome is not probable nor
can an estimate be made of loss, if any.

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

Lipocine Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on
applying oral drug delivery technology for the development of
pharmaceutical products in the area of men's and women's health.
The company is based in Salt Lake City, Utah.


LIVE VENTURES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Aug. 16 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Live Ventures Incorporated ("Live" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: LIVE) from December 28, 2016 through August 3, 2021 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada alleges violations of the Exchange
Act of 1934.

If you purchased Live securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit Live 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) Live's earnings per share for FY 2016 was actually only
$6.33 per share; (ii) the Company used an artificially low share
count to boost the earnings per share by 40%; (iii) Live had
overstated pre-tax income for fiscal 2016 by 20% by including
$915,000 of "other income" related to certain amendments that were
not negotiated until after the close of the fiscal year; (iv)
Live's acquisition of ApplianceSmart did not close during first
quarter 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 recognized bargain
purchase gain, which enabled the Company to report positive net
income in what would otherwise have been an unprofitable quarter;
(vii) between fiscal 2016 and fiscal 2018, Live's CEO received
approximately 94% more in compensation than was disclosed to
investors; and (viii) 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.

On August 3, 2021, the SEC filed a complaint against Live Ventures,
its CEO, and its CFO 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.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 12, 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 Live securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/liveventuresincorporated-live-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-427/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.

Contact Information:

Rujul Patel
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
Rpatel@bernlieb.com [GN]

LIVE VENTURES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of October 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on Aug. 17 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada on behalf of those who acquired Live
Ventures Incorporated ("Live Ventures" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
LIVE) securities from December 28, 2016 through August 3, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until October 12,
2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

Live Ventures, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
flooring manufacturing, steel manufacturing, and retail businesses
in the United States.

On August 3, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") filed a complaint against Live Ventures, its Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO"), 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 declined by $29.08 per share, or
approximately 46.47%, from $62.58 per share to close at $33.50 per
share on August 4, 2021.

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

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

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

Contacts:

Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]

LIVE VENTURES: Sieggreen Sues Over 69% Decline of Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL E. SIEGGREEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIVE VENTURES INCORPORATED, JON ISAAC, and
VIRLAND A. JOHNSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01517 (D. Nev.,
August 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements about Live Ventures' business,
operations, and prospects with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to trade Live securities at artificially inflated
prices between December 28, 2016 and August 3, 2021. Specifically,
the Defendants allegedly failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
Live's earnings per share for fiscal year (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) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' positive statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

When the truth emerged, 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 suit added.

Live Ventures Incorporated is a holding company that provides
online marketing solutions for small and medium business, with its
principal executive offices located in Nevada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
         MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
         7915 West Sahara Ave., Suite 104
         Las Vegas, NV 89117
         Telephone: (702) 330-4505
         Facsimile: (702) 825-0141
         E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com

                  - and –

         Charles Linehan, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 201-9150
         Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

LIVENT CORP: Settlement in IPO Related Suit Granted Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Livent Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court in the
putative class action suit involving the company's October 2018
initial public offering (IPO), had approved the settlement
following a hearing on April 15, 2021 and a final order was issued
on April 26, 2021.

In May 2019, purported stockholders of the Company filed putative
class action complaints against the Company and certain other
parties in federal and state courts arising out of the Company's
October 2018 initial public offering (IPO).

The Company agreed to defend and indemnify FMC Corporation (FMC)
with regard to these cases.

On October 28, 2020, defendants entered into a stipulation of
settlement with the state court plaintiffs in which the Company, on
behalf of defendants, paid $7.4 million to resolve all claims
related to the IPO.

On October 29, 2020, the state court plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement.

The court approved the settlement following a hearing on April 15,
2021 and a final order was issued on April 26, 2021.

The settlement resolved all pending litigation relating to the IPO,
including the claims in both the state and federal actions. The
plaintiffs dismissed their appeal in the federal court on April 30,
2021 with prejudice in light of the settlement.

Livent Corporation is a lithium company. The Company is focused on
producing performance lithium compounds. Its primary products
include battery-grade lithium hydroxide, butyllithium and high
purity lithium metal. It produces lithium compounds for use in
applications that have specific performance requirements, including
battery-grade lithium hydroxide for use in high performance
lithium-ion batteries. The company is based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.


LUCKIN COFFEE: Kingstown Appeals Denial of Bid to Intervene
------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Intervenors Kingstown Capital Management, LP, Kingstown
Partners Master Ltd., Kingstown Partners II L.P., Ktown LP,
Kingfishers, LP, and Kingstown 1740 Fund LP filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled In re: LUCKIN COFFEE
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-01293-JPC-JLC, in The
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Luckin engages in the retail sale of freshly brewed drinks and
pre-made food, light meals and beverage items in China. Luckin
securities trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "LK."

Cohen, a holder of Luckin American Depository Shares (ADS), claims
that Luckin failed to disclose that its financial performance
metrics, including per-store per-day sales, net selling price per
item, advertising expenses and revenue contribution were inflated.

On this news, Luckin's ADS price fell $3.91 per share, or 10.74%,
to close at $32.49 per share on January 31, 2020, says the suit.

Judge John P. Cronan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York signed the Stipulation and Proposed Order
Regarding Dissemination of Class Notice filed by Lead Plaintiffs
Sjunde AP-Fonden and Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund and
Defendant Luckin Coffee.

On May 14, 2021, the Lead Plaintiffs and Luckin filed the
Stipulation and Proposed Order, and the associated Notice and
Summary Notice. The notice process embodied in these documents
seeks to give potential Class Members notice of their rights with
respect to this action and the Cayman Proceeding, and the
opportunity to opt out of the Class, as defined in the Provisional
Certification Order. On May 17, 2021, the Winslow Funds filed a
letter objecting to the Stipulation and Proposed Order, and filed a
motion to intervene a day later. Soon after, the State Class
Plaintiffs, Kingstown, Bequai, and Lai Ye all filed letters in
opposition to the Stipulation and Proposed Order and also seeking
to intervene.

The Proposed Intervenors appeal from the Court's Opinion and Order
denying Kingstown's Motion to Intervene entered and filed on July
6, 2021 and the Stipulation and Order Regarding Dissemination of
Class Notice entered and filed on July 6, 2021.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: LUCKIN COFFEE INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 21-1673, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on August 2, 2021.[BN]

Proposed Intervenors-Appellants Kingstown Capital Management, LP,
Kingstown Partners Master Ltd., Kingstown Partners II L.P., Ktown
LP, Kingfishers, LP, and Kingstown 1740 Fund LP are represented
by:

          Sigmund S. Wissner-Gross, Esq.
          BROWN RUDNICK LLP
          Seven Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 209-4930
          Facsimile: (212) 209-2804
          E-mail: swissnergross@brownrudnick.com

LUCY PARIS: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucy Paris Inc. The
case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Lucy Paris Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-06936 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2021).

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

Lucy Paris -- https://www.lucyparis.com/ -- is a young,
contemporary clothing brand that is Parisian inspired, New York
modern with a feminine touch of Los Angeles sun.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAVERICK EXTERIORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gonzales Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. MAVERICK EXTERIORS, LLC,
GEOFF HANSSLER, and ELIZABETH HANSSLER, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-04276 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 11, 2021) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as laborer.

MAVERICK EXTERIORS, LLC is a small business located in the
Northwest suburbs of Chicago, specializing in siding and gutter
installation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John William Billhorn
          Samuel D. Engelson
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Tel: (312) 853-1450

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Decertify Class in Harris Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISAAC HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. MEDICAL
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01371
(APM) (D.D.C.), Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia issued an Order:

   (i) denying Medical Transportation Management ("MTM")'s motion
       to decertify the collective action; and

  (ii) granting the Plaintiffs' request to certify a class on the
       issue of whether MTM is a joint employer or general
       contractor.

Defendant MTM is a private company that contracts with the District
of Columbia to "manage and administer" non-emergency medical
transportation ("NEMT") services for the District's Medicaid
recipients. MTM does not employ drivers directly to deliver NEMT
services; rather, it contracts with dozens of transportation
service providers ("TSPs") that employ the drivers.

Plaintiffs Isaac Harris, Darnell Frye, and Leo Franklin are three
such drivers. They bring the action individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated against MTM to recover unpaid wages
under (1) the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C Section
201 et seq.; (2) the D.C. Minimum Wage Act, D.C. Code Section
32-1001 et seq.; (3) the D.C. Living Wage Act, D.C. Code Section
2-220.01 et seq.; and (4) the D.C. Wage Payment and Collection Law,
D.C. Code Section 32-1301. They allege that because MTM is both
their joint employer and the general contractor of the TSPs, MTM is
liable for their unpaid wages under federal and District of
Columbia wage laws.

On July 17, 2018, the Court ordered that the Plaintiffs' FLSA
minimum wage and overtime claims be conditionally certified as a
collective action and that notice be sent to potential opt-in
plaintiffs. Since then, 155 current and former NEMT drivers have
filed consent forms to join the collective action, each alleging
wage and overtime claims against MTM under the FLSA.

Thereafter, the Plaintiffs sought certification of a class of
approximately 800 drivers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
for their District of Columbia wage claims. The Court denied class
certification on the ground that the Plaintiffs had failed to meet
the predominance requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). It left open the
possibility, however, of certifying an issue class under Rule
23(c)(4) and invited supplemental briefing on the issue.

Now before the Court are two motions: (1) MTM's Motion to Decertify
the FLSA Collective Action; and (2) the Plaintiffs' supplemental
motion to certify claims pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) and for
clarification that the limitations period remains tolled.

Discussion

A. Decertification of the FLSA Collective Action

The Plaintiffs argue that because there are common issues of law or
fact "material to the disposition" of their FLSA claims, any
dissimilarities among the 155 party plaintiffs do not defeat
collective treatment.

MTM makes several arguments as to why the court should decertify
the collective action. First, MTM rejects as improper the
Plaintiffs' request to certify "issues" under the FLSA, arguing
that the language of section 216(b) allows for a collective action
only "'to recover the liability' for a violation of the statute,"
and therefore cannot be read to permit the bifurcation of issues as
the Plaintiffs seek. Second, even if the statute could be read to
permit issue certification, MTM argues, evidence of a
"collective-wide policy or practice that violated the FLSA" is
paramount and the absence of one in this case means Plaintiffs are
not similarly situated under any standard. Finally, MTM argues,
even if a common policy or practice were not a requirement under
the Campbell test, the Plaintiffs' proposed issues would not
materially advance the disposition of the party Plaintiffs' FLSA
claims since the issues would have to be resolved on an
individualized, driver-by-driver basis.

Judge Mehta finds that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they
are similarly situated as to one of the three issues they have
identified -- whether MTM is a joint employer. He holds that the
fundamental flaw with MTM's latter argument is that one of the
issues proposed by the Plaintiffs is potentially dispositive: The
antecedent question of whether MTM qualifies as the Plaintiffs'
joint employer. Only an "employer" may be held liable under the
FLSA. The definition of "employer" has been recognized as broad
enough to encompass a "joint employer." Thus, if MTM is found not
to be a joint employer, the case goes away.

MTM's other arguments fare no better. The Judge sees no reason why
it cannot certify a collective on one or more issues so long as
those common issues are "material to the resolution of the party
plaintiffs' claims." Nor is the Judge persuaded by MTM's insistence
that there must be evidence of a common FLSA-violating policy or
practice to satisfy the similarly situated standard. And, moving
the matter forward collectively is potentially dispositive of the
case: if the Plaintiffs cannot carry their burden to show that MTM
is a joint employer, they are out of luck. If they can make such a
showing, the case moves forward.

The Judge denies MTM's motion to decertify the collective action.

B. Certification of an Issue Class Under Rule 23(c)(4)

In its Memorandum Opinion denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, the Court denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4), as the issue
had not been fully briefed by the parties. It observed that Rule
23(c)(4) is not without controversy, as courts and commentators
have split on its proper interaction with Rule 23(b)(3)'s
requirement that common issues predominate.

In arguing for certification of an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4),
the Plaintiffs identify four issues that "are common to all class
members and as to which the proof and defense can be resolved for
the class as whole": Whether MTM qualifies as a joint employer of
the putative class members; whether MTM is a general contractor
that is strictly liable for any violations of the wage laws
committed by its subcontractors; whether the time expended by
putative class members traveling between trips provided to MTM
clients and waiting for MTM clients qualifies as compensable work
under the laws invoked by this action; and whether the wage rates
set by the Living Wage Act and the Service Contract Act apply to
time worked on MTM's managed-care contracts.

The Plaintiffs contend that "because resolution of these issues on
a class-wide basis will advance the resolution of the action, these
issues can and should be certified pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4)."

Judge Mehta agrees as to the first and second issues -- whether MTM
is a joint employer or general contractor -- but not as to the
latter two. Ultimately, the question is the same as it was in
determining whether to decertify the collective action under the
FLSA: Would certifying an issue class materially advance the
litigation?

MTM asserts two overarching arguments in opposition to
certification of an issue class. First, it argues that
"certification pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) is appropriate only where
the requirements of both Rule 23(a) and one of the subsections of
Rule 23(b) are satisfied with respect to the entire action or a
specific cause of action." The Court already has rejected this
argument, finding that the broad view is the superior of the two
prevailing approaches.

Next, MTM argues that certification of an issue class is proper
only if the issue "at least substantially resolves the merits of
liability on a class-wide basis." This argument is similar in kind
to the one MTM asserted in the context of the FLSA collective --
that proof of a common FLSA -- violating policy is necessary to
satisfy the similarly situated standard. But, as the Plaintiffs
point out, courts within the Circuit and others have rejected a
requirement that an issue class fully resolve liability in the
context of 23(b)(3) and 23(c)(4) alike. Accordingly, the Judge
grants Plaintiffs' request to certify a class on the issue of
whether MTM is a joint employer or general contractor.

Judge Mehta agrees with MTM, however, that the other two issues the
Plaintiffs seek to certify are not suitable for class-wide
resolution. The issue of whether the time expended by putative
class members traveling between trips provided to MTM clients and
waiting for MTM clients qualifies as compensable work under
District of Columbia wage laws is fact intensive and highly
individualized. Indeed, the record shows that at least some TSPs
compensated their drivers for such time. And as for the issue of
whether the wage rates set by the Living Wage Act and the Service
Contract Act apply to time worked on MTM's managed-care contracts,
that is an ancillary legal question better left for the damages
phase of the litigation. Its resolution will not "materially
advance the litigation."

C. Tolling of Statute of Limitations

Finally, the Plaintiffs seek clarification that the statute of
limitations for the putative class members' claims remains tolled
notwithstanding the court's denial without prejudice of their
request to certify a class under Rule 23(c)(4).

Judge Mehta concurs with the Plaintiffs that the statute of
limitations remains tolled because the Court's Memorandum Opinion
denying class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) left open the
possibility of certification of an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4).
MTM's argument that tolling is not warranted because it "would not
promote efficiency and economy of litigation," is not well taken.

Judge Mehta says if tolling had ceased with the Court's denial of
class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), then the putative class
members would have to move to intervene or file their own
complaints in order to protect their rights. But it would not make
sense for them to do so prior to the court deciding whether
certification of an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4) is proper -- a
possibility left plainly open by the Court's prior opinion. As the
Seventh Circuit held in Sawyer v. Atlas Heating & Sheet Metal
Works, Inc., "tolling lasts from the day a class claim is asserted
until the day the suit is conclusively not a class action." That
day has not yet come in the instant case.

Conclusion and Order

For the reasons stated, Judge Mehta (i) denies MTM's motion to
decertify the FLSA collective, and (ii) grants the Plaintiffs'
motion for certification of an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4) on
the issues of whether MTM is a joint employer or a general
contractor.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/97h5p45c from
Leagle.com.


MKS INSTRUMENTS: Appeal in Newport Merger Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
MKS Instruments, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Nevada Supreme Court
has not yet reached a decision on the appeal made by the plaintiffs
in the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Newport
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Case No. A-16-733154-B.

In 2016, two putative class actions lawsuit captioned Dixon Chung
v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-733154-C, and Hubert C.
Pincon v. Newport Corp., et al., Case No. A-16-734039-B, were filed
in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a putative
class of stockholders of Newport for claims related to the merger
agreement between the Company, Newport, and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub").

The lawsuits named as defendants the Company, Newport, Merger Sub,
and certain then current and former members of Newport's board of
directors. Both complaints alleged that Newport directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders by agreeing to
sell Newport through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to
inadequate and unfair consideration, by agreeing to unfair deal
protection devices and by omitting material information from the
proxy statement.

The complaints also alleged that the Company, Newport and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the directors' alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties.

The District Court consolidated the actions, and plaintiffs later
filed an amended complaint captioned In re Newport Corporation
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. A-16-733154-B, in the District
Court, Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of
Newport's stockholders for claims related to the Newport Merger
Agreement.

The amended complaint alleged Newport's former board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Newport's stockholders and that
the Company, Newport and Merger Sub had aided and abetted these
breaches and sought monetary damages, including pre- and
post-judgment interest. In June 2017, the District Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint
against all defendants but granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On July 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
containing substantially similar allegations but naming only
Newport's former directors as defendants. On August 8, 2017, the
District Court dismissed the Company and Newport from the action.

The second amended complaint seeks monetary damages, including pre-
and post-judgment interest. The District Court granted a motion for
class certification on September 27, 2018, appointing Mr. Pincon
and Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating
Engineers - Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust as
class representatives. On June 11, 2018, plaintiff Dixon Chung was
voluntarily dismissed from the litigation.

On August 9, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint, which was denied on October 10, 2019. On
August 23, 2019, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On
January 23, 2020, the District Court entered its findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and order granting defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

On February 18, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
District Court's order granting defendants' motion for summary
judgment, as well as from the District Court's prior orders
granting defendants' motion for a bench trial and denying
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

On November 30, 2020, plaintiffs filed their opening brief in the
Nevada Supreme Court in support of their appeal from the District
Court's orders.

On January 29, 2021, defendants filed their answering brief, and on
March 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed their reply brief.

The Nevada Supreme Court has not yet reached a decision on the
appeal.

MKS Instruments, Inc. develops, manufactures, and supplies
instruments and components used to control and analyze gases in
semiconductor and similar industrial manufacturing processes. The
Company offers products to manufacture flat panel displays,
magnetic and optical storage devices and media, solar cells, fiber
optic cables, and diamond thin films. The company is based in
Andover, Massachusetts.


MOZO EXCAVATION: Zavala Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Machine Operators
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICIO ZAVALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOZO EXCAVATION INC., d/b/a MOZO EXCAVATION,
MOZO VENTURES INC., d/b/a 84 LANDSCAPING, MONICA MOZO, and JOSE
MOZO, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-06882 (S.D.N.Y., August 16,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

Mr. Zavala was hired by the Defendants as a machine operator at 38
Little Britain Rd., Newburgh, New York from June 2018 until June
2020.

Mozo Excavation Inc. is a freight shipping trucking company, with
its principal place of business located at 38 Little Britain Road,
Newburgh, New York.

Mozo Ventures Inc. is a transportation company, with its principal
place of business located at 38 Little Britain Road, Newburgh, New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         C.K. Lee, Esq.
         Anne Seelig, Esq.
         LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
         148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 465-1188
         Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Deal in Contepo Related Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nabriva Therapeutics plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court in the
consolidated putative class action suit over disclosures related to
Contepo issued an order and final judgment granting final approval
of the settlement, plaintiff's application for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses, and a reimbursement award for
the lead plaintiff, and closed the case.

On May 8, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Larry Enriquez v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted Schroeder, No.
19-cv-04183.

The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and
April 30, 2019. The complaint generally alleged that the Company
and its Chief Executive Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements and omitting to disclose material facts concerning the
Company's submission of an new drug application (NDA) to the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing approval of Contepo for
the treatment of cUTI in the United States and the likelihood of
such approval. The complaint sought unspecified damages, attorneys'
fees, and other costs.

On May 22, 2019, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Anthony Manna v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted
Schroeder, No. 19-cv-04713.

The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and
April 30, 2019. The allegations made in the Manna complaint were
similar to those made in the Enriquez complaint, and the Manna
complaint sought similar relief.

On May 24, 2019, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the court.
The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel on July 22, 2019.

On September 23, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Chief Medical Officer as
defendants; the amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the Company's securities between
January 4, 2019 through April 30, 2019, and otherwise includes
allegations similar to those made in the original complaints and
seeks similar relief.

The Company's pre-motion letter to dismiss the amended complaint
was due to plaintiff on October 21, 2019, and plaintiff responded
to the Company via a letter on November 4, 2019. On November 18,
2019, the Company filed a pre-motion letter to dismiss with the
Court, seeking leave to move to dismiss and setting forth why a
motion to dismiss is warranted.

On April 28, 2020, the Court dismissed the amended complaint
without prejudice and granted plaintiff twenty days to show cause
why the lawsuit should not be dismissed with prejudice.

On May 8, 2020, the Court granted plaintiff a 21-day extension to
show cause. On June 8, 2020, plaintiff filed a letter application
to the court seeking leave to file a proposed second amended
complaint, and on June 23, 2020, the court directed plaintiff to
file the proposed second amended complaint. Plaintiff did so on
June 24, 2020. The Company filed an answer to the second amended
complaint on July 8, 2020.

On October 21, 2020, the parties mediated this case and reached a
settlement.

On January 28, 2021, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement.

On May 14, 2021, the court issued an order and final judgment
granting final approval of the settlement, plaintiff's application
for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, and a
reimbursement award for the lead plaintiff, and closed the case.

The settlement will be covered in full by the company's directors'
and officers' insurance.

Nabriva Therapeutics plc, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in
the research and development of anti-infective agents to treat
infections in humans. The company was formerly known as Nabriva
Therapeutics Forschungs GmbH and changed its name to Nabriva
Therapeutics plc in 2007. Nabriva Therapeutics plc was incorporated
in 2005 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


NCAA: Cupal Suit Transferred to in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Peter Cupal, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01997, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 17,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04244 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NCAA: Harris Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Troy Harris, Bryan Long, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01998, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug.
17, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04246 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NCAA: Meyers Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jacob Meyers, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01967, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 17,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04239 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NCAA: Smith Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rodney Smith, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01994, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 17,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04243 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NCAA: Sorenson Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Erik Sorenson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01984, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 17,
2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04242 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: 2nd Cir. Revives Retirement Plan Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that New York
University employees challenging how the school managed their
retirement plans scored a big win on Aug. 16, when the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived part of their lawsuit
three years after they lost at trial.

University employees stated a valid claim under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act when they alleged that the NYU plans
offered retail-class shares of certain mutual funds rather than
lower-cost institutional-class shares of the same funds, the
appeals court said. This claim was wrongly dismissed by the
district court. [GN]


NEW YORK, NY: Ogleton Suit Seeks Unpaid OT for Supervisors
----------------------------------------------------------
CALWAYNE OGLETON, and RICHARD WHINT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
NYC DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS, and MELANIE E. LA ROCCA, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06889 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
and violation of employees' statutorily protected rights under the
New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

Mr. Ogleton worked for the Defendants as an inspector until his
promotion as supervisor in February 2019.

Mr. Whint started to work for the Defendants as an inspector on
November 25, 2007. He was promoted to an assistant chief position
on August 4, 2019.

The City of New York is a municipal corporation organized under the
laws of the State of New York.

NYC Department of Buildings is a municipal corporation organized
under the laws of the State of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         O. Williams Igbokwe, Esq.
         Daniel Needham, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM IGBOKWE
         28 Liberty Street, 6th Floor
         New York, NY 10005
         Telephone: (646) 205-3241
         Facsimile: (347) 467-6367

NEW YORK: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Hall
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated June 30, 2021, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL.
v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Judgment, classifying
Stacey Hall as a member of the Plaintiff class in this action, and
holding that the Plaintiff is entitled to monetary and injunctive
relief from Defendant as compensation for the injuries she suffered
as a result of what the Court found to be the Defendant's
discrimination.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 21-1854, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on July 30, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:

          James Edward Johnson, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-2500

Plaintiff-Appellee Stacey Hall is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

NEXSTAR MEDIA: Discovery Ongoing in Local TV Ads Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing the
consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In Re: Local TV
Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785.

Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class
action lawsuits against the Defendants and others alleging that
they coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby
harming a proposed class of all buyers of television advertising
time from one or more of the Defendants since at least January 1,
2014.

The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money
damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations.

On October 9, 2018, these cases were consolidated in a
multi-district litigation in the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising
Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785 ("MDL Litigation").

On January 23, 2019, the Court in the MDL Litigation appointed
plaintiffs' lead and liaison counsel.  

The MDL Litigation is ongoing.

The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 3, 2019;
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 5, 2019. Before
the Court ruled on that motion, the Plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 9, 2019. This complaint
added additional defendants and allegations.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike on October 8,
2019. The Court denied that motion on November 6, 2020.

The parties are in the discovery phase of litigation.

The Court has not yet set a trial date.

Nexstar and Tribune deny the allegations against them and will
defend their advertising practices.

Nexstar Media Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting and
digital media company in the United States. The company focuses on
the acquisition, development, and operation of television stations
and interactive community Websites in small and medium-sized
markets. The company was formerly known as Nexstar Broadcasting
Group, Inc. and changed its name to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. in
January 2017. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas.


NEXTCURE INC: Bid to Dismiss Zhou Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
NextCure, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative stockholder class action entitled, Ye Zhou v.
NextCure, Inc., et. al., Case 1:20-cv-0772 (S.D.N.Y.), is pending.

On September 21, 2020, a putative stockholder class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York styled Ye Zhou v. NextCure, Inc., et. al., Case 1:20-cv-0772
(S.D.N.Y.).

On February 26, 2021, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint that asserts claims against the company, certain
of its officers and members of its board of directors, and the
underwriters in its May 2019 initial public offering and November
2019 underwritten secondary public offering.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, with respect to statements made regarding
our lead product candidate, NC318, and the FIND-IO platform.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's securities between May 8, 2019
and July 14, 2020.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on April 27, 2021 and discovery is stayed pending
resolution of that motion.

NextCure, Inc. a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company committed
to discovering and developing novel, first-in-class immunomedicines
to treat cancer and other immune-related diseases by restoring
normal immune function. The company is based in Beltsville,
Maryland.


NINE ENERGY: Rodriguez Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------
Nine Energy Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Jacob Rodriguez.

On May 21, 2018, a certified class action was filed in the United
States District Court, District of New Mexico by Jacob Rodriguez on
behalf of similarly situated employees.

The class action alleges certain wage and overtime related claims
and violations of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, which is a state
law similar to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Company disputes the claims and violations and the timing and
amount of resolution is uncertain.

Nine Energy Service, Inc., operates as an onshore completion and
production services provider that targets unconventional oil and
gas resource development in North America.  Nine Energy Service,
Inc., was incorporated in 2011 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.

NRG ENERGY: Bid to Nix Burk and Dickson Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motions to dismiss
filed in the putative class action suits entitled, Brittany Burk v.
Direct Energy S.D. Tex. Feb. 2019) and Matthew Dickson v. Direct
Energy (N.D.Ohio Jan. 2018), are pending.

There are two putative class actions pending against Direct Energy:
(1) Brittany Burk v. Direct Energy (S.D. Tex. Feb. 2019) - Written
discovery is complete, and fact and expert discovery is ongoing.
The briefing on Direct Energy's Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s
Class Certification is complete; and

(2) Matthew Dickson v. Direct Energy (N.D.Ohio Jan. 2018) - Direct
Energy has filed a Third-Party Petition against its vendor, Total
Marketing Concepts, LLC, who placed voicemails without consent from
Direct Energy and in violation of the parties' agreement. This case
is stayed pending the outcome of a Second Circuit appeal of the
American Association of Political Consultants ("AAPC") issue.

In each case, Direct Energy has filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction based on the Supreme Court's 2020
AAPC decision invalidating the TCPA provision asserted in each
case.

NRG Energy, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
integrated power company in the United States. The company is
involved in the generation of electricity using fossil fuel and
nuclear sources. The company was founded in 1989 and is
headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey.


NRG ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Against XOOM in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that XOOM Energy is a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in New York.

This case is in the discovery phase.

NRG Energy, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
integrated power company in the United States. The company is
involved in the generation of electricity using fossil fuel and
nuclear sources. The company was founded in 1989 and is
headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey.

NRG ENERGY: Suits Against Direct Energy Underway
------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that Direct Energy, a company
subsidiary continues to defend putative class action suits in New
York and Illinois.

There are four putative class actions pending against Direct
Energy: (1) Linda Stanley v. Direct Energy (S.D.N.Y Apr. 2019) -
The parties mediated in June and agreed on a settlement. Once the
settlement is drafted and signed, it will be submitted to the Court
for approval;

(2) Martin Forte v. Direct Energy (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 2017) - Direct
Energy's Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Class
Certification are fully briefed and awaiting a ruling;

(3) Richard Schafer v. Direct Energy (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2019; on appeal
2nd Cir. N.Y.) - The trial court dismissed this action. Plaintiff
appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments
took place in April 2021. Subsequently, the Second Circuit issued a
summary opinion vacating the district court's dismissal of the
case. The matter was remanded back to the district court; and

(4) Julie and Richard Lane v. Direct Energy (S.D.Ill. Jun. 2019) -
Plaintiff has amended her Complaint in response to the Court
dismissing all claims except a claim under the Illinois Consumer
Protection Act. Direct Energy's Motion to Dismiss was granted by
the Court on April 26, 2021. The time to appeal this determination
has passed.

NRG Energy, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
integrated power company in the United States. The company is
involved in the generation of electricity using fossil fuel and
nuclear sources. The company was founded in 1989 and is
headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey.


NTT DATA: Tam Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Senior Desktop Support
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN TAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NTT DATA, INC.; NTT DATA SERVICES, LLC; and
DOES #1 through #20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-06284
(N.D. Cal., August 14, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Unfair Competition Law including failure to properly pay
minimum wages and overtime, noncompliant recordkeeping, waiting
time penalties, and civil penalties.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as senior desktop support
from approximately October 2018 until September 2020.

NTT Data, Inc. is a multinational information technology service
and consulting company, with its headquarters and principal place
of business in Plano, Texas.

NTT Data Services, LLC is an information technology firm, with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
         PARMET PC
         340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
         Walnut, CA 91789
         Telephone: (310) 928-1277
         E-mail: matt@parmet.law

               - and –

         Rachael V. Rustmann, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         E-mail: rrustmann@mybackwages.com

ONTRAK INC: Dick Purported Securities Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Ontrak, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated purported securities class action suit headed by
Ibinabo Dick.

On March 3, 2021, a purported securities class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, entitled Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01987
(C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 3, 2021).

On March 19, 2021, another similar lawsuit was filed in the same
court, entitled Yildrim v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02460
(C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 19, 2021).

On July 14, 2021, the Court consolidated the two actions, appointed
Ibinabo Dick as lead plaintiff, and the Rosen Law Firm as lead
counsel.

In these actions, plaintiffs, purportedly on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of Ontrak securities from November 5, 2020
through February 26, 2021, allege that the Company and certain of
its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule
10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, by
intentionally or recklessly making false and/or misleading
statements and/or failing to disclose that (i) Ontrak's largest
customer evaluated Ontrak on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak's
performance based on achieving the lowest cost per medical visit
rather than clinical outcomes or medical cost savings; (ii) as a
result, Ontrak's largest customer did not find Ontrak's program to
be effective and was reasonably likely to terminate its contract
with Ontrak; (iii) because this customer accounted for a
significant portion of Ontrak's revenue, loss of the customer would
have an outsized impact on Ontrak's financial results; and (iv) as
a result of the foregoing, Ontrak's positive statements about its
business, operations and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

In these actions, plaintiffs seek certification of a class and
monetary damages in an indeterminate amount.

In the Court's July 14, 2021 order, the Court also ordered lead
plaintiff to file an consolidated amended complaint within fourteen
(14) days. On July 28, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint asserting claims substantively identical to those
asserted in the original complaint.

On July 29, 2021, the Court ordered that the amended complaint be
stricken because it did not effect a consolidation of the Farhar
and Yildrim actions, and ordered lead plaintiff to file a
consolidated amended complaint by August 13, 2021.

Defendants will have until September 13, 2021 to move to dismiss,
lead plaintiff will have until October 14, 2021 to oppose and
defendants will have until October 28, 2021 to reply.

Ontrak said, "We believe that the allegations lack merit and intend
to defend against these actions vigorously."

Ontrak, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Delaware on September
29, 2003. Ontrak was founded with a passion for engaging with and
helping improve the health and save lives of anyone impacted by
behavioral health conditions. The company is a leading Artificial
Intelligence ("AI")-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized
healthcare company, whose mission is to help improve the health and
save the lives of as many people as possible. The company is based
in Santa Monica, California.


OPEN TEXT: Parties in Carbonite Suit Awaits 1st Cir. Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Open Text Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, that the parties in the
consolidated putative class action suit filed against Carbonite
Inc., awaits the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's decision
on plaintiffs appeal on the order of dismissal by the District
Court.  

On August 1, 2019, prior to the company's acquisition of Carbonite
Inc., a purported stockholder of Carbonite filed a putative class
action complaint against Carbonite, its former Chief Executive
Officer, Mohamad S. Ali, and its former Chief Financial Officer,
Anthony Folger, in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts captioned Ruben A. Luna, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc.,
Mohamad S. Ali, and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19-cv-11662-LTS).

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements in connection with Carbonite's
Server Backup VM Edition, and seeks, among other things, the
designation of the action as a class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

On August 23, 2019, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the
same court captioned William Feng, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali,
and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19- cv-11808-LTS).

On November 21, 2019, the court consolidated the Securities
Actions, appointed a lead plaintiff, and designated a lead counsel.
On January 15, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint generally making the same allegations and seeking
the same relief as the complaint filed on August 1, 2019.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Actions on March 10,
2020. The motion was fully briefed in June 2020 and a hearing on
the motion to dismiss the Securities Actions was held on October
15, 2020.

Following the hearing, on October 22, 2020, the court granted with
prejudice the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Actions.


On November 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The appeal has been fully briefed and oral arguments before the
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit were held on July 29, 2021.


Open Text said, "The court's decision on the appeal is expected in
the coming months and the defendants remain confident in the
District Court's dismissal with prejudice of the Securities
Actions."

Open Text Corporation provides a suite of software products and
services that assist organizations in finding, utilizing, and
sharing business information from various devices. The Company was
founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Waterloo, Canada.


OVERSTOCK.COM: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Missouri Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's motion to
compel arbitration filed in the putative class action in the
Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, is
pending.

On April 23, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the Circuit Court of the County of St.
Louis, State of Missouri, alleging that the company over-collected
taxes on products sold into the state of Missouri. The company
removed the case to United States District Court, Eastern District
of Missouri on May 22, 2020, and on February 9, 2021, the case
against the company was dismissed.

On March 1, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the company  in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State
of Missouri, alleging similar allegations to the April 23, 2020
putative class action lawsuit that was dismissed, that the company
over-collected taxes on products sold into the state of Missouri.

The company filed a motion to compel arbitration on April 15, 2021
which has not yet been decided.

Overstock.com said, "No estimates of the possible losses or range
of losses can be made at this time. We intend to vigorously defend
this action."

Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United
States and internationally. The Company was formerly known as
D2-Discounts Direct and changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in
October 1999. Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Midvale, Utah.


OVERSTOCK.COM: Bid to Dismiss Mangrove Partners Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint filed in the purported class
action suit headed by The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd., is
pending.

On September 27, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the company and its former chief executive
officer and former chief financial officer in the United States
District Court of Utah, alleging violations under Section 10(b),
Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a), Section 20(A) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

On October 8, 2019, October 17, 2019, October 31, 2019, and
November 20, 2019, four similar lawsuits were filed in the same
court also naming the Company and the above referenced former
executives as defendants, bringing similar claims under the
Exchange Act, and seeking similar relief. These cases were
consolidated into a single lawsuit in December 2019.

The Court appointed The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd. as lead
plaintiff in January 2020. In March 2020, an amended consolidated
complaint was filed against the company, its President, its former
Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer.
The company filed a motion to dismiss and on September 28, 2020,
the court granted the company's motion and entered judgment in the
company's favor.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint on October
23, 2020 and filed a notice of appeal on October 26, 2020. The
United States District Court of Utah granted the plaintiffs' motion
to amend their complaint on January 6, 2021 and the Tenth Circuit
Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal on January 8, 2021.

The company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint
on February 25, 2021. The court heard oral argument on the
company's motion on June 18, 2021, but has not yet issued a ruling.
No estimates of the possible losses or range of losses can be made
at this time.

Overstock.com said, "We intend to vigorously defend this
consolidated action."

Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United
States and internationally. The Company was formerly known as
D2-Discounts Direct and changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in
October 1999. Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Midvale, Utah.


PLAYAGS INC: Bid to Junk OPPRS Consolidated Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Playags, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated putative class action suit headed by Oklahoma
Police Pension and Retirement System ("OPPRS"), is pending.

On  June 25, and  July 31, 2020 putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada, by two separate plaintiffs against PlayAGS, Inc. and
certain of its officers, individually and on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between
August 2, 2018 and  August 7, 2019.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's forward-looking financial
outlook and accounting for goodwill and intangible assets in its
iGaming reporting unit, resulting in injury to the purported class
members as a result of the decline in the value of the Company's
common stock following its release of its Second Quarter 2019
results on  August 7, 2019.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On  August 4, 2020, a third plaintiff OPPRS filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the same court asserting similar claims to those
alleged in the first two class action lawsuits, based on
substantially the same conduct.

Specifically, OPPRS claims that the Company, certain of its
officers, and certain entities that allegedly beneficially held
over 50% of the Company's common stock at the beginning of the
class period, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making false and misleading
statements concerning, among other things, the Company's
forward-looking financial outlook and accounting for goodwill and
intangible assets in its iGaming reporting unit, and the adequacy
of its internal controls over financial reporting, resulting in
injury to the purported class members as a result of the decline in
the value of the Company's common stock following its release of
its Second Quarter 2019 results on  August 7, 2019.  

OPPRS brings these Exchange Act claims on behalf of a slightly
larger putative class than in the previously-filed actions: all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities
between  May 3, 2018 and  August 7, 2019.

In addition, based on substantially similar alleged false or
misleading statements, OPPRS asserts claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all
persons who purchased Company common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's  August 2018 and  March 2019 secondary
public offerings.  These secondary-offering claims are brought
against the same defendants identified above, plus certain of the
Company's directors and the underwriters.

On October 28, 2020 these three related putative class actions were
consolidated into In re PlayAGS, Inc. Securities Litigation by the
Court with OPPRS appointed as lead plaintiff. On January 11, 2021,
the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in the consolidated
action against the same set of defendants, again asserting claims
(i) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf
of a slightly larger putative class than in any previous complaint
(the class period now extends through March 4, 2020), and (ii)
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf
of the same putative class as in OPPRS's previous complaint.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements during the putative class period
concerning, among other things, the Company's growth, financial
performance, and forward-looking financial outlook, particularly
with respect to the Oklahoma market, resulting in injury to the
purported class members as a result of the decline in the value of
the Company's common stock when the alleged "truth" was revealed
following release of the Company's financial reports on August 7,
2019, November 7, 2019, and March 4, 2020.

Unlike the previous complaints, the Amended Complaint does not
allege false or misleading statements concerning the Company's
accounting for the iGaming reporting unit or the adequacy of the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting.

On February 23, 2021 the Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion
to file a second amended complaint, which they filed on March 25,
2021.

The second amended complaint asserts substantially the same claims
as the Amended Complaint but extends the beginning of the putative
class period back to January 26, 2018.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint on May 24, 2021 and the lead plaintiff filed its
opposition to the motions on  July 23, 2021, The defendants'
replies are due September 13, 2021.

The defendants believe the claims are without merit and intend to
defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as
to the outcome.  

Playags, Inc. is a designer and supplier of EGMs and other products
and services for the gaming industry. The company is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada.


POHANKA HYUNDAI: Foreman Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pohanka Hyundai, Inc.
The case is styled as Chris Foreman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Pohanka Hyundai, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01598-PAB (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 17, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Pohanka Hyundai in Capitol Heights, MD --
https://www.pohankahyundai.com/ -- offers new & used Hyundai cars,
trucks & SUVs near Washington DC. Visit us for sales, financing,
service & tires.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


PPL CORP: Talen Montana Class Suit Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the putative class
action suit entitled, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen
Energy Marketing, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. PPL Corporation et al., remains stayed.

On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy
Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly
suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm
as a result of a November 2014 distribution of proceeds from the
sale of then-PPL Montana's hydroelectric generating facilities.

The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the
State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its
affiliates and current and former officers and directors (Talen
Putative Class Action).

Plaintiff asserts claims for, among other things, fraudulent
transfer, both actual and constructive; recovery against subsequent
transferees; civil conspiracy; aiding and abetting tortious
conduct; and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff is seeking avoidance of
the purportedly fraudulent transfer, unspecified damages, including
punitive damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and other
relief.

In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from
the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the
United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings
Division (MT Federal Court). In January 2019, the plaintiff moved
to remand the Talen Putative Class Action back to state court, and
dismissed without prejudice all current and former PPL Corporation
directors from the case.

In September 2019, the MT Federal Court granted plaintiff's motion
to remand the case back to state court.

Although, the PPL defendants petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals to grant an appeal of the remand decision, in November
2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied that request and in
December 2019, Talen Montana Retirement Plan filed a Second Amended
Complaint in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of
Montana, Rosebud County, which removed Talen Energy Marketing as a
plaintiff.

In January 2020, PPL defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, to stay the
proceedings pending the resolution of the Delaware Action.

The Court held a hearing on June 24, 2020 regarding the motions. On
September 11, 2020, the Court granted PPL defendants' alternative
Motion for a Stay of the proceedings.

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

PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and
natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The
Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky
Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated. It was founded in 1920 and
is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.


PROFFESIONAL BUSINESS: Commisso Files Suit in W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Business
Systems. The case is styled as Paul Commisso, Glenda Johnson,
individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Professional Business Systems D/B/A Practice First Medical
Management Solutions, Case No. 1:21-cv-00937 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 17,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Professional Business Systems doing business as Practicefirst
Medical Management Solutions --
https://www.practicefirstsecure.com/ -- provides billing, coding,
credentialing, enrollment, chart audits, compliance and practice
management.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 298-3281
          Fax: (914) 824-1561
          Email: tgarber@fbfglaw.com


PROPETRO HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Logan Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
ProPetro Holding Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the class action initiated by "Logan" is still pending.

In July 2020, the Logan Lawsuit Lead Plaintiffs Nykredit Portefolje
Administration A/S, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System, Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, Oklahoma Police
Pension and Retirement System, and Oklahoma City Employee
Retirement System, and additional named plaintiff Police and Fire
Retirement System of the City of Detroit, individually and on
behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between March 17, 2017 and March 13, 2020,
filed a third amended class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule
l0b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on allegedly inaccurate
or misleading statements, or omissions of material facts, about the
Company's business, operations and prospects against the Company,
certain former officers and current and former directors.

In August 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Logan
Lawsuit and in September 2020, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition.

In October 2020, the Company filed its reply brief in support of
the motion to dismiss.

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

ProPetro Holding Corp. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, offers well drilling, stimulation,
cementing, and coiled tubing services. ProPetro Holding serves
customers in North America. The company is based in Midland,
Texas.


PROVENTION BIO: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Provention Bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion for
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the putative
class action suit related to teplizumab BLA and teplizumab's
commercialization timeline, is pending.

On May 21, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming the
Company, Chief Executive Officer Ashleigh Palmer, and Chief
Financial Officer Andrew Drechsler as defendants.

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 in connection with disclosures made regarding
the teplizumab BLA and teplizumab's commercialization timeline.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
November 2, 2020 and April 8, 2021.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

Per the procedures set forth by federal securities laws,
applications for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead counsel
were due to the Court on July 20, 2021.

Two applications for lead plaintiff and lead counsel were submitted
to the Court on that date; one of the two movants subsequently
withdrew its application.

Provention Bio, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to
intercepting and preventing immune-mediated diseases. Since its
inception, it had devoted substantially all of its efforts to
business planning, research and development, pre-commercial
activities, recruiting management and technical staff, acquiring
operating assets, partnering and raising capital. The company is
based in Red Bank, New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Griffin Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's motion to
dismiss filed in William James Griffin, et al. v. Benefytt
Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.),
Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings, Inc. and Assurance IQ, LLC, is
pending.

In February 2021, an amended putative class action complaint
entitled William James Griffin, et al. v. Benefytt Technologies,
Inc., Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings, Inc. and Assurance IQ,
LLC, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, alleging that the defendants violated the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and engaged
in a conspiracy to defraud customers through the sale of limited
indemnity and short term health insurance products to individuals
seeking comprehensive medical insurance.

The complaint seeks unspecified treble damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief.

In June 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S.
Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions.
Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered
in Newark, New Jersey.


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Objects to Proposed Judgment in Hsu Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the defendants in Hsu v.
Puma Biotechnology, Inc. objected to plaintiffs' proposed judgment
on July 19, 2021 and intend to file a motion to exclude certain
disputed claims from any judgment.

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

On October 16, 2015, lead plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed a
consolidated complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased the
company's securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015.

A trial on the claims relating to four statements alleged to have
been false or misleading was held from January 15 to January 29,
2019. At trial, the jury found that three of the four challenged
statements were not false or misleading, and thus found in the
defendants' favor on those claims. The jury found liability as to
one statement and awarded a maximum of $4.50 per share in damages,
which represents approximately 5% of the total claimed damages of
$87.20 per share.

On September 9, 2019, the Court entered an order specifying the
rate of prejudgment interest to be awarded on any valid claims at
the 52-week Treasury Bill rate. On September 8, 2020, the claims
administrator submitted its final claims report to the Court and,
on October 9, 2020, the claims administrator submitted its
supplemental claims report. The claims report reflects
approximately $50.5 million in claimed damages.

The company disagree with the amount of claimed damages. On
November 27, 2020, the Court issued an order setting out the
process for challenging claims. That process remains on-going.

On June 28, 2021, plaintiffs filed a proposed judgment on certain
claims totaling approximately $41.99 million in damages plus
interest in the amount of approximately $2.95 million.  

Defendants dispute the entry of judgment and the proposed amount of
prejudgment interest. Defendants objected to plaintiffs' proposed
judgment on July 19, 2021 and intend to file a motion to exclude
certain disputed claims from any judgment.

Based on a review of specific claims and subject to the outcome of
the claims challenge process, the company believes that total
claimed damages after all claims challenges have been adjudicated
could range from $30.0 million to $51.4 million.

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

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

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


REDFIN CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bell Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Redfin Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to compel
arbitration in the class action suit initiated by Jason Bell, is
pending.

On November 20, 2020, Jason Bell, who is one of the company's
former lead agents as well as a former associate agent, filed a
complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

The complaint is pled as a class action and alleges that, (1)
during the time he served as an associate agent, the company
misclassified him as an independent contractor instead of an
employee and (2) during the time he served as a lead agent, the
company misclassified him as an employee who was exempt from
minimum wage and overtime laws. The plaintiff also asserts
representative claims under PAGA.

The plaintiff is seeking unspecified amounts of unpaid overtime
wages, regular wages, meal and rest period compensation, waiting
time and other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief,
and plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 2, 2020, the company filed a motion to compel
arbitration and asserted that the plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate
his claims and had waived all class claims.

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

Redfin Corporation is a technology-powered, residential real estate
brokerage. The company represents people buying and selling homes
in over 80 markets throughout the United States. The company is
based in Seattle, Washington.


RENEWABLE ENERGY: BTC Restatement Related Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Energy Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
related to its announced restatement related to Biodiesel Tax
Credit (BTC).

On March 2, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United Stated District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On March 12, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit against the same
defendants was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

On June 24, 2021, the two cases were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York under the caption In re Renewable Energy Group
Securities Litigation, No. 21-cv-1832, and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on July 9, 2021.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between March 8, 2018 and
February 25, 2021, the date on which the Company announced its
restatement related to BTC.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business, financial results and
prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys'
fees, and other costs.

The Company denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and
intends to vigorously defend against the litigation.

Renewable Energy Group, Inc. produces and sells advanced biofuels
and renewable chemicals in the United States. Renewable Energy
Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Ames, Iowa.

RESIDEO TECH: Agreement in Principle Reached in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Resideo Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that the Company executed a
term sheet with plaintiffs' representatives setting forth an
agreement in principle to settle the claims in the class suit
entitled, In re Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation,
19-cv-02863, as alleged in the complaint, as amended.

The Company, the Company's former CEO Michael Nefkens, the
Company's former CFO Joseph Ragan, and the Company's former CIO
Niccolo de Masi are named defendants of a class action securities
suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
styled In re Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation,
19-cv-02863.

The Securities Litigation is a putative class action securities
suit with the class defined as all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Resideo during the
class period of October 29, 2018 to November 6, 2019. The
complaint, as amended, asserts claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, broadly
alleging, among other things, that the defendants (or some of them)
made false and misleading statements regarding, among other things,
Resideo's business, performance, the efficiency of its supply
chain, operational and administrative issues resulting from the
spin-off from Honeywell, certain business initiatives, and
financial guidance in 2019.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 10,
2020. On March 30, 2021, United States District Judge Wilhelmina M.
Wright issued an order and decision denying the motion to dismiss.


On April 13, 2021, the Defendants filed an answer in the Securities
Litigation.

On July 30, 2021, the Company executed a term sheet with
plaintiffs' representatives setting forth an agreement in principle
to settle the claims alleged in the complaint, as amended.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement in principle, the Company
did not make any admission of liability, and the Company continues
to deny any and all liability in connection with the allegations of
the complaint, as amended.

The total amount to be paid in settlement of the claims as set
forth in the agreement in principle is $55 million. Insurance
recoveries of approximately $39 million are expected related to the
settlement. The claim settlement payment and related insurance
recoveries are recorded in Accrued liabilities and Other current
assets, respectively.

The net expense of $16 million from the claim settlement and
related insurance recoveries is recorded in Selling, general and
administrative expenses.

Resideo said, "The settlement provided for the full release of all
parties and Honeywell, including the Company and the Company's
present and former directors and officers, including without
limitation the defendants who were named in the suits. The
settlement is subject to, among other things, court review and
approval and other customary conditions."

Resideo Technologies, Inc. is a leading global provider of critical
comfort, residential thermal solutions and security solutions
primarily in residential environments. The Company was incorporated
in Delaware on April 24, 2018, but was separated from Honeywell
International Inc. on October 29, 2018, becoming an independent
publicly traded company as a result of a pro rata distribution of
the company's common stock to shareholders of Honeywell. The
company is based in Austin, Texas.


REVOLVE GROUP: Settlement in Wage-and-Hour Suit Gets Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Revolve Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court granted
approval of the settlement in the California wage and hour suit,
which was subsequently paid by the Company during the first quarter
of 2021.

The company was a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
which was filed in May 2019, arising from employee wage-and-hour
claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest period,
payment of wages at separation, wage statement violations, and
unfair business practices.  

On January 6, 2020, the company and the individual defendant in the
case entered into a binding memorandum of understanding to settle
the case.

In December 2019, the company accrued approximately $1.0 million to
general and administrative expenses.

On January 5, 2021, the court granted approval of the settlement,
which was subsequently paid by the Company during the first quarter
of 2021.

Revolve Group, Inc. is an e-commerce platform that caters to
millennials and generation Z consumers. The company curates luxury
apparel, footwear, and accessory items, which it sells through a
digital platform. It also owns several private brands. The company
is based in Cerritos, California.


SANA DELI CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guaman Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS GUAMAN, MARGARITO FLORES CECILIO, and OSCAR URAGA MARQUEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. SANA DELI CORP. (D/B/A GARDENIA DELI), and HASSAN ALBORATI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06773 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 11, 2021) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen staffs.

SANA DELI CORP. own, operate, or control a gourmet deli, located at
404 8th Ave, New York, NY 10001 under the name "Gardenia Deli."
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

SCHEAR CONSTRUCTION: Torres Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERICK TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCHEAR CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04609 (E.D.N.Y., August 16, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York Labor Law, and the Rules and Regulations of the State
of New York by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all other
similarly situated laborers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek and failing to provide accurate
wage statements.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a laborer from July 2020
to December 2020.

Schear Construction, LLC is a construction company, with its
principal office located in Oakland Park, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
         Plantation, FL 33324
         Telephone: (954) WORKERS
         Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
         E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

SCHUBERT & SCHUBERT: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schubert & Schubert
LLC. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Schubert & Schubert LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06938 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2021).

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

Schubert & Schubert LLC is located in China Spring, Texas, United
States and is part of the Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers
Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SELECTQUOTE INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on Aug. 17 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Hartel v.
SelectQuote, Inc., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-06903) on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
SelectQuote, Inc. ("SelectQuote" or "the Company") (NYSE: SLQT)
securities between February 8, 2021 and May 11, 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 SelectQuote 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/selectquote-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On May 11, 2021, SelectQuote held a conference call in connection
with its third quarter 2021 financial results during which it
disclosed that its fourth quarter results would be impacted by a
"negative cohort and tail adjustment" due to "lower second-term
persistency for the 2019 cohort."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $5.50, or 20%, to
close at $21.90 per share on May 12, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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 made material
misrepresentations concerning the following: (1) that SelectQuote's
2019 cohort was underperforming; (2) that, as a result, the
Company's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired SelectQuote 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.

Contacts:

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]

SEMPRA ENERGY: Continues to Defend Property & Business Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company and Southern
California Gas Company (SoCalGas) continue to defend two
consolidated class action suits in California.

In January 2017, two consolidated class action complaints were
filed against SoCalGas and Sempra, one on behalf of a putative
class of persons and businesses who own or lease real property
within a five-mile radius of the well (the Property Class Action),
and a second on behalf of a putative class of all persons and
entities conducting business within five miles of the facility (the
Business Class Action).

The Property Class Action asserts claims for strict liability for
ultra-hazardous activities, negligence, negligence per se,
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, trespass,
permanent and continuing public and private nuisance, and inverse
condemnation.

The Business Class Action asserts a claim for violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law.

Both complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

A federal securities class action alleging violation of the federal
securities laws was filed against Sempra and certain of its
officers in July 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

In March 2018, the court dismissed the action with prejudice, and
in February 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal.

Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Trial in Aliso Canyon Leak Suit Set for Feb. 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court has scheduled
trial for a small number of individual plaintiffs for February
2022.

On October 23, 2015, Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas)
discovered a leak at one of its injection-and-withdrawal wells,
SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, located in
the northern part of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles
County.

The Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility has been operated by
SoCalGas since 1972. SS25 is one of more than 100
injection-and-withdrawal wells at the storage facility.

SoCalGas worked closely with several of the world's leading experts
to stop the Leak, and on February 18, 2016, the California
Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources (DOGGR) confirmed that the well was permanently sealed.
SoCalGas calculated that approximately 4.62 Bcf of natural gas was
released from the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility as a
result of the Leak.

As of August 2, 2021, 396 lawsuits, including approximately 36,000
plaintiffs, are pending against SoCalGas and Sempra related to the
Leak. All these cases, other than the federal securities class
action discussed below, which named only Sempra, are coordinated
before a single court in the LA Superior Court for pretrial
management.

In November 2017, in the coordinated proceeding, individuals and
business entities filed a Third Amended Consolidated Master Case
Complaint for Individual Actions, through which their separate
lawsuits will be managed for pretrial purposes. The consolidated
complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, negligence per
se, private and public nuisance (continuing and permanent),
trespass, inverse condemnation, strict liability, negligent and
intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent
concealment, loss of consortium, wrongful death and violations of
Proposition 65 against SoCalGas and Sempra.

The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages
for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost profits, property
damage and diminution in property value, injunctive relief, costs
of future medical monitoring, civil penalties (including penalties
associated with Proposition 65 claims alleging violation of
requirements for warning about certain chemical exposures), and
attorneys' fees.

The court has scheduled trial for a small number of individual
plaintiffs for February 2022.

Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


SP STAR: Fails to Properly Pay Exotic Dancers, Arciga Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA ARCIGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SP STAR ENTERPRISE, INC. dba PLATINUM
SHOWGIRLS LA; LA CLUB MANAGEMENT, LLC; MOHAN S. MAKKAR; and DOES 1
to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV30277 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., August 16, 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
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, and unlawful tip
collection.

The Plaintiff started to work for SP STAR as an exotic dancer in or
about 2018.

SP Star Enterprise, Inc. is an operator of an adult entertainment
club under the name Platinum Showgirls LA, located in Los Angeles
County, California.

LA Club Management, LLC is an operator of an adult entertainment
club, located in Los Angeles County, California. [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

SPARK ENERGY: Glikin Putative Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a purported variable rate class action suit entitled,
Glikin, et. all v. Major Energy Electric Services, LLC.

On January 14, 2021, Glikin, et. all v. Major Energy Electric
Services, LLC, a purported variable rate class action was filed in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
attempting to represent a class of all Major Energy customers
(including customers of companies Major Energy acts as a successor
to) in the United States charged a variable rate for electricity or
gas by Major Energy during the applicable statute of limitations
period up to and including the date of judgment.

The Company believes there is no merit to this case and plans to
vigorously defend this matter; however, given the current early
stage of this matter, the company cannot predict the outcome of
this case at this time.

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SPARK ENERGY: Initial Approval of Verde Matters Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the settlement in the
Verde Energy USA, Inc. brand matters, awaits the court's
preliminary approval.

In December of 2020, the Company participated in mediation which
covered several Verde Energy USA, Inc. (Verde) brand matters: (1)
Marshall. Verde Energy USA, Inc. (D.N.J. Jan. 2018); (2) Mercado v.
Verde Energy USA, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2018); (3) Davis v. Verde
Energy USA, Inc., et al. (D. Mass. Apr. 2019); (4) Panzer v. Verde
Energy, USA Inc. and Oasis Power, LLC (E.D. Pa Aug. 2019); (5)
LaQua v. Verde Energy USA New York, LLC (E.D.N Y. Jan. 2020); and
(6) Abbate v. Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC (S.D. Ohio Jun. 2020). The
parties have agreed to a global settlement that would resolve all
of these Verde cases.

A class action settlement agreement was filed for preliminary
approval in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois Eastern Division, and an Amended Class Action
Settlement Agreement was filed early July 2021 and is pending
preliminary approval.

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Retail Electricity and Retail
Natural Gas. The company engages in the retail distribution of
electricity and natural gas to residential and commercial
customers. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


SPRAGUE RESOURCES: Oil & Natural Gas Facility Related Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sprague Resources LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company subsidiary
Sprague Operating Resources, LLC ("SOR") continues to defend a
purported class action suit related to the company's
(Partnership's) oil and natural gas facility located in Providence,
Rhode Island.

On September 14, 2020, a purported class action complaint was filed
against SOR, one of the Partnership's subsidiaries, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

The complaint, since amended, alleges causes of action for private
nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence, each based on emission
impacts to nearby occupants from the Partnership's oil and natural
gas facility located in Providence, Rhode Island.

The complaint also alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds
$5.0 million. At this early stage in the litigation, the
Partnership cannot predict whether the plaintiff will succeed in
getting the court to certify a class.

Sprague said, "Based upon the information currently available to
it, the Partnership believes that the complaint is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against it."

Sprague Resources LP engages in the purchase, storage,
distribution, and sale of refined petroleum products and natural
gas in the United States and Canada. The Company was founded in
1870 and is headquartered in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Individual Claims in Phishing Scam Suit Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended July 4, 2021, that three individual
arbitrations related to email "phishing" scam, were settled in late
June and early July 2020, with immaterial settlement amounts fully
funded by the Company's cyber insurance policy.

In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two in the federal
courts of California, one in the Superior Court of California and
one in the federal court in the District of Colorado, each on
behalf of a purported class of the Company's current and former
team members whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was
inadvertently disclosed to an unauthorized third party that
perpetrated an email "phishing" scam against one of the Company's
team members.

The complaints alleged the Company failed to properly safeguard the
PII in accordance with applicable law.  

The complaints sought damages on behalf of the purported class in
unspecified amounts, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

On March 1, 2019, a number of individual plaintiffs filed
arbitration demands. On May 15, 2019, certain other plaintiffs
filed a second amended class action complaint in the District of
Arizona, alleging that certain subclasses of team members are not
subject to the Company's arbitration agreement and attempted to
pursue those team members' claims in federal court.

In late August 2019, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle the majority of these claims, which were funded in the
fourth quarter of 2019.

Primary funding for the settlement came from the Company's cyber
insurance policy, and the settlement did not have a material impact
on the consolidated financial statements.

Following the group settlement, three individual claimants planned
to proceed with arbitration of their claims.  

The three individual arbitrations were settled in late June and
early July 2020, with immaterial settlement amounts fully funded by
the Company's cyber insurance policy.

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

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides
fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its
stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods,
packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and
dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body
care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded
in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona.


STAGE COACH: Romero Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Inn Hosts
--------------------------------------------------------------
LACY ROMERO and ROBERT ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STAGE COACH WAY LLC D/B/A
LAKE PLACID STAGECOACH INN, STACIA TAKACH, and MICHAEL TAKACH,
Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-00918-LEK-CFH (N.D.N.Y., August 13,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing
to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
spread-of-hours premium and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as hosts at the Lake
Placid Stagecoach Inn in New York from approximately May 2020
through January 2021.

Stage Coach Way LLC is an owner and operator of a bed and breakfast
inn under the name Lake Placid Stagecoach Inn, with its principal
place of business at 3 Stagecoach Way, Lake Placid, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
                  
         David Stein, Esq.
         STEIN & NIEPORENT LLP
         1441 Broadway, Suite 6090
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 308-3444
         E-mail: dstein@steinllp.com

STONEFIRE GRILL: Improperly Pays Restaurant Cooks, Alejandro Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EZEQUIEL CARLOS ALEJANDRO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STONEFIRE GRILL 6, INC., STONEFIRE
GRILL, INC., STONEFIRE GRILL 1, INC., STONEFIRE GRILL 2, INC.,
STONEFIRE GRILL 3, INC., STONEFIRE GRILL 4, INC., STONEFIRE GRILL
5, INC., STONEFIRE GRILL 7, INC., STONEFIRE GRILL 8, INC.,
STONEFIRE GRILL 9, INC., STONEFIRE GRILL 12, INC., STONEFIRE GRILL
13, INC., STONEFIRE GRILL RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21GDCV01041 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 13, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Private Attorneys'
General Act including failure to pay all wages due, including
minimum, regular, and overtime wages; failure to provide meal
periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide
accurate wage statements; and failure to pay wages upon ending
employment of terminated or resigned employees.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cook by the Defendants in Pasadena,
California from on or about August 16, 2019 until June 10, 2020.

The Defendants are restaurant operators in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Jake D. Finkel, Esq.
         Alexander Perez, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF JAKE D. FINKEL
         3470 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 830
         Los Angeles, CA 90010
         Telephone: (213) 787-7411
         Facsimile: (323) 916-0521
         E-mail: jake@lawfinkel.com
                 alex@lawfinkel.com

SUBURBAN PROPANE: NY Suit Over Gas & Electricity Business Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 26, 2021, that the company
continues to defend itself from a class lawsuit related to its
natural gas and electricity business in New York.

The Partnership's natural gas and electricity business is currently
a defendant in a putative class action suit in the Northern
District of New York.  

The complaint alleges a number of claims under various consumer
statutes and common law in New York and Pennsylvania regarding
pricing offered to electricity customers in those states.  

The complaint was dismissed in part by the district court, but
causes of action based on the New York consumer statute and breach
of contract were allowed to proceed.  

Based on the nature of the allegations in the suit, the Partnership
believes that the suit is without merit and is defending against it
vigorously.

With respect to this pending suit, the Partnership has determined,
based on the allegations and discovery to date, that no reserve for
a loss contingency is required.  

The Partnership is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss, if any, arising from the action.  

Suburban said, "Although any litigation is inherently uncertain,
based on past experience, the information currently available to
the Partnership, and the amount of its accrued insurance
liabilities, the Partnership does not believe that currently
pending or threatened litigation matters, or known claims or known
contingent claims, will have a material adverse effect on its
results of operations, financial condition or cash flow."

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

Suburban Propane Partners, L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages
in the retail marketing and distribution of propane, fuel oil, and
refined fuels. The company operates in four segments: Propane, Fuel
Oil and Refined Fuels, Natural Gas and Electricity, and All Other.
Suburban Energy Services Group LLC serves as a general partner of
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. The company was founded in 1945 and
is headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey.


SUNRUN INC: Agreement Reached in Suit vs. Vivint Solar
------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that parties have reached an agreement to
settle the consolidated putative class action suit against Vivint
Solar, Inc. and have informed the court of their agreement.

In October 2019, two shareholders filed separate putative class
actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York (Crumrine v. Vivint Solar, Inc. and Li v. Vivint Solar, Inc.)
purportedly on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated.

The lawsuits purport to allege violations of Federal Securities
Laws.

In March 2020, the court consolidated the two actions and appointed
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel to represent the alleged putative
class.

Subsequently, in December 2020, the Eastern District of New York
transferred the actions to the District of Utah, where they are now
pending.

Vivint Solar disputes the allegations in the complaint. While
Vivint Solar believes that the claims against it are without merit,
in view of the cost and risk of continuing to defend the action,
Vivint Solar mediated the action with plaintiffs on May 19, 2021,
and reached an agreement to resolve the action on a class-wide
basis for $1.25 million.

A portion of the $1.25 million will be covered by insurance
proceeds, and the Company accrued approximately $750,000 as of June
30, 2021.

The parties have informed the court of their agreement, and they
anticipate submitting final settlement documents to the court in
the next 60 days or so.

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


SUNRUN INC: Dekker Suit Against Vivint Solar Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that  Vivint Solar, Inc. continues to defend a
putative class action suit entitled, Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc.

In December 2019, ten customers who signed residential power
purchase agreements named Vivint Solar in a putative class action
lawsuit captioned Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc. (N.D. Cal.),
alleging that the agreements contain unlawful termination fee
provisions.

The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint.

On January 17, 2020, Vivint Solar moved to compel arbitration with
respect to nine of the ten plaintiffs whose contracts included
arbitration provisions.

The court issued an order compelling eight plaintiffs to pursue
their claims in arbitration but subsequently rescinded the order as
to certain plaintiffs.

Sunrun said, "At this time, certain plaintiffs' claims remain
pending before the court and other plaintiffs’ claims are in
arbitration. The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if
any, at this time."

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


SUNRUN INC: Settlement in Loftus Suit Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the court granted final approval of the
settlement in Loftus et al. v. Sunrun Inc., Case No.
3:19-cv-01608.

On April 8, 2019, a putative class action captioned Loftus et al.
v. Sunrun Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01608, was filed in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California.

The complaint generally alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") on behalf of an individual and
putative classes of persons alleged to be similarly situated.
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on June 26, 2019, adding
defendant MediaMix 365, LLC, also asserting individual and putative
class claims under the TCPA, along with claims under the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.

In the amended version of their Complaint, plaintiffs seek
statutory damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees and costs on behalf of themselves and the absent purported
classes.

Most, if not all, of the claims asserted in the lawsuit relate to
activities allegedly engaged in by third-party vendors, for which
the Company denies any responsibility.

While the Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit, in view of the cost and risk of continuing to defend the
action, it reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the
lawsuit on a class-wide basis for $5.5 million, which was accrued
as of June 30, 2020, in exchange for a release of all claims that
were or could have been asserted in the litigation.

The settlement is subject to court approval. Preliminary approval
was granted on September 25, 2020, and the court granted final
approval on May 11, 2021.

The Company subsequently made the settlement payment in mid-June.

Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale,
ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in
the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products,
such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to
customers. The company markets and sells its products through
direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media,
digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels,
as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


SYSCO SAN FRANCISCO: Drake Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERIC DRAKE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SYSCO SAN FRANCISCO, INC., SYSCO
CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
RG21102657, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on August 13, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-06280 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
Class members for all hours worked, including overtime, and denying
them meal and rest periods.

Sysco San Francisco, Inc. is a food & beverages company based in
California.

Sysco Corporation is a distributor of food and related products,
with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Scott P. Jang, Esq.
         Trey Sims, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         50 California Street, 9th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
         Telephone: (415) 394-9400
         Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
         E-mail: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com
                 Trey.Sims@jacksonlewis.com

TAL EDUCATIONAL: November 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE TAL EDUCATION GROUP
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Case No. 1:18-cv-05480-LAP-KHP

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

TO: All persons and entities who or which, during the period
between June 1, 2016 and June 13, 2018 inclusive, purchased or
otherwise acquired American Depositary Shares ("ADS") of TAL
Education Group ("TAL" or "Defendant") and were injured thereby
(the "Settlement Class"):

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action, Certification of the Settlement Class, and Proposed
Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award
of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice"). Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized words used
in this Summary Notice are defined in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement dated June 24, 2021 ("Stipulation"), which is
available at www.TalEducationSecuritiesLitigation.com.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $7,500,000.00 in
cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims
in the Action.

A hearing will be held on November 30, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Katherine H. Parker, United States Magistrate Judge,
at the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse,
Courtroom 17D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine
(i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendant and the Individual
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses
should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at TAL Education
Group Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173139,
Milwaukee, WI 53217, 1-877-777-9316. Copies of the Notice and Claim
Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the
Claims Administrator, www.TalEducationSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later
than November 30, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do
not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share
in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than November 9, 2021,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendant's Counsel such that
they are received no later than November 9, 2021, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

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

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

TAL Education Group Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173139
Milwaukee, WI 53217
877-777-9316
www.TalEducationSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(888) 773-9224
settlements@glancylaw.com

By Order of the Court [GN]

TAPESTRY INC: Court Certifies Store Employees Class in Ornelas Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN ORNELAS, Plaintiff v. TAPESTRY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. C 18-06453 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted
in part and denied in part the motion for class certification.

In the wage-and-hour action, the Plaintiff seeks to certify a class
of current and former non-exempt California employees of the
Defendant's high-end retail clothing stores for claims of unpaid
wages and overtime arising out of its employee security check
policy.

Defendant Tapestry is a multinational luxury fashion holding
company and the parent company of Coach New York, Kate Spade New
York, and Stuart Weitzman.  Plaintiff Ornelas worked for the
Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly sales associate at its Stuart
Weitzman retail stores in Canoga Park and Beverly Hills,
California, from April 2016 to June 2018.

In September 2018, the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in Alameda
County Superior Court. The complaint has alleged that the Defendant
did not pay the Plaintiff for time he spent undergoing a security
inspection before exiting the store, which the Defendant imposed as
part of its loss prevention policy. In addition, the Plaintiff
alleged the employee security check policy interfered with his
ability to take meal and rest breaks.  The Defendant removed the
action to the Court.

The Plaintiff filed the instant motion for class certification on
April 16, noticing a hearing date for July 15. On May 12, the
Defendant moved for partial summary judgment on most of the claims,
noticing a hearing date for June 17. After the hearing on the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment, an order granted summary
judgment for it on the rest-and-meal-break claims and derivative
penalties claims leaving only the claims for unpaid minimum wage
and overtime. Therefore, the instant Order only considers class
certification as to those claims.

The Plaintiff now moves to certify the following class and
subclass:

      a. Class - A class of all current and former non-exempt
retail store employees employed by Defendant Tapestry, Inc. d/b/a
Stuart Weitzman (Defendant) in the State of California, who were
required to go through a security checkpoint during a meal period,
rest break, and/or at the end of a shift during the period from
September 4, 2014 to the present.

     b. Security Checkpoint - Minimum Wage and Overtime Subclass:
All current and former non-exempt retail store employees who were
employed by Defendant in the State of California at any time from
September 4, 2014, through the present, who were required to go
through a security checkpoint at the end of a shift, or while
otherwise off the clock.

Analysis

Rule 23(a) requires that all class actions meet four prerequisites:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. Additionally, at least one of the three
conditions of Rule 23(b) must be satisfied.

In the case, the Plaintiff moves to certify under Rule 23(b)(3),
which requires him to show that: The questions of law or fact
common to the members of the class predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior
to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication
of the controversy.

1. Numerosity

Judge Alsup holds that the Plaintiff's proposed class and subclass
definitions are circular because they require determining that an
individual has a meritorious claim before determining that the
individual is a member of the class. The proposed definitions
necessitate identifying which putative class members have been
injured as a result of the allegedly unlawful practice at issue in
order to determine whether they are in or out of the class. This
makes the class unascertainable. Additionally, a previous order has
summarily adjudicated many of the Plaintiff's claims, thus
eliminating the viability of all but one subclass. As only one
relevant subclass remains, Judge Alsup order finds there is no need
for subclasses.

In light of these points, the revised class definition is: "All
current and former non-exempt retail store employees employed by
defendant Tapestry, Inc., at a Stuart Weitzman store in California
from September 4, 2014 through the date of this order."

2. Commonality

Judge Alsup finds that at all material times, the Defendant's
manager's manual and operations manual both have provided: "To
deter internal theft: Bag and coat checks must be performed on all
employees when leaving the store for a break, or at the end of
their shift." In addition, the manager's manual has provided the
store-closing procedures.

Under Frlekin v. Apple Inc., 8 Cal. 5th 1038, 1046, n. 3 (2020)
(citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, Section 11070, subd. 1), the time
the employees spent undergoing the bag and coat checks and waiting
for the alarm to be set before exiting the store at closing was
compensable hours worked. Thus, the common question central to the
validity of each of the class members' claims is: Did the class
members undergo a bag and coat check while off the clock? Judge
Alsup holds that commonality is satisfied.

3. Typicality

Judge Alsup finds that the Plaintiff's claims are typical of the
class since they arise out of the Defendant's uniform employee
security check policies which has applied to all the class members
throughout the class period. The Defendant does not argue that it
has unique defenses to certain class members or that the
Plaintiff's claims are atypical of the class. Hence, typicality is
satisfied.

4. Adequacy of Representation

The Plaintiff's counsel has submitted several declarations stating
they are experienced class action litigators who are adequate and
will continue to vigorously prosecute the action on behalf of the
class. The Defendant does not argue that the Plaintiff and his
counsel would be inadequate representatives. Adequacy of
representation is satisfied.

5. Rule 23(b)(3) Predominance and Superiority

As to predominance, Judge Alsup finds that questions of law or fact
common to the class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members. As to superiority, he finds that
the fact of the relatively small recoveries for each class member
weighs in favor of aggregating the claims. He says trying the class
members' claims for unpaid minimum wages due to the Defendant's
security check policy on a class basis, as opposed to
employee-by-employee, would advance efficiency and economy.

Conclusion

Judge Alsup concludes that the Plaintiff has met his burden to show
that common questions will predominate in adjudicating the class'
claims for unpaid minimum wages and overtime incurred as a result
of the Defendant's security check policy. Therefore, the class will
be certified. Because a previous order granted summary judgment in
favor of the Defendant on the other labor code claims,
certification is limited to the claims for unpaid wages and
overtime. Therefore, the motion as to those proposed subclasses is
denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alsup certified the following
class: "All current and former non-exempt retail store employees
employed by defendant Tapestry, Inc., at a Stuart Weitzman store in
California from September 4, 2014 through the date of this order."

Certification is limited to the claims for unpaid minimum wage and
overtime.

Judge Alsup denied the balance of the motion.

Plaintiff John Ornelas is appointed the Class Representative and
Boyamian Law, Inc., and The Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey the
Class Counsel.

The parties will file a joint proposed form of class notice that
conforms to Rule 23(c)(2)(B), together with a plan and proposed
order for the distribution of notice and timeline for opt out
within two weeks of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 6, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/23wc5m38 from Leagle.com.


TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Portnoy Law Reminds of August 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Tarena International, Inc. (NASDAQ:
TEDU) investors that acquired shares between August 16, 2016 and
November 1, 2019. Investors have until August 21, 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 Tarena, throughout the Class
Period, made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) certain employees had interfered with external
audits of Tarena's financial statements for certain periods; (2)
Tarena suffered from expense and revenue inaccuracies; (3) Tarena
engaged in business transactions with organizations that were
owned, invested in or controlled by employees of Tarena or their
family members, in some instances were not properly disclosed by
Tarena; (4) Tarena's financial statements from 2014 through the end
of Class Period were not accurate, as a result of the foregoing;
and (5) Tarena's statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and false and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times, as a result. The lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages when the true details
entered the market.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 21,
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.

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

THERMON GROUP: Settlement Reached in THS Heating Elements Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that a settlement has
been reached in the purported class action suit related to certain
heating elements previously manufactured by Thermon Heating
Systems, Inc. (THS).

In January 2020, the Company received service of process in a class
action application in the Superior Court of Quebec, Montreal,
Canada related to certain heating elements previously manufactured
by THS and incorporated into certain portable construction heaters
sold by certain manufacturers.

The Company believes this claim is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the claim.

While the Company continues to dispute the allegations, in March
2021, it reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiff and
other defendants to resolve this matter without admitting to any
liability; such agreement remains subject to the agreement of the
parties on the terms of a definitive settlement agreement.

Settlement of this matter on the agreed terms will require the
Company to contribute an amount that would not have a material
impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

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

Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. provides highly engineered thermal
solutions (heating cables, tubing bundles and control systems) and
services (design optimization, engineering, installation and
maintenance services) required to deliver comprehensive solutions
to complex projects.


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Oct. 18 Status Hearing on Shareholders' Suit Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that a status hearing is set
for October 18, 2021

On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a
class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and certain of its
officers.

The complaint, amended on March 24, 2017, is purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of TreeHouse common stock from January 20,
2016 through and including November 2, 2016. It asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other
things, damages and costs and expenses.

On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-16359,
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse
and certain of its officers.

This complaint, purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of
TreeHouse, asserts state law claims against certain officers for
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste.

On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, et al., Case No. 17-cv-01014, in
the Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of
its officers.

This complaint is also purportedly brought derivatively on behalf
of TreeHouse, and it asserts state law claims against certain
officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste.

On February 8, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Bartelt v. Reed, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00835, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

This complaint is purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of
TreeHouse and asserts state law claims against certain officers for
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control,
gross mismanagement, and corporate waste, in addition to asserting
violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Finally, on June 3, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder
filed an action captioned City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement
System v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2019-CH-06753, in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of
its officers.

Like Wells, Lavin, and Bartelt, this complaint is purportedly
brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse and asserts claims for
contribution and indemnification, breach of fiduciary duty, and
aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.

All five complaints make substantially similar allegations (though
the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional detail).

Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under the
authority and control of the individual defendants: (i) made
certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and future prospects; and (ii) failed to
disclose that (a) the Company's private label business was
underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business was
underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was
underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016
guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis.

The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of TreeHouse common stock during the class period,
thus purportedly harming investors. The Bartelt action also
includes substantially similar allegations concerning events in
2017, and the Ann Arbor complaint also seeks contribution from the
individual defendants for losses incurred by the company in these
litigations.

The company believes that these claims are without merit and intend
to defend against them vigorously, but note that, as described
below, an agreement in principle has been reached to resolve the
federal securities class action.

Due to the similarity of the complaints, the parties in Wells and
Lavin entered stipulations deferring the litigation until the
earlier of (i) the court in Public Employees' entering an order
resolving defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss therein or (ii)
plaintiffs' counsel receiving notification of a settlement of
Public Employees' or until otherwise agreed to by the parties. On
September 27, 2018, the parties in Wells and Lavin filed joint
motions for entry of agreed orders further deferring the matters in
light of the Public Employees' Court's denial of the motion to
dismiss in February 2018.

The Wells and Lavin Courts entered the agreed orders further
deferring the matters on September 27, 2018 and October 10, 2018,
respectively. On June 25, 2019, the parties jointly moved to
consolidate the Bartelt matter with Lavin, so that it would be
subject to the Lavin deferral order. This motion was granted on
June 27, 2019, and Bartelt is now consolidated with Lavin and
deferred. The parties filed a status report on April 13, 2021.

Similarly, Ann Arbor was consolidated with Wells on August 13,
2019, and is now deferred. On February 8, 2021, the plaintiffs in
Wells moved to modify the deferral order to lift the stay, and
defendants thereafter opposed the motion. On April 15, 2021, the
court denied the motion and set a status hearing for July 15, 2021.
On July 12, 2021, the parties entered a joint status report,
informing the court that the securities class action settlement was
not yet approved.

The July 15 status hearing was stricken, and another status hearing
is set for October 18, 2021.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Preliminary Settlement Reached in Negrete Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company has notified
the Court that it has reached a preliminary settlement
understanding with the plaintiffs in Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings,
Inc.

The Company is party to matters challenging its wage and hour
practices.

These matters include a number of class actions consolidated under
the caption Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc., et al, pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in
which plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California
and/or federal law at three former Company manufacturing facilities
in California.

The Company has notified the Court that it has reached a
preliminary settlement understanding with the Negrete plaintiffs
that would resolve all associated matters for a payment by the
Company of $9.0 million.

The preliminary understanding reached with the Negrete plaintiffs
involves procedural requirements and Court approval which may
continue through 2021.

As a result of these developments, the Company has an accrual for a
$9.0 million liability within Accrued expenses in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2021.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


TREK BICYCLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Reyes Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JACOB REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIV SB 2120723 (Cal. Super.,
San Bernardino Cty., August 13, 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
all wages, failure to provide meal period or provide compensation
in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest period or provide
compensation in lieu thereof, failure to pay wages due at
separation of employment, failure to issue accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to reimburse for necessary business
expenditures, and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee from May 15, 2019 until August 13, 2020.

Trek Bicycle Corporation is a bicycle and cycling product
manufacturer and distributor with its principal place of business
in Waterloo, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Justin Lo, Esq.
         Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq.
         WORK LAWYERS PC
         22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 202
         Torrance, CA 90505
         Telephone: (424) 355-8535
         Facsimile: (213) 784-0032
         E-mail: justin@caworklawyer.com
                 beyonca@caworklawyer.com

               - and –

         Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
         MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
         249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
         Long Beach, CA 90802
         Telephone: (562) 590-5550
         Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
         E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net

TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Bid to Nix Class Suit in Florida Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tupperware Brands Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 26, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the consolidated putative
stockholder class action suit filed in the Central District of
California and in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, is pending.

In February 2020, putative stockholder class actions were filed
against the Company and certain current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California and in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida.

The actions were consolidated in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, and a lead plaintiff was
appointed.

On July 31, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which alleges that statements in public filings between
January 31, 2018 and February 24, 2020 (the "potential class
period") regarding the Company's disclosure of controls and
procedures, as well as the need for an amendment of its credit
facility, violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of
1934.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased the Company's stock during the potential class period and
demand unspecified monetary damages.

While the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted on
January 25, 2021, the court permitted the lead plaintiff to file an
amended complaint, which the plaintiff filed on February 16, 2021.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
April 2, 2021, and the motion to dismiss was fully briefed on June
7, 2021.

Tupperware Brands said, "The Company is unable at this time to
determine whether the outcome of these actions would have a
material impact on its results of operations, financial condition
or cash flows."

Orlando, Florida-based Tupperware Brands Corporation is a global
marketer of household, beauty and personal care products across
multiple brands utilizing social selling. Product brands and
categories include design-centric preparation, storage and serving
solutions for the kitchen and home through the Tupperware brand and
beauty and personal care products through the Avroy Shlain, Fuller
Cosmetics, NaturCare, Nutrimetics and Nuvo brands.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Australian Law Firm's Class Suits Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Uber Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the class action suits
initiated by an Australian law firm are ongoing.

In May 2019, an Australian law firm filed a class action in the
Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, against us and certain of our
subsidiaries, on behalf of certain participants in the taxi,
hire-car, and limousine industries.

The plaintiff alleges that the Uber entities conspired to injure
the group members during the period 2014 to 2017 by either directly
breaching transport legislation or commissioning offenses against
transport legislation by UberX Drivers in Australia.

The claim alleges, in effect, that these operations caused loss and
damage to the class representative and class members, including
lost income and decreased value of certain taxi licenses.

In March, April and October 2020, the same Australian law firm
filed four additional class action lawsuits alleging the same
claim.

Uber said, "We deny these allegations and intend to vigorously
defend against the lawsuit."

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

Uber Technologies, Inc. develops and supports proprietary
technology applications that enable independent providers of
ridesharing, and meal preparation and delivery services to transact
with riders and eaters worldwide. The company operates in two
segments, Core Platform and Other Bets. The company was formerly
known as Ubercab, Inc. and changed its name to Uber Technologies,
Inc. in February 2011. Uber Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2009
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


UNDER ARMOUR: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend itself from a consolidated securities class action suit in
Maryland.

On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland were consolidated under the caption In re
Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-cv-00388-RDB.

On August 4, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated
Securities Action, Aberdeen City Council as Administrating
Authority for the North East Scotland Pension Fund, joined by named
plaintiff Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund, filed a
consolidated amended complaint against the Company, the Company's
then-Chief Executive Officer, Kevin Plank, and former Chief
Financial Officers Lawrence Molloy and Brad Dickerson.

The Amended Complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act
against the officers named in the Amended Complaint, claiming that
the defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding,
among other things, the Company's growth and consumer demand for
certain of the Company's products.

The class period identified in the Amended Complaint was September
16, 2015 through January 30, 2017. The Amended Complaint also
asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, in connection with the Company's public offering
of senior unsecured notes in June 2016.

The Securities Act claims were asserted against the Company, Mr.
Plank, Mr. Molloy, the Company's directors who signed the
registration statement pursuant to which the offering was made and
the underwriters that participated in the offering.

The Amended Complaint alleged that the offering materials utilized
in connection with the offering contained false and/or misleading
statements and omissions regarding, among other things, the
Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's
products.

On November 9, 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 19, 2018,
the District Court dismissed the Securities Act claims with
prejudice and the Exchange Act claims without prejudice. Lead
plaintiff Aberdeen, joined by named plaintiff Monroe County
Employees' Retirement Fund, filed a Second Amended Complaint on
November 16, 2018, asserting claims under the Exchange Act and
naming the Company and Mr. Plank as the remaining defendants.

The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on January 17, 2019. On August 19, 2019, the
District Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with
prejudice.

In September 2019, plaintiffs Aberdeen and Bucks County filed an
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
challenging the decisions by the District Court on September 19,
2018 and August 19, 2019. The Appeal was fully briefed as of
January 16, 2020.


On November 6 and December 17, 2019, two purported shareholders of
the Company filed putative securities class actions in the District
Court against the Company and certain of its current and former
executives (captioned Patel v. Under Armour, Inc., No.
1:19-cv-03209-RDB, and Waronker v. Under Armour, Inc., No.
1:19-cv-03581-RDB.

The complaints in Patel and Waronker alleged violations of Section
10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) of the Exchange Act, against all defendants,
and Section 20(a) control person liability under the Exchange Act
against the current and former officers named in the complaints.

The complaints claimed that the defendants' disclosures and
statements supposedly misrepresented or omitted that the Company
was purportedly shifting sales between quarterly periods allegedly
to appear healthier and that the Company was under investigation by
and cooperating with the United States Department of Justice
("DOJ") and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") since July 2017.

On November 18, 2019, Aberdeen, the lead plaintiff in the
Consolidated Securities Action, filed in the District Court a
motion for an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 62.1 seeking relief from the final judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Rule 62.1 Motion alleged
that purported newly discovered evidence entitled Aberdeen to
relief from the District Court's final judgment. Aberdeen also
filed motions seeking (i) to consolidate the Patel and Waronker
cases with the Consolidated Securities Action, and (ii) to be
appointed lead plaintiff over the consolidated cases.

On January 22, 2020, the District Court granted Aberdeen's Rule
62.1 motion and indicated that it would grant a motion for relief
from the final judgment and provide Aberdeen with the opportunity
to file a third amended complaint if the Fourth Circuit remanded
for that purpose. The District Court further stated that it would,
upon remand, consolidate the Patel and Waronker cases with the
Consolidated Securities Action and appoint Aberdeen as the lead
plaintiff over the consolidated cases.

On August 13, 2020, the Fourth Circuit remanded the Appeal to the
District Court for the limited purpose of allowing the District
Court to rule on Aberdeen's motion seeking relief from the final
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). On
September 14, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting
that relief. The District Court's order also consolidated the Patel
and Waronker cases into the Consolidated Securities Action and
appointed Aberdeen as lead plaintiff over the Consolidated
Securities Action.

On October 14, 2020, Aberdeen, along with named plaintiffs Monroe
and KBC Asset Management NV, filed a third amended complaint (the
"TAC") in the Consolidated Securities Action, asserting claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Company and Mr. Plank and under Section 20A of the Exchange Act
against Mr. Plank.

The TAC alleges that the defendants supposedly concealed
purportedly declining consumer demand for certain of the Company's
products between the third quarter of 2015 and the fourth quarter
of 2016 by making allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's performance and future prospects and by
engaging in undisclosed and allegedly improper sales and accounting
practices, including shifting sales between quarterly periods
allegedly to appear healthier.

The TAC also alleges that the defendants purportedly failed to
disclose that the Company was under investigation by and
cooperating with DOJ and the SEC since July 2017. The class period
identified in the TAC is September 16, 2015 through November 1,
2019.

On December 4, 2020, the Company and Mr. Plank filed a motion to
dismiss the TAC for failure to state a claim. That motion was
denied by the Court on May 18, 2021. Discovery in the Consolidated
Securities Action commenced on June 4, 2021 and is currently
ongoing. On July 23, 2021, the Company and Mr. Plank filed an
answer to the TAC denying all allegations of wrongdoing and
asserting affirmative defenses to the claims asserted in the TAC.

The Company continues to believe that the claims asserted in the
Consolidated Securities Action are without merit and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, because of the inherent
uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is
unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of this
matter.

Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.


UNITI GROUP: Seeks Reconsideration of Ruling Denying Bid to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Uniti Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that defendants motion for
reconsideration of the order denying defendants motion to dismiss
or, in the alternative, for certification of an appeal of the
decision to the Eighth Circuit, is pending.

Beginning on October 25, 2019, several purported shareholders filed
separate putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas against the Company and certain of the
company's officers, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws, based on claims similar to those asserted in the  SLF
Holdings, LLC (SLF) Action.  

On March 12, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas consolidated the Shareholder Actions and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel in the consolidated cases under the
caption In re Uniti Group Inc. Securities Litigation.

On May 11, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the consolidated Shareholder Actions. The consolidated
amended complaint seeks to represent investors who acquired the
Company's securities between April 20, 2015 and February 15, 2019.


The Shareholder Actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
alleging that the Company made materially false and misleading
statements by allegedly failing to disclose, among other things,
the risk that the Spin-Off and entry into the Master Lease violated
certain debt covenants of Windstream and/or the risk that the
Master Lease purportedly could be recharacterized as a financing
instead of a "true lease."

The Shareholder Actions seek class certification, unspecified
monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other relief.  

On July 10, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.  On April 1, 2021, the court issued an order
denying defendants' motion to dismiss. On April 15, 2021,
defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the order or, in
the alternative, for certification of an appeal of the decision to
the Eighth Circuit. Plaintiffs formally opposed this motion on
April 29, 2021. The District Court has not yet ruled on the motion.


The company intends to defend this matter vigorously, and, because
it is still in its preliminary stages, the company had not yet
determined what effect this lawsuit will have, if any, on its
financial position or results of operations.

Uniti said, "We have evaluated this matter under the guidance
provided by ASC 450, and as of the date of this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q, we consider a loss not to be probable and are unable to
estimate a reasonably possible range of loss; therefore, we have
not recorded any liabilities associated with these claims in our
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet."

Uniti Group Inc. operates as a real estate investment trust. The
Company provides wireless infrastructure solutions for
communications industry. Uniti Group serves customers in the United
States and Latin America. The company is based in Little Rock,
Arkansas.


US PREMIUM: Antitrust and Labelling Suits Against NBP Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that National Beef Packing
Company (NBP) continues to defend Antitrust Cases and the Labelling
Cases.

NBP is a defendant in four class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court, Minnesota District alleging that it violated
the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers and Stockyards Act, the
Commodity Exchange Act, and various state laws (the "Antitrust
Cases").  

The Antitrust Cases are entitled In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation,
which was filed originally on April 23, 2019; Peterson et al. v.
JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally
on April 26, 2019; In re DPP Beef Litigation, which was filed
originally on April 26, 2019; and Erbert & Gerbert's, Inc. v. JBS
USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally on
June 18, 2020.  

The plaintiffs in the Antitrust Cases seek treble damages and other
relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers & Stockyards
Act, the Commodities Exchange Act and attorneys' fees.  

NBP is also a defendant in two class action lawsuits filed on
January 7, 2020, alleging that it misrepresented the origin of its
products in violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (the
"Labelling Cases").  

The Labelling Cases are entitled Thornton v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et
al., filed in the New Mexico Second Judicial District Court,
Bernalillo County, and Lucero v. Tyson Foods, et al., filed in the
New Mexico Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Sandoval County. The
Labelling Cases were subsequently removed to the United States
District Court, New Mexico District.  

The plaintiffs in the Labelling Cases seek treble damages and other
relief and attorneys' fees.  

NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in the
Antitrust Cases and the Labelling Cases and intends to defend these
cases vigorously, although there can be no assurance as to the
outcome of these cases or the impact on NBP's consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, together with its subsidiaries, operates an
integrated cattle processing and beef marketing enterprise in the
United States. The company, through its interests in National Beef
Packing Company, LLC, processes and markets fresh and chilled boxed
beef, ground beef, beef by-products, and consumer-ready beef and
pork, and wet blue leather for domestic and international markets.
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Kansas City, Missouri.


USA WASTE-MANAGEMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Krenzer Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK KRENZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USA WASTE-MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-06902 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of
implied contract, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the New York General Business Law and the New York
Labor Law.

The case arises from the data breach on the Defendant's computer
systems between January 21 and 23, 2021, which accessed and stolen
the protected personal information (PII) of, among others the
Defendant's current and former employees, and their dependents. The
unauthorized access was caused by the Defendant's alleged
misconduct and omissions including: (1) failure to take adequate
and reasonable measures to ensure that its employee data was
protected, (2) failure to take adequate steps to prevent and stop
the breach, (3) failure to take adequate measures to detect the
breach, (4) failure to provide timely notice of the breach to its
current and former employees. As a result of the Defendant's
failures, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury
including: (i) lost or diminished value of PII; (ii) out-of-pocket
expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery
from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their
PII; (iii) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to
mitigate the actual consequences of the data breach; and (iv) the
continued and certainly increased risk to their PII.

USA Waste-Management Resources, LLC is a waste management and
recycling company with its address located at 28 Liberty Street,
New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
                  
         Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
         GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD PLLC
         102 Half Moon Bay Drive
         Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
         Telephone: (917) 983-9321
         Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
         E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com

                 - and –

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

VIRGIN GALACTIC: Lavin Class Action in New York Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Lavin v. Virgin
Galactic Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03070.

In May 2021, a class action complaint was filed against the company
in the Eastern District of New York captioned Lavin v. Virgin
Galactic Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03070, alleging, among
other things, that the company made false and misleading statements
regarding the accounting treatment of warrants to purchase shares
of the company's common stock, which resulted in the restatement of
the company's financial statements as of and for the years ended
December 31, 2020 and 2019.

Virgin Galactic sai, "This matter or other such matters may be
time-consuming, divert management's attention and resources, cause
us to incur significant expenses or liability or require us to
change our business practices, even if we believe the claims
asserted against us are without merit."

Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. is an American spaceflight company
founded by Richard Branson and his British Virgin Group retains an
18% stake through Virgin Investments Limited. It is headquartered
in California, USA, and operates from New Mexico.


VISTRA CORP: Gas Index Pricing Related Suits Underway in Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Vistra Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated putative class action suits in Wisconsin, related to
Gas Index Pricing.

The company, through its subsidiaries, and other companies are
named as defendants in several lawsuits claiming damages resulting
from alleged price manipulation through false reporting of natural
gas prices to various index publications, wash trading and churn
trading from 2000-2002.

The plaintiffs in these cases allege that the defendants engaged in
an antitrust conspiracy to inflate natural gas prices during the
relevant time period and seek damages under the respective state
antitrust statutes.

The company remains as defendants in two consolidated putative
class actions (Wisconsin) and one individual action (Kansas) both
pending in federal court in those states.

In the Kansas action, in June 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's 2019 denial of
summary judgment (for reasons different from those of the district
court), but also limited the type of damages the plaintiff in that
action might be able to recover and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

Vistra Corp. is a holding company operating an integrated retail
and electric power generation business primarily in markets
throughout the U.S. Through its subsidiaries, the company is
engaged in competitive energy market activities including power
generation, wholesale energy sales and purchases, commodity risk
management and retail sales of electricity and natural gas to end
users. The company is based in Irving, Texas.


VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Imran Appeals False Ad Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ismail Imran, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Ismail Imran, an individual
and on behalf others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Vital
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-05758-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
asserts claims for fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of express
warranty under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
California's Unfair Competition Law and California's False
Advertising Law.

Vital Pharmaceuticals operates as VPX Sports, a manufacturer of
nutritional supplements including, but not limited to, the BANG (R)
product line. Imran asserts that the product's claimed nutritional
value as represented in its label is not backed up by an
independent laboratory testing.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated June 30, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case.

The appellate case is captioned as Ismail Imran, et al. v. Vital
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 21-16248, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 30, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Zach Hess, Ismail Imran and Kuumba Madison
Mediation Questionnaire was due August 6, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by August 30, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on September 28, 2021;

   -- Appellants Zach Hess, Ismail Imran and Kuumba Madison opening
brief is due on November 8, 2021;

   -- Appellee Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. answering brief is due
on December 8, 2021; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants ISMAIL IMRAN, KUUMBA MADISON, and ZACH HESS,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Greg Frederic Coleman, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com    

               - and -

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
          2901 West Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92663
          Telephone: (949) 270-2798
          E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Highway, Second Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 772-7200
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com   

Defendant-Appellee VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Florida
corporation, DBA VPX Sports, is represented by:

          Timothy K. Branson, Esq.
          Joan B. Flaherty, Esq.
          Holly L.K. Heffner, Esq.
          Justin D. Lewis, Esq.   
          GORDON & REES LLP
          101 West Broadway, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696-6700
          E-mail: tbranson@gordonrees.com
                  hkershell@gordonrees.com
                  
               - and -

          Sara Anderson Frey, Esq.
          GORDON & REES
          Three Logan Square
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 717-4009

WALMART INC: Bays Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Willard Bays, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., a Delaware corporation;
Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, a Delaware corporation; and NEC Networks,
LLC, a Texas corporation; Case No. CC-26-02021-C-49 was removed
from the Mason County Circuit to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia on August 17, 2021).

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00460 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Fiduciary
Duty.

Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cheryl A. Fisher, Esq.
          Tony L. O'Dell, Esq.
          William M. Tiano, Esq.
          TIANO & O'DELL
          P. O. Box 11830
          Charleston, WV 25339
          Phone: (304) 720-6700
          Fax: (304) 720-5800
          Email: cfisher@tolawfirm.com
                 todell@tolawfirm.com
                 wtiano@tolawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Neva G. Lusk, Esq.
          Tai Shadrick Kluemper, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE
          P. O. Box 273
          Charleston, WV 25321-0273
          Phone: (304) 340-3800
          Fax: (304) 340-3801
          Email: nlusk@spilmanlaw.com
                 tshadrick@spilmanlaw.com


WIBARGAIN LLC: Miller Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wibargain, LLC. The
case is styled as Samantha Miller, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Wibargain, LLC, a California Limited
Company, Case No. BCV-21-101893 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., August
17, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."

WiBargain.com -- https://wibargain.com/ -- is the best way to find
liquidation goods from the top retailers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Phone: 805-270-7100
          Fax: 805-270-7589
          Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com


WIDEOPENWEST INC: Settlement Reached in Kirkland Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
WideOpenWest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that a settlement has been
reached in Kirkland et al. v. WideOpenWest, Inc., et al.,
653248/2018.

Beginning in June 2018, four different plaintiffs' firms filed five
separate class-action lawsuits against WOW, certain individual
defendants, and the private equity sponsors and underwriters of the
May 2017 initial public offering.  

The actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
1933 Securities Act.  

The three actions filed in New York have been consolidated as
Kirkland. et al. v. WideOpenWest, Inc., et al., 653248/2018.  

The other two actions, which were filed in Colorado state court,
have been stayed by agreement until final resolution of the
Kirkland action. The Plaintiffs in Kirkland allege that Defendants
made or caused misstatements to be made in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus ("Offering Materials") issued in
connection with the initial public offering (IPO).

On January 17, 2019, Defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
all claims for failure to state causes of action which the court
denied in part and granted in part on May 18, 2020, with the
Company thereafter appealing those claims not dismissed.

Prior to an anticipated trial in 2022 or 2023, the parties
undertook mediation on November 6, 2020 which, in turn, resulted in
a soon-to-be-filed Stipulation of Settlement with the court.  

WideOpenWest said, "Upon approval of the Court to the Stipulation
of Settlement (which is expected in the third quarter of 2021), the
Company will be dismissed entirely without any admission of
wrongdoing in exchange for a payment of substantially less than
that sought by plaintiffs, with the funding of such payment to be
provided substantially from the Company's primary D&O carrier."

WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high-speed data, cable television, and
digital telephony services to residential and business services
customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as
WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc.
in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in
Englewood, Colorado.


XEROX CORPORATION: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Carrigan Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS CARRIGAN, MICHAEL VENTI, and SYLVAIN YELLE, individually and
as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the Xerox Corporation Savings Plan, Plaintiffs v. XEROX
CORPORATION, THE XEROX CORPORATION PLAN ADMINISTRATOR COMMITTEE,
and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01085 (D. Conn.,
Aug. 11, 2021) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to prudently and loyally oversee the Plan's recordkeeping service
provider, and instead used the Plan to promote Xerox's own business
interests. From the time the Defendants hired Xerox's recordkeeping
affiliate, Xerox HR Benefit Services ("Xerox HR"), in 2013 until
the time that the Defendants belatedly switched to an unaffiliated
recordkeeper in 2021, the Plan's recordkeeping expenses more than
doubled from $54 per participant in 2013 to $136 per participant by
2019 (the last year for which data is available), all during a
period when marketplace rates for defined contribution
recordkeeping services were falling dramatically, the Plaintiff
asserts.

Allegedly, the Defendants' financial incentive to use the
affiliated recordkeeper grew even stronger after Xerox HR was spun
off into an independent entity, Conduent HR Services ("Conduent"),
as Xerox and its shareholders acquired a material ownership stake
in Conduent as part of the spinoff. Despite receiving ample notice
of the spinoff and opportunity to find another recordkeeper or
negotiate a favorable deal with the new entity, the Defendants
retained Conduent as the Plan's recordkeeper for nearly five years
after the spinoff despite the Plan's recordkeeping expenses almost
doubling immediately after the spinoff was finalized. By retaining
the services of an affiliated recordkeeper and failing to engage in
a prudent investigation of other service providers in the
marketplace, the Defendants allowed the Plan to pay as much as four
times more than what the Plan would have paid in the open market
for recordkeeping services of comparable or superior quality. As a
result, participants paid millions of dollars per year in excessive
fees from 2015 through 2021, added the suit.

Xerox Corporation develops document management technology
solutions. The Company offers workflow automation, enterprise
content management, document transaction processing, packaging
printing, and managed print services. Xerox serves banking,
education, government, healthcare, manufacturing, and retails
industries worldwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph D. Garrison, Esq.
          GARRISON, LEVIN-EPSTEIN,
          FITZGERALD & PIRROTTI, P.C.
          405 Orange Street
          New Haven, CT 06511
          Telephone: (203) 777-4425
          Facsimile: (203) 776-3965
          E-mail: jgarrison@garrisonlaw.com

               -and-

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: plukas@nka.com
                  krichter@nka.com
                  bspecht@nka.com
                  jlee@nka.com

YALLA GROUP: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of October 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on Aug. 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Yalla Group Limited ("Yalla" or the
"Company") (NYSE: YALA) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Yalla securities between
September 30, 2020 and August 9, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until October 12, 2021 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

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.

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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Yalla shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or
Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

                  About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contacts:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

YALLA GROUP: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 16 disclosed that
purchasers of Yalla Group Limited (NYSE: YALA) American Depository
Shares ("ADSs") between September 30, 2020 and August 9, 2021,
inclusive ("Class Period") have until October 12, 2021 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Yalla Group class action
lawsuit. The Yalla Group class action lawsuit charges Yalla Group
and its CEO with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Yalla Group class action lawsuit was commenced on August 13,
2021 in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Crass v.
Yalla Group Limited, No. 21-cv-06854.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Yalla Group 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 Yalla Group class action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than October 12, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Yalla Group class action lawsuit alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that Yalla Group
overstated its user metrics and revenue and, as a result, Yalla
Group's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On May 19, 2021, Swan Street Research published a report 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 Yalla Group has been inflating
its financial metrics, including its user data and its revenue, and
characterized Yalla Group's financial statements as "not credible."
On this news, the price of Yalla Group ADSs fell more than 7%.

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 Group ADSs. On this news, the
price of Yalla Group ADSs fell an additional 6%.

Finally, on August 9, 2021, Yalla Group issued a press release
entitled, "Yalla Group Limited Announces Unaudited Second Quarter
2021 Financial Results," which disclosed that Yalla Group had
quarterly revenue of $66.6 million, which did not meet analysts'
expectations. On this news, the price of Yalla Group ADSs fell
nearly 19%, further damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Yalla Group
ADSs during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff
in the Yalla Group 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 Yalla Group class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Yalla Group class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Yalla
Group 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.

Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

ZILLOW GROUP: Continues to Defend Shotwell Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Hotwell v. Zillow
Group, Inc. et al.  

In August and September 2017, two purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the company and certain of its executive
officers, alleging, among other things, violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the
company's common stock between February 12, 2016 and August 8,
2017.

One of those purported class actions, captioned Vargosko v. Zillow
Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The other purported class action lawsuit, captioned Shotwell v.
Zillow Group, Inc. et al, was brought in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.

The complaints allege, among other things, that during the period
between February 12, 2016 and August 8, 2017, the company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding our business
practices.

The complaints seek to recover, among other things, alleged damages
sustained by the purported class members as a result of the alleged
misconduct.

In November 2017, an amended complaint was filed against the
company and certain of its executive officers in the Shotwell v.
Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit, extending the
beginning of the class period to November 17, 2014.

In January 2018, the Vargosko v. Zillow Group purported class
action lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington and consolidated with the Shotwell
v. Zillow Group purported class action lawsuit.

In February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, and in April 2018, the company filed its motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

In October 2018, the company's motion to dismiss was granted
without prejudice, and in November 2018, the plaintiffs filed a
second consolidated amended complaint, which the company moved to
dismiss in December 2018.

On April 19, 2019, the company's motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint was denied, and the company's filed
its answer to the second amended complaint on May 3, 2019.

On October 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification which was granted by the District Court on October
28, 2020. On February 17, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the company's petition for review of that decision.

Zillow said, "We have denied the allegations of wrongdoing and
intend to vigorously defend the claims in this lawsuit. We do not
believe that there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss
will be incurred related to this lawsuit."

Zillow Group, Inc. operates real estate and home-related brands on
mobile and the Web in the United States. Zillow Group, Inc. was
incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.


ZINUS INC: Faces Class Action Over Mattress Fiberglass Particles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Sharp, writing for Legal Reader, reports that victims of
fiberglass contamination from Zinus mattresses deserve justice for
their losses and a fair and just representation in a court of law.

Zinus mattresses are popular "bed-in-a-box" products sold by major
retailers and have been recently hit by a class-action lawsuit
after people were injured when their mattresses released fiberglass
into their homes.

In 2020, hundreds of people nationwide had joined lawsuits alleging
that Zinus Inc. failed to warn them about the risk of fiberglass
leakage -- a man-made material consisting of numerous extremely
fine fibers of glass -- after removing the zipper cover on their
mattresses.

Once the fibers are released, they are extremely difficult to
remove. Only a team of professionals can do a proper cleanup since
the size of a fiberglass dust particle is usually measured in
microns. According to one fiberglass-cleaning professional, getting
rid of fiberglass fibers from a contaminated home usually ranges
between $3,000 and $10,000, but can be $20,000 or even more,
depending on the size of the house and the severity of the
situation. Fiberglass particles are not visible to the naked eye
and will aggressively contaminate everything in the victim's house,
including the air they breathe. Victims of fiberglass contamination
had to throw away many things from their house, including
carpeting, draperies, upholstered furniture, and clothing.

Glass Fibers Can Leak from Punctured Zinus Mattresses or After
Removing Zippable Cover

Attorney Gregory A. Cade from Environmental Litigation Group, P.C.,
with Lloyd Cueto, offered an exclusive interview for KXAN,
mentioning that the lawsuit will ensure compensation for over 200
plaintiffs in 50 states. Plaintiffs complained of severe skin
irritation and trouble breathing after unzipping what they thought
was a removable cover. By doing so, they inadvertently released the
fiberglass particles into their homes.

On the page with the frequently asked questions, the manufacturer
explained: "The mattress cover isn't washable, and removing it
could inhibit the fire safety barrier, so please always leave the
cover on." The plaintiffs, however, argue that there's no clear
warning about the potential exposure to the glass fibers once you
unzip the cover. Moreover, the very existence of a zipper on a
mattress cover invites the product owner to unzip it or certainly
to think that it's safe to do so.

Although fiberglass makes the mattresses more fire-resistant, the
Consumer Products Safety Council has received numerous complaints
about fiberglass inside foam mattresses and recommends that
consumers check the mattresses' contents tag before removing the
cover. For example, those who have come into contact with the
cotton candy-like fiberglass insulation are aware that touching
this material will result in a sharp stinging, burning, and itching
sensation.

Zinus Allegedly Concealed and Failed to Warn Consumers About
Possible Fiberglass Contamination

Manufacturers must test their products for safety before selling
them. However, when defective or unsafe products reach the market,
it breaks the consumer's trust, and it calls into question the
company's reliability. If the Zinus mattress cover wears out or is
removed for whatever reason, it can cause skin and eye irritation,
sore throat, and nose, as well as aggravate bronchitis and asthma
symptoms. The microscopic fiberglass particles can reach the lower
part of the lungs, increasing the chance of severe and adverse
health effects.

The Zinus class action claims that nowhere on the warning label
does the company mention terms like fiberglass, glass fibers, or
contains glass. Zinus Inc. also failed to inform about the
potential consequences of removing the zippable outer cover. As a
consequence, plaintiffs alleged that they faced numerous health
issues imposed by the toxic particles from the mattress that had
spread across their entire home, contaminating the air, carpet,
furniture, clothing, and virtually everything.

Zinus Inc. should own up to the pain and suffering, emotional
distress, personal injuries, and replacement of items these
families had to dispose of due to fiberglass contamination. The
manufacturer must make sure their products are reliable and safe
for public use. Zinus is a good example of how dangerous harmless
products can become ineffective due to flawed manufacturing methods
and potentially dangerous materials.

The class-action lawsuit against Zinus has been filed and is
awaiting class certification approval. Furthermore, Target
Corporation, Amazon.com, Wayfair LLC, Walmart, and eBay Inc. have
joined as defendants in this class-action lawsuit. Needless to say,
victims of fiberglass contamination from Zinus mattresses deserve
justice for their losses and a fair and just representation in a
court of law.

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in Gregory Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that
discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Gregory,
et. al. v. Zions Bancorporation.

A civil class action lawsuit, Gregory, et. al. v. Zions
Bancorporation, brought against the company in the United States
District Court for Utah in January 2019.

This case was filed on behalf of investors in Rust Rare Coin, Inc.,
alleging that the company aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme fraud
perpetrated by Rust Rare Coin, a Zions Bank customer.

The case follows civil actions and the establishment of a
receivership for Rust Rare Coin by The Commodities Futures Trading
Commission and the Utah Division of Securities in November 2018, as
well as a separate suit brought by the SEC against Rust Rare Coin
and its principal, Gaylen Rust.

During the third quarter of 2020, the Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in part, dismissing claims
relating to fraud and fiduciary duty, but allowing a claim for
aiding and abetting conversion to proceed.

The case is in the early discovery phase.

Trial has not been scheduled.

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

Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related srvices primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Evans Class Suit in Post-Pleading Phase
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
civil class action suit entitled, Evans v. CB&T is in the
post-pleading phase.

A civil class action lawsuit, Evans v. CB&T, brought against the
company in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California in May 2017.

This case was filed on behalf of a class of up to 50 investors in
International Manufacturing Group (IMG) and seeks to hold the
company liable for losses of class members arising from their
investments in IMG, alleging that the company conspired with and
knowingly assisted IMG and its principal in furtherance of an
alleged Ponzi scheme.

In December 2017, the District Court dismissed all claims against
the Bank. In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The appeal was heard in early April 2019 with the Court of Appeals
reversing the trial court's dismissal.

This case is in the post-pleading phase and trial will not occur
for a substantial period of time.

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

Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking
and related srvices primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association
and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association
in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was
founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.


ZYMERGEN INC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of October 4 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Aug. 16 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Zymergen Inc. ("Zymergen" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: ZY) common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
April 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering").
Zymergen investors have until October 4, 2021 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

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.

The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that, during the qualification
process for Hyaline, key customers had encountered technical
issues, including product shrinkage and incompatibility with
customers' processes; (2) that, though the qualification process
was critical to achieving market acceptance for Hyaline and
generating revenue, Zymergen lacked visibility into the
qualification process; (3) that, as a result, the Company
overestimated demand for its products; (4) that, 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) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Zymergen securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than October 4, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased Zymergen securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

ZYMERGEN INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of October 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Aug. 17 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Zymergen Inc.
(NASDAQ: ZY) alleging that the Company violated federal securities
laws.

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.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 4, 2021

No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in ZY:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/zymergen-inc-loss-submission-form?id=18595&from=5

Zymergen Inc. NEWS - ZY NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
Zymergen Inc. made 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.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Zymergen you have until October 4, 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 Zymergen 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 ZY lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at
212-616-4899 or click this link.

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

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]


                            *********

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 ***