---

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

              Wednesday, October 13, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 199

                            Headlines

A2 MILK COMPANY: Slater and Gordon Files Fraud Class Action
ALTICE USA: Shalomayev Sues Over Unlawful Termination of Services
AMERICAN HONDA: Ritch Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
AMPLIFY ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Southern Calif. Oil Spill
AMPLIFY ENERGY: Samuelian Sues To Recover Damages from Oil Spill

ANNOVIS BIO: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 18 Deadline
APPHARVEST INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
APPHARVEST INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds of November 23 Deadline
APPLE INC: Settles AppleCare Class Action Lawsuit for $95 Million
APRIO LLP: Court Narrows Claims in Lechter Class Action

ASB BANK: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Loan Fees
ASCENDTEK LLC: Holland Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
BLUMARTS INC: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOKF NATIONAL: 3rd Cir. Rejects Overdraft Fees Class Action
BROADLEAF MARKETING: Faces Class Action Over Robocalls

C.H. ROBINSON: Court Amends August 24, 2021 Scheduling Order
CANADA: Court OKs Residential Day School Class Action Settlement
CARBON COUNTY, UT: Faces Class Action Over Bail System
CARE CUBE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CELTIC BOYS: Abuse Victims Plan to Launch Class Action

CENTENE CORP: Breach-of-Contract Class Action Can Proceed
CINCINNATI, OH: Jetter Suit Loses Class Status Bid w/o Prejudice
DAUGHERTY SYSTEMS: Wins Class Decertification Bid vs. O'Reilly
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Class Action Over Banana Boat Sunscreens
ELECTROMED INC: Lutz Suit Removed to D. Minnesota

EQT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Nonpayment of Royalties
FIRST NATIONAL: Duncan Files FDCPA Suit in D. Nevada
FLORIDA: $7.90 Red Light Camera Fee May Lead to Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Fusion Transmission Problems
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 19 Deadline

GOOGLE LLC: Faces Ad-Targeting Class Action in California
GRANDE COSMETICS: Ribak Sues Over Selling of Unapproved Drugs
GSK CONSUMER: Wins Bid to Dismiss All Causes of Action vs Engram
HEALTH INSURANCE: Settles Class Action for $27.5 Million
HEALTHCOMPARE INSURANCE: DeLong Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California

HONEST COMPANY: Johnson Fistel Reminds of November 15 Deadline
HONEST COMPANY: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of November 15 Deadline
HYZON MOTORS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of November 29 Deadline
HYZON MOTORS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 29 Deadline
HYZON MOTORS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 29 Deadline

JOHN HANCOCK: Settlement Deal in Baker Suit Gets Final Nod
KONINKLIJKE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 15 Deadline
LABQ CLINICAL: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LIBERTY POWER: Shell Energy Ordered to Produce Docs in TCPA Case
MAISON KAYSER: Seeks Approval of Class Action Settlement

MCSS REST: Flores Wins Summary Judgment on Wage Claims
NANO-X IMAGING: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 6 Deadline
NATURE'S BOUNTY: Baines Files Suit in E.D. New York
NEW YORK, NY: Summary Judgment Bid vs Robinson Partly Granted
NEW YORK: DOC Faces Class Action Over Medical Care in City Jails

NEW YORK: Summary Judgment Bid vs Cassidy Partly OK'd
NORTHERN NATIONAL: De Leon Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
NORTHERN TRUST: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over 401(k) Plan
OMEROS CORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
OWLET INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Joseph Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
PEAK FINTECH: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
PHILLIPS 66: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Hinkle to 5th Cir.
POLARITYTE INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 23 Deadline
PRAESIDIUM DIAGNOSTICS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

REV GROUP: December 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SAFELITE GROUP: Faces Labor Class Action in California
SCHNITZER STEEL: Chavez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SOCLEAN INC: Brooks Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Bell Gully Attorneys Discuss Court Rulings

SPECTRUM PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline
SPOTOPTION: Faces Fraud Class Action in Israel
STATE FARM: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Claims' Sales Tax
SUPERCELL OY: California Court Tosses Loot Box Class Action
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Dec. 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

SYNGENTA GROUP: Class Action Over Paraquat Dichloride Pending
SYNIVERSE CORPORATION: Mullen Files Suit in M.D. Florida
TELKOM SA: Faces Insurance Class Action in Gauteng High Court
TILT HOLDINGS: November 24 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
TOP DOG: Aleman-Valdivia's Bid to Certify Class Partly Granted

TRIHEALTH INC: Ohio Court Dismisses ERISA Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Initial Public Offering
UMG RECORDINGS: Class Status Bid Filing Due Feb. 11, 2022
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs' Bid for Relief from Judgment Tossed
VALVE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Use of Loot Boxes

VIEW INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of October 18 Deadline
VIEW INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 18 Deadline
WELCOME BUILDING: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
[*] Court Dismisses Class Action Over Data Security Incident
[*] Jackson Lewis Releases Fall 2021 Class Action Trends Report


                            *********

A2 MILK COMPANY: Slater and Gordon Files Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carrie LaFrenz, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that law firm Slater and Gordon has filed a class action against
dual-listed The a2 Milk Company on behalf of investors who bought
shares over a nine-month period during which the infant formula
maker posted four earnings downgrades and the shares plunged 62 per
cent.

The class action alleges that the $4.7 billion company engaged in
misleading or deceptive conduct in breach of the Corporations Act,
and breached continuous disclosure rules in posting downgrades on
September 28 and December 18 last year, and February 25 and May 10,
2021.

A2 Milk CEO David Bortolussi has one more headache after the
company was served a class action claim.

The claim -- first revealed by The Australian Financial Review in
May -- was filed on Oct. 5 in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

It is brought on behalf of shareholders who suffered losses after
acquiring shares in the baby formula and fresh milk maker on the
ASX and New Zealand stock exchanges between August 19, 2020 and May
9, 2021.

Investors are waiting for the investor day on October 27 for new
CEO David Bortolussi to reveal his China business strategy. A2 Milk
flagged a review of this key market in tandem with a blowout of
more than $NZ100 million ($92.9 million) in provisions for old
stock on May 10.

The last cut to its outlook left a2 Milk expecting full-year sales
of $NZ1.2 billion to $NZ1.25 billion and group earnings before
interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) margin of 11
per cent to 12 per cent of sales. This compared to August 2020
guidance for strong sales growth and an EBITDA margin of 30 per
cent to 31 per cent.

Slater and Gordon class actions practice group leader Kaitlin
Ferris said a2 Milk was or ought to have been aware the full-year
2021 guidance did not adequately consider factors likely to worsen
its financial performance.

"This includes a2 Milk's attempts to boost sales by pushing English
label infant formula tins through the cross-border e-commerce
channel with discounting consequences that would in turn negatively
impact sales in the daigou channel," she said.

The claim also alleged that a2 Milk's sales in the cross boarder
e-commerce channel would then be impeded by the disruption to the
daigou/reseller channel and the loss of associated marketing
activity to stimulate consumer demand.

Ms Ferris said there is a strong basis to allege that the company
provided misleading guidance and was obliged to correct the
market's understanding of its financial position at a much earlier
date.

"Investors are entitled to assume that when they purchase shares in
a listed company, all of the material information relevant to its
financial position has been disclosed," she said.

"The repeated downgrades by a2 during the August 2020 to May 2021
claim period caught the market by surprise, and revealed that a2
had been facing systemic and structural issues with its
distribution networks at an early stage of the financial year."

Ms Ferris said Slater and Gordon will run the case on the basis
that it will seek a group cost order in the Supreme Court of
Victoria. This means the firm will self-fund, rather than rely on a
litigation funder.

The total claim size will depend on total number of registrants - a
court ordered step to be taken later in the proceeding.

The a2 Milk spokesman confirmed the company has been notified of
the claim, but "denies any liability and will vigorously defend the
proceeding." [GN]

ALTICE USA: Shalomayev Sues Over Unlawful Termination of Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Artem Shalomayev, as owner and operator of 3715 BARBER SHOP, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ALTICE USA, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-05540 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2021),
arises from the betrayal of trust of the American public by
Defendant Altice, who exploited the COVID-19 pandemic for profits,
causing severe and lasting damages to non-essential small
businesses in New York and throughout the United States by
terminating the services for the Plaintiff's business, and
thousands of other similarly situated small businesses in
throughout the country.

While ostensibly joining the FCC's "Pledge to Keep America
Connected" – in which Altice, and many other similar
communication providers, promised not to terminate internet and
phone services to small businesses until at least June 15, 2020 --
Altice violated this pledge by terminating the services for
Plaintiff's business, and thousands of other similarly situated
small businesses in throughout the country, over alleged
"non-payment" of monthly service fees from March 15, 2020 to June
2020, during the height of the Covid pandemic. Altice not only
sought to recoup payments for the charges which it had pledged not
to collect, but worse still, Altice coerced small businesses into
entering new service agreements –- imposing an exorbitant
one-time "start-up" fee -- in order to restart their telephone and
internet services for their businesses.

In engaging in this conduct, Altice left small business owners in
New York and throughout the United States only one "choice": either
enter into a new contract with Altice to restore their phone and
internet services, or lose their phone number, which many
businesses had used for decades, to another business or other third
party. Faced with this Hobson's choice, Plaintiff and other
similarly situated business owners, fearful of losing their
long-time phone numbers – which would have had a devastating
impact on their business operations –- felt compelled to accede
to Altice's extortionate demands, and paid the $180.00 one-time
charge for creating a new service account with Altice. In addition
to paying this one-time "start-up" fee, Altice forced small
business owners such as Plaintiff to pay back the “outstanding
balances” that they owed for the three months when their
businesses had been shut down.

As Altice well knew, Plaintiff's businesses, as well as other
similarly situated business, were barred as a matter of law from
conducting business operation. Thus, they could not open their
business for any reason, much less use their phone or internet
services during this time period. Notwithstanding this fact, Altice
unethically, and in flagrant violation of its Pledge to Keep
America Connected, terminated services for thousands of small
non-essential businesses, such as Plaintiffs, and refused to turn
services back on unless, and until, Plaintiffs agreed to enter into
a new service agreement and pay the one-time setup fee for this new
contract. Altice not only engaged in egregious and unethical
conduct in coercing small businesses, such as Plaintiff’s
business, to pay this illegal "ransom" fee in order to restart
their phone and internet services, but also, Altice violated state
consumer protection laws that guard against the very predatory and
exploitive business practices that Altice engaged in and that form
the basis of this action, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff, owns, operates, maintains and controls 3715
Barbershop Inc., known as the "Continental Barbershop."

Altice, with its subsidiaries, provides broadband communications
and video services in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
          JON L. NORINSBERG, PLLC
          110 E. 59th Street, Suite 3200
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 791-5396
          Facsimile: (212) 406-6890


AMERICAN HONDA: Ritch Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------
Stacy Ritch and Gellert Dornay, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 21-2-01370-34 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of
Thurston to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington on Sept. 24, 2021, and assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-01384-NONE-JLT.

The Complaint alleges claims against AHM for: (i) violations of the
Washington Privacy Act ("WPA"), Chapter 9.73 RCW; (ii) declaratory
relief; and (iii) injunctive relief.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joe B. Ard, Esq.
          ARD LAW GROUP PLLC
          PO Box 11633
          Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
          Phone: 206-701-9243
          Email: Joel@Ard.law

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rachel Tallon Reynolds, Esq.
          Sean B. Hoar, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone 206.436.2020
          Fax 206.436.2030
          Email: Rachel.Reynolds@lewisbrisbois.com
                 Sean.Hoar@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
          Loree Stuck, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone 213.250.1800
          Fax 213.250.7900
          Email: Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com
                 Loree.Stuck@lewisbrisbois.com


AMPLIFY ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Southern Calif. Oil Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Xinhua reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against a U.S.
company over the massive oil spill off the coast of Southern
California, demanding monetary damages for the "environmental
catastrophe."

In a 13-page document filed in a Los Angeles federal court, the
Houston-based Amplify Energy and its Beta Offshore division, which
own the offshore oil production facility from which the oil
spilled, were listed as the defendants.

The document said the suit was brought on behalf of Peter Moses
Gutierrez Jr. "individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated."

Gutierrez Jr., who owns a disc jockey company that regularly
performs along Huntington Beach, said that he lost and will
continue to lose a substantial amount of his business due to the
closure of the beach and other consequences of the spill.

The plaintiffs demand monetary damages, injunctive relief, response
costs and medical monitoring.

At least 126,000 gallons of oil were spilled into the Pacific
Ocean, causing an "environmental catastrophe," the document said.

"Deceased animals were washing up covered in oil on the shoreline
of the affected area and a large ecological reserve nearby had
suffered tremendous damage," it added.

The Orange County healthcare agency released a statement to the
citizens of the affected area about the deleterious effects of the
oil spill to human health and safety.

The incident was the latest tragedy of the oil industry but it
certainly won't be the last, Attorney Greg Coleman, who also helped
file the suit, was quoted by the local NBC news channel as saying.

"With this lawsuit we hope to help them clean up their beaches and
force the fossil fuel industry to clean up its act," he said.

Huntington Beach Mayor Kim Carr said on Oct. 4 that the city's
famous beaches could remain closed for weeks or even months,
leaving residents and business owners facing an ecological and
economic disaster.

The spill also prompted the cancellation of the final day of the
5th Pacific Airshow on Oct. 3, which drew hundreds of thousands of
people to the shore on Oct. 2.

California Governor Gavin Newsom on Oct. 4 proclaimed a state of
emergency in Orange County to support the emergency response to the
oil spill incident, directing state agencies "to undertake
immediate and aggressive action to clean up and mitigate the
effects" of the spill.

Justice Department officials and federal investigators are
"investigating to determine if any criminal liability exists" in
relation to the oil spill, said Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the
U.S. Attorney's Office.

Local media reported that records showed that the U.S. Coast Guard
received the first report of a possible oil spill off the Southern
California coast more than 12 hours before the company reported a
major leak in its pipeline.[GN]

AMPLIFY ENERGY: Samuelian Sues To Recover Damages from Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. Samuelian and Kristin Kay Samuelian, as Trustees of the
Kristin and Stephen Samuelian Family Trust established 8/25/2017,
and SK5-Keller Legacy, LLC, a Utah LLC, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. AMPLIFY ENERGY CORP., a Delaware
corporation, BETA OPERATING COMPANY LLC, dba Beta Offshore, a
Delaware LLC, and JOHN DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 8:21-cv-01658
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2021), is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 on their own behalves and as representatives of
others similarly situated to recover significant economic losses
they have incurred and will continue to incur because of the
Defendants' oil spill.

According to the complaint, in the morning of October 2, 2021, and
possibly beginning the day before, an underwater oil pipeline about
5 miles off the coast of Huntington Beach, California ruptured,
spewing thousands of barrels of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean.
The rupture created a toxic, 13-square-mile slick off the shore of
Huntington Beach, which has since spread and deposited oil on
beaches and into coastal wetlands rich in biodiversity. The rupture
has highlighted California's aging offshore oil and gas
infrastructure. The pipeline is owned and/or operated by Defendant
Amplify Energy and its subsidiary, Defendant Beta Operating
Offshore, dba Beta Offshore. The Pipeline rupture sent tens of
thousands of gallons of toxic crude oil flowing over some of
Southern California's most beautiful beaches and waters.

Before the Pipeline Defendants shut off the Pipeline, it had
discharged crude oil in an amount initially estimated to be in
excess of one hundred thousand gallons. Oil coated the shoreline
and clung to rocks, sand, wild animals, and marine life. The Spill
has polluted beaches and damaged coastal private properties. The
beachfront properties along the Southern Coast of California, like
coastal properties throughout the state, are highly valuable. The
property owners enjoy the unspoiled sand and water, direct access
to fishing, surfing, kayaking, and other activities.

This familiar story could have been averted had the Pipeline
Defendants: (a) adequately maintained the Pipeline, making it less
susceptible to corrosion and rupture, and (b) been properly
prepared and promptly acted when the spill began, including when
the alarm first indicated that there was a problem. Regular
maintenance of pipelines is a crucial step that owners of pipelines
must take in order to avoid exactly the disaster that occurred with
the Pipeline, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of Orange County, California.

The Defendants own and operate the Pipeline, a crude oil pipeline
system of 17 miles long, beginning offshore at Platform Elly and
ending onshore at the Beta Pump Station.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          A. Barry Cappello, Esq.
          Leila J. Noel, Esq.
          Lawrence J. Conlan, Esq.
          CAPPELLO & NOËL LLP
          831 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101-3227
          Phone: (805)564-2444
          Facsimile: (805)965-5950


ANNOVIS BIO: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

SelectQuote, Inc. (NYSE:SLQT)
Class Period: February 8, 2021 - May 11, 2021
Deadline: October 15, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/slqt

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(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.

Annovis Bio, Inc. (NYSE:ANVS)
Class Period: May 21, 2021 - July 28, 2021
Deadline: October 18, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/anvs

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that Annovis's ANVS401 did not show statistically significant
results across two patient populations as to factors such as
orientation, judgement, and problem solving; and (2) 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.

View, Inc. (NASDAQ:VIEW)
Class Period: November 30, 2020 - August 16, 2021
Deadline: October 18, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/view

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that View had not properly accrued warranty costs related to
its product; (2) that there was a material weakness in View's
internal controls over accounting and financial reporting related
to warranty accrual; (3) that, as a result, the Company's financial
results for prior periods were misstated; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Contact:

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

APPHARVEST INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
investors who purchased or acquired the securities of AppHarvest,
Inc. ("AppHarvest" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:APPH) from May 17,
2021 through August 10, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1934.

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

According to the complaint, AppHarvest, issued materially false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
AppHarvest specifically failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
AppHarvest lacked sufficient training for its recently expanded
labor force; (2) that, as a result, the Company could not produce
Grade No. 1 tomatoes consistently; (3) that, as a result, the
Company's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On August 11, 2021, before the market opened, AppHarvest announced
its second quarter financial results, reporting a $32.0 million net
loss. The Company also lowered its full year sales guidance to a
range of $7 million to $9 million, from a previous range of $20
million to $25 million. The Company attributed the lower than
expected results to "operational headwinds with the full ramp up to
full production at the company's first CEA facility, including
labor and productivity challenges related to the training and
development of the new workforce and historically low market prices
for tomatoes."

On this news, the AppHarvest's share price fell $3.46, or
approximately 29%, to close at $8.51 per share on August 11, 2021,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 23, 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 AppHarvest securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/appharvestinc-apph-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-442/
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]

APPHARVEST INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds of November 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on Oct. 5 disclosed
that purchasers of AppHarvest, Inc. ("AppHarvest" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: APPH) between May 17, 2021 and August 10, 2021 (the "Class
Period") have until November 23, 2021, to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

The AppHarvest class-action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (i) AppHarvest lacked sufficient training
for its recently expanded labor force; (ii) as a result, AppHarvest
could not produce Grade No. 1 tomatoes consistently; (iii)
consequently, AppHarvest's financial results would be adversely
impacted; and (iv) as such, defendants' positive statements about
AppHarvest's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the AppHarcest class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the AppHarvest class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff.

If you suffered a substantial loss and are interested in learning
more about being a lead plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If
emailing, please include a phone number.

Additionally, you can [click here to join this action]. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

                     About Johnson Fistel, LLP

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

Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com
http://www.johnsonfistel.com[GN]

APPLE INC: Settles AppleCare Class Action Lawsuit for $95 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mikey Campbell, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Apple has
agreed to pay out $95 million to settle a class action lawsuit that
accuses the company of replacing products covered by AppleCare and
AppleCare+ with refurbished devices, an alleged breach of
advertised policies.

Dating back to a complaint filed in 2016, the class action lawsuit
takes aim at Apple's practice of replacing products covered by its
first-party warranties with refurbished equipment. The strategy is
claimed to run afoul of false advertising and unfair competition
laws.

Apple's documentation notes AppleCare and AppleCare+ services
promise to repair an iPhone or iPad that exhibits a hardware defect
or accidental damage, or replace it with a device that is
"equivalent to new in performance and reliability." Plaintiffs in
the case argue that remanufactured or refurbished hardware does not
meet Apple's stated criteria.

The tech giant attempted to have the case tossed by arguing, among
other points, that plaintiffs were unable to prove that reported
issues were caused by used parts and that AppleCare's "equivalent
to new" statute does not mean "new." Those efforts failed and a
class was certified in 2019.

Lawyers for the class further claimed that Apple illegally profits
by charging customers premium prices for AppleCare and AppleCare+,
but fails to deliver on that contract.

The parties failed to reach a settlement during three mediations,
but came to a resolution after a fourth session held on June 30,
2021, under the guidance of retired Judge Rebecca Westerfield.

Should it be granted by presiding Judge William H. Orrick, the
settlement provides for a common fund of $95 million, which is
anticipated to be whittled down to between $63.4 million and $68.2
million after administrative costs, incentive awards and attorneys'
fees are deducted. That final amount is expected to cover 13% to
25% of estimated damages as assigned by plaintiffs' expert
witnesses.

The motion for settlement was filed on Oct. 1 and spotted by
MacRumors on Oct. 4.

Members of the class are designated as individuals who purchased
AppleCare or AppleCare+, either directly or through the iPhone
Upgrade Program, on or after July 20, 2012, and received a
remanufactured replacement device. The class period cutoff date is
set at Sept. 30, 2021.

Potential class members can find more information at
www.replacementdevicelawsuit.com. [GN]

APRIO LLP: Court Narrows Claims in Lechter Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW LECHTER, et al., v.
APRIO, LLP, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01325-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon.
Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion to
      strike or disregard extrinsic evidence:

      -- The Court denies Plaintiffs' motion insofar as it
         applies to the Promotional Materials referenced in the
         Amended Complaint and the language Defendants quoted
         from a Tax Court Order in a matter involving Oakhill
         Woods;

      -- The Court will not strike any of the extrinsic evidence
         referenced in Defendants' motions to dismiss, but the
         Court disregards that evidence for purpose of resolving
         Defendants' motions.

      -- The Court also declines to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims
         at this stage on the theories that Plaintiffs' claims
         are time-barred, that Plaintiffs lack standing to
         pursue their claims, or that the Court lacks personal
         jurisdiction over Sirote.

   2. granting Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs'
      Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
      (RICO) Act claims on the ground that Plaintiffs cannot
      establish the "enterprise" element of a Federal RICO
      claim;

   3. granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs'
      conspiracy to violate Federal RICO Act  and conspiracy to
      violate Georgia RICO claims because Plaintiffs have not
      plausibly alleged that any Defendant made an agreement
      with any other Defendant to violate the substantive
      provisions of either of those statutes;

   4. denying the Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs'
      Georgia RICO claims against Defendants Aprio, Greenberger,
      Tennille, Zak, and Forever Forests because Plaintiffs have
      plausibly alleged that each of these Defendants committed
      a pattern of racketeering activity under that statute that
      proximately caused Plaintiffs' losses of money or personal
      property; however, the granting Defendants' motions to
      dismiss Plaintiffs Georgia RICO claims as to the remaining
      Defendants;

   5. denying Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' fraud
      claims against Defendants Aprio, Greenberger, Tennille,
      Zak, and Forever Forests based on the same allegations of
      mail and wire fraud that form the basis of Plaintiffs'
      Georgia RICO claims against these Defendants, but granting
      Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' fraud claims as
      to the remaining Defendants;

   6. denying the Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs'
      negligent misrepresentation claims against Defendants
      Aprio, Greenberger, Tennille, Zak, and Forever Forests
      because the same allegations that lead the Court to
      conclude that Plaintiffs have stated fraud claims against
      these Defendants necessarily lead the Court to conclude
      that Plaintiffs have stated negligence claims against
      these Defendants;

   7. denying Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs'
      negligent misrepresentation claims against Sirote and
      Jowers;

   8. denying Aprio and Greenberger's motion to dismiss
      Plaintiffs' professional malpractice claim because
      Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that they were the Aprio
      Defendants' clients and that these Defendants negligently
      provided professional services in connection with the
      transactions in which Plaintiffs took part and proximately
      caused injuries to Plaintiffs;

   9. granting Sirote's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
      professional malpractice claim because Plaintiffs have not
      plausibly alleged that they were Sirote's clients; and

  10. denying Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims
      of aiding and abetting and civil conspiracy because
      Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that any Defendants
      acted to procure the Aprio Defendants' alleged breaches of
      fiduciary duty or that any Defendants agreed with one
      another to commit tortious conduct.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aqORTm at no extra charge.[CC]


ASB BANK: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Loan Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for The Guardian, reports that A New Zealand
law firm has filed a multimillion-dollar class action against two
Australian-owned Kiwi banks on behalf of 150,000 home and personal
loan customers.

In Auckland high court proceedings, Russell Legal claims the
customers are entitled to the return of interest and fees paid on
loans taken out from ASB Bank, which is owned by the Commonwealth
Bank, and the New Zealand arm of ANZ.

Solicitor Scott Russell said that under New Zealand law the banks
were not allowed to charge interest or fees on loans when they had
not properly disclosed terms and conditions to customers.

The amount sought could be in excess of $100m due to the large
number of customers and the inclusion of home loans, which usually
have much higher balances than personal loans.

Both ANZ New Zealand and ASB have already reached settlements with
New Zealand's Commerce Commission in which they admitted to
breaching the law by failing to keep customers properly informed.

ANZ has agreed to pay more than NZ$35m to customers over breaches
between 30 May 2015 and 28 May 2016 while ASB has agreed to pay
NZ$8.1m over breaches between 6 June 2015 and 18 June 2019.

However, Russell said that under the Credit Contracts and Consumer
Finance Act customers were entitled to a refund of all the interest
and fees they paid while the breaches were occurring.

Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian
Australia every morning

"In this case, the banks have continued to charge interest and fees
despite not being entitled to do so," he alleged.

"The banks' failures to refund their customers constitute serious
breaches of the provisions of the CCCFA."

Anthony Simons, an ASB customer who is participating in the class
action as a representative plaintiff, said the settlements the
banks struck with the Commerce Commission were not enough.

"Hiring expensive lawyers and agreeing to significantly reduced
payments with regulators means the banks have avoided repaying what
they owe to their customers," he said.

"Banks are the first to enforce the rules when they are owed money,
yet they ask for leniency when they break the law. If we do not
challenge this kind of behaviour, we are condoning it and allowing
it to continue."

The lawsuit is being bankrolled by two funders: Australia's CASL
and New Zealand's LPF group.

An ANZ spokeswoman said the bank would defend the claim.

"ANZ considers we have fairly remediated our customers and the
matter has already been subject to regulatory oversight and
resolution," she said.

CBA has been approached for comment. [GN]

ASCENDTEK LLC: Holland Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Holland, Perry Hogan, on their own behalf and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. ASCENDTEK, LLC d/b/a SKY TELECOM,
HAWKEYE TOWERS, LLC, and CHRISTOPHER FUTCH, individually, Case No.
1:21-cv-04133-MLB (N.D. Ga., Oct. 6, 2021), is brought for unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs and
other similarly-situated Tower Technicians who were incorrectly
labelled as independent contractors, time and one half for all of
their hours worked over 40 each week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as Tower
Technicians.

The Defendants are a telecommunications company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremy Stephens, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
          Post Office Box 57007
          Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
          Phone: (404) 965-1682
          Email: jstephens@forthepeople.com


BLUMARTS INC: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blumarts, Inc. The
case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Blumarts, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-08254 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2021).

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

Blumarts, Inc. doing business as Peter Blum Gallery --
https://www.peterblumgallery.com/ -- has exhibited a range of
modern and contemporary artists since its inception in 1993 in SoHo
in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 229-2249
          Fax: (212) 229-2246
          Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com


BOKF NATIONAL: 3rd Cir. Rejects Overdraft Fees Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ralph T. Wutscher, Esq., of Maurice Wutscher LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action
challenging a bank's overdraft fees as usurious under the National
Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq. (NBA).

In so ruling, the Fifth Circuit held after extensive analysis that
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's (OCC) official
Interpretive Letter on the subject was entitled to deference.

The case is Johnson v. BOKF National Ass'n.

The plaintiff checking account holder filed a putative class action
under the NBA, challenging the "Extended Overdraft Charges"
assessed by the bank when she overdrew on her checking account and
failed to timely cover the overdraft.

The plaintiff alleged that the bank extended credit to her when it
covered her overdraft, and that the overdraft charges constituted
usurious interest in violation of the limits set for the bank under
the NBA.

As you may recall, the NBA authorizes national banks to charge
"interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State . . . where
the bank is located." 12 U.S.C. Section 85. The statute allows a
bank customer who is charged interest exceeding the usury limit to
"recover 'twice the amount of the interest paid.'" 12 U.S.C.
Section 86. Non-interest charges are not subject to these limits.

The Fifth Circuit noted that, although the NBA does not define the
term "interest," the Supreme Court of the United States has held
that this statutory term is ambiguous and that courts should
therefore defer to OCC interpretations of the word. Smiley v.
Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 739 (1996).

Under the OCC's regulations, "non-interest charges include fees for
what are broadly referred to as 'deposit account services.'" See 12
C.F.R. Section 7.4002(a). The Court noted that "[b]anks have
discretion to impose deposit account services fees and other
non-interest charges on their account holders, such as the bank's
checking account customers, so long as the bank acts within the
bounds of 'sound banking judgment and safe and sound banking
principles.'" Id. Section 7.4002(b)(2).

The Fifth Circuit also recited that, "[i]n 2007, OCC issued
Interpretive Letter 1082, squarely addressing for the first time
whether fees charged by a Bank in connection with paying an
overdraft may qualify as 'interest' under the NBA." See OCC,
Interpretive Letter No. 1082, 2007 WL 5393636, at *1 (May 17,
2007).

"Interpretive Letter 1082 was a response by OCC to an unnamed bank
that described its overdraft fee structure to OCC and asked the
agency whether, under the NBA and OCC's regulations, it could '(1)
in its discretion, honor items for which there are insufficient
funds in depositors' accounts and recover the resulting overdraft
amounts as part of the Bank's routine maintenance of these
accounts; and (2) establish, charge and recover overdraft fees from
depositors' accounts for doing so.'" Id. at *1.

OCC concluded that the bank's practices complied with the NBA and
the OCC's regulations interpreting the NBA, that "[c]reating and
recovering overdrafts have long been recognized as elements of the
discretionary deposit account services that banks provide," and
"that the bank's authority to charge a fee when it pays an
overdraft is expressly provided for in 12 C.F.R. Sec. 7.4002(a),
which concerns non-interest charges and fees like deposit account
service charges."

Here, the Fifth Circuit noted that the defendant bank's deposit
account agreement expressly authorized the overdraft charges at
issue. The Court then examined whether it should defer to the OCC's
Interpretive Letter 1082.

The Fifth Circuit noted that the Supreme Court of the United States
"recently reaffirmed that courts should defer to an agency's
reasonable interpretation of its own regulations when the
regulation's text is 'genuinely ambiguous,' and the 'character and
context of the agency's interpretation entitles it to controlling
weight.' Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2414, 2416 (2019)."

However, "courts must 'exhaust all the traditional tools of
construction' before determining that a regulation is genuinely
ambiguous", and must "carefully consider the text, structure,
history, and purpose of a regulation," before deferring to the
regulatory agency. Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2415 (quoting Chevron
U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 n. 9
(1984)).

In addition, "deference is only merited when an agency's
interpretation of its regulation is 'reasonable'", and "whether the
character and context of the agency interpretation entitles it to
controlling weight." The Court noted that "'especially important
markers' for determining if an agency's regulatory interpretation"
requires deference include: "(1) whether the agency's
interpretation reflects the agency's 'authoritative' or 'official
position'; (2) whether 'the agency's interpretation implicates its
substantive expertise'; and (3) whether the agency's construction
is rooted in its 'fair and considered judgment.'"

The Fifth Circuit also noted that the Supreme Court of the United
States "has deferred to 'official staff memoranda . . . even though
never approved by the agency head' (quoting Ford Motor Credit v.
Milhollin, 444 U.S. 555, 566 n.9 & 567 n.10 (1980)".

After extensive examination recounted in its opinion, the Court
concluded that "deference to OCC's interpretation of these
regulations is appropriate, and the agency's determination in
Interpretive Letter 1082 that the type of bank fees at issue here
… are noninterest charges is a sufficient basis to resolve this
case."

Therefore, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment.
[GN]

BROADLEAF MARKETING: Faces Class Action Over Robocalls
------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Broadleaf
Marketing & SEO, LLC faces a proposed class action that alleges the
company has placed unlawful, prerecorded telemarketing calls to the
owners of phone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.

The 13-page lawsuit, filed in Tennessee on October 1, claims
Broadleaf did not obtain consent of any kind before placing the
alleged robocalls. According to the complaint, the Florida-based
marketing and search engine optimization company's autodialed
calling practices violate the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, which prohibits "any telephone solicitation" to a number on
the National Do-Not-Call Registry, the case says.

"Plaintiff has done no business with Broadleaf and has never
provided Broadleaf with prior express written consent to call her
cellular telephone registered on the National Do-Not-Call
Registry," the complaint reads.

The suit alleges one such autodialed call from Broadleaf began with
the following prerecorded message inquiring about the plaintiff's
"Google business listing":

"Hello! And please don't hang up. We've tried to contact you
numerous times about your Google business listing. Our records show
your Google business listing may be suspended or not verified
through Google. This can cause customers searching for your
services to not be able to find your business online. Press 1 to
speak with a listing pro expert so we can quickly check the status
of your Google business listing. This will only take a few
minutes."

The lawsuit claims other prerecorded messages utilized by Broadleaf
are "similar in nature and focus" with regard to Google
verifications of business listings and suggest a consumer's listing
is "not verified" or has some other problem.

The plaintiff claims to have received at least 17 robocalls from
Broadleaf between January 2020 and February 2021. Each call seems
to have come from a "spoofed" number, appearing to originate in
Tennessee despite the fact that Broadleaf is located in Florida,
the lawsuit says.

Per the case, the plaintiff, after failed attempts to get the calls
to stop, engaged a Broadleaf representative in an attempt to
identify the source of the calls. The plaintiff identified the
telemarketer as "Web Listing Solutions," which the lawsuit alleges
is a fictitious name used by Broadleaf to "avoid detection while it
engages in its illegal telemarketing practices." [GN]

C.H. ROBINSON: Court Amends August 24, 2021 Scheduling Order
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuits against C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.,
the Hon. Judge Richard B. Solum entered an order amending the
August 24, 2021 scheduling order as follows:

   1. JMR Plaintiffs' Motion for
      Class Certification:

      -- Plaintiffs' motion                   October 15, 2021
         to be made on or before:

      -- Defendants’ response shall           December 3, 2021
         be made on or before

      -- Plaintiffs' reply                    December 30, 2021
         on or before

   2. Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures:         January 4, 2022

   3. Defendants' Expert Rebuttal             February 4, 2022
      Disclosures:

   4. Fact Discovery Completed:               February 11, 2022

   5. Rule 56 Motions:

      -- Made and fully briefed before        March 1, 2022

   6. Trial Readiness:                        April 15, 2022

The lawsuits are captioned as:

   "DAVID MOORE d/b/a MOORE FAMILY FARMS, et al., v. C.H.
   ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC. et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-00252-PJS-
   HB (D. Minn.);" and

   "JMR FARMS, INC. et al., individually and in behalf of others
   similarly situated, v. C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC. et al.,
   Case No. 20-cv-879-PJS/HB (D. Minn.)"

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BuKkLJ at no extra charge.[CC]

CANADA: Court OKs Residential Day School Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waddell Phillips, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that Justice
McDonald of the Federal Court has approved a settlement agreement
for Residential Schools Day Scholar Survivors and their children in
the Gottfriedson v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada class
action.

Following a settlement approval hearing in early September, the
court determined that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable
and in the best interests of Survivor and Descendant Class Members.
In making her decision, Justice McDonald considered submissions
from lawyers for the Survivors and Descendants Class and Canada, as
well as written and oral statements made by Class Members.

Under the terms of the settlement, each eligible Day Scholar will
be able to apply for individual $10,000 compensation for harms
(other than sexual abuse or serious physical abuse) including
psychological harms and loss of language and culture linked to
attending Residential Schools. The settlement also provides a $50
million Day Scholars Revitalization Fund to support healing, and
linguistic and cultural reclamation for Day Scholars and their
children.

Former shishalh chief, Garry Feschuk, who initiated the action with
his T'kemlups colleague former chief Shane Gottfriedson over 10
years ago provided the following statement:

"This settlement will ensure compensation for Survivors and their
Descendants will happen in their lifetimes. Once we are ready to
proceed with compensation, there will be a simple claims process.
This was designed to minimize the burden on Day Scholars and their
Descendants."

Selina August and Jeanette Jules representing the shishalh and
T'kemlups Nations who commenced this proceeding to seek redress for
their Day Scholars and all Day Scholars provided the following
statement:

"We were told by our members who were Day Scholars that they too
suffered from the punishments for speaking our language and
exercising our culture while in the schools during the day. It was
horrific and our Day Scholars were once again left out just as
their suffering had been ignored in the Residential School
settlement. We now have ensured that all the Day Scholars who were
alive as of May 30, 2005 will be compensated for their ‘Common
Experience Payment' and so nobody is left behind."

Claimants will only need to fill out a simple form and will not
need to provide any information about their experiences at
Residential Schools.

Survivors cannot apply for compensation at this time. A settlement
notice will be sent out shortly advising of the process and the
start date for making claims. The claims process to apply for Day
Scholar Compensation will be open by early December subject to
further direction from the Court.

Survivors and Descendants are encouraged to check the Justice for
Day Scholars website and follow the Facebook information page for
regular updates on the settlement and claims process. Details about
the settlement agreement, as well as supports that will be
available once the claims process opens, will be available on the
website.

Please visit www.justicefordayscholars.com and
www.facebook.com/JusticeforDayScholars.

Day Scholars and Descendants with questions about the settlement
agreement can contact Class Counsel (Waddell Phillips) at no
charge.

Phone: 1-888-222-6845 (toll-free)

Fax:416-477-1657

Email: dayscholars@waddellphillips.ca

CONTACT: Titilayo Ajibose Argyle 437-788-2120 Tajibose@argylepr.com
[GN]

CARBON COUNTY, UT: Faces Class Action Over Bail System
------------------------------------------------------
Ivana Maritnez, writing for KUER, reports that three Utahns are
suing two judges for setting bail without inquiring if they could
afford it or considering alternatives.

Karra Porter, a Christensen & Jensen attorney, presented the class
action lawsuit on Oct. 4 on their behalf.

"These clients understand that they're not going to get money out
of this," Porter said. "They are trying to make it better for not
just themselves, but for other people."

She said in Utah it's common for a magistrate to determine that an
arrestee qualifies for release, but then set bail at an amount they
can't afford. Porter said their clients are examples of that.

Dawn Hepikiya Medina has been in the Iron County jail since she was
arrested for allegedly shoplifting. Her bail was set at $7,000.

Justin Horton's bail was set to $5,000 after he was found allegedly
cutting catalytic converters from cars. He's since been booked in
the Carbon County jail.

Madelaine Thompson was given a bail amount of $3,000 after being
arrested for a fight with her family and is still in the Beaver
County jail.

In 2020, state legislators put forward a bill that aimed at moving
Utah away from cash bail reform. It aimed to give people who were
eligible for release, to be let go under the least restrictive
reasonably available condition.

Porter said they were prompted to serve the class action suit after
the state Legislature largely rolled back that law.

She said the bail system currently works as "wealth-based", and
detains people who can't afford to pay and releases people who
can.

Porter said too often people who are poor remain in jail or plead
guilty, creating an inequity in the justice bail system.

"A lot of people are so desperate to get out of jail and they don't
have the money that they'll just take a guilty plea when they're
not guilty," she said.

The lawsuit argues arrestees who can't afford to pay risk losing
their jobs and their homes and have a higher chance of being
convicted.

Southern Utah judges Ann Marie Mciff Allen and Jeremiah Humes were
listed as the defendants in the lawsuit. They are being sued for
declaratory relief only.

Porter said they're ready to take further legal action, if judges
don't start following the procedures they outlined in their
lawsuit.

A spokesperson for Utah courts said the judges weren't able to
comment on pending litigation. [GN]

CARE CUBE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Care Cube, LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Care Cube, LLC doing business
as: Care Cube, Case No. 1:21-cv-05549-MKB-MMH (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 6,
2021).

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

CareCube -- https://carecube.clinic/ -- focuses on individualized
needs to improve long-term health and wellness.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


CELTIC BOYS: Abuse Victims Plan to Launch Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that victims of historical abuse at Celtic Boys
Club are planning to launch a "class action" against Celtic in one
of the first cases of its kind in Scotland.

The US-style legal action could see the club face a multi-million
pound damages claim.

About 25 people are involved in the bid for compensation.

Celtic said it was "continuing to deal with these sensitive
matters" in conjunction with its advisers.

The club has always maintained it was separate from the Boys Club,
which no longer exists.

A number of individuals have already been charged and sentenced for
historical abuse at the Boys Club.

'Sincere sympathy'
This latest action aims to prove Celtic Football Club was
responsible for the actions of those within the Boys Club.

A spokesman for the club said: "The club again expresses its
sincere sympathy, regret and sorrow to those affected and
reiterates that it will stand by its responsibilities, respecting
the due process of the law."

Group proceedings were only brought in to Scots law last year. They
allow groups of two or more people with the same, or similar,
claims to raise a single action in the Court of Session.

In a public notice, Thompsons Solicitors, who are acting for the
victims, has appealed for others who have not previously made a
claim to come forward.

The law firm said the proceedings related to claims for
compensation on behalf of those abused while playing football for
Celtic Boys Club.

Presentational grey line
Analysis box by Chris McLaughlin, Sports news correspondent
The group action now being faced by Celtic is only being made
possible due to a change in the law last year.

This US-style approach allows alleged victims to use all combined
evidence in one case - it's designed to cut the cost and time of
what can often be an expensive and lengthy process.

A number of criminal cases have come before the courts and
convictions have followed.

This time alleged victims want a judge to determine that Celtic
Football Club and Celtic Boys club were so intrinsically linked,
that the club should compensate those who suffered at the hands of
the boys club.

If a judge does allow the action to be heard, there's no doubt it
could be a landmark case.

Presentational grey line
Partner Patrick McGuire said: "As things stand, the group action
will be taken forward on behalf of more than 20 claimants. Today,
we began the process of raising that group action and what the
court rules require is that we first serve a public notice to say
that court proceedings will be commenced.

"Having spoken to our clients, it's perfectly clear there are more
survivors out there."

Mr McGuire said all those involved in the group action had
"suffered the worst abuse at the hands of paedophiles operating at
the heart of Celtic Boys Club".

He added: "They have continued to suffer throughout their whole
lives because of the abuse they've suffered and enough is enough.
It's time that Celtic faced up to their responsibilities and pay
each and every one of them the financial justice, the compensation
to which they are entitled."

In 2019, Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell hit back at
"misconceptions" the club had been "doing nothing" following the
abuse scandal at the Boys Club. [GN]

CENTENE CORP: Breach-of-Contract Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Anne Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a
proposed class action brought by Ohio residents who bought health
insurance on an Obamacare marketplace can proceed on
breach-of-contract and fraud claims against Centene Corp., a
federal court said.

The complaint sufficiently alleged Centene and its subsidiaries
breached their insurance policies by failing to make good on
promises to maintain a network of health-care providers sufficient
to make sure all types of services would be available, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio said. [GN]

CINCINNATI, OH: Jetter Suit Loses Class Status Bid w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH JETTER, et al., v.
CITY OF CINCINNATI, Case No. 1:20-cv-00581-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Timothy S. Black entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to
      dismiss as follows:

      a. Defendant's motion is granted as it relates to any of
         Plaintiffs' claims for intentional discrimination or
         disparate treatment under the Federal Housing
         Administration (FHA); and

      b. Defendant's motion is denied with regards to
         Plaintiffs' disparate impact claims under the FHA,
         Plaintiffs may proceed with disparate impact claims;


   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class without
      prejudice; and

   3. granting the parties' joint motion to stay discovery;

      -- The Court anticipates setting a discovery schedule
         after Defendant has interposed an answer and the Court
         has held a Preliminary Pretrial Conference.

The Court said, "Having found the Plaintiffs have not shown the
necessary class prerequisites, the Court will not reach the
question of qualifications of Plaintiffs' counsel (although it is
self-evident) nor the further demands of Rule 23(b)(2). The Court
will deny the motion to certify the proposed class and subclass for
the reasons stated. As should be clear from the Court's analyses of
the Rule 23(a) factors, the class description proposed by
Plaintiffs is simply too broad given the allegations of the
complaint. That said, "[a] district court's order denying or
granting class status is inherently tentative. District courts have
the discretion and even the obligation to reassess their class
rulings as the case develops." In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading
Washer Prod. Liab. Litig., 302 F.R.D. 448, 459 (N.D. Ohio 2014)
(cleaned up). With this in mind, the Court denies Plaintiffs’
motion to certify a class without prejudice to a renewed motion for
class certification.

The Plaintiffs Dennis and Cecil Howell; Allen and Alberta Harris;
Jerilyn Isabel, and Vickie Jackson are African-Americans who own
homes in the Cincinnati neighborhood of Bond Hill.

The Plaintiff Barbara Applebury owns a home in the Over-the-Rhine
neighborhood of Cincinnati. They all allege that the City of
Cincinnati ("the City") has violated the FHA because of its
operation of its Property Tax Abatement Program ("RTA").

The RTA is state program, but it is administered by the City in key
respects. The City designates community-reinvestment areas ("CRAs")
in neighborhoods in need of "revitalization." Since 2001, the City
has designated all of Cincinnati as a CRA. Within the city-wide
CRA, homeowners may build a new home or perform renovations on
existing ones and continue to pay taxes
based on their pre-improvement home value for 10-15 years. The
Plaintiffs' example is apt. A homeowner who builds a house for
$400,000 on a $100,000 lot will continue to pay taxes as if her
home is worth $100,00.00 for 15 years, saving around $8,000.00 in
that time. The minimum amount a homeowner can spend to qualify for
the abatement is either $2,500 or $5,000. The Hamilton County
Auditor approves applications for the abatement.

The Plaintiffs allege that the City has violated the FHA in
implementing the RTA, and Plaintiffs seek various relief.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BrC4w6 at no extra charge.[CC]

DAUGHERTY SYSTEMS: Wins Class Decertification Bid vs. O'Reilly
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA O'REILLY, v.
DAUGHERTY SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-01283-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Stephen R. Clark entered an order granting Daugherty's
motion to decertify conditional Class, and dismissing the Opt-In
Plaintiffs, without prejudice.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the conditional class simply
lacks the requisite factual similarities needed to proceed on a
class-wide basis. White, 301 F.R.D. at 378. Although some evidence
may overlap between Plaintiffs, the determination of Daugherty's
liability ultimately necessitates drilling down to the specific
circumstances of each individual plaintiff. Proceeding on a
class-wide basis under these circumstances would require the jury
to hear evidence regarding the specific claims of 20 plaintiffs,
make findings regarding each plaintiff, and then weigh the findings
as to each plaintiff to reach its final decision regarding
Daugherty's liability. Simply put, the individualized nature of
each plaintiff's claim would require 20 mini-trials, thus defeating
the underlying purposes of collective actions, the Court says.

Tamara O'Reilly claims her former employer, Daugherty Systems, 1
paid her less than her comparable male coworkers, and brought a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Equal Pay Act (EPA). The Court conditionally certified a collective
class composed of current and former female Daugherty employees.
Following the close of discovery, Daugherty argues that O'Reilly
and the other female Daugherty employees who opted into the class
lack the similarity necessary to proceed in a collective action,
and moves to decertify the collective class.

O'Reilly filed this putative collective action claiming Daugherty
discriminated against female consultants and support staff by
providing them with lower pay than similarly-situated male
consultants and support staff, in violation of the FLSA and EPA.

Daugherty Systems Inc., doing business as Daugherty Business
Solutions, provides business consulting solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lqnoYq at no extra charge.[CC]

EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Class Action Over Banana Boat Sunscreens
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that the
maker of Banana Boat sunscreens falsely markets the products as
being "reef friendly" when they really contain chemicals that can
harm or even kill the delicate reefs, a new nationwide class action
lawsuit alleges.

Lead plaintiff Michelle Moran filed the class action complaint
against Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC, on Sept. 30 in a
California federal court alleging violations of state consumer
protection and business laws, breach of warrant, and unjust
enrichment.

"To obtain an unfair competitive advantage in the billion-dollar
sunscreen market, Defendant is exposing consumers and the
environment, e.g. coral reefs and marine life, to harmful chemical
active ingredients in their sunscreens by falsely labeling them as
'REEF FRIENDLY,'" says the class action lawsuit.

Moran says the company has reaped millions of dollars through this
"fraudulent scheme" based on a "calculated business decision to put
profits over people and the environment."

It has done this through falsely labeling some of its Banana Boat
sunscreens as "reef friendly," tricking customers into thinking the
products only contain ingredients that do not cause harm to coral
reefs.

Banana Boat Sunscreens Contain Not So Reef Friendly Substances
"However, contrary to this labeling, the Products actually contain
avobenzone, homoslate, and/or octocrylene, which are chemicals that
can harm and/or kill coral reefs," she says.

Through the deceptive labeling of the products, the company sought
to take advantage of consumers' desire for sunscreens that are safe
for coral reefs and marine life and the related ecosystems that
depend on them, Moran says.

At the same time, the company has allegedly been reaping the
financial benefits of using less desirable, harmful, and less
costly chemicals in the products.

"Defendant has done so at the expense of unwitting consumers, as
well as Defendant's lawfully acting competitors, over whom
Defendant maintains an unfair competitive advantage," she says.

She's seeking to represent anyone who purchased Banana Boat
products with the "reef friendly" label, plus a California
Subclass.

Moran is suing under California unfair competition law and consumer
law, as well as for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.

She's seeking certification of the class action, an injunction,
damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.

The news comes as Edgewell Personal Care faces another class action
lawsuit over its Banana Boat sunscreens, alleging the sunscreens
contain benzene, a known human carcinogen.

What do you think of the allegations that this company profited off
false claims that its Banana Boat Sunscreens are "reef friendly"?
Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ryan J. Clarkson, Shireen M.
Clarkson, Katherine A. Bruce, and Kelsey J. Elling of Clarkson Law
Firm, P.C. [GN]

ELECTROMED INC: Lutz Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Elizabeth Lutz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Electromed, Inc., Case No.
70-CV-21-11814 was removed from Scott to the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota on Oct. 6, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-02198-SRN-DTS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Electromed, Inc. doing business as SmartVest --
https://smartvest.com/ -- manufactures, markets and sells products
that provide airway clearance therapy for patients with compromised
pulmonary function.[BN]

The Plaintiff is are represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Christopher P Renz, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Fax: (612) 336-2940
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                 crenz@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Nathan D Prosser, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
          8050 West 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Phone: (952) 941-4005
          Fax: (952) 941-2337
          Email: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brooke D Anthony, Esq.
          Daniel R Hall, Esq.
          ANTHONY OSTLUND BAER & LOUWAGIE PA
          90 S 7th St Ste 3600
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 349-6969
          Fax: (612) 349-6996
          Email: banthony@anthonyostlund.com
                 dhall@anthonyostlund.com


EQT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Nonpayment of Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------
Marcellus Drilling News reports that MDN was (as far as we can
tell) the first to bring you news of a new lawsuit filed in
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas against EQT alleging the
company had not made required royalty payments to at least two
residents, and likely many more residents. In a follow-up to that
post, we spotted an interview with the attorneys filing the lawsuit
who say the issue of not tracking down and paying those with a
mineral rights interest is "an extraordinarily widespread problem"
in PA, and that there are "thousands" of rights owners in PA owed
money by EQT.

Here's more on this developing lawsuit. So far EQT has not
responded to the lawsuit (but it's early days yet).

In what attorneys on the case call "an extraordinarily widespread
problem throughout the commonwealth," a proposed class of
Pennsylvania real property owners are claiming that the country's
largest gas producer failed to pay them royalty for the resources
it extracted from the plaintiffs' land.

Seth Meyer and Alex Dravillas with Keller Lenkner and Scott Hare
and Anthony Gestrich of Whiteford Taylor Preston filed suit against
EQT Corp. and a number of its subsidiaries in the Allegheny County
Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 29. They are representing
Pennsylvania resident Richard Ross and Pennsylvania company
Fieldstone Ventures LLC as the named plaintiffs in a class of real
property owners that the attorneys predict could come to number in
the thousands.

The plaintiffs allege that EQT violated the Pennsylvania Minimum
Royalty Act by extracting natural gas from the plaintiffs' real
property without compensating them with the payments required under
the law. The complaint also accuses EQT of engaging in various
natural gas production activities involving property owned by the
plaintiffs without obtaining permission or attempting to contact
the owners.

The plaintiffs' attorneys said that, while they have seen cases of
natural gas producers bilking individuals of money they were owed,
they have not seen the particular type of violations involved in
this suit before.

"Our case is unlike any other that we've seen because it concerns a
wholesale failure to make royalty payments at all, in any amount,"
said Hare.

"Based on what we've seen and heard, we have reason to believe that
this is something that . . . is going on systematically as a matter
of how EQT is doing business," said Meyer.

The plaintiffs' attorneys say, based on examining records of land
on which EQT is operating, the number of individuals who could be
involved in the class is significant. And because, the plaintiffs
allege, EQT made no efforts to identify and notify the co-tenant
owners involved, many of the potential class members may be unaware
they have a claim.

Though the attorneys declined to give a concrete estimate of what
damages they will seek, they said, "all signs point to it being
very very significant." In order to calculate the damages, they
first require access to EQT's records. Once they obtain them,
though calculating an exact number will be a simple matter. The
attorneys said that because the law includes a statutory minimum
interest, the number is entirely knowable.

As of Oct. 1, no legal representation appeared for EQT. The company
did not respond to requests for comment.*

*The Legal Intelligencer (Oct 1, 2021) - Attorneys Predict
Thousands of Class Members in Pa. Action Against Natural Gas
Co.[GN]

FIRST NATIONAL: Duncan Files FDCPA Suit in D. Nevada
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First National
Collection Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Duncan,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
First National Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01848 (D.
Nev., Oct. 6, 2021).

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

First National Collection Bureau, Inc. -- http://www.fncbinc.com/
-- is an agency that collects debt on behalf of a variety of
creditor clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas M. Wajda, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS M. WAJDA
          6167 Bristol Parkway Suite 200
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Phone: (310) 997-0471
          Fax: (866) 286-8433
          Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com


FLORIDA: $7.90 Red Light Camera Fee May Lead to Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Vasilinda, writing for CNS, reports that the Florida Supreme
Court is being asked to interpret state law for a Federal court,
which is hearing a challenge to a five percent convenience fee
Florida's largest provider of red light cameras has been adding to
red light violations.

If the court sides with red light runners, millions could be on the
table for refunds.

There are just over 500 active red light cameras in Florida.

Notices of violation sent to motorists cost a flat $158, but
American Traffic Solutions, which provides cameras to 31
jurisdictions, has also been adding a five percent fee to anyone
using a credit card to pay.

South Florida resident Steven Pincus has chosen to fight the $7.90
add on.

His attorney, Bret Lusskin, argued to the Florida Supreme Court
it's not allowed by state law.

"State law says you can not add any additional fees, fines,
surcharges, or costs," said Lusskin.

But Justices seemed skeptical.

"The choice to make an electronic payment is entirely voluntary,"
said Chief Justice Charles Canady.

American Traffic Solutions suggested paying the fee offered value.

"I don't need to get my stamp, I don't need to get my money order
if that's what it's going to take. It's done, and so there is real
benefit here," said ATS attorney Joseph Lang.

ATS did admit it does make a profit on the fee, even after paying
credit card processing costs.

After the Oct. 5 hearing, their attorney declined to explain.

So why did the case get to federal court and now Florida's high
court over a $7.90 fee?

"The amount of the fine is a $158. That's all they should be
getting charged. And I think it's unfair for a company to be
overcharging people in this way," said Lusskin.

If the Florida Supreme Court rules the fee was illegal it could
lead to a class action suit, in which $30 million could eventually
be available to some of the 8 million people cited so far by red
light cameras.

Plaintiffs argue the profit from the fee is wrongful enrichment.

The court took the case under advisement.

It could take weeks or months to send the case back to Federal
court, which could allow the case to go forward, or decide there is
no case at all. [GN]

FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Fusion Transmission Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Foote, writing for Ford Authority, reports that a new Ford
Fusion transmission class-action lawsuit -- Gant, et al., v. Ford
Motor Company -- has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan pertaining to a number of problems
allegedly associated with 2010-2017 models, according to Car
Complaints. The lawsuit covers a whole host of allegedly defective
components, all pertaining to the 6F35 automatic transmission.

That gearbox was used in many 2010-2012 Fusion models, as well as
all 2013+ non-hybrid models save for those equipped with a manual
transmission. According to the Ford Fusion transmission lawsuit,
the 6F35 gearbox can experience failure of the powertrain control
module, transmission control module, torque converter welds fluid
seal integrity, and driveshaft. Additionally, the lawsuit cites
throttle body deficiencies as a problem as well.

These deficiencies allegedly lead to a number of issues, including
slipping gears, delayed acceleration, violent jerking, bucking, or
kicking when accelerating, shaking, loss of power, delayed
downshifts, clunking, hard acceleration, and difficulty stopping
the vehicle. These issues do not pertain to Fusions equipped with a
manual transmission or Aisin six-speed automatic units, however.

The plaintiffs in the suit claim that Ford has been aware of these
problems since 2009, yet has refused to issue a recall to address
them. Some have experienced complete transmission failure, while
others have brought their vehicles to Ford dealers for repairs,
only to be granted "temporary stop-gap measures destined to fail in
the future," according to the lawsuit.

Ford hasn't yet commented on the lawsuit, which spans 841 total
pages, and claims that the automaker "failed to tell customers
about the alleged defects" concerning its recently discontinued
sedan.

We'll have more on this and all of Ford's pending lawsuits soon, so
be sure and subscribe to Ford Authority for the latest Ford Fusion
news, Ford lawsuit news, and 24/7 Ford news coverage. [GN]

GENERAC HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Generac Holdings Inc. (NYSE: GNRC)
between February 23, 2021 and July 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important October 19, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action first filed by the firm.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Generac securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Generac class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2139.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 19, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Generac's portable generators
posed an unreasonable risk of injury to users and the public; (2)
as a result, at least seven finger amputations and one crushed
finger had been reported to the Company; (3) as a result, Generac
would face increased regulatory scrutiny; (4) the Company would end
sales in its Generac(R) and DR(R) 6500 Watt and 8000 Watt portable
generators in the United States and Canada in June 2021; (5) the
Company would recall its Generac(R) and DR(R) 6500 Watt and 8000
Watt portable generators in the United States and Canada; (6) the
end of sales and the recall would occur before the hurricane and
wildfire seasons and following the Texas outage—periods the
Company has touted for sales; and (7) as a result, defendants'
public statements and statements to journalists were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the Generac class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2139.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Faces Ad-Targeting Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Vittorio, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Alphabet
Inc.'s Google says a potential consumer privacy class action over
its delivery of targeted advertising represents a "misunderstanding
of how the Internet works."

The information that Google shares for targeted advertising, such
as cookie and location data, is routinely shared online, lawyers
for Google wrote in a brief filed Oct. 1 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. So Google users can't
claim an expectation of privacy in such information, the brief
said. [GN]

GRANDE COSMETICS: Ribak Sues Over Selling of Unapproved Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genna Ribak, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. GRANDE COSMETICS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-07973 (C.D. Cal., Oct.
6, 2021), is brought to stop the Defendant's sale of unapproved
drugs to California residents and to recover monetary relief for
similar purchasers, and s brought based on the Defendant's
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and
Professions Code, California’s False Advertising Law,
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Defendant sells GrandeLASH-MD Lash Enhancing Serum, GrandeBROW
Brow Enhancing Serum, and GrandeHAIR Enhancement Serum without a
prescription. The Defendants deceptively claim that the Enhancement
Serums are safe cosmetics, or "serums," with no active drug
ingredient, and no serious side effects. However, the Enhancement
Serums contain the active ingredient isopropyl cloprostenate
("ICP"), which is in the same class of compounds as the active
ingredient found in prescription drugs that grows eyelashes, like
Latisse. The Food and Drug Administration associates ICP with
potential serious side effects like iris discoloration, and has
concluded that ICP lash and brow products are not safe for use
except under supervision of a licensed physician.

Because the Enhancement Serums are drugs within the meaning of Cal.
Health & Safety Code Section 109875, et seq., Grande Cosmetics was
required to seek regulatory approval before selling the Enhancement
Serums to California consumers. Grande Cosmetics sought no such
approval, and instead concocted a scheme to take the Enhancement
Serums straight to market by selling them as cosmetics instead of
prescription drugs. Even though the Enhancement Serums are an
unapproved drug that should never have been available for sale to
consumers, Grande Cosmetics unlawfully sold hundreds of thousands
of units of the Enhancement Serums to California consumers at
around $65-$125 apiece.

Like many other California consumers, Ms. Ribak purchased the
Enhancement Serums, GrandeBROW Brow Enhancing Serum and GrandeLASH-
MD Lash Enhancing Serum, without knowing it is a new drug with
potentially serious side effects not reasonably expected from a
cosmetic—including iris discoloration, the development of growths
in the eye, and the complete loss of eyelashes, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased and used the Enhancement Serums, GrandeBROW
Brow Enhancing Serum and GrandeLASH-MD Lash Enhancing Serum, for
personal, family, or household purposes.

Grande Cosmetics is an American manufacturer specializing in beauty
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park E #1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (768) 289-9471
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


GSK CONSUMER: Wins Bid to Dismiss All Causes of Action vs Engram
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLINTON ENGRAM v. GSK
CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-02886-EK-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric Komitee entered
an order:

   1. granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss as to all
      causes of action; and

   2. directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and closing
      this case.

The Court said, "Although Plaintiff may plead unjust enrichment in
the alternative to his other claims, "claims for unjust enrichment
will not survive a motion to dismiss where plaintiffs fail to
explain how their unjust enrichment claim is not merely duplicative
of their other causes of action." Here, the unjust enrichment claim
is sufficiently duplicative that it cannot remedy the defects in
the New York General Business Law (GBL) claims. Without a plausible
false-advertising allegation, the Plaintiff fails to allege that
equity and good conscience require Defendant to make restitution.
Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss this cause of
action is granted."

The Defendant GSK Consumer Health Holdings a lip balm sold under
the Chapstick brand name called "2 in 1 Lipcare." The name is a
reference to the single product's two functions: moisturizing and
sun protection.

the Plaintiff Engram alleges that the product's labeling is
misleading as to the length of sun protection it provides, and that
the label therefore constitutes a "deceptive act or practice" and
"false advertising" under New York's GBL Sections 349 and 350. The
Plaintiff also alleges unjust enrichment and indicates his intent
to seek class certification.

Glaxosmithkline is located in Warren, New Jersey, and is part of
the pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fx4W8s at no extra charge.[CC]

HEALTH INSURANCE: Settles Class Action for $27.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Health
Insurance Innovations must also change the way it sells limited
benefit indemnity plans and other ancillary products, according to
the class action settlement.

Plaintiffs alleged Health Insurance Innovations either directed,
or, at minimum, aided a $150 million conspiracy involving Simple
Health Plans LLC that deceived tens of thousands of consumers into
buying pointless health insurance plans.

Health Insurance Innovations Class Action Settlement
Health Insurance Innovations said it will stop selling nearly all
of its limited benefit indemnity plans, which plaintiffs allege
cost hundreds a dollars a month despite covering nearly none of
their medical expenses.

Agents will now be required to maintain and record all sales calls,
under the terms of the class action settlement, which also
stipulates that a disciplinary system be put in place for agents
who mislead consumers. Outside vendors will also be used as secret
shoppers to detect any further fraudulent practices.

Plaintiffs argued that Health Insurance Innovations' actions made
it guilty of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and
put the company in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

Going forward, Health Insurance Innovations will be required to
place disclaimers on its website informing consumers that limited
benefit indemnity plans do not constitute as major medical
insurance and are not compliant with the Affordable Care Act.

In other healthcare news, a class action lawsuit was recently filed
against UnitedHealthCare by members who allege the company violated
its benefit policies by refusing to reimburse them and their
providers for anesthesia services.

Have you purchased a limited benefit indemnity plan from Health
Insurance Innovations? Let us know in the comments!

The plaintiffs are represented by Jason K. Kellogg, Jeffrey C.
Schneider, Lawrence A. Kellogg, and Victoria J. Wilson of Levine
Kellogg Lehman Schneider & Grossman LLP, and Jason R. Doss of The
Doss Firm LLC.

The Health Insurance Innovations Class Action Lawsuit is Belin, et
al. v. Health Insurance Innovations Inc., et al., Case No.
0:19-cv-61430, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida. [GN]

HEALTHCOMPARE INSURANCE: DeLong Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcompare
Insurance Services, Inc. The case is styled as Michael DeLong,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Healthcompare Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 8:21-cv-01653
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2021).

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

HealthCompare Insurance Services, Inc. --
https://www.healthcompare.com/ -- offers health insurance plans
online for individuals and families in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          19712 MacArthur Boulevard
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Phone: (866) 540-5505
          Fax: (866) 300-7367
          Email: jcshah@millershah.com


HONEST COMPANY: Johnson Fistel Reminds of November 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on Oct. 5 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
The Honest Company, Inc. ("The Honest Company" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: HNST). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who
purchased The Honest Company common stock pursuant or traceable to
the May 2021 initial public stock offering (the "IPO"). If you wish
to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you must move the
Court no later than November 15, 2021.

According to the complaint, The Honest Company and the Offering
Documents made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) that, prior to the IPO, the Company's results
had been significantly impacted by a multimillion-dollar COVID-19
stock-up for products in the Diapers and Wipes category and
Household and Wellness category; (2) that, at the time of the IPO,
the Company was experiencing decelerating demand for such products;
(3) that, as a result, the Company's financial results would likely
be adversely impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and lacked a
reasonable basis.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing The Honest Company class-action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential
future recovery of The Honest Company class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

If you suffered a substantial loss and are interested in learning
more about being a lead plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If
emailing, please include a phone number.

                     About Johnson Fistel, LLP

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

Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com
http://www.johnsonfistel.com[GN]

HONEST COMPANY: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of November 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow, a nationally ranked and award-winning shareholder
rights law firm, on Oct. 5 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise
acquired The Honest Company, Inc. ("Honest Company" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:HNST) securities pursuant and/or traceable to
the offering documents issued in connection with Honest Company's
May 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO"). Honest Company
investors have until November 15, 2021, to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

Approximately two months after the IPO, on August 13, 2021, Honest
Company reported a net loss of $20 million for the second quarter
of 2021, as compared to a net loss of only $0.4 million for the
second quarter of 2020. Honest Company also disclosed that its
revenue grew only 3% as compared to the second quarter of 2020,
because it was negatively impacted by "an estimated $3.7 million
COVID-19 stock-up impact primarily in Diapers and Wipes in the
prior year period." Honest Company also disclosed that its Diapers
and Wipes product category revenue declined 2% compared to the
second quarter of 2020. Honest Company further disclosed that,
"Household and Wellness revenue declined 6% from the second quarter
of 2020 as consumer and customer demand for sanitization products
decreased as consumers became vaccinated and customers managed
heavy levels of inventory." On this news, the Company's stock price
fell approximately 28%, damaging investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted that (1) prior to the IPO, the Company's results had been
significantly impacted by a multimillion-dollar COVID-19 stock-up
for products in the Diapers and Wipes category and Household and
Wellness category; (2) at the time of the IPO, the Company was
experiencing decelerating demand for such products; (3) as a
result, the Company's financial results would likely be adversely
impacted; and (4) 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 Honest Company shares pursuant and/or traceable to
the IPO and want to receive additional information and protect your
investments free of charge, please contact David J. Schwartz using
the toll-free number (800) 321-0476, via email at
david@labaton.com, or by filling out this form.

                         About the Firm

Labaton Sucharow LLP is one of the world's leading complex
litigation firms representing clients in securities, antitrust,
corporate governance and shareholder rights, and consumer
cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it
is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices
are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C.
More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at
www.labaton.com.

CONTACT:
David J. Schwartz
(800) 321-0476
david@labaton.com [GN]

HYZON MOTORS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of November 29 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Hyzon Motors Inc. f/k/a
Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation ("Hyzon" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: HYZN, HYZNW, DCRB, DCRBW, DCRBU) and certain of
its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Hyzon securities between February 9, 2021, and September
27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/hyzn.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts and failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) Hyzon was misrepresenting the nature of its
"customer" contracts and severely embellished its "deals" and
"partnerships" with customers; (2) Hyzon could not deliver its
announced vehicles in 2021, on its stated timeline; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/hyzn or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Hyzon you have until November 29, 2021, to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

Contact:

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

HYZON MOTORS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming November 29, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Hyzon Motors Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus
Acquisition Corporation ("Hyzon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HYZN)
securities between February 9, 2021 and September 27, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your Hyzon 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/hyzon-motors-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 September 28, 2021, Blue Orca Capital published a report
alleging, among other things, that "channel checks reveal . . .
that Hiringa was not actually a customer, but a ‘channel partner'
assisting Hyzon in marketing vehicles to real end customers in New
Zealand." Though the Hyzon claims that "Hiringa will account for
24% of the Company's projected deliveries in 2021," the report
alleged that "Hiringa stated point blank that no deliveries would
be taken in 2021," so Blue Orca "expect[s] a major guidance miss."
Moreover, multiple executives left Hyzon because they "became
uncomfortable with how Hyzon was presenting customer orders to
investors" as it felt "a bit like unfortunately what Nikola was
doing."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.58, or 28%, to
close at $6.63 per share on September 28, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Hyzon was
misrepresenting the nature of its "customer" contracts and severely
embellished its "deals" and "partnerships" with customers; (2)
Hyzon could not deliver its announced vehicles in 2021, on its
stated timeline; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Hyzon securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 29,
2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. 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 the pending class action lawsuit,
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 Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]

HYZON MOTORS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 29 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Hyzon Motors
Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation ("Hyzon" or
"the Company") (NASDAQ: HYZN) (NASDAQ: HYZNW) (NASDAQ: DCRB)
(NASDAQ: DCRBW) (NASDAQ: DCRBU) 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 February
9, 2021 and September 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 29, 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. Hyzon misled the market about its
supposed contracts with customers, severely distorting the facts of
its customer relationships and business prospects. The Company was
incapable of delivering vehicles in 2021, its stated timeline.
Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false
and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the
market learned the truth about Hyzon, 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]

JOHN HANCOCK: Settlement Deal in Baker Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Baker and Jean
Greenberg, as representatives of a class of similarly situated
persons, and on behalf of the Investment-Incentive Plan for John
Hancock Employees, v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.)
and the John Hancock US Benefits Committee, Case No.
1:20-cv-10397-RGS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge entered an order:

   1. granting the certification of the following Class under
      Rule 23(b)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

      "All participants and beneficiaries of the Investment-
      Incentive Plan for John Hancock Employees at any time
      between February 27, 2014 and June 2, 2021, excluding any
      members of the John Hancock US Benefits Committee or the
      John Hancock US Investment Subcommittee;"

      -- The Court finds that this Class meets all of the
         requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(l) for the reasons
         set forth in the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for class
         certification dated February 12, 2021, which the Court
         granted on February 17, 2021 and subsequently
         reaffirmed in its Preliminary Approval Order;

   2. appointing the Named Plaintiffs and Class Counsel to
      represent the Class;

   3. fully and finally approving the Settlement Agreement in
      all respects, and directing the Parties and the Settlement
      Administrator to effectuate its terms;

      -- The Settlement Agreement was entered into in good faith
         and represents a fair, reasonable, and adequate
         settlement that is in the best interests of the Class
         Members. The Settlement Agreement is the product of
         arm's-length settlement negotiations between the
         Parties and their counsel, which were facilitated by an
         experienced mediator. The consideration provided by the
         Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in light
         of the claims asserted in the action and the costs,
         risks, and delay of continued litigation. Further, the
         Settlement Agreement treats all Class Members
         equitably, and provides for a fair and efficient method
         of distribution; and

      -- The Settlement was reviewed by an Independent
         Fiduciary, Newport Trust Company, which also has
         approved the Settlement and approved the release of
         claims therein; and

   4. dismissing with prejudice all of the Plaintiffs' Released
      Claims in the Action, whether asserted by the Named
      Plaintiffs on their own behalf, on behalf of the Class, or
      derivatively on behalf of the Plan, without costs to any
      of the Parties except as provided for in the Settlement
      Agreement and approved by the Court.

John Hancock Life Insurance Company is a Boston-based insurance
company. Established April 21, 1862, it was named in honor of John
Hancock, a prominent patriot. In 2004, John Hancock was acquired by
the Canadian life insurance company Manulife Financial.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/309xtRr at no extra charge.[CC]

KONINKLIJKE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Koninklijke
Philips N.V. ("Koninklijke" or the "Company") (NYSE: PHG) from
February 25, 2020 through June 11, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Act of
1934.

If you purchased Koninklijke securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Koninklijke
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: (1) Philips had deficient product manufacturing controls or
procedures; (2) as a result, the Company's Bi-Level PAP and CPAP
devices and mechanical ventilators were manufactured using
hazardous materials; (3) accordingly, the Company's sales revenues
from these products were unsustainable; (4) the foregoing also
subjected the Company to a substantial risk of a product recall, as
well as potential legal and/or regulatory action; and (5) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On June 14, 2021, Koninklijke issued a voluntary recall of its
Bi-Level PAP and CPAP devices, as well as its mechanical
ventilators, after finding that the sound abatement foam used in
the devices could become toxic.

On this news, Koninklijke's stock price fell $2.24 per share, or
3.98%, to close at $54.25 per share on June 14, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 15, 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 Koninklijke securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/koninklijkephilipsnv-phg-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-430/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]

LABQ CLINICAL: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LabQ Clinical
Diagnostics, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. LabQ Clinical Diagnostics, LLC, LLC doing business as: LabQ,
Case No. 1:21-cv-05557 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2021).

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

LabQ -- https://labq.com/ -- is a full-service, independent
clinical laboratory servicing New York, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


LIBERTY POWER: Shell Energy Ordered to Produce Docs in TCPA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an order on the
motion to enforce subpoena in the case captioned, SAMUEL KATZ and
LYNNE RHODES, individually, and on their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Movants, v. SHELL ENERGY NORTH
AMERICA (US), LP, a California corporation, Respondents, No.
21-cv-10706-ADB (D. Mass.).

Katz and Rhodes are plaintiffs in a putative class action against
Liberty Power Corp., LLC and Liberty Power Holdings, LLC, for
allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Sections 227 et seq., titled Katz v. Liberty Power Corp.,
Civ. A. No. 18-cv-10506-ADB.  On December 2, 2020, Katz served
third party Shell Energy North America (SENA), a creditor of the
Liberty entities, with a subpoena seeking production of
communications and various financial documents involving Liberty.
On January 22, 2021, Katz filed a Motion to Enforce the subpoena in
the federal district court for the District of Southern California,
the court where compliance was required.  SENA opposed and Katz
filed a reply.

On April 23, 2021, the court in the Southern District of California
transferred the motion to this district pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(f), finding that "exceptional circumstances" -- namely, the
extensiveness of the underlying litigation -- justified the
transfer.  The court observed that as SENA is a national
corporation, transfer would not impose a significant burden on it,
and any existing burden was outweighed by the interest in ensuring
consistent rulings, preserving judicial economy, and permitting the
court with the most experience and knowledge of the facts to rule
on the motion.

The parties subsequently narrowed somewhat the scope of the
subpoena but a review of the pleadings and exhibits indicates that
Katz still seeks the following documents:

   1. All emails to or from the Liberty Power domain
libertypowercorp.com for the year 20201; and

   2. All documents related to due diligence that SENA undertook
regarding Liberty.

Since a Rule 45 subpoena must comport with Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1), the "information sought . . . must be: (1) not
privileged; (2) relevant to the claim or defense of any party; and
(3) either admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence."  Additionally, a subpoena may be
quashed or modified if production would subject the recipient to
undue burden.  In evaluating undue burden, courts look at (1) the
relevance of and (2) necessity for the documents sought, (3) the
breadth of the request, and (4) the expense and inconvenience of
complying with the subpoena.

Katz asserted that the documents it seeks are relevant to determine
whether Liberty's production is complete, especially where Liberty
Power Holdings, LLC has gone into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and Liberty
Power Corp., LLC, appears to be in the process of dissolution.
Further, Katz noted that the court through the underlying action
has authorized it to conduct financial discovery to attempt to
reassert a claim under the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act,
and also to determine possible punitive damages under the TCPA.  As
a creditor of Liberty, SENA presumably would have relevant
financial information.

In its opposition memorandum, SENA contended that Katz has not made
a showing of the relevance of the sought documents given that the
underlying litigation focuses on improper telemarketing techniques.
Further, SENA contended that the requests are unduly burdensome
because SENA is a national corporation with a multitude of
accounts, servers, and documents that it would have to search.
Finally, SENA noted that it has already produced all financial
information "reasonably proportionate to the discovery needs of
this case."

From its review, the magistrate found as a threshold matter that
the subpoena does seek relevant information where the court has
authorized financial discovery and SENA is a creditor of Liberty.
The magistrate found further that SENA has not made a compelling
showing that complying with the remaining requests would subject it
to undue burden.  Initially, SENA objected to every request in the
subpoena with the same boilerplate language.

The court has previously rejected similar boilerplate objections in
the underlying case as inadequate, the magistrate pointed out.  It
is not enough to merely assert overbreadth, burden, or oppression;
instead, the party resisting discovery must specifically show how
each request for production is either not relevant or overbroad,
burdensome, or oppressive, and SENA has not made this showing, the
magistrate said.  As SENA has failed to do so, the court does not
credit its objections.

Accordingly, the magistrate granted the movants' Motion to Enforce
Subpoena and ordered SENA to produce within 30 days of the issuance
of the order:

   1. Emails from the year 2020 to or from the domain
libertypowercorp regarding three Liberty employees to be identified
by Katz.  If any such emails are subsequently withheld on the basis
of privilege or work product, SENA shall accompany its production
with a privilege log.

   2. All documents pertaining to SENA's due diligence regarding
Liberty.  As the record indicates that it is unclear if SENA has
any such documents in its possession, if SENA indeed has no such
documents in its possession, custody, or control, it shall so state
in a formal response to the subpoena.

A full-text copy of the Order dated Sept. 30, 2021, is available at
https://is.gd/V75odt from Leagle.com.

                     About Liberty Power

Established in 2001 and headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.,
Liberty Power Holdings, LLC is one of the largest and
longest-tenured owner-operated retail electricity provider in the
United Stats. It provides large and small businesses, government
agencies and residential customers with competitively priced
electricity, sustainability solutions and exceptional customer
service.

Liberty Power filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11
reorganization on April 20, 2021.

MAISON KAYSER: Seeks Approval of Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that the liquidation
trustee for the former U.S. operator of French bakery chain Maison
Kayser asked a New York bankruptcy judge on Oct. 5 to approve a
$1.8 million settlement of class action claims that the company
shortchanged employees by deducting pay for meal breaks they didn't
take. [GN]

MCSS REST: Flores Wins Summary Judgment on Wage Claims
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATALINO MENDEZ, EDUARDO
CHOCOJ, and ISRAEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. MCSS REST. CORP., Jointly and
Severally, AL-KEN CORP., doing business as Cross Bay Diner, MIKO
ENTERPRISES, LLC, doing business as Parkview Diner, MICHAEL
SIDERAKIS, Jointly and Severally, CHRISTOS SIDERAKIS, Jointly and
Severally, KONSTANTINOS SIKLAS, Jointly and Severally, Case No.
1:16-cv-02746-RPK-RLM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Rachel P. Kovner
entered an order:

   1. granting summary judgment for Reyes Flores on his overtime
      and wage statement claims against MCSS and Siderakis; and

   2. denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on all
      other claims.

The Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment on defendants'
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours
compensation, failure to provide adequate wage notices and
statements, and failure to reimburse uniform expenses. Only opt-in
plaintiff Reyes Flores has established that summary judgment is
warranted for his overtime and deficient wage statement claims
against MCSS and Siderakis.

The Plaintiffs bring this collective action against defendants
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

MCSS is located in Howard Beach, New York. The organization
primarily operates in the Eating Places business industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Frath3 at no extra charge.[CC]

NANO-X IMAGING: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 6 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:NNOX) 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-05517, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Nano-X securities between June 17,
2021 and August 18, 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 Nano-X securities during the
Class Period, you have until December 6, 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.

Nano-X is a development-stage company that develops, produces, and
commercializes digital X-ray source technology for the medical
imaging industry worldwide. The Company is developing, among other
technologies, the "Nanox.ARC", which is an imaging system that uses
a purportedly novel X-ray source, also developed by the Company.

On June 17, 2021, Nano-X submitted a 510(k) submission to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA") for its multi-source
version of the Nanox.ARC. A 510(k) is a type of premarket
submission made to the FDA to demonstrate that a device to be
marketed is as safe and effective, that is, substantially
equivalent, to a legally marketed device. Following this
submission, Defendants touted the Nanox.ARC's regulatory and
commercial prospects in various public statements and SEC filings.

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) Nano-X's 510(k) application for
the Nanox.ARC was deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that
the FDA would approve the 510(k) application for the Nanox.ARC in
its current form; (iii) as a result, Nano-X had overstated the
Nanox.ARC's regulatory and commercial prospects; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 19, 2021, Nano-X reported that the Company "received a
request for additional information from the [FDA] concerning the
Company's last 510(k) submission of its multi-source device,
Nanox.ARC[,]" and that "[t]he submission file is placed on hold
pending a complete response to the FDA's list of deficiencies[,]"
with "[t]he Company's response . . . due within 180 days from the
date of the request for additional information."

On this news, Nano-X's ordinary share price fell $2.25 per share,
or 9.5%, to close at $21.43 per share on August 19, 2021.

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

NATURE'S BOUNTY: Baines Files Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nature's Bounty (NY),
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mashon Baines, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Nature's Bounty (NY),
Inc., The Bountiful Company (NY), Case No. 2:21-cv-05330-JS-AKT
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 24, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

The Nature's Bounty Co. -- https://www.naturesbounty.com/ -- also
known as The Bountiful Company, manufactures and retails
nutritional supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 687-1980
          Fax: (212) 687-7714
          Email: lking@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Michael David Braun, Esq.
          KUZYK LAW
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 1100, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (213) 401-4100
          Fax: (213) 401-0311
          Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com


NEW YORK, NY: Summary Judgment Bid vs Robinson Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL ROBINSON, et
al., v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01404-AT-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' motion for summary judgment, and granting in part and
denying in part the  plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as
follows:

   -- Defendants' motion is granted, and plaintiffs' motion is
      denied, with regard to the adequacy of the notice provided
      by Transit Adjudication Bureau (TAB) to respondents prior
      to the seizure of their tax refunds.

   -- Plaintiffs' motion is granted, and defendants' motion is
      denied, with regard to TAB's failure to disclose its
      standards concerning the legally valid excuses to vacate a
      default judgment.

   -- Defendants' motion is granted, and plaintiff's motion is
      denied, with regard to the substance of TAB's standards
      concerning legally valid excuses to vacate a default
      judgment.

   -- Both motions are denied with regard to the issue of
      whether TAB has an unconstitutional policy or procedure of
      refusing to provide copies of NOVs to those seeking to
      challenge default judgments or has failed adequately to
      train its personnel on providing such copies.

   -- The Court will conduct a case management conference on
      October 21, 2021, at 12:00 p.m., in Courtroom 20A of the
      Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse.

The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment on a number of
grounds. The primary questions underlying their motions are: (1)
whether defendants unconstitutionally seize tax refunds to collect
unpaid fines without adequate pre-deprivation notice; (2) whether
the standards used by NYCTA's Transit Adjudication Bureau for
vacating default judgments are unconstitutional because they are
"secret" and/or "unreasonably narrow"; and (3) whether defendants'
policies and practices are unconstitutional because TAB's employees
routinely fail to provide individuals wishing to challenge their
default judgments with copies of their original notices of
violation.

The Plaintiffs Nathaniel Robinson and David Evans, suing on behalf
of themselves and a certified class, allege that the New York City
Transit Authority (NYCTA), its interim President Sarah Feinberg,
and its Chairman Patrick Foye violated their right to procedural
due process, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, by obtaining and enforcing default judgments
against them for alleged violations of NYCTA's rules of conduct,
and satisfying those judgments against state tax refunds otherwise
due to plaintiffs, without adequate notice or opportunity to be
heard.

NYCTA operates the TAB, which enforces and adjudicates alleged
violations of the "Rules Governing the Conduct and Safety of the
Public in the Use of the Facilities of the Authority" (Transit
Rules).

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YxcGa6 at no extra charge.[CC]


NEW YORK: DOC Faces Class Action Over Medical Care in City Jails
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milbank on Oct. 4 disclosed that The Legal Aid Society, Brooklyn
Defender Services and Milbank LLP filed a class action lawsuit in
Bronx Supreme Court against the New York City Department of
Correction (DOC) over its failure to provide incarcerated New
Yorkers access to medical care in the City jails.

The lawsuit, which comes amidst widespread acknowledgment of a
total breakdown in City jail operations, seeks an order compelling
DOC to comply with its basic legal obligations pursuant to state
and local law to provide all individuals in its custody access to
medical care without delay.

However, if DOC is unable to meet its obligation to fulfill a basic
function of operating a jail system -- a task that is fundamental
but is largely out of reach for the Department in the current
crisis -- the petitioners will ask the court to release a group of
incarcerated people facing particularly grave medical consequences
in order to address the threat to health and lives currently posed
by the breakdown in access to basic medical care and dangerous
conditions in the jails.

"New York City's jails are in a full-blown humanitarian crisis,
resulting in indescribable suffering and at least twelve deaths in
2021, including at least five people who died from suicide," said
Veronica Vela, Supervising Attorney with The Legal Aid Society
Prisoners' Rights project. "DOC can no longer deprive our clients
of their right to medical care, and if the Department is unable to
guarantee that right, then the court must immediately consider
releasing people."

"Every minute, thousands of people are suffering in
life-threatening conditions in New York City's jails: people forced
to sleep on floors covered in feces and urine, given food that is
moldy or covered in maggots, wearing the same underwear for weeks
at a time, confined inside without a breath of fresh air for months
on end, the list of horrors goes on and on," said Brooke Menschel,
Director, Civil Rights and Law Reform at Brooklyn Defender
Services. "Particularly at risk is the health, safety and
well-being of people who depend on DOC to provide access to
critical, life-sustaining prescription medication or medical
treatment and those whose cries go unanswered during medical
emergencies. DOC must immediately ensure people in its custody can
access medical care, or we will ask the court to release people so
that they can attend to pressing medical needs."

"People's lives are at stake," said Milbank Litigation partner Sean
Murphy. "The pervasive and systemic problems at Rikers are
intolerable, and the filing of this lawsuit is an important first
step at ensuring prisoners get access to critical healthcare they
are currently being denied."

One of the many people deeply impacted by the crisis is Petitioner
J.A., a 23-year-old who has been in DOC custody since September 13,
2021. He has long suffered from asthma and has had a number of
serious asthma attacks throughout his life requiring
hospitalization. J.A. also has a history of seizures.

Several months ago, J.A. was stabbed in his side. His lung was
punctured and collapsed as a result. While being treated at the
hospital, his doctor advised him not to engage in strenuous
activity. His doctor warned him that if he stressed his body too
much, his lung could collapse again.

During his arrest in September, police officers hit J.A. with a
police vehicle. After a few NYPD officers threw him to the ground
and one officer stepped on the back of his left leg while he was on
the ground. The injuries that he suffered included deep bone
bruising, a swollen left knee, and numerous scratches. Due to the
pain from his injuries, which made it difficult for him to walk,
J.A. attended his arraignment in a wheelchair.
When J.A. arrived at Rikers Island, he was left on a bus in
handcuffs for fourteen hours, during which time he was denied
access to food, water, a toilet, and medical care.

He then remained in intake for six days, where he had to sleep on
the floor the entire time. Each day in intake, J.A.'s cell was
sprayed with a strong pepper spray. One day, his cell was sprayed
five times. This exposure to pepper spray aggravated his asthma and
he had difficulty breathing. J.A. also vomited several times after
being sprayed. He did not have his inhaler, and was denied medical
attention despite requesting it. For the past several weeks of
incarceration, J.A. has been suffering from a pounding headache and
continues to have difficulty walking due to his injuries. He also
continues to have difficulty breathing due to his exposure to
pepper spray and his asthma. He still uses a cane to walk. He is
concerned about these health issues as well as their potential
impact on his seizure disorder and his lung, which had collapsed
only a few months earlier.

As of September 23, 2021, J.A. had requested medical attention
daily—by calling the Correctional Health Services (CHS) hotline
and by asking individual DOC officers. Several times after calling
the CHS hotline J.A. was told that a DOC escort would bring him to
the clinic, but no escort arrived. When he asks DOC officers to
bring him to the clinic, the DOC officers refuse. One officer told
him that in order to get taken to the clinic he would need to get
down on the floor, grab his chest and pretend to be having a
medical emergency.

Since being in DOC custody, J.A. has only been brought to the
clinic once, but left shortly afterwards once it was discovered
that someone was present in the clinic who had recently tested
positive for COVID-19. He has not received medical treatment or a
health assessment for the entirety of his incarceration. Further,
despite repeatedly requesting an inhaler, J.A. was not given an
inhaler until September 27, 2021, two weeks after arriving on
Rikers Island.

Background
The conditions in the jails have been described as "deplorable and
nothing short of a humanitarian crisis." By failing to provide
access to medical care to individuals in its custody, DOC has
broken well-established local laws and failed to fulfill its
duties. And this failure has directly contributed to immeasurable
suffering and the 12 deaths of persons in custody this year, three
in the past month alone.

The jail system's chief of health care services himself has stated
that these deaths are "jail attributable" because of the jail's
conditions. People under suicide watch who should have been under
constant supervision were left alone by DOC staff who abandoned
their posts. At least five people being held at Rikers are believed
to have died by suicide since November 2020, and the overall levels
of self-harm among those imprisoned have increased at a rate
described by the New York City Board of Correction as "alarming."

Other people have suffered from serious health conditions and were
in need of treatment, but they were left to fend for themselves.
For example, a person reported being stabbed in the eye in a
housing unit without staff to escort him to a medical clinic. He
had to rely on other incarcerated people to find the keys to open
his cell door and help him to the clinic.

DOC Commissioner Schiraldi himself has admitted that the jails are
in a state of crisis, stating "the level of disorder here is
deeply, deeply troubling." Ross MacDonald, the chief medical
officer for Correctional Health Services, recently issued a public
statement stating " today I do not believe the city is capable of
safely managing the custody of those it is charged with
incarcerating in its jails . . ." [GN]

NEW YORK: Summary Judgment Bid vs Cassidy Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN CASSIDY,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Health, Case No. 2:17-cv-03397-JMA-AKT (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Joan M. Azrack entered an order:

   1. adopting, as modified, Judge Tomlinson's Report and
      Recommendation (R&R) in its entirety as the opinion of
      this Court;

   2. granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant
      dismissing Plaintiffs' claims alleging violations of the
      Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation
      Act and their substantive due process rights; and in favor
      of Plaintiffs on their Section 1983 claims alleging
      violations of the Medicaid Act, its implementing
      regulations, and their procedural due process rights, and
      denying otherwise motions for summary judgment.

Cassidy, on behalf of the certified class as currently defined,
shall submit a proposed judgment granting Plaintiffs declaratory
relief as a remedy for Defendant's violations of the Medicaid Act,
its implementing regulations, and their procedural due process
rights on or before October 14, 2021. The Defendant shall file any
objections to the proposed judgment on or before October 28, 2021.
Since Plaintiffs did not seek injunctive relief on their motion for
summary judgment, the Court does not grant any permanent injunction
at this time.

Judge Feuerstein terminated Plaintiffs' motion to amend the class
definition with leave to renew pending determination of the summary
judgment motions. If Cassidy still chooses to dispute the temporal
limitation of the current class definition, she may renew her
motion to amend the current class definition and submit a proposed
joint briefing schedule for that motion. If either party requires
additional discovery relating to the issue of the definition of the
class, they must move, before the Magistrate Judge, to reopen, or
lift the stay of, discovery for that limited purpose, the Court
says.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DoDdF5 at no extra charge.[CC]

NORTHERN NATIONAL: De Leon Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jessie De Leon, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Northern National Gas Company,
Defendant; Merjent, Inc., Movant; Case No. 0:21-mc-00042 was
transferred from the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas on Oct. 6, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:21-mc-00179 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Invalid for Civil Miscellaneous
Case.

Northern Natural Gas Company --
https://www.northernnaturalgas.com/Pages/default.aspx -- owns and
operates natural gas pipeline system.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          Rochelle D. Prins, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 rschreiber@mybackwages.com
                 rprins@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 256-3200
          Fax: (612) 215-6870
          Email: fisher@nka.com

The Movant is represented by:

          Kristin Berger Parker, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD, LLP
          50 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 335-1770


NORTHERN TRUST: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over 401(k) Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ginger Szala, writing for BenefitsPro, reports that a class-action
lawsuit against Allstate Corp. and its 401(k) fiduciaries, that
complains about Northern Trust, Financial Engines and Alight
Financial Advisors, can go forward after a judge in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the
defendants' motion to dismiss the suit on Oct. 5.

The complaints against Allstate et al. are being brought by seven
current and former Allstate employees as well as on behalf of two
"putative" classes of beneficiaries. The plaintiffs stated that the
company's 401(k) plan's fiduciaries "made and failed to remove
imprudent investments, saddled the plan with excessive fees and
caused the plan to make prohibited transactions" under the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act.
The lawsuit, against Allstate and its plan fiduciaries, complains
about Northern Trust, which offered the only target date funds in
the Allstate investment options; Financial Engines, which provided
"robo-advice" to the 401(k); and Alight Financial Advisors, which
provided "professional management."

Northern Trust, Financial Engines and Alight are not named as
defendants.

According to the suit, at the end of 2019, $700 million was
invested across the 11 TDFs. Participants could opt into the
professional management program, which charged an asset-based fee
that allowed it to assume discretionary authority over a plan
participant's account. Financial Engines provided online advice and
charged a flat fee to all participants for "the ability to access
investment advice in the plan's portal. Financial Engines ran these
programs from 2014 until 2017," according to the suit.

District Judge Manish S. Shah noted in the dismissal that the
result of the robo-advisor was "largely standardized (not
customized) portfolios for each participant, typically without
human interaction between an advisor and a participant."

Alight replaced Financial Engines in 2017 but hired Financial
Engines to provide sub-advisory services, according to the
document. Alight charged participants on a tiered-fee schedule,
.45% for the first $100,000 to .25% for amounts above $250,000, for
its professional management.

"Financial Engines charged higher fees," according to the lawsuit.
"So, the more money in a participant's account, the more money
Financial Engines and Alight made, even though no additional costs
or services had been rendered. From 2015 to 2019, plan participants
paid Financial Engines and later Alight anywhere between $1,265,509
and $2,667,972 in annual advisory fees."

The plaintiffs also alleged that Allstate "constructed a plan with
far too many layers of fees, and for participants who signed up for
Financial Engines (and later, Alight), the total fees were so high
it was difficult to break even on their investments."

The plaintiffs alleged that Allstate and its plan fiduciaries
"turned a blind-eye to a pay-to-play kickback scheme" between
Financial Engines and the plan's recordkeeper that exclusively
featured Financial Engines to its clients.

As for Northern Trust, the TDFs "performed worse than 70 to 90
percent of comparable funds, but the Allstate defendants failed to
remove the suite as the plan's default retirement investment
option," the plaintiffs stated.

Shah dismissed the defendants' motion, asking for defendants to
file a status report with proposed discovery schedule by Oct. 26.

Separately, Northern Trust was hit in June with a class-action suit
by its own current and former employees for loading up its
retirement plan with poorly performing proprietary target date
funds. The firm said in a statement at the time that it "believes
the Northern Focus Funds have been an appropriate vehicle for
retirement savings, and plans to defend itself from the lawsuit's
claims." [GN]

OMEROS CORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 4
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Omeros Corporation (NASDAQ: OMER) resulting from
allegations that Omeros may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Omeros securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2167.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 1, 2021, Omeros announced that the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had identified
deficiencies with the Company's Biologics License Application for
its drug candidate narsoplimab in the treatment of hematopoietic
stem cell transplant-associated thrombotic microangiopathy
(HSCT-TMA), which "preclude discussion of labeling and
post-marketing requirements/commitments at this time." The Company
further advised that the "FDA did not provide specific details of
the deficiencies in its notification[,]" and that the "the company
does not currently expect any resolution to occur by the October
17, 2021 target action date under the Prescription Drug User Fee
Act (PDUFA)."

On this news, Omeros's stock price fell $5.25 per share, or 38.07%,
to close at $8.54 per share on October 1, 2021.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      lrosen@rosenlegal.com
      pkim@rosenlegal.com
      cases@rosenlegal.com
      www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

OWLET INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 4
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Owlet, Inc. (NYSE: OWLT) resulting from
allegations that Owlet may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Owlet securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2168.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 4, 2021, Owlet disclosed it received
a Warning Letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regarding the Owlet Smart Sock. The FDA asserts that Owlet's
marketing and functionality in the U.S. render the Smart Sock a
medical device requiring premarket clearance or approval from FDA
and that Owlet has not obtained authorization or consent.

Following this news, Owlet's stock price fell over 30% in premarket
trading on October 4, 2021.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contacts:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

PACESETTER PERSONNEL: Joseph Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacesetter Personnel
Service, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Regino Joseph, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE, INC., a Texas profit corporation;
PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICE OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida profit
corporation; FLORIDA STAFFING SERVICE, INC., a Florida profit
corporation; TAMPA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., a Florida profit
corporation each d/b/a PACESETTER; PACESETTER PERSONNEL; PACESETTER
PERSONNEL SERVICE; PACESETTER PERSONNEL SERVICES; PACESETTER
PERSONNEL SERVICES, LLC; PPS; and/or FW SERVICES, Case No.
1:21-cv-23529-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 6, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Pacesetter -- https://pps.com/ -- is a full-service staffing agency
for temporary labor ready assistance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Phone: (954) 318-0268
          Fax: (954) 333-3515
          Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com


PEAK FINTECH: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 5
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Peak Fintech Group Inc. (NASDAQ: TNT) (OTC:
PKKFF) resulting from allegations that Peak may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Peak securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2169.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 4, 2021, market researcher Grizzly
Research published a report alleging discrepancies in Peak's
business practices. The report alleged, in relevant part, that: (1)
Peak's acquisition of Heartbeat, a Chinese insurance product
management and brokerage platform, was mired in suspicious
dealings, in which Peak paid a company that was not the registered
owner of Heartbeat; (2) the actual registered owner of Heartbeat
reported zero revenues in 2019 and 2020; (3) Peak's statements
regarding Heartbeat's growth since 2020 were not substantiated by
basic facts, including the fact that Heartbeat's website did not go
live until 5 days after Peak's acquisition; (4) there was evidence
that Peak inflated its reported revenue by up to 112% in recent
fiscal years; (5) the CEO of Peak Group China was previously
associated with several companies listed on government blacklists
in China.

On this news, Peak's share price fell over 17.4%, from closing at
$7.50 on October 1, 2021, the previous trading day, to close at
$6.19 on October 4, 2021 on unusually heavy trading volume.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contacts:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

PHILLIPS 66: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Hinkle to 5th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Phillips 66 Company filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled TROY HINKLE, Individually and for
Others Similarly Situated v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, Case No.
4:20-cv-00022-DC-DF, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises from
the Defendant's failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all other
similarly-situated utility inspectors overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Order dated August 25,
2021, denying Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

On Sept. 27, 2021, involvement was terminated for Appellees Robert
Chilcote and Rickie Saintes as they are not appellees in the case.
Intervenor Cypress Environmental Management-TIR, L.L.C. was also
added as an appellant.

The appellate case is captioned as HINKLE v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY,
Case No. 21-50905, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, filed on September 27, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant Phillips 66 Company is represented by:

          Shauna Johnson Clark, Esq.
          Kimberly F. Cheeseman, Esq.
          Jesika Silva Blanco, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010-3095
          Telephone: (713) 651-5151
          Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
          E-mail: shauna.clark@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  kimberly.cheeseman@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  jesika.blanco@nortonrosefulbright.com

Intervenor-Appellant Cypress Environmental is represented by:

          Rachel Cowen, Esq.
          McDermott Will & Emery, L.L.P.
          444 W. Lake Street
          Chicago, IL 60606

Plaintiff-Appellee Troy Hinkle is represented by:

          Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq.
          Josephson Dunlap Law Firm
          11 Greenway Plaza
          Houston, TX 77046

POLARITYTE INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of PolarityTE, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTE)
between April 30, 2020 and August 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important November 23, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased PolarityTE securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the PolarityTE class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2163.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 23, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Investigational New Drug
Application for SkinTE, a tissue product purportedly used to
repair, reconstruction, replacement, and supplementation of skin in
patients for the treatment of acute or chronic wounds, burns,
surgical reconstruction events, scar revision, or removal of
dysfunctional skin grafts, as well as contract research services,
(the "SkinTE IND"), was deficient with respect to certain
Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control (CMC) items; (2) as a result,
it was unlikely that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
would approve the SkinTE IND in its current form; (3) accordingly,
the Company had materially overstated the likelihood that the
SkinTE IND would obtain FDA approval; and (4) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the PolarityTE class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2163.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

PRAESIDIUM DIAGNOSTICS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Praesidium
Diagnostics LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Praesidium
Diagnostics LLC doing business as: Sameday Testing, Case No.
1:21-cv-08250 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2021).

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

Praesidium Diagnostics LLC doing business as Sameday Testing --
https://www.sameday-testing.com/ -- offer Virtual Therapy & Primary
Care, Wellness Treatments, COVID & STD Testing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


REV GROUP: December 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MILWAUKEE DIVISION

IN RE REV GROUP, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION

Lead Case No. 2:18-cv-1268-LA

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (i) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION; (ii)PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (iii) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
LITIGATION EXPENSES; AND (iv) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

If you purchased shares of REV Group, Inc. ("REV Group" or the
"Company") common stock (i) traceable to the January 26, 2017
initial public offering (the "IPO"); (ii) directly traceable to the
October 13, 2017 secondary public offering (the "SPO"), i.e.,
purchased at $27.25 per share on October 13, 2017; or (iii)
purchased or otherwise acquired REV Group common shares during the
period from January 26, 2017 through June 7, 2018, inclusive (the
"Relevant Period"), you are a "Class Member" and may be entitled to
a payment from a class action settlement. Purchasers traceable to
the IPO are the "IPO Class," purchasers traceable to the SPO are
the "SPO Class," and purchasers or other acquirors during the
Relevant Period are the "'34 Act Class." The IPO Class, SPO Class,
and '34 Act Class are referred to as the "Classes."

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 Eastern District of Wisconsin (the "Court"), that the
Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Houston Municipal Employees Pension
System, and Plaintiffs Bucks County Employees Retirement System and
Gabriel Yandoli, on behalf of themselves and all members of the
proposed Classes, and Defendants, have reached a proposed
settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the
"Action") in the amount of $14,250,000 (the "Settlement Amount").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Lynn Adelman, on
December 9, 2021, at 11:00 a.m., in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, United States Federal
Building and Courthouse, 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Courtroom 390,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 (the "Settlement Fairness Hearing") to,
among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve
the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii)
dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement, dated May 19, 2021; (iii) approve the
proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the settlement
funds available for distribution to Class Members (the "Net
Settlement Fund"); and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's motion for
attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses. The Court may change the
date of the Settlement Fairness Hearing, or hold it telephonically,
without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the
Settlement Fairness Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net
Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASSES, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY
PAYMENT. You may obtain a Claim Form and review the Notice of (i)
Pendency of Class Action and Class Certification; (ii) Proposed
Settlement; (iii) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Litigation Expenses; and (iv) Settlement Fairness Hearing
("Internet Notice") on the website,
www.RevGroupSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

In Re REV Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
PO Box 91337
Seattle, WA 98111

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to
Plaintiffs' Counsel:

Plaintiffs' Counsel

Bernstein Liebhard LLP
Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
10 East 40th Street
New York, NY 10016
(212) 779-1414

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Brian Cochran, Esq.
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 674-4674

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or submitted online no later than December 21,
2021. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by
all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the
Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Classes, you must submit a written request for exclusion in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Internet Notice
such that it is received no later than November 18, 2021. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Classes, you will not be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the
Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's motion
for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses, and/or the proposed
Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or
in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance
with the instructions in the Internet Notice, such that they are
received no later than November 18, 2021.

For any questions, visit www.RevGroupSecuritiesLitigation.com or
call toll-free at 833-636-2108.

BY ORDER OF
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN [GN]

SAFELITE GROUP: Faces Labor Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that auto glass
company Safelite has failed to pay workers proper wages and provide
appropriate meal and rest breaks in accordance with California
labor law, a proposed class action alleges.

According to the case, defendants Safelite Group, Inc.; Safelite
Fulfillment, Inc.; and Safelite Glass Corporation have failed to
comply with California labor laws by denying workers proper minimum
wages for every hour worked; overtime pay when they worked more
than eight hours per day or 40 hours per week; 30-minute meal
periods and 10-minute rest periods; an additional hour of pay for
each missed break; reimbursement for business expenses; and
accurate wage statements.

The lawsuit alleges Safelight, who provides car windshield repair
and replacement services, "knew or should have known" of its duty
to pay workers in accordance with the law and was financially able
to properly compensate them yet "willfully, knowingly, and
intentionally failed to do so" while representing to the workers
that they had been properly paid.

According to the case, although Safelight was obligated under state
law to pay workers time-and-a-half overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of eight in a day or 40 in a week, the employees often
worked overtime hours without being paid the requisite wages.
Moreover, workers did not receive an uninterrupted 30-minute meal
period for every five hours worked or a 10-minute rest period for
every four hours worked as required by California law, or an hour's
wages at their regular rate for each missed break, the lawsuit
alleges.

The suit goes on to claim that workers were not provided with
"complete and accurate" wage statements given their paystubs did
not contain certain required information, including their total
number of hours worked during the relevant pay period.

Further, employees were not reimbursed for business-related
expenses incurred during the discharge of their duties or obedience
to their employer's directions, the lawsuit claims.

The case, which was recently removed from Los Angeles County
Superior Court to California's Central District Court, looks to
represent current and former hourly paid, non-exempt employees who
resided in and worked for Safelite in California at any time within
the past four years and until final judgment in the case. The suit
also proposes several subclasses for those who are alleged to have
been required to stay on Safelite's premises during rest breaks;
received overtime at a lower rate than they were entitled to
because their bonuses or incentive-based compensation was not
included as part of the defendants' overtime rate calculations; or
whose bonuses or incentive-based compensation was not used to
calculate their meal or rest break premium payments. [GN]

SCHNITZER STEEL: Chavez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schnitzer Steel
Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Chavez, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Schnitzer Steel Industries,
Inc., Case No. 34-2021-00308753-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Sept. 24, 2021).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."

Schnitzer -- https://www.schnitzersteel.com/ -- is a global leader
in the metals recycling industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
          Phone: 213-381-9988
          Fax: 213-381-9989
          Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com


SOCLEAN INC: Brooks Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SoClean, Inc. The
case is styled as Jessie Judson Brooks, Sr., on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. SoClean, Inc., Case No.
5:21-cv-00357-MTT (M.D. Ga., Oct. 6, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning
devices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derek Chas Nuce, Esq.
          300 W GORDON ST
          PO DRAWER 1168
          Thomaston, GA 30286
          Phone: (706) 646-3200
          Fax: (706) 646-2147
          Email: cnuce@pnlawgroup.com


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Bell Gully Attorneys Discuss Court Rulings
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Friar, Nick Moffatt and Zavara Farquhar, partners at Bell
Gully, disclosed that the High Court recently released four related
judgments in the class action brought against Southern Response by
two of its customers, Mr and Mrs Ross.

In those judgments, the Court carefully considered what plaintiffs
and defendants can say to potentially affected class members, and
the extent to which the Court can police those communications.

Key takeaways:

The Court confirmed it has a supervisory role over both the
plaintiffs' and funders' communications to potential class members,
and observed that these communications should not contain "wooing
or advocating content".

The Court also ruled it has a supervisory role over a defendant's
communications with potential class members, which must be
"reasonably tempered" and not misleading, coercive or similarly
unacceptable.

The Court rejected the plaintiffs' request that Southern Response
be restrained from communicating with potential class members while
the plaintiffs sought to build their class by spending opt-out
notices.

The Court declined to make interim orders requiring Southern
Response to set aside 15% of any settlement agreed with a class
member until the Court determines the plaintiffs' application for a
common fund order requiring all customers who receive a payment to
contribute to the funder's costs.

Background

In May 2018, Mr and Mrs Ross commenced a funded class action on
behalf of the 3,000 customers who settled with Southern Response
following the Canterbury earthquakes (the Ross class action). The
Rosses allege that Southern Response misrepresented information
about the cost of remedying earthquake damage and, as a result,
settlement had proceeded on a less favourable basis for customers
than it would have otherwise.

In November 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ross class
action could be brought on an opt-out basis. This means the Rosses
can claim on behalf of all other customers without obtaining their
consent, unless individual customers specifically say they do not
wish to participate. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the
next step in the class action is for class members notices to be
issued, advising class members of the class action and how to opt
out.

Meanwhile, in a separate claim brought against Southern Response by
Mr and Mrs Dodds, the Court of Appeal ruled in September 2020 that
Southern Response misled customers about their earthquake insurance
entitlements, in the same way as that alleged in the Ross class
action.1 This ruling therefore potentially affected the 3,000
customers who the Rosses sought to represent. In light of the Dodds
decision, Southern Response and the Crown developed a compensation
package to address the issues raised by the Court of Appeal, and
Southern Response sought the Court's permission to communicate
directly with affected customers about the compensation package.

Both the plaintiffs and Southern Response sought orders from the
Court in relation to the other's proposed communications to
potentially affected customers, as well as related issues. That
resulted in the Court issuing four separate judgments (which can be
accessed here).

The Court's review of the plaintiffs' communications

In one of its judgments, the Court confirmed that it has a
supervisory role over the plaintiffs' proposed notices to class
members. The Court explained that since the purpose of these
notices is "to enable members of the class to make an informed
decision" about their role in the class action, the notice should
not contain "wooing or advocating content", should be clear,
succinct and written in plain language, and "must not be apt to
mislead".2

The Court canvassed the matters to be included in the notice,
including the nature of the proceeding, the relief sought by the
plaintiffs, the class description, the funding arrangement in
place, the option to opt out or stay in and the consequences, the
opt out date, and the opt out method.

It also considered whether and to what extent the notice should
tell potential class members about Southern Response's compensation
package. The Court ruled that it should, given that key purpose of
the notice was to enable informed decision-making. The Court
accepted that Southern Response's proposed wording about its
package should be included in the notice, noting that this wording
presented the package "accurately and fairly" and ensured that the
"information does not assume exaggerated importance".3

The Court's supervisory role over Southern Response's
communications

The unusual circumstances of Southern Response having a separate
compensation package for customers meant that the plaintiffs also
asked the Court to consider the ambit of its supervisory powers
over communications between a defendant and class members.

In a further judgment, the Court ruled that its supervisory powers
extended to scrutinising Southern Response's communications. The
key reason was that two sets of communications would be going to
class members about similar matters at similar times (the Rosses'
class members' notice and Southern Response's communication about
its compensation package), and the Court considered that this could
give rise to potential confusion or misunderstanding.4

In reviewing Southern Response's communications, the Court
considered whether the communications were misleading, coercive or
similarly unacceptable. The Court adopted three "standards" from
Australian case law as helpful (but non-exhaustive)
considerations:

-- whether the communication accurately explains the consequences
of accepting and not accepting Southern Response's offer,
-- whether the offer allows a period for acceptance that gives the
class member a genuine opportunity to obtain legal advice, and
-- whether the communication makes it clear that the class member
is entitled to seek (and might benefit) from independent legal
advice.5

The Court noted that Southern Response's ability to promote the
package "must be reasonably tempered" to ensure a balance between
its communications to policyholders and the Rosses' communications
to class members.

Should Southern Response be prevented from communicating with
customers?

The plaintiffs asked the Court to prevent Southern Response from
communicating with potential class members during the period for
opting out of the class action.

The Court rejected this, ruling that it would be "inappropriate"
for the Court to require Southern Response to do so. Of paramount
importance for the Court was class members' ability to make an
informed decision about their membership of the class action. This
required having information about the alternative pathways to
settlement. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the
communications should be provided to class members and
policyholders around the same time.

Does Southern Response have to hold back 15% for the litigation
funder?

A final issue was whether 15% of any settlement under Southern
Response's settlement package should be set aside for the benefit
of the litigation funder in the class action, to help satisfy any
funding order in the class action.6 The plaintiffs sought interim
orders requiring Southern Response to hold these funds back.

In its fourth judgment, the Court acknowledged that while there was
a serious question to be tried as to whether such a funding order
would be granted, the balance of convenience and overall justice of
the case in this instance favoured Southern Response (and in
particular the customers who decide to settle with Southern
Response directly).

The Court observed that if a "set aside" order was granted, the
only persons immediately affected would be the customers
themselves.7 Further, the Court considered it debatable whether
customers who chose to settle with Southern Response will have
obtained any benefit from the Ross class action. Meanwhile,
although experiencing some cost and inconvenience, the plaintiffs
in that action must be taken to have accepted the risk there would
not be a funding order in the class action that applies to
customers who settle directly with Southern Response.

If you have any questions about the matters raised in this article
please get in touch with the contacts listed or your usual Bell
Gully advisor.

* Bell Gully acted for Southern Response in the Dodds litigation.

1 Southern Response Earthquake Services v Dodds [2020] NZCA 395,
[2020] 3 NZLR 383.

2 Ross v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2021] NZHC 2452
at [17] at [22], [26], [33], [34].

3 At [133].

4 Ross v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2021] NZHC 2451
at [175]-[176].

5 Ross v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2021] NZHC 2453
at [26], citing Courtney v Medtel Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 957, (2002)
122 FCR 168 at [52].

6 Ross v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2021] NZHC 2454
at [9].​

7 At [86].​​ [GN]

SPECTRUM PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 1 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Spectrum") (NASDAQ:
SPPI) between December 27, 2018 and August 5, 2021. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. To
get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/spectrum-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20131&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. NEWS - SPPI NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (i) the
manufacturing facility for ROLONTIS, an investigational
granulocyte-colony stimulating factor analog, maintained deficient
controls and/or procedures; (ii) the foregoing deficiencies
decreased the likelihood that the Food and Drug Administration
would approve the ROLONTIS biologics license application ("BLA") in
its current form; (iii) Spectrum had therefore materially
overstated the ROLONTIS BLA's approval prospects; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
Spectrum, you have until November 1, 2021 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Spectrum securities between
December 27, 2018 and August 5, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/spectrum-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=20131&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.

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

SPOTOPTION: Faces Fraud Class Action in Israel
----------------------------------------------
Simona Weinglass, writing for The Times of Israel, reports that a
sting operation by a private intelligence firm has uncovered
allegations that SpotOption, a company at the heart of Israel's
outlawed binary options industry, rigged its trading platform to
take money from consumers who thought they were trading on capital
markets.

The allegations were made by an industry insider who claimed in a
recording to have been an executive at a firm set up by SpotOption,
shining a rare light on an industry rife with fraud and shrouded in
secrecy.

The recording was submitted to Tel Aviv District Court on June 16
as part of a class-action lawsuit against SpotOption filed by the
Israeli consumer advocacy organization Civic Trust on behalf of
victims around the world who were allegedly defrauded by
SpotOption-run websites.

The footage, which The Times of Israel has obtained, is dated March
17, 2021 and shows a man, whose face is blurred, talking to two
detectives, who are out of view. The man tells the two women that
the SpotOption platform allowed operators to game the system and
make investors lose.

"You have electronic switches and you can play with the numbers.
You press a switch and play with the number," he says.

The footage was secretly recorded by Israeli private intelligence
firm Dionaea, which claims to be staffed by former leaders of the
Israeli army and Mossad. According to a source close to the
lawsuit, the man in the video is a former senior executive at one
of the first brokerages, or websites, set up by SpotOption.

The recording is unusual, the source said, because most operatives
in this industry -- which consisted of over 100 companies and
thousands of operatives at its height -- have adhered to a code of
silence regarding the industry's allegedly criminal practices.

"The binary options industry is a closed and highly secretive one,
in which traders go to great lengths to hide their practices and
use pseudonyms to conceal their identities," the source added.

"Although this field has been considered impossible to crack for
years, Dionaea managed to penetrate the heart of the closed trade
for the first time and obtain firsthand testimony from a senior
manager who worked with SpotOption, exposing the fraudulent system
used in this industry," the source said.

A class-action lawsuit
The fraudulent binary options industry flourished in Israel for
over a decade, from 2007, when the first such company, eTrader, was
founded, until the industry was outlawed by the Knesset in 2017, as
a direct result of The Times of Israel's investigative reporting,
which began with a March 2016 article entitled "The wolves of Tel
Aviv: Israel's vast, amoral binary options scam exposed." Many of
the Israeli firms have since relocated overseas and continued to
carry out Internet investment fraud.

SpotOption, which later changed its name to Spot Tech House Ltd.,
was the largest firm providing trading platforms to binary options
companies, with hundreds of affiliated websites using its software,
marketing systems and business model, according to its own
marketing material. SpotOption brokers, or companies that ran
websites, employed thousands of Israelis in sales, marketing, and
technology development.

Neither SpotOption nor its former executives responded to The Times
of Israel's request for comment.

Fraudulent binary options companies ostensibly offered customers
worldwide a potentially profitable short-term investment, usually
by having them bet on whether a certain stock or commodity would go
up or down. But in reality -- through rigged trading platforms,
refusing to pay out winnings, and other ruses -- these companies
fleeced the vast majority of customers out of most or all of the
money they put in. The fraudulent salespeople routinely concealed
where they were located, misrepresented what they were selling, and
used false identities.

As the Times of Israel has reported, dozens of alleged victims of
online investment fraud have filed civil lawsuits in Israel against
the people who allegedly scammed them but Israeli law enforcement
has done almost nothing to combat or punish the alleged
fraudsters.

On June 16, Israel's Consumer Trust organization filed a
class-action lawsuit in Tel Aviv on behalf of investors anywhere in
the world who lost money to any website operated by Ramat-Gan-based
SpotOption.

The attorney who filed the class-action lawsuit, David Itshak of
the Cassouto and Co. law firm, noted that everyone in the class
described in the lawsuit is automatically represented in the
plaintiffs' complaint unless they opt out.

Since SpotOption claimed in its marketing material to have over 300
partners running websites, and since some of these websites had
tens of thousands of investors, the number of people represented by
the lawsuit could number well over a million.

The lawsuit describes SpotOption as carrying out "systematic fraud,
unprecedented in scope, of investors in Israel and around the world
who lost massive sums trading binary options on a platform that was
developed, created and marketed by the defendant SpotOption as well
as its owners and managers. The purpose of this request to approve
[a class-action lawsuit] is to bring justice and succor to all the
victims, many of whom are from weak and vulnerable populations, and
whose money and property the defendants stole, sometimes to the
point of losing all their assets."

Itshak told The Times of Israel that he and his colleagues had been
preparing a class action lawsuit against SpotOption for several
months but lacked sufficient evidence. He said two things changed
that: An April 2021 lawsuit filed by the US Securities and Exchange
Commission against SpotOption, alleging that it defrauded US
investors out of over $100 million, and the Dionaea footage.

"We were busy with this for several months before we filed the
request to the court in June to accept a class action lawsuit,"
Itshak said. "We knew that one of the purposes of the SpotOption
platform was to allow the brands to cheat their customers. Everyone
spoke about this, it was in the air, but that's not enough to go to
court."

The class-action lawsuit draws heavily on allegations made by the
SEC in its April 2021 lawsuit against SpotOption. It also draws on
allegations made against SpotOption in the course of prior
prosecutions by the United States Justice Department, the SEC and
Commodity Futures Trading Commission against several brokers that
used the SpotOption platform, including Yukom Communications,
LBinary, and websites owned by Jared Davis.

The class-action lawsuit alleges, as have previous complaints by
the US Department of Justice, SEC and CFTC, that SpotOption both
masterminded the fraud and rigged the platform used by individual
websites.

SpotOption has in the past denied that its platform was rigged.

Moshe Avrahami, the CFO of SpotOption, told a Knesset panel on
August 7, 2017 that he was affronted by the idea that the company
would cheat consumers.

"They are saying that binary options technology companies allow
people to cheat traders with a secret button. I know of no such
thing. Our software is fair, and trustworthy. " he said.

'An important lawsuit'
Itshak told The Times of Israel that he thinks the class-action
suit is important because rather than target individual brokers or
brokerages using SpotOption's platform to allegedly bilk investors,
it is going after the company that made the platform and was thus
one of the main actors behind the alleged binary options con.

"Until now all the lawsuits have been against individual brands. No
one actually sued SpotOption, which developed the platform for
about 80 percent of the brokers. That is our innovation," he said.

The lead plaintiff in the case is an American named David Burroughs
who lost money to a SpotOption brand known as AAOption, which is
thought to have been run from Israel.

The lawsuit alleges that SpotOption formed "white label
partnerships" with various business associates and then provided
them with everything they needed to open a binary options
brokerage. In other words, the business model, software and
techniques all belonged to SpotOption.

SpotOption designed websites, provided brokers with a content
management system and client relations software, as well as
instruction in how to set up a call center and speak to clients,
the lawsuit alleges. The partners then put their own brand name on
the website and shared part of their monthly revenues with
SpotOption.

Most of these white-label partners were in Israel, but some
operated from the United States, Russia, Bulgaria and elsewhere.

In the video footage obtained by Dionaea on behalf of the
plaintiffs, the man they secretly recorded claims that SpotOption
took a cut of each website's revenues. His discussion of SpotOption
begins about 37 seconds into the video.

"SpotOption is what is called a label platform," he says. "The
companies that sell the services are called 'white labels.' So
whoever works for a white label and actually sells to the end
customer makes X money, and so does the platform provider. Of
course the bosses make the most money. "

The man also insists that SpotOption could manipulate the outcomes
of trades.

"I'll give you an example," he tells the two detectives.

"I bet that gold will rise in value, okay? I say gold will rise by
today. How does it work? If it went up by 0.01, I won and I'm
getting a 75 percent return and that's a gain. I put in $1,000; I
made $750. But if I lost, I lost $1,000. Now if it's close to
closing time, which means the numbers are close, then he can make
some kind of tweak that's going to create some kind of downward
spike."

"Who?" one of the detectives asks.

"The system itself, the platform, whoever controls it," he
replies.

"This Spot company?" she asks.

"Theoretically whoever has the technology can do it, yes," he
replies.

"And the person sitting in front of his computer doesn't see it?"

"Not him, not whoever sold him the option. There's no way of
knowing. It appears so much part of the system that it's impossible
to see," says the man.

In the video, the man also describes workers drinking to overcome
moral qualms about cheating investors.

"There was a lot of alcohol in the offices," he says. "There are
all kinds of people. There are people who can't do it at all. And
there are people who do it until they can't, and people who do it
and they don't care. There are all sorts of human beings," he
elaborates, referring to employees' ability to stomach the act of
allegedly defrauding investors.

"And you managed people like that?" asks the detective.

"Correct," he replies.

Raking in millions
The SEC on April 16 charged SpotOption, as well as founder Malhaz
Pinhas Patarkazishvili, also known as Pini Peter, and Ran Amiran,
with defrauding US investors out of over $100 million. According to
the SEC, SpotOption targeted thousands of US victims, including
retirees.

According to the SEC, Ran Amiran was SpotOption's president and
director and owned approximately 2.5% of the company's shares.

"Many of those investors lost most of their money, including, in
some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars meant for retirement.
SpotOption and its Partners, on the other hand, raked in millions
in profits," the SEC complaint specified.

SpotOption is largely responsible for popularizing the financial
product known as binary options, which is a legitimate financial
instrument in theory. In practice, however, most binary options
sold to retail customers in recent years have allegedly been
fraudulent. SpotOption marketed "binary options" as a cross between
forex trading and gambling.

"Gaming operators have taken a financial games approach, and turned
the option into market betting, while forex operators have sold the
option as a simple and fun stepping stone into the more complex
foreign exchange trading. Both industries have taken off with
SpotOption's leading platform, and bridged into the target market
of the other," the company said in a 2011 press release.

Patarkazishvili, an Israeli born in the former Soviet Republic of
Georgia, founded SpotOption in 2009, shortly after buying a Kazakh
gambling machine company known as Vulkan KSI.

SpotOption expanded rapidly, despite the fact that Patarkazishvili
did not appear to have any gambling or financial trading background
before buying Vulkan KSI. He had previously worked at a
money-changing store, prior to a 2005 conviction on money
laundering charges, and had then headed an Israeli
telecommunications company that did business in Kazakhstan.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Spotoption founder
Pini Peter pose together at a charity event in the Prime Minister's
Office in October 2011 (Berele Sheiner)
Patarkazishvil is a major donor to the Chabad movement, and the
donations have been parlayed into access to prominent Israelis.

He has been photographed at charity events with Netanyahu, Defense
Minister Benny Gantz, Justice Minister Gideon Sa'ar, Tel Aviv Mayor
Ron Huldai and others.

The Israeli government secretively gave taxpayer money to
SpotOption to help it expand abroad, The Times of Israel revealed
in 2017.

Next steps
According to David Itshak, it could take several months for the Tel
Aviv District Court to decide whether or not to approve the
class-action lawsuit against SpotOption. Most class action lawsuits
are settled out of court, but should the case go to trial, it could
take several years until an Israeli court delivers its verdict.
Should the court rule on behalf of the plaintiffs, Itsik said there
are several legal mechanisms whereby the defendants' assets in
Israel and abroad could be seized.

The attorneys would then have to issue public notices inviting all
members of the class represented in the class-action lawsuit to
come forward and receive money in proportion to the amount they
lost.

A spokeswoman for the plaintiffs acknowledged to The Times of
Israel that this is a long process, but said that the larger
purpose of the lawsuit is to expose alleged wrongdoing.

"We want to bring it to the public's attention, that something is
wrong, that a crime and injustice were committed, not just to a few
individuals, but to expose the entire scope of it," she said. [GN]

STATE FARM: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Claims' Sales Tax
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Bradley-Smith, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that
insurance provider State Farm "systematically and uniformly
underpaid" claims made by thousands of consumers who suffered the
total loss of their vehicle, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit was filed in California by lead plaintiff Joan St.
Julian, who alleges that State Farm has breached contracts and
violated California law by not paying out sales tax to drivers when
reimbursing them the "actual cash value" for their total loss
claims.

According to the lawsuit, State Farm processed approximately
115,000 total loss claims during the class period and around 10
percent of those claims were not paid sales tax owed under a given
policy. "Assuming an average vehicle value of $15,000 and a sales
tax rate of 8.5 percent, the amount-in-controversy easily exceeds
$10,000,000, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney's fees,"
Julian alleges.

State Farm Allegedly Underpays Total Loss Claims
Julian had a 2010 Bentley Continental GTC Speed Turbo 4WD 2D
Convertible insured with State Farm and, in March, she was involved
in an accident.

Julian filed a claim for property damage and State Farm determined
that the cost to repair or replace the damage was higher than the
vehicle's actual cash value. As such, State Farm determined that
the vehicle was what a "total loss" and invoked its actual cash
value limit on liability.

"Plaintiff does not contest State Farm's determination of the
amount of loss, nor that such amount was higher than ACV and
constituted a "total loss". Plaintiff accepts that State Farm is
permitted to only pay ACV," the claim reads.

State Farm determined that the adjusted value of the vehicle was
$72,219.00. It added title transfer fees of $15, subtracted the
deductible of $500, but did not include any amount for sales tax,
the claim states.

State Farm then made a total payment of $71,734.

The applicable sales tax based on Julian's residency was 10.25
percent, therefore the ACV sales tax owed as part of the insured
vehicle was $7,402.45, Julian claims.

"In breach of its contract with Plaintiff, State Farm did not
include any sales tax in making the ACV payment for Plaintiff's
total loss," the claim reads.

"Even if State Farm owes the cost to repair or replace the vehicle
and not ACV, such cost would necessarily include sales tax, and
thus State Farm nevertheless breached the Policy."

Julian wants to represent all California drivers who were not
reimbursed sales tax after their State Farm-insured vehicle
suffered a total loss. She is suing for breach of contract and
seeks certification of the Class, damages, legal fees, interest,
and a jury trial.

Have you had to make State Farm claims for a total loss car? Tell
us about your experience in the comments section.

Julian is represented by Scott Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law, PA.

The State Farm Claims Class Action Lawsuit is Julian v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 4:21-cv-07404 in the
U.S. District Court Northern District of California. [GN]

SUPERCELL OY: California Court Tosses Loot Box Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saphya Council, Esq., of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, in an
article for Mondaq, reports that a California federal court
dismissed another case involving claims arising from loot boxes.
The named plaintiff, Peter Mai, asserted that loot boxes present in
Supercell Oy's Brawl Stars and Clash Royale games constituted
illegal "slot machines or devices" under California state law and,
as such, violated California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The UCL defines
"unfair competition" as "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent
business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or
misleading advertising," while the CLRA protects consumers against
"unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in
a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or
lease of goods or services to any consumer that are unlawful."

The court first analyzed whether Mai had standing to bring a claim
under the UCL. To assert any claim in federal court, the plaintiff
must first satisfy constitutional standing, which requires a
showing of an injury in fact, causation, and redressability. The
court determined that Mai lacked standing with regard to Brawl
Stars because Mai could not show an injury in fact. There was no
evidence that Mai had ever played the game or interacted with the
game's loot boxes. With regard to Clash Royale, although Mai had
played the game, he still had to prove an injury in fact under both
the UCL and CLRA. UCL and CLRA standing require that the plaintiff
suffer an economic injury. Here, the court held that there was no
economic injury to Mai because Mai received value for his purchase:
he exchanged real-world currency for in-game currency ("gems") and
used the gems to purchase loot boxes.

Despite the court dismissing both of Mai's claims for lack of
standing, it still discussed Supercell Oy's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. The core of Mai's argument was that loot
boxes are illegal slot machines under the California Penal Code
(CPC). However, CPC Section 330b(d) defines "slot machines and
devices" as a machine, apparatus or device that "as a result of any
piece of money or coin or other object, and by reason of any
element of hazard or chance . . . the user may receive or become
entitled to a thing of value which may be exchanged for any money,
credit, allowance, or thing of value."

There is an exception for pinball, amusement machines or devices,
and other "games of skill" in CPC Section 330b(f). The court found
that the games at issue are not slot machines because they are
predominantly games of skill. In addition, because the games at
issue must be downloaded in order to play, they are also not
"machines, apparatuses, or devices" under section 330. Finally, the
court found that neither the loot boxes nor the items obtained from
them are things of value, because they can only be used in-game and
cannot be cashed out.

Mai v. Supercell Oy, No. 5:20-cv-05573-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sep. 20,
2021). www.fkks.com [GN]

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Dec. 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-2978 (ZNQ) (LHG)
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SYNCHRONOSS
COMMON STOCK BETWEEN OCTOBER 28, 2014 AND JUNE 13, 2017,
INCLUSIVE:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, a hearing
will be held on December 8, 2021, at 12:00 pm., before the
Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi, United States District Judge, at the
Clarkson S. Fisher Building & United States Courthouse, 402 East
State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608, to determine: (1) whether
a proposed Settlement of In re Synchronoss Technologies Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 17-2978 (D.N.J.) (the "Action")
including the sum of Nineteen Million ($19,000,000.00) in cash
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate,
which would result in this Action being dismissed with prejudice
and will prevent Settlement Class Members from ever being part of
any other lawsuit against the Defendants (and parties related to
them) about the legal claims being resolved by this Settlement, as
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated August 19, 2021;
(2) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the
Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as Class
Representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be
appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (3) whether
the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable,
and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) whether Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel should be awarded attorneys' fees and expenses
incurred in connection with this Action, together with interest
thereon, and whether the Lead Plaintiff should receive an award of
its costs and expenses in representing the Settlement Class. Those
matters will be addressed by the Court at the Settlement Hearing to
be held on December 8, 2021.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Synchronoss common stock
during the Class Period (October 28, 2014 through June 13, 2017,
inclusive), your rights may be affected by this Action and the
Settlement thereof. If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you
may obtain copies either by downloading this information at
www.SynchronossSettlement.com or by writing to Synchronoss
Securities Settlement c/o Epiq PO Box 5406, Portland, OR
97228-5406. If you are a Settlement Class Member, to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim form by mail (postmarked no later than January 6, 2022), or
online at www.SynchronossSettlement.com (submitted no later than
January 6, 2022), establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.
You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action unless you
request to be excluded, in writing, such that it is postmarked no
later than November 17, 2021, in the manner and form explained in
the detailed Notice referred to above.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is postmarked no later than November 17, 2021, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
ask to be excluded, you will not get any payment from the
Settlement, and you cannot object to the Settlement. You will not
be legally bound by anything that happens in the lawsuit, and you
may be able to sue the Defendants and Related Parties about the
Settlement Class's Released Claims in the future. If you want to
bring your own lawsuit based on the matters alleged in this Action,
you may want to consult an attorney and discuss whether any
individual claim that you may wish to pursue would be time-barred.
Any objection to any aspect of the Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's fee and expense application must
be filed with the Clerk of the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel
and Defendants' Counsel, such that they are received no later than
November 17, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.

Requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim form should be made to
the Claims Administrator:

Synchronoss Securities Settlement
c/o Epiq
PO Box 5406
Portland, OR 97728-5406

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim
form, may be made to Lead Counsel:

GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
Daniel L. Berger
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Tel.: (646) 722-8500
Fax: (646) 722-8501
Email: dberger@gelaw.com
URL: http://www.SynchronossSettlement.com

Contact Information:
Synchronoss Securities Settlement
c/o Epiq
PO Box 5406
Portland, OR 97728-5406 [GN]

SYNGENTA GROUP: Class Action Over Paraquat Dichloride Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leith Law Group on Oct. 5 disclosed that ever since Paraquat, a
chemical herbicide used as a weed killer, was found to cause
serious medical issues in humans, Paraquat makers have been facing
multiple paraquat class action lawsuits across the country totaling
over 90.

Paraquat dichloride, also known as paraquat, is a chemical compound
manufactured by Syngenta, Growmark, and Chevron USA and has been a
popular choice among homeowners and farmers as a weed killer.

While the herbicide is known for causing serious illness in case of
ingestion, new cases show that it also causes Parkinson's diseases
in people exposed to it. This has led to a number of lawsuits
against the makers by people who have claimed to be affected by the
ill effects of paraquat. The main allegation raised is that the
manufacturer did not properly warn about the potential health risks
and possibilities of Parkinson's disease associated with the
herbicide.

Paraquat Class-Action Lawsuits
The key lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Paul Rakoczy against
Syngenta and Chevron on the claims that he developed Parkinson's
disease after using Paraquat routinely for about four years from
2013 to 2017.

Rakoczy says that he was exposed to the chemical herbicide as he
used it on his farm in the Long Beach, California area and was
first diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in December 2015. Similar
allegations have been put against Paraquat by another plaintiff
Charles Adams against Syngenta and Chevron in April of this year,
and he claims to have developed Parkinson's disease after
continuous use of Paraquat in Illinois in the years between 1960 to
1980.

And currently, with over 90 Paraquat class action lawsuits, many
more plaintiffs have come forward with alleging that paraquat has
been the cause for their Parkinson's disease condition. The
earliest paraquat lawsuit was filed in 2016, and there are several
other litigations connecting paraquat exposure to other health
conditions like kidney failures as well.

According to a June 22 court filing, it has been reported that 157
cases are pending in state and federal courts against Syngenta in
relation to Paraquat. The Chinese-based chemical company, Sygenty,
and the other defendants, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP and
Chevron USA, have all denied the allegations.

Paraquat Exposure and Parkinson's Disease
Several scientific studies and studies conducted by US government
agencies have linked paraquat exposure to Parkinson's disease,
hence the drive for the Paraquat class action suits.

If you or any of your loved ones have been exposed to this chemical
compound and have suffered any related medical conditions, you
could seek the help of seasoned law firms to get the adequate
compensation possible. Parkinson's is a progressive
neurodegenerative disease that currently has no cure. It is
characterized by tremors, loss of balance, movement issues, and
severe motor issues.

Remember that Paraquat also goes by several other names, such as:

Blanco
Firestorm
Helmquat
Parazone
Devour
Quick-Quat
Gramoxone

And other versions of the same compound could be distributed
worldwide without the necessary warning and information on
potential health risks.

Besides paraquat, another herbicide called Roundup containing the
active compound glyphosate is also linked with severe medical
issues and capable of causing fatal side effects, including
cancer.

Eligibility and Requirements
To qualify as a plaintiff in the paraquat class action lawsuit, you
must possess the following proof of evidence:

Proof that the plaintiff was exposed to Paraquat could be proof of
using paraquat or proof of living near any facility that uses
paraquat or proof of having worked for a company that uses
paraquat.

Proof that the plaintiff has developed Parkinson's disease after
exposure to paraquat.

Proof linking Parkinson's diseases to paraquat exposure. This can
include your medical records and proof of using paraquat.

When you are filing your claim against Paraquat, you may have to
choose between a class action lawsuit or multidistrict litigation.
When you choose class action lawsuits, your claim is included with
the claims made by the other members of the class action, and the
settlements are divided among the plaintiffs based on certain
factors, and all the claims are dealt with as a single lawsuit.

In the case of multi-district litigations, every claim is treated
as an individual lawsuit, and settlements could differ depending on
the individual factors of each claim. But the courts may group
these multiple lawsuits together so as to save court time and
resources.

Paraquat Compensation
Based on the lawsuit ruling, Paraquat lawsuit plaintiffs are liable
to receive compensation the following damages:

-- Medical expenses, both present and possible future expenses
-- Compensation for the physical and mental ailment suffered
-- Compensation for the wage loss suffered in the past as well as
future
-- Punitive damages
-- Compensation for the loss of quality of life
-- Wrongful death compensation [GN]

SYNIVERSE CORPORATION: Mullen Files Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Syniverse
Corporation. The case is styled as Alexis Mullen, Nicholas
Yeomelakis, Thomas Macnish, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Syniverse Corporation, Case No.
8:21-cv-02363-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla., Oct. 6, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Other
Contract.

Syniverse -- https://www.syniverse.com/ -- is a telecommunications
company based in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Esq.
          Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Phone: (917) 438-9189
          Fax: (212) 681-0300
          Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Lindsey Caryn Grossman, Esq.
          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Kevin Bruce Love, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Phone: (305) 357-9000
          Email: lgrossman@cridenlove.com
                 mcriden@cridenlove.com
                 klove@cridenlove.com


TELKOM SA: Faces Insurance Class Action in Gauteng High Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kanchan Sharma, writing for Swift Headline, reports that a class
action suit has been filed in the Gauteng High Court against Telkom
and its insurance provider Mutual & Federal Risk Financing, which
is part of the Old Mutual group, over claims that Telkom clients
were routinely overcharged for insurance.

One of the claimants, Nozipho Mkubu, signed up as a Telkom Mobile
client in October 2019 and agreed to a monthly charge of R132.45.
When the full policy documents were provided, the insurance amount
had been bumped up to R151 a month. When the Telkom invoice
arrived, the amount charged was R152.32, a still higher overcharge
of nearly R20 a month.

This may seem like a rather trivial oversight -- and Mutual &
Federal Risk Financing admits there was an overcharge due to a
system error and affected clients are being reimbursed -- but the
figures could run into hundreds of millions of rands if the
overcharge was applied to all Telkom Mobile customers, according to
Gareth Miller, the driving force behind the class action suit.

As we have argued in our court papers, this is a system error,
whether intentional or otherwise, that runs much deeper than is
being admitted. We don't want to be brushed off with a dismissive
comment that it only happened to a few customers and they are being
repaid. We want full transparency and recompense from Telkom and
its insurer, Mutual & Federal."

The applicants want an independent auditor to assess the extent of
the overcharge, which Miller says could involve more than 100 000
customers.

According to court papers, Telkom Mobile offers device insurance
for its contract customers underwritten by Mutual & Federal Risk
Financing which falls under Old Mutual Insure.

Once a customer agrees to take out device insurance with Telkom, an
in-store contract is signed reflecting a monthly insurance amount
to be deducted by debit order.

Thirty days later the customer receives the full policy document
via email.

All the applicants in this case say the full policy document
reflected a higher insurance amount than was agreed in the in-store
contract.

The customers then receive their Telkom statements, which again
reflected a higher amount than was agreed in either the in-store
contract or in the full policy document.

Though just five people are listed as applicants in this case, this
figure is expected to run into tens of thousands of customers --
and possible many more -- who will automatically be included in the
action unless they specifically opt out.

The applicants are being represented by Advocate Douglas Shaw, with
litigation funding being provided by Miller. The case was filed in
the Gauteng High Court in June.

Companies reactive, not proactive

"Despite the fact that the overcharging has been ongoing for a
number of years, Telkom and Old Mutual Insure only decided to take
action [by offering to refund clients] after the class action was
lodged at the High Court," says Miller.

"Telkom and Old Mutual have agreed that there was a system or
wording error on the in-store contract, which effectively equates
to the document failing to show a Vat [value-added tax] amount of
14% [the Vat rate increased to 15% on April 1, 2018].

"After consultation with Telkom and Old Mutual Insure, they
acknowledged the overcharge and have agreed to refund their
customers. This is great news.

Shaw and Miller have advised Telkom Mobile customers to inspect
their Telkom statements and compare the insurance premium to the
agreed amount reflected in the in-store contract. Enquiries can be
directed to insurancerefund21@gmail.com.

Impact

Telkom's latest annual financial statements reflect income
generated from device insurance premiums for the last two years at
R294 million.

However, the overcharge may apply to a much longer period, says
Miller, resulting in an overcharge potentially running to hundreds
of millions of rands.

Senior account director at Magna Carta, Roline Wilkinson, speaking
on behalf of Old Mutual, provided the following response:

"We can confirm that court proceedings are currently underway, and
we are involved in a legal case. The matter involves Telkom, Mutual
& Federal Risk Financing Limited and five individuals. We can
provide you with further detail on the matter once we have served
and filed papers in response to the application.

"At this stage, we can confirm that the case pertains to a system
error that affected the premiums collected from customers. The
system error was rectified as soon as we learnt about it and the
affected customers are in the process of being reimbursed." [GN]

TILT HOLDINGS: November 24 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The parties to a proposed class action commenced against TILT
Holdings Inc., Alexander Coleman, Mark Herron, Michael Orr and Todd
Halpern have now reached a proposed settlement of the claim which
is subject to approval by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The class action has now been certified. This notice provides
information about this proposed settlement and related matters and
how to opt out of the class action.

Your legal rights are affected even if you do nothing. Please read
this notice carefully.

The class action was commenced on behalf of all persons who
acquired TILT Holdings Inc. securities between October 12, 2018 and
May 1, 2019. The proposed settlement is for US$3.65 million.

By agreeing to the proposed settlement, the parties avoid the costs
and uncertainty of a trial and delays in obtaining judgment.

If you do not wish to be bound by the class action and participate
in the settlement, you must opt out of the class action. A copy of
the Opt Out Form is available here:

www.kalloghlianmyers.com/tilt
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice is required to decide whether
to approve the proposed settlement, class counsel fees and
disbursements plus tax, an honorarium for the representative
plaintiff and a plan to allocate and distribute the settlement
proceeds. The Court will hear submissions about the approval of the
proposed settlement on November 29, 2021. Payments will only be
made available if the Court approves the proposed settlement and
after any appeals are resolved.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS FOR THIS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

1. Opt Out: Fill out an Opt Out Form. Exclude yourself from the
class action and the proposed settlement. The Opt Out Form is
available here: www.kalloghlianmyers.com/tilt
You must email your Opt Out Form before November 24, 2021 to:
tilt@kalloghlianmyers.com

2. Object: Fill out a Notice of Objection and explain why you
object to the settlement and other relief sought. The Notice of
Objection is available here: www.kalloghlianmyers.com/tilt You must
email your Notice of Objection before November 24, 2021 to:
tilt@kalloghlianmyers.com

3. Go to a Hearing: You can attend the Zoom videoconference
approval hearing in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
November 29, 2021 to object to the proposed settlement and
ancillary relief.

4. Do Nothing: Remain in the class action and participate in the
settlement, but give up your right to object to the proposed
settlement.

These rights and options and the deadlines to exercise them and
more information about the proposed settlement are explained in a
notice available at www.kalloghlianmyers.com/tilt

More details are in the Settlement Agreement. You can get a copy of
the Settlement Agreement at www.kalloghlianmyers.com/tilt You can
send your questions to tilt@kalloghlianmyers.com

The lawyers for the plaintiff in the class action are Kalloghlian
Myers LLP and Paul Bates. [GN]

TOP DOG: Aleman-Valdivia's Bid to Certify Class Partly Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ALEMAN-VALDIVIA
and FREDDY SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. TOP DOG PLUMBING & HEATING CORP., FIRST
CHOICE PL, INC., VERONICA AZULAI, and RON MAIMON AZULAI, Case No.
1:20-cv-00421-LDH-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marcia M. Henry
entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff
Aleman-Valdivia's motion for conditional certification, as
follows:

   1. The Plaintiff has met his minimal burden of showing that
      the potential opt-in class members are similarly situated
      for the purposes of conditional certification.

      -- The potential class includes all foremen, plumbers,
         laborers, backhoe operators, and/or drivers who worked
         for TDP and/or First Choice at any time between January
         24, 2017 and the present.

   2. The applicable time period for the statute of limitations
      shall be the three years warranted for willful violations
      of the FLSA.

   3. The FLSA statute of limitations for opt-in plaintiffs
      shall be tolled pursuant to the Kuo Order and from the
      date Plaintiff’s motion was filed until the date of this
      Order.

   4. The Court approves dissemination of the Notices, subject
      to the amendments set forth in this Order, to provide opt-
      in plaintiffs with accurate and timely notice concerning
      the pendency of the collective action.

   5. The Plaintiff shall disseminate the Notices via regular
      mail, email, and via WhatsApp within two weeks of the
      Court's approval of the final versions of the Notices, but
      Plaintiff shall not disseminate the Notices via any other
      direct messaging applications tied to other social media
      services.

      -- The Defendants shall post the approved Notice and
         Consent to Join Lawsuit in a conspicuous location in
         the Defendants' truck yard within two weeks of the
         Court's approval of the final versions of the Notices.

   6. On or before October 14, 2021, Defendants shall produce a
      computer-readable data file of the last known addresses,
      telephone numbers, email addresses, dates of employment,
      titles, compensation rates and hours worked per week for
      all potential class members but shall not be required to
      provide social media handles or social security numbers
      for these employees.

The Plaintiffs in this wage and hour action, individually and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated, against the Defendants,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL") and New York common law.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants implemented a policy in which
they refused to pay their employees the applicable minimum wages
and the requisite overtime rates for all hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.

Top Dog is a full-service plumbing and heating Company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ABnzVn at no extra charge.[CC]

TRIHEALTH INC: Ohio Court Dismisses ERISA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Charles F. Seemann III, Esq., and Phillip C. Thompson, Esq., of
Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review,
report that the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
recently dismissed an ERISA putative class action lawsuit asserting
fiduciary duty claims based on allegations of unreasonably high
administrative fees and relatively higher-cost, underperforming
funds offered in TriHealth, Inc.'s 401(k) plan (the "Plan").

Plaintiffs were TriHealth 401(k) Plan participants and
beneficiaries. On behalf of a putative class, they alleged that
TriHealth and the Plan's Retirement Committee breached their duties
of prudence and loyalty to Plaintiffs in two ways: (1) permitting
the Plan to incur high administrative fees; and (2) offering, and
failing to remove, underperforming funds with higher fees when
there were other, similar funds that charged lower fees and
achieved higher returns. Plaintiffs alleged that for every year
between 2013 and 2017, the administrative fees charged to Plan
participants were greater than the fees of more than 90 percent of
comparable 401(k) plans. Plaintiffs further alleged that the
issuers of many of the funds included in the Plan offered
alternative share classes that charged lower fees and had
materially better rates of return, but were otherwise identical to
the funds in the Plan. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants "failed
to employ a prudent and loyal process by failing to critically or
objectively evaluate the cost and performance of the Plan's
investments and fees in comparison to other investment options."

The court found both claims lacking. With respect to administrative
fees, the court reasoned that Plaintiffs had "simply not provided
the Court with sufficient factual allegations to permit an
inference of imprudence." While Plaintiffs alleged that the
administrative fees were higher than 90% of "comparable" plans,
they did not describe what services the Plan received in exchange
for these administrative fees or what services the "comparable
401(k) plans" received in exchange for their less costly fees.
Plaintiffs also did not identify what a reasonable cost would have
been based on the services offered to the Plan or how much the Plan
actually paid.

With regard to the allegedly underperforming funds with
unreasonably high fees, the court found that Plaintiffs failed to
adequately describe any meaningful benchmark funds or sufficiently
allege actionable underperformance. Although Plaintiffs identified
several funds that they characterized as "lower-cost share classes"
and stated that the only difference was the fees, they provided no
other information to permit an apples-to-apples comparison of the
challenged funds against their proffered benchmarks. Moreover,
Plaintiffs alleged that the funds in question underperformed
"comparable" funds by 0.5% to just over 2% over a three-year
period. The court held that this variance, without more, was too
small and the period too short to raise a plausible breach of
fiduciary duty.

Finally, addressing the claim for breach of duty of loyalty, the
court noted that Plaintiffs' allegations essentially reincorporated
their breach of the duty of prudence allegations. The claim failed
because Plaintiffs did not assert any allegations of self-dealing
and did not sufficiently allege facts to show that Defendants'
actions were for their own benefit or for the benefit of someone
else other than the beneficiaries.

The case is Forman v. TriHealth, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-613 (S.D. Ohio
Sep. 24, 2021). [GN]

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Initial Public Offering
------------------------------------------------------------------
Katryna Perera, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge rejected an attempt by Uber to dismiss a consolidated
proposed class action against it that alleges the ride-sharing
company duped shareholders about numerous corporate scandals and
downplayed risks ahead of its May 2019 initial public offering.
[GN]

UMG RECORDINGS: Class Status Bid Filing Due Feb. 11, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN WAITE, an individual;
JOE ELY, an individual; KASIM SUL TON, an individual; SUSAN STRAW
HARRIS p/k/a SYD STRAW, an individual; LEONARD GRAVES PHILLIPS, an
individual; ST AN SOBOL a/k/a STAN LEE, an individual; STEVE WYNN,
an individual; DENNIS MEHAFFEY p/k/a DENNIS DUCK, an individual;
and DAVID PELLISH p/k/a DAVE PROVOST, an individual; and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a
Delaware corporation doing business as Universal Music Group;
CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 1:19-cv-01091-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Court
entered an order granting the Parties stipulation as follows:

   1. Document Production Deadlines

      -- Defendants shall produce: (1) except as provided in
         Paragraph 1(c), on or before October 22, 2021 , the
         putative termination notices received by Defendants
         between January 1, 2013 and September 17, 2021,
         inclusive, and corresponding counter notices, recording
         agreements, and copyright registrations, for any
         artists in Putative Class A or B who directly
         contracted with UMG or Capitol or one of their
         respective predecessors; and (2) on or before December
         10, 2021 , all documents supporting Defendants' work-
         for-hire defense or other defense upon which they
         intend to rely, as to the artists described in
         Paragraph l(a)(l).

   2. Case Schedule

      a. December 7, 2021       Deadline for Plaintiffs to serve
                                any reply damages expert
                                disclosure by Stefano Vranca
                                addressing issues raised in the
                                expert report of Dr. David
                                Blackbum and/or updating the
                                figures contained in Mr.
                                Vranca's earlier reports;

      b. January 14, 2022       Close of all discovery; and

      c. February 11, 2022      Deadline for the SAC Plaintiffs
                                to file any motion for class
                                certification and for any Party
                                to file any summary judgment
                                motion.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mEhWAy at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan E. Cronin, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          1271 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 885-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 885-5001
          E-mail: rcronin@blankrome.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven M. Bierman, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019

UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs' Bid for Relief from Judgment Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTATE OF EARNEST LEE
BOYLAND, et al, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01112-TSC (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment;

   2. granting Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file reply out of
      time; and

   3. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to
      file a reply.

The Plaintiffs are the estates of three Black farmers -- Earnest
Lee Boyland, David Shelton, Lee Sylvester Caldwell -- and the Black
Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, Inc. They move, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), for relief from this
court's original judgment, granting Defendants EPIQ Class Action &
Claims Solutions, Inc. (EPIQ), United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), United States Department of Agriculture
Hispanic & Women Farmers and Ranchers Claims Administrator and
United States Secretary of Agriculture Thomas J. Vilsack's motion
to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs have also moved for leave to file a reply out of
time to opposition motions filed by Defendants EPIQ and USDA, and
for an extension of time in which to file the reply out of time.
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a reply out of time to
Defendants' opposition for relief from judgment, and their motion
for an extension of time to file this motion were considered with
Plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(6) motion and will therefore be granted, the
Court says.

Over twenty years ago, a group of Black farmers sued the USDA,
alleging decades of racial discrimination in the administration of
the USDA's farm loan and other benefit programs. The federal
government settled the case in 1999, entering into a consent decree
that awarded over one billion dollars in compensation and relief to
approximately 16,000 claimants.

When 60,000 claimants sought compensation but were denied for
untimely claims, Congress created a separate program for farmers
time-barred from Pigford I, in which over 40,000 claimants filed
claims. This program was ultimately bundled into the Pigford II
litigation, and the court approved an additional one billion
dollars in payments to the time-barred farmers. The Pigford II
settlement, unlike Pigford I, was binding on all class members.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uXjvxu at no extra charge.[CC]


VALVE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Use of Loot Boxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander H. Cote, Esq., of Winston, disclosed that plaintiffs
suing Valve Corporation over the company's use of loot box in
several top videogames have moved for class certification in
Seattle federal court. The suit alleges that the loot boxes in
three games -- Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Defense of the
Ancients 2, and Team Fortress 2 -- violates the Washington Consumer
Protection Act because they constitute online gambling that Valve
failed to disclose. The proposed class consists of the parents of
minor children who purchased loot boxes from Valve, a class that
could exceed hundreds of thousands of parents. Plaintiffs argue
that the same issues exist for the entire class -- namely, that
Valve has concealed that their games include gambling elements,
which are illegal under Washington law -- and that damages could be
easily determined from Valve's records listing the amount spent by
minors on loot boxes in its games. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive
relief against Valve that would prohibit loot boxes.

Plaintiffs' claims have had a long and tortured history. Although
initially filed in December 2016 on behalf of both parents and
children, the district court sent the case to arbitration at
Valve's request. Valve prevailed in the arbitration, and the court
dismissed the case. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Ninth Circuit
reversed the order compelling arbitration of the parents' claims
but sustained as to the children's claims. With Valve's arbitration
victory still binding on the children's claims, the parents may
face an uphill battle on their suit against Valve.

        About Winston's Videogame, Gaming & Esports Group

Recognizing that emerging industries require bespoke lawyering,
Mike Tomasulo and David Enzminger formed and lead Winston's
Videogame, Gaming & Esports Group to provide comprehensive legal
solutions to companies in these industries. This multidisciplinary
group includes more than 60 lawyers across 10 practices working
seamlessly to assist companies in these industries in all areas,
including managing IP portfolios, assisting esports companies
establish global sports leagues, selling franchises, and developing
proactive legal solutions for issues that arise from league
operations. It represents videogame publishers in antirust matters
and represent both rights owners and gaming companies in licensing
issues for game content. In addition, its team helps electronic
game clients prepare for all types of regulatory and public
scrutiny issues, such as corporate governance, data privacy, and
harassment/discrimination claims that are sure to come as the
industry continues to grow in both size and influence. Its offices
in New York, Silicon Valley, Los Angeles, Shanghai, and Hong Kong
provide gaming clients with a global platform for their complex and
evolving legal needs. [GN]

VIEW INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of October 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Oct. 8 disclosed that
investors with substantial losses have opportunity to lead the
securities fraud class action lawsuit against View, Inc. f/k/a CF
Finance Acquisition Corp. II. (NASDAQ: VIEW).

Class Period: November 30, 2020 - August 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2021

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the View lawsuit, you can
submit your contact information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/view-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.

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 View had not properly accrued warranty costs
related to its product; (2) that there was a material weakness in
View's internal controls over accounting and financial reporting
related to warranty accrual; (3) that, as a result, the Company's
financial results for prior periods were misstated; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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 the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles
Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

VIEW INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 18 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges View, Inc. (NASDAQ: VIEW) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud
class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable
claims.

Class Period: Nov. 30, 2020 - Aug. 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 18, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/VIEW
Contact An Attorney Now: VIEW@hbsslaw.com
                         844-916-0895

View, Inc. (VIEW) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The complaint alleges View manipulated its financial results
leading up to and after going public through a SPAC merger in early
March 2021.

Specifically, throughout the class period, Defendants mispresented
and concealed: (1) that View had not properly accrued warranty
costs related to its product; (2) that there was a material
weakness in View's internal controls over accounting and financial
reporting related to warranty accrual; (3) that, as a result, the
Company's financial results for prior periods were misstated; and
(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The truth emerged on Aug. 16, 2021, when the Company announced its
audit committee began an independent investigation concerning the
adequacy of the Company's previously disclosed warranty accrual. In
light of the audit committee's ongoing investigation, which
involves independent counsel and advisors, the Company disclosed
that it would not be timely filing its quarterly financial
statements.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.26, or over 24%, to
close at $3.92 per share on Aug. 17, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving View intentionally
understated the Company's warranty accrual to improve the Company's
balance sheet and understate losses," said Reed Kathrein, the
Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you invested in View and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

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

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]

WELCOME BUILDING: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Welcome Building
Corporation. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Welcome
Building Corporation doing business as: Welcome Homes, Case No.
1:21-cv-08242 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2021).

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

Welcome Building Corporation doing business as Welcome Homes --
https://welcomehomes.com/ -- is a revolutionary home building
platform that makes buying and designing new homes simple and more
affordable.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


[*] Court Dismisses Class Action Over Data Security Incident
------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Peterman, Esq., and Sierra Shear, Esq., of Alston & Bird, in
an article for JDSupra, report that a California federal court has
dismissed a putative securities fraud class action alleging that a
large title insurer that disclosed a data security incident in May
2019 made false and misleading statements related to its data
security practices and the incident. The dismissal follows the June
2021 settlement of a related Securities & Exchange Commission
enforcement action. An enforcement action brought by the New York
Department of Financial Services, the first set of charges brought
under that office's cybersecurity regulations, remains pending.

In its September 22, 2021 opinion, the Court held the plaintiff
failed to allege that any of the three categories of challenged
statements -- (1) statements about the company's risk factor
disclosures related to data security, (2) statements about the
company's information security program and commitment to protecting
data, and (3) statements about a data security incident -- was
false or misleading, as required to state a claim for federal
securities fraud.

Risk Factor Disclosures Related to Data Security. First, the
plaintiff challenged certain risk factor disclosures on the
company's website and in its FY 2018 10-K, including that the
company may be required to notify certain customers or could lose
customers in the event of a "data breach[] or systems failure[]."
The Court held that the disclosures were not false and misleading
because the plaintiff did not adequately allege that the company
knew about the data security incident when it made the disclosures.
The Court concluded that, if the company did not know about the
data security incident at the time it made the disclosures, the
disclosures were merely generalized warnings about potential future
risks and, in any case, were not specific enough to misrepresent
the company's "current state of affairs."

Finally, the Court found that allegations that the Board had
general conversations about data security did not establish that
the Board knew about existing security vulnerabilities when the
company filed its 10-K.

Statements About the Company's Information Security Program and
Commitment to Protecting Data. Second, the plaintiff challenged
several statements on the company's website describing its
commitment to data security, including that the company was
"committed to safeguarding customer information," "serious" about
the protection of customer data, and "agree[d] that [customers]
have a right to know how [the company] will utilize the personal
information [customers] provide to [the company]." The Court held
that these statements were either true or inactionable corporate
puffery (i.e., positive statements that are too general to cause an
investor to rely on them). For instance, the Court held that
statements about the company's "commitment" to safeguarding
customer information were not false because the word "commitment"
is not a "word of certainty."

Statements About the Information Security Incident. Finally, the
plaintiff challenged certain of the company's statements about the
data security incident at issue. For instance, the plaintiff
alleged that the company's statement that it was "working
diligently" to address the data security incident was misleading
because, according to plaintiff, the company had misclassified
non-public information in an internal database in the years leading
up to the data breach. The court found that the challenged
statement was not false because the alleged misclassification had
no bearing on the company's conduct following the data security
incident.

While few securities class action lawsuits related to data security
incidents have survived the motion to dismiss stage, that has not
stopped plaintiffs from continuing to file such suits. It remains
to be seen whether recent dismissals will stem that tide. In any
case, given the ever-changing cybersecurity landscape and the
difficulty of predicting whether a data security incident may
occur, public companies should carefully and regularly consider
their data security related disclosures before and in the wake of a
data security incident. [GN]

[*] Jackson Lewis Releases Fall 2021 Class Action Trends Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Anders, Esq., Justin Barnes, Esq., Lindsey Chopin, Esq.,
Alison Crane, Esq., Todd Dobry, Esq., and Mia Farber, Esq., of
Jackson Lewis P.C., disclosed that The Fall 2021 edition of the
Jackson Lewis Class Action Trends Report looks at the class action
risks that arise as employers navigate return-to-work during this
precarious stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Employee symptom
screening, mask and vaccine mandates, returning reluctant remote
workers to the office–all pose operational challenges as well as
potential exposure to classwide liability.

A copy of the report is available at:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/class-action-trends-report-fall-2021-5834203/
[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 ***