---

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

              Tuesday, March 15, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 47

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Shobe Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Clever Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Cottingham Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Flores Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Friedman Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products

3M COMPANY: Gamberdella Sues Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 29 Deadline
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 29 Deadline
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 29 Deadline
ALLGOOD MANOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Samuels Suit Alleges

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over COBRA Notices
AMENTUM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Weaver Suit Alleges
ARKANSAS: Pennington Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
ASA BUILDING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ulacco Suit Alleges
ASTRA SPACE: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 11 Deadline

AVIOR AIRLINES: 11th Cir. Reversed Dismissal of Contract Suit
BARCLAYS PLC: Faces Investors' Suit Over Dark Pool Platform
BARRICK ENT: Stansbury Seeks Minimum, OT Wages for Delivery Drivers
BLACKFIN BOATS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BMO INVESTMENTS: May 27 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

BOB'S DISCOUNT: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRADY CORPORATION: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BURMAX COMPANY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BW RRI II: McCann Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
BYRD COOKIE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CABALETTA BIO: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of April 29 Deadline
CABALETTA BIO: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 29 Deadline
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Faces Washington Suit Over Collection Letter
CERENCE INC: Robbins LLP Reminds of April 26 Deadline
CERENCE INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 26 Deadline

CHAPARRAL COUNTRY: Hassmer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHRISTIAN ART GIFTS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CITY WAV CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramos Suit Alleges
CLARIVATE PLC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 25 Deadline
CLOUDFARM INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CLV INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Riverdale Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
COVID 19 RAPID TEST: Montour Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CURA CANNABIS: Settles Class Action Over Mislabeled Vapes
CURA PARTNERS: May 11 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set

DOJO BRANDS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DSMB PARTNERS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DUTCHESS RECREATIONAL: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ELECTRIC LAST: Klein Law Firm Reminds of April 4 Deadline
EMPIRE POINT BOATING: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Fogel Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
EOS USA: Callirgos Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
FAKE BAKE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FAT BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims
FILTERS FAST: Judge Refuses to Approve Settlement for Second Time

FILTERS FAST: Judge Rejects Proposed Class Action Settlement
FORD MOTOR: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Tershakovec Suit
FORD MOTOR: Michigan Judge Tosses Fuel Economy Class Action
FRONTSTREAM HOLDINGS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FUNKO LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GATOS SILVER: ClaimsFiler Reminds of April 25 Deadline
GEICO CASUALTY: Purcell Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
GOLDEN KRUST: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Falberg ERISA Suit
GOOD GUY VAPES: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GOOGLE LLC: To Settle Class Action Over COVID-19 App
GOVERNMENT Employees: Robinson & Cole Attorney Discusses Ruling
GWG HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 19 Deadline
HARBORSIDE MARINE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HARNEY HARDWARE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

HERSHA HOSPITALITY: Sanchez Files Suit in S.D. New York
HILLARY CLINTON: Trump Campaign Advisor Mulls Class Action
HOME BOX: Allegedly Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Suit Says
I.C. SYSTEM: Ginsberg Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
INFORMATICA INC: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims

JACKSON NATIONAL: Violates Insurance Code, Marder Class Suit Says
JACKSON, MS: Residents Speak Out Over Checkpoints Amid Class Suit
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Melba School Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Centreville Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Lake Pend Oreille Says

JUUL LABS: Faces Caseville Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Long Prairie-Grey Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Minn.
JUUL LABS: Mackay School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Harbor Beach Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: Morrice Area Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth

JUUL LABS: Notus School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Post Falls Suit Alleges Youth Health Crisis in Idaho
JUUL LABS: St. Lawrence-Lewis Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
KEURIG GREEN: Settles Mislabeling Class Action for $10 Million
L'OREAL USA: Waterproof Mascaras Contain PFAS, Davenport Suit Says

LAKE CITY: Faces McAllister Suit Over Illegal Collection Letters
LL&G CONSTRUCTION: Royster Seeks Machine Operators' Overtime Pay
META PLATFORMS: Faces Suit Over $10-B Loss From iOS Privacy Changes
METROPOLITAN LEARNING: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MONEVO INC: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violation

MP MATERIALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 25 Deadline
MP MATERIALS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 25 Deadline
NATERA INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Ads
NELNET INC: Faces Class Action Over Student Loan Robocalls
NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY: Donohue Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial

NINJARMM LLC: Vlack Seeks OT Wages for Inside Sales Representatives
OLD CITY COFFEE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAN-O-GOLD BAKING: Fails to Pay Regular, OT Wages, Nelson Says
PARAGON SYSTEMS: Jean-Gilles Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PHOENIX HOLDINGS: Court Okays Motion for Class Action Withdrawal

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: FDCPA Class Action Remanded to State Court
PREMIUM RETAIL: Fraga Files Cross-Appeal in FLSA Suit
PROSEGUR SERVICES: White Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PULSE BIOSCIENCES: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 18 Deadline
RED CRAB: Faces Wisdom Class Action Suit Over Sex Discrimination

REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Medical Suit Over RICO Violation
SEA EAGLE BOATS: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOFTCHOICE CORPORATION: Cuaresma Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois
STANDARD LITHIUM: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of March 28 Deadline
STEWARD HEALTH: Faces Patient Fraud Class Action in Texas

SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Suit Over Internet Services
SUNPOWER CORP: Securities Class Action Pending in California
TASKUS INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of April 25 Deadline
TELOS CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 11 Deadline
TULA LIFE: Consumers to Receive Class Action Settlement Checks

UNITED STATES: Air Force Officer Seeks to Certify Class
UNITED STATES: Appeals Ruling in Navy Seal Vaccine Mandate Suit
UNITED STATES: April 23 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
UNITED STATES: Calixto Seeks Extension to File Class Status Reply
UNITED STATES: Poffenbarger Preliminary Injunction Bid Partly OK'd

VIATRIS INC: Settles EpiPen Class Action for $3.3 Million
VIVINT INC: Loses Bid to Strike Fitzhenry Class Allegations
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Bid to Vacate Case Management Deadlines OK'd
WENTZVILLE SCHOOL: Reverses Decision to Ban Tony Morrison Book
WORLD RUGBY: Rugby Players' Concussion Class Action Pending

[*] Applicant's Arbitration Pact Did Not Apply to Ex-Employers
[*] Dietary Supplement Industry Class Actions Cut in Half in 2021
[*] U.S. Class Action Spending to Continue to Increase in 2022

                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Shobe Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DON SHOBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00699-RMG
(D.S.C., March 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.


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

As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

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

                - and –

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

3M COMPANY: Clever Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY CLEVER and SUSAN CLEVER, his wife, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00703-RMG
(D.S.C., March 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, wantonness, and per quod claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Cottingham Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL COTTINGHAM and SUSAN COTTINGHAM, his wife, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00702-RMG (D.S.C., March 4, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, wantonness, and per quod claim.

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

As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, Mr. Cottingham was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

3M COMPANY: Flores Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN FLORES and KEELY FLORES, his wife, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00698-RMG (D.S.C., March 4, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, wantonness, and per quod claim.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of Plaintiff Martin Flores' exposure
to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS at various locations during the course
of his training and firefighting activities. The Defendants failed
to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the
Defendants failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees,
including Mr. Flores, who they knew would foreseeably come into
contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by
either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or
its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to
inadequate warning, Mr. Flores used the Defendants' PFAS-containing
AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change
in the products' condition, says the suit.

As a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, Mr.
Flores was diagnosed with colon cancer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

3M COMPANY: Friedman Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARC FRIEDMAN and SARA FRIEDMAN, his wife, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00701-RMG (D.S.C., March 4, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, wantonness, and per quod claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                

         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

3M COMPANY: Gamberdella Sues Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM GAMBERDELLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00700-RMG
(D.S.C., March 4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
         John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
         WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
         125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
         Red Bank, NJ 07701
         Telephone: (732) 855-6060
         Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Affirm Holdings, Inc. ("Affirm" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: AFRM) in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Affirm securities on February 10,
2022 after approximately 1:15pm EST. Investors have until April 29,
2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

Affirm purports to be a "next generation platform for digital and
mobile-first commerce." Through its platform, the Company offers
"buy now, pay later" or "BNPL" services to consumers. Affirm
represents itself "a more flexible and transparent alternative to
credit cards."

At approximately 1:15 p.m. on February 10, 2022, Affirm issued a
Tweet from its official account in which the Company disclosed
certain metrics from its second quarter 2022 financial results. The
Tweet, which was published prior to the Company's planned release
of its financial results, portrayed a highly successful quarter,
which included an increase in revenue of 77%. This caused Affirm's
share price to spike nearly 10% in intra-day trading.

The Tweet was materially misleading, in that it omitted to disclose
the full details of Affirm's second quarter financial results.

Indeed, the Company deleted the Tweet and released its full second
quarter financial results ahead of schedule. The full financial
results were lackluster – with the Company posting a loss of
$0.57 per share, compared with analyst expectations of $0.37 per
share.

On this news, Affirm's share price plummeted from an intra-day high
of $83.57 per share on February 10, 2022, to close at $58.68 per
share, or approximately 32%.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Affirm shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contacts

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on March 1 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Affirm Holdings, Inc. ("Affirm" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: AFRM) in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors on
February 10, 2022 after the Company sent a Tweet concerning its
Second Quarter 2022 financial results at approximately 1:15 P.M.
EST (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that on February 10, 2022 at approximately
1:15 P.M. EST, the Company tweeted from its official Twitter
account disclosing certain metrics from its second quarter 2022
financial results. The tweet, which was published prior to the
Company's planned release of its financial results, portrayed a
highly successful quarter, which included an increase in revenue of
77%. This caused the Company's share price to spike nearly 10% in
intra-day trading.

The tweet was materially misleading, in that it omitted to disclose
the full details of the Company's second quarter financial results.
The Company deleted the tweet and released its full second quarter
financial results ahead of schedule. The full financial results
were lackluster - with the Company posting a loss of $0.57 per
share, compared with analyst expectations of $0.37 per share. On
this news, the Company's share price plummeted from an intra-day
high of $83.57 per share to close at $58.68 per share, or
approximately 32%.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Affirm
should contact the Firm prior to the April 29, 2022 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

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

AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 28
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Affirm Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:
AFRM) on February 10, 2022 after the Company sent a Tweet
concerning its Second Quarter 2022 financial results at
approximately 1:15 P.M. EST (the "Class Period"). A class action
lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 29, 2022.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Affirm 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 Affirm class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3161 or 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 April 29, 2022. 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, on February 10, 2022
at approximately 1:15 P.M. EST, Affirm tweeted from its official
Twitter account disclosing certain metrics from its second quarter
2022 financial results. The tweet, which was published prior to the
Company's planned release of its financial results, portrayed a
highly successful quarter, which included an increase in revenue of
77%. This caused Affirm's share price to spike nearly 10% in
intra-day trading.

The tweet was materially misleading, in that it omitted to disclose
the full details of Affirm's second quarter financial results.

Affirm deleted the tweet and released its full second quarter
financial results ahead of schedule. The full financial results
were lackluster - with the Company posting a loss of $0.57 per
share, compared with analyst expectations of $0.37 per share.

On this news, Affirm's share price plummeted from an intra-day high
of $83.57 per share to close at $58.68 per share, or approximately
32%.

To join the Affirm class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3161 or 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.

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]

ALLGOOD MANOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Samuels Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA SAMUELS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLGOOD MANOR ASSISTANT HOME
INC., SOPHIA DRUMMOND, and ERNEL DRUMMOND, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00785-ELR (N.D. Ga., Feb. 23, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff Samuels was employed by the Defendants as caregiver.

ALLGOOD MANOR ASSISTANT HOME INC. owns and operates several
intermediate care homes in the areas surrounding the Atlanta,
Georgia metropolitan area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory R. Fidlon, Esq.
          FIDLON LEGAL, PC
          3355 Lenox Road, Suite 750
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (844) 529-4967
          Facsimile: (844) 529-4329
          Email: greg@fidlonlegal.com

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over COBRA Notices
----------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Amazon.com
Services, Inc. faces a proposed class action that claims the online
retail giant has deliberately attempted to discourage former health
plan participants from electing to continue their insurance
coverage under COBRA.

The 23-page lawsuit states that Amazon, as the administrator and
sponsor of its group health plan, is obligated by law to notify
those who've lost coverage due to a qualifying event, such as
termination, of their right to continue their health insurance. The
case alleges that Amazon's COBRA notice unlawfully contained
"threats" of criminal penalties and IRS fines as a way to
discourage consumers from electing to continue coverage, presumably
due to its expense to the retailer.

The complaint contends that Amazon's COBRA notice is unlawful in
that the "threatening language" misleads consumers and "creates an
artificial fear of criminal prosecution or civil liability." Per
the suit, the notice was not written "in a manner calculated to be
understood by the average plan participant" as required under the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA).

According to the case, the Amazon COBRA notice at issue contained
the following statement just above the signature line of the
enrollment form:

"You certify that all information is complete and accurate to the
best of your knowledge. Please note that any person who knowingly
provides false, incomplete, or misleading information is considered
to have committed an act to defraud or deceive the Plan Sponsor(s).
The filing of any application for insurance or other claim for
benefits based on false, misleading, or incomplete information is a
fraudulent act and may result in criminal or civil penalties."

The suit argues that this warning is "inaccurate and misleading"
because it fails to explain how an individual could face criminal
or civil penalties for electing to continue health insurance.
Moreover, the notice also warns of a "$50 penalty from the IRS for
each failure to provide an accurate tax identification number for a
covered individual," yet again fails to provide any context for the
apparent IRS penalty, the case says.

The lawsuit alleges that in light of these "ominous warning[s],"
Amazon's COBRA notice fails to meet the legal standard of being
written in a way that could be reasonably understood by the average
plan participant.

"Defendant's COBRA notice, which contains threats of criminal
penalties and IRS fines, does not satisfy the standard because
Defendant fails to provide a single clarifying example and/or
illustration demonstrating how or why plan participants risk
criminal penalties and/or IRS fines by submitting incomplete
information," the complaint states. "For instance, there are no
examples or illustrations of what constitutes ‘false, misleading
or incomplete' information."

The case further alleges that Amazon's COBRA notice fails to
identify the name, address and phone number of the plan
administrator and instead identifies only the name of the COBRA
administrator, BenefitConnect.

The lawsuit says that although Amazon could have used a model
notice issued by the U.S. Department of Labor, the company
"deliberately chose to create its own notice" in an effort to
discourage plan participants from electing COBRA.

The plaintiff in the suit says she worked for Amazon for several
years before being terminated while on medical leave. Following her
termination, the plaintiff received from the company a COBRA notice
that purported to inform her of her right to continue health
insurance coverage. Per the case, the plaintiff chose not to elect
COBRA "because she was concerned about potential liability if she
supplied inaccurate information."

"If Plaintiff had been presented with a COBRA notice that did not
cause her to believe she could be criminally or civilly liable for
making an honest mistake, Plaintiff would have elected COBRA and
continued her coverages," the complaint attests.

The lawsuit looks to represent participants and beneficiaries in
Amazon's health plan who were provided COBRA notice in the same
form sent to the plaintiff during the applicable statute of
limitations period as a result of a qualifying event (as determined
by Amazon) and who did not elect COBRA coverage. [GN]

AMENTUM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Weaver Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN V. WEAVER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMENTUM SERVICES, INC.; AECOM;
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2022-00006941-Cu-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Feb. 23,
2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Weaver was employed by the Defendants as weaver.

AMENTUM SERVICES, INC. is in the infrastructure and personal
services industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          Email: fbekam@aegislawfirm.com

ARKANSAS: Pennington Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Larry Pennington, a natural person, THE REAL
PARTY IN INTEREST and as THE PROPER PARTY INJURED, Individually,
and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. State of Arkansas,
State Prison Inmate Care and Custody Reimbursement Act, Case No.
35-CV-21-00752 was removed from the Jefferson County Circuit Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on
Feb. 17, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00175-BRW to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Arkansas -- https://portal.arkansas.gov/ -- is a southern U.S.
state bordering the Mississippi River.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Caleb G. Conrad, Esq.
          ARKANSAS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          Catlett-Prien Tower Building
          323 Center Street, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72201-2610
          Phone: (501) 682-1019
          Fax: (501) 682-2591
          Email: caleb.conrad@arkansasag.gov


ASA BUILDING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ulacco Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ULACCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASA BUILDING MAINTENANCE INC.; AREF AJRAM
(a/k/a Steve Ajram); and MAHER SAFA (a/k/a Michael Safa),
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01497 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Ulacco was employed by the Defendants as driver.

ASA BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC. was founded in 1993. The company's
line of business includes providing residential construction
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 792-0046
          Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com


ASTRA SPACE: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 11 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against Astra Space, Inc. ("Astra") (NASDAQ: ASTR)
f/k/a Holicity Inc. ("Holicity") (NASDAQ: HOL). The action charges
Astra with violations of the federal securities laws, including
omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the
company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of
Astra's materially misleading statements to the public, Astra
investors have suffered significant losses.

Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected
among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have
recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of
shareholders we represent.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: APRIL 11, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: FEBRUARY 2, 2021 AND DECEMBER 29, 2021

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at info@ktmc.com

ASTRA'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
Astra operates as an operational space launch company. On June 30,
2021, Astra and Holicity, a special purpose acquisition company,
merged.

On February 2, 2021, Holicity filed a Form 8-K, which attached a
press release dated February 2, 2021 entitled "Astra to become the
first publicly traded space launch company on NASDAQ via merger
with Holicity" which announced the merger with Astra. The February
2, 2021 8-K also attached an investor presentation which included
slides touting Astra's ability to "[l]aunch anywhere in the world
in 24 hours", its timeline, and its potential market.

The truth emerged on December 29, 2021, when market researcher
Kerrisdale Capital released a report entitled "Astra Space, Inc
(ASTR): Headed for Dis-Astra" (the Kerrisdale Report"), which
alleged myriad issues with Astra. Specifically, the Kerrisdale
Report stated that "[m]anagement habitually describes Astra as
having the flexibility to launch from ‘anywhere in the world,'
which is simply not true" reasoning that "[in] the US, Astra can
only launch from an FAA-licensed commercial spaceport approved for
vertical launch. There are only 5 such sites (plus SpaceX's private
Boca Chica spaceport) located in the U.S." The Kerrisdale Report
also stated that Astra's "main competitors will soon be launching
larger 1,000kg+ payload rockets while Astra has yet to overcome
developmental hurdles necessary to successfully launch even a
single satellite into any of the emerging broadband
mega-constellations." Further, the Kerrisdale Report stated that
"[c]onversations with an individual familiar with Astra's rocket
design and manufacturing suggest investors may have to endure an
uncomfortably high rate of failure as the company ramps to a
targeted monthly launch cadence in 2022." Finally, the Kerrisdale
Report stated that "[w]hile others in the industry like Rocket Lab
are developing well-suited, best-in-class technology, enabling a
variety of TAM-expanding missions, Astra is settling for suboptimal
acquired technology with only niche applications."

Following this news, Astra's share price fell $1.10 per share, or
approximately 14%, to close at $6.61 per share on December 29,
2021.

WHAT CAN I DO?
Astra investors may, no later than April 11, 2022 seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Astra investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information.

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad
guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
(484) 270-1453
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]

AVIOR AIRLINES: 11th Cir. Reversed Dismissal of Contract Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Bogan III, Esq., of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an
article for JD Supra, report that adhesion contracts have become
ubiquitous in modern internet commerce, and we have written a
number of articles about how businesses prepare their on-line
contracts to shield themselves from liability generally and class
action liability in particular. See, e.g., Ninth Circuit upholds
arbitration provision testing the "outer limits" of what
constitutes an enforceable arbitration agreement (June 17, 2019).
In Cavalieri v. Avior Airlines C.A., -- F.4th --, No. 19-11330,
2022 WL 325242 (11th Cir. Feb. 3, 2022), the Eleventh Circuit
recently reversed the dismissal of a putative class action against
an airline under circumstances where it was clear that the issue of
contractual liability could have been eliminated through the use of
the right contractual language.

In 1978, Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), which
eliminated the regulation of air carrier prices. The ADA contains a
preemption provision, which provides that "a State, political
subdivision of a State, or political authority of at least 2 States
may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision
having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or
service of an air carrier." 2022 WL 325242, at *5 (quoting 49
U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1)). While ADA preemption is broad, it does not
preempt voluntary contractual commitments made by airlines or
airline passengers. As the Eleventh Circuit observed in 2018, "an
air carrier may bring a state action to enforce the terms of a
contract, whether express or implied, or the person with whom an
air carrier has contracted may bring a breach-of-contract action .
. . so long as the action concerns voluntary commitments and not
state-imposed obligations." Id. (quoting Bailey v. Rocky Mountain
Holdings, LLC, 889 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir. 2018)).

Roberto Hung Cavalieri and Sergio Enrique Isea were passengers on
flights operated by Avior Airlines, C.A., a Venezuelan airline.
They filed a putative class action claiming that Avior Airlines
breached its "Contract of Carriage" by requiring passengers to pay
a fee that was not disclosed in that contract. Id. at *1. According
to the plaintiffs, passengers were forced to pay an additional fee
-- an $80 "Exit Fee" -- before they were permitted to board their
departing flights from Miami to Venezuela. The Southern District of
Florida (by adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate
judge) dismissed plaintiffs' breach of contract claims, concluding
that the ADA preempted those claims because they related to the
price of airline tickets. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed,
holding that "Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim seeks merely to
enforce the parties' private agreements regarding the cost of
passage and does not invoke state laws or regulations to alter the
agreed-upon price." Id. The claims therefore fit within the types
of cases exempted from preemption by the United States Supreme
Court's decision in American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219
(1995), which the Eleventh Circuit followed in its prior decision
in Bailey. Id.

Plaintiffs' class allegations demonstrated that the airline's
alleged contractual liability could have been addressed in the
language of its customer contracts. Indeed, they defined their
national class as "all persons that Avior charged an Exit Fee, from
five years prior to the filing of the initial complaint through the
earlier of: (i) the date, if any, Avior changes its contract to
expressly include Exit Fees; and (ii) the date of class
certification." Id. at *3 (emphasis added).

Avior argued on appeal that the terms of its website did in fact
refer to the exit fees and that, therefore, the plaintiffs' breach
of contract claims failed as a matter of law. The district court
did not address that issue, and the Eleventh Circuit also declined
to address it, explaining that Avior did not adequately develop
this "incorporation by reference" argument on appeal, but it did
say that "those pivotal questions of contract interpretation remain
open for adjudication on remand." Id. at *7. [GN]

BARCLAYS PLC: Faces Investors' Suit Over Dark Pool Platform
-----------------------------------------------------------
Helen Cahill, writing for The Telegraph, reports that Barclays is
gearing up for a court battle with investors over allegations of
fraud on its 'dark pool' trading platform.

The bank is readying itself for a trial in a group litigation
brought by hundreds of institutional investors represented by law
firm Brown Rudnick.

The investors are seeking damages after the bank's share price
plummeted in response to a fraud case filed by the New York
Attorney general in 2014.

Barclays' share price fell 9pc when Eric Schneiderman alleged the
bank had defrauded investors operating on its dark pool trading
platform.

The dark pool trading platform was supposed to let clients trade
anonymously until they had completed a transaction.

The operation is designed to stop high-frequency traders gaining an
advantage by betting against pension funds.

But Barclays came under fire after Schneiderman alleged the dark
pool was in fact favouring faster traders.

Barclays ultimately admitted it misled clients about the safety of
its platform and paid a fine of $70m (£52m).

The settlement was the largest ever fine paid by a bank operating a
dark pool. Credit Suisse was also fined $60m over similar failings.


The London case comes after Barclays paid out $27m to investors in
a similar class action in the US in 2019. The bank made the payout
five years after the class action case was filed by Barbara
Strougo.

The group litigation London has reached the close of initial
pleadings.

It has been assigned to the Financial List to ensure the case is
heard by a judge with experience in financial markets. The
claimants are yet to have a case management conference with a judge
to assess whether the case is ready for trial.

The lawyers will only secure a court date after a management
conference.

The legal team will put forward sample claimants to represent the
wider group of investors if a trial date is secured. Barclays could
be forced to pay hundreds of millions in damages. But the size of
the payout is uncertain. [GN]

BARRICK ENT: Stansbury Seeks Minimum, OT Wages for Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA STANSBURY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. BARRICK ENTERPRISES, INC. and TODD BARRICK,
individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-00342-YK (M.D. Pa. March 8, 2022)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to
herself and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by
Defendants at its Domino's stores under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
the Defendants allegedly use a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur
that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall
below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks
(nominal wages -- unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net
wages).

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately October
2020 to February 2021 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's
store located in Gettysburg, PA, and within this District.

The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
          120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
          Horsham, PA 19044
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 754-4443
          E-mail: phoward@smbb.com

BLACKFIN BOATS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackfin Boats, LLC.
The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Blackfin Boats, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01827 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Blackfin Boats -- https://www.blackfinboats.com/ -- is a fishing
boat manufacturer located in Williston, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BMO INVESTMENTS: May 27 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action
which permits a defined group of investors (the "Class") to pursue
claims against BMO Investments Inc. ("BMO"). It is alleged that, by
paying trailing commissions to Discount Brokers and other acts or
omissions, BMO breached legal and/or equitable duties to investors
in the BMO Mutual Fund trusts. The class action claims monetary
damages on behalf of the Class. The allegations made in the class
action have not been proven and are contested by BMO.

If you wish to participate in the class action, DO NOTHING.

If you do not wish to participate in the class action, be bound by
or receive any benefits from it, you must opt out by sending the
opt-out form to RicePoint Administration Inc. by May 27, 2022.

To obtain a copy of the opt-out form or for other important
information regarding the class action:

Visit
https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/mutual-fund-trailing-commissions/
Call toll-free 1 800 461 6166 ext 4399 (North America)
Call 416 594 4399 (Outside North America)
The publication of this notice was authorized by
the Superior Court of Justice of the Province of Ontario [GN]

BOB'S DISCOUNT: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bob's Discount
Furniture, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bob's Discount
Furniture, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01884-ER (S.D.N.Y., March 4,
2022).

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

Bob's Discount Furniture -- https://www.mybobs.com/ -- is a retail
furniture chain with locations across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


BRADY CORPORATION: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brady Corporation.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Brady Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-01819 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Brady Corporation -- https://www.bradyid.com/ -- is an American
developer, manufacturer of specialty products, technical equipment
and services for identifying components used in workplaces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


BURMAX COMPANY: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Burmax Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. The Burmax Company, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-01834 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

The Burmax Company -- https://www.burmax.com/ -- has been serving
the Professional Beauty Industry since 1948, catering to wholesale
beauty supply distributors and beauty schools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


BW RRI II: McCann Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BW RRI II LLC. The
case is styled as David McCann, Ronald Migyanko, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BW RRI II LLC, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00390-DSC (W.D. Pa., March 3, 2022).

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

BW Rri II LLC is a limited liability company (LLC) is located in
Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Carlson Brown, Esq.
          222 Broad Street
          PO Box 242
          Sewickley, PA 15143
          Phone: (724) 730-1753
          Email: bcarlson@carlsonbrownlaw.com


BYRD COOKIE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Byrd Cookie Company. The case
is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Byrd Cookie Company, Case No.
1:22-cv-01811-PAE (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Byrd Cookie Company -- https://www.byrdcookiecompany.com/ -- is a
family owned and operated bakery in Savannah, GA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


CABALETTA BIO: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of April 29 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Cabaletta Bio, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and docketed under 22-cv-00737,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities
other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a)
Cabaletta common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents (defined below) issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering conducted on or about October 24, 2019 (the
"IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (b) Cabaletta securities between
October 24, 2019 and December 13, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Cabaletta common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO; and/or
Cabaletta securities during the Class Period, you have until April
29, 2022 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.

Cabaletta, a clinical-stage biotechnology company, focuses on the
discovery and development of engineered T cell therapies for
patients with B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases. The Company's
proprietary technology utilizes chimeric autoantibody receptor
(CAAR) T cells that are designed to selectively bind and eliminate
B cells, which produce disease-causing autoantibodies or pathogenic
B cells. Cabaletta's lead product candidate is DSG3-CAART, which is
in Phase I clinical trial for the treatment of mucosal pemphigus
vulgaris (the "Phase 1 Clinical Trial"), an autoimmune blistering
skin disease, and Hemophilia A with Factor VIII alloantibodies.

On September 30, 2019, Cabaletta filed a registration statement on
Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after
amendment, was declared effective by the SEC on October 24, 2019
(the "Registration Statement").

On October 25, 2019, Cabaletta filed a prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and
formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and,
together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering
Documents").

Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Cabaletta conducted the IPO,
selling approximately 6.8 million shares of common stock priced at
$11.00 per share, for approximate proceeds of $69.5 million to the
Company after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions,
and before expenses.

The complaint alleges that, the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) top-line data of the
Phase 1 Clinical Trial indicated that DSG3-CAART had, among other
things, worsened certain participants' disease activity scores and
necessitated additional systemic medication to improve disease
activity after DSG3-CAART infusion; (ii) accordingly, DSG3-CAART
was not as effective as the Company had represented to investors;
(iii) therefore, the Company had overstated DSG3-CAART's clinical
and/or commercial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On December 14, 2021, Cabaletta issued a press release "report[ing]
top-line data on biologic activity from the two lowest dose cohorts
in the DesCAARTes(TM) Phase 1 clinical trial of DSG3-CAART for the
treatment of patients with mucosal Pemphigus Vulgaris (mPV)." Among
other results, Cabaletta reported that two cohort participants had
"disease activity scores that worsened . . . after DSG3-CAART
infusion" and thus "reduced or discontinued selected systemic
therapies prior to DSG3-CAART infusion, as required by the
protocol", while another participant "subsequently received
systemic medication to improve disease activity after DSG3-CAART
infusion."

On this news, Cabaletta's stock price fell $9.15 per share, or
73.14%, to close at $3.36 per share on December 14, 2021.

As of the time this Complaint was filed, the price of Cabaletta
common stock continues to trade below the $11.00 per share Offering
price, damaging investors.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
URL: http://pomlaw.com

Contact Information:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

CABALETTA BIO: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 1 disclosed that
purchasers of Cabaletta Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: CABA): (a) common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents issued in
connection with Cabaletta Bio's initial public offering conducted
on or about October 24, 2019 (the "IPO"); and/or (b) securities
between October 24, 2019 and December 13, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period") have until April 29, 2022 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in Patterson v. Cabaletta Bio, Inc., No. 22-cv-00737
(E.D. Pa.). Commenced on February 28, 2022, the Cabaletta Bio class
action lawsuit charges Cabaletta Bio as well as certain of its top
executives and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and/or Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Cabaletta Bio class action lawsuit, please provide
your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney
J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via
e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Cabaletta Bio class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than April 29, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Cabaletta Bio's lead product candidate is
DSG3-CAART, which is in Phase I clinical trial for the treatment of
mucosal pemphigus vulgaris (the "Phase 1 Clinical Trial"), an
autoimmune blistering skin disease, and Hemophilia A with Factor
VIII alloantibodies. Pursuant to its IPO, Cabaletta Bio sold
approximately 6.8 million shares of common stock priced at $11.00
per share, for approximate proceeds of $69.5 million to Cabaletta
Bio after applicable underwriting discounts and commissions, and
before expenses.

The Cabaletta Bio class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO's
offering documents and defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) top-line data of the
Phase 1 Clinical Trial indicated that DSG3-CAART had, among other
things, worsened certain participants' disease activity scores and
necessitated additional systemic medication to improve disease
activity after DSG3-CAART infusion; (ii) accordingly, DSG3-CAART
was not as effective as Cabaletta Bio had represented to investors;
(iii) therefore, Cabaletta Bio had overstated DSG3-CAART's clinical
and/or commercial prospects; and (iv) as a result, Cabaletta Bio's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On December 14, 2021, Cabaletta Bio issued a press release
"report[ing] top-line data on biologic activity from the two lowest
dose cohorts in the DesCAARTes™ Phase 1 clinical trial of
DSG3-CAART for the treatment of patients with mucosal Pemphigus
Vulgaris (mPV)." Among other results, Cabaletta Bio reported that
two cohort participants had "disease activity scores . . that
worsened . . . after DSG3-CAART infusion" and thus "reduced or
discontinued selected systemic therapies prior to DSG3-CAART
infusion, as required by the protocol," while another participant
"subsequently received systemic medication to improve disease
activity after DSG3-CAART infusion." On this news, Cabaletta Bio's
stock price fell by more than 73%, damaging investors.

As of the time the Cabaletta Bio class action lawsuit was filed,
the price of Cabaletta Bio common stock continues to trade below
the $11.00 per share IPO price.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Cabaletta
Bio: (a) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the offering
documents issued in connection with the IPO, and/or (b) securities
during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in
the Cabaletta Bio class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the 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 in any
potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron
Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top
50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion
for investors that year, more than double the amount recovered by
any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.

Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Faces Washington Suit Over Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERRANCES WASHINGTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CAPITAL ACCOUNTS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01935
(S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2022) is a class action complaint for damages
and declaratory relief arising from the Defendants' violation of
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors
from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.

Capital Accounts caused to be delivered to the Plaintiff a letter
dated October 5, 2021, concerning the alleged LENZO, MD
obligation.

The Plaintiff understood Defendant's October 5, 2021 letter to mean
that if he accepted Defendant's offer to make payment, he would
satisfy in full the LENZO MD obligation. Further, the Plaintiff
understood Defendant's October 5, 2021 letter to mean that if he
accepted Defendant's offer to make payment, the tradeline
associated with the LENZO MD obligation would be updated to
indicate the LENZO MD obligation was satisfied in full, says the
suit.

Despite receiving Plaintiff's December 29, 2021 letter, the
Defendant has continued to report to the national credit bureaus
that that the balance owed on the LENZO MD obligation was $766.00.

Capital Accounts is a "Debt Collector."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          One Grand Central Plaza
          60 East 42nd. Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (646) 459-7971
          Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

CERENCE INC: Robbins LLP Reminds of April 26 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased Cerence Inc. (NASDAQ: CRNC)
common stock between February 8, 2021 and February 4, 2022, for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Cerence builds
artificial intelligence-powered virtual assistants primarily for
the automotive market.

What is this Case About: Cerence Inc. (CRNC) Misled the Investing
Public Regarding its Business, Operations, and Prospects

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that: (1) the global semiconductor shortage had
a materially negative impact on demand for Cerence's software
licenses; and (2) defendants masked the impact of the semiconductor
shortage on demand for the Company's software licenses by pulling
forward sales. As a result, defendants' statements about Cerence's
business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading.

The truth was revealed during a series of disclosures. On November
22, 2021, the Company released its results for fiscal fourth
quarter and full year 2021, and provided guidance for fiscal 2022
that was below analysts' expectations. The Company's CFO explained
the Company's conservative approach "due to the ongoing
semiconductor shortage . . ." However, Cerence stood by its 2024
outlook. Over two days, the stock fell from $104.06 on November 19,
2021 to $78.27 per share on November 22, 2021.

Then, on February 7, 2022, Cerence announced its financial results
for the fiscal first quarter of 2022, providing "a 9% decrease at
the midpoint compared to the initial FY22 guidance provided on
November 22, 2021, and a 3% decrease at the mid-point compared to
last year's actual revenue of $387 million." Further, the Company
announced it was "withdrawing the fiscal [20]24 target model
previously provided . . ." In response, the price of Cerence stock
dropped more than 30%, from a closing price of $63.58 on February
4, 2022, to a closing price of $43.61 per share on February 7,
2022.

Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Cerence Inc. (CRNC) between
February 8, 2021 and February 4, 2022, you have until April 26,
2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to
participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

Contact us to learn more:
Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
|adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against Cerence Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when
corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch
today.

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

Contacts
Aaron Dumas
Robbins LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]

CERENCE INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 26 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 28
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Cerence Inc. (NASDAQ: CRNC) between
February 8, 2021 and February 4, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than April 26, 2022.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Cerence 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 Cerence class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3722 or 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 April 26, 2022. 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 global semiconductor
shortage had a materially negative impact on demand for Cerence's
software licenses; (2) defendants masked the impact of the
semiconductor shortage on demand for the Company's software
licenses by pulling forward sales; and (3) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' statements about Cerence's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Cerence class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3722 or 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.

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]

CHAPARRAL COUNTRY: Hassmer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chaparral Country
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Ashley Hassmer, an
individual, on behalf of, herself and all other similarly situated
v. Chaparral Country Corporation, a California Corporation; Does 1
to 50; Case No. CGC22598519 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
March 4, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Chaparral Country Corporation --
https://www.chaparralcorporation.com/ -- horseback riding lessons,
trail rides, pony rides, and camps in the heart of Silicon
Valley.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1801 Century Park E., Ste. 850
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346
          Phone: 310-824-3828
          Fax: 310-862-6851
          Email: jm@melmedlaw.com


CHRISTIAN ART GIFTS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christian Art Gifts,
Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Christian Art Gifts, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01843 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Christian Art Gifts -- https://www.christianartgifts.com/ -- is the
leader wholesale Christian gifts, bibles, bible covers, journals,
and other Christian products for over 20 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


CITY WAV CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramos Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY WAV CORP.; ANDRE "DOE", and "JOHN DOES
I–V", Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00990 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23,
2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Ramos was employed by the Defendant as driver.

CITY WAV CORP. owns, operates and controls a medical transportation
company known as "City Wav". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 792-0046
          Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com


CLARIVATE PLC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 25 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 27 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

CLVT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/clarivate-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=24087&wire=1
AFIB Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/acutus-medical-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=24087&wire=1
SPWR Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sunpower-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=24087&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *

CLVT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26,
2021 - December 27, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 25, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/clarivate-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=24087&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Clarivate Plc made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Clarivate maintained defective
disclosure controls and procedures as a result of a material
weakness in its internal control over financial reporting; (ii) the
foregoing material weakness was not limited to how the Company
accounted for warrants; (iii) as a result, Clarivate failed to
properly account for an equity plan included in its acquisition of
CPA Global, a global leader in Intellectual Property software and
tech-enabled services; (iv) accordingly, the Company was reasonably
likely to restate one or more of its previously issued financial
statements following its acquisition of CPA Global; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

This lawsuit is on behalf of all purchasers of Acutus common stock
between May 13, 2021 and November 11, 2021, inclusive.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 18, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/acutus-medical-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=24087&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (a) a material percentage of the
Company's AcQMap imaging and mapping systems under evaluation had
been randomly installed at sites with little, if any, consideration
given to whether the healthcare providers at the selected locations
were likely to adopt, or desire, the Company's products; (b) a
material percentage of the AcQMap systems under evaluation had been
installed in locations where the Company did not possess the
infrastructure necessary to appropriately educate, train, and
support medical service providers on the system's operations; (c)
as a result of (a) and (b) above, defendants were in the process of
designing a strategic plan to terminate and relocate approximately
20% of then-existing AcQMap systems evaluation arrangements; (d)
the Company's management discussion and analysis was materially
false and misleading and failed to disclose that the termination
and relocation of approximately 20% of existing AcQMap systems
evaluation arrangements was reasonably likely to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's 2021 financial results; and (e) the
Company's risk factor discussions were materially false and
misleading and made reference to potential risks without disclosing
that such risks were then-existing or adequately describing the
specific nature of the risks then facing the Company.

SunPower Corporation

SPWR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 3, 2021 -
January 20, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 18, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/sunpower-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=24087&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, SunPower
Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain connectors used by
SunPower suffered from cracking issues; (2) as a result, the
Company was reasonably likely to incur costs to remediate the
faulty connectors; (3) as a result of the foregoing, SunPower's
financial results would 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.

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

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

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

CLOUDFARM INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CloudFarm, Inc. The
case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. CloudFarm, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01844-AJN (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Cloudfarms -- https://en.cloudfarms.com/ -- is the first fully
cloud-based solution for managing and analyzing the production data
at large-scale, multi-sited pig farms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com



CLV INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CLV, Inc. The case is
styled as Robert Weekes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CLV, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01849 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 4, 2022).

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

CLV, Inc. is located in Tempe, Arizona and is part of the Computer
Systems Design and Related Services Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Riverdale Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consolidated Edison
Company Of New York, Inc. The case is styled as Riverdale Jewish
Center, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Consolidated Edison Company Of New York, Inc., Case No. 651032/2022
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., March 4, 2022).

Consolidated Edison Company -- https://www.coned.com/ -- provides
electric, gas, and steam to NYC and Westchester.[BN]



COVID 19 RAPID TEST: Montour Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Covid 19 Rapid Test
NYC Inc. The case is styled as Danielle Montour, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. Covid 19
Rapid Test NYC Inc. doing business as: Rapid Test NYC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01878 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2022).

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

Covid 19 Rapid Test NYC Inc. doing business as Rapid Test NYC --
https://www.rapidtest.nyc/ -- is NYC's premier rapid COVID testing
center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CURA CANNABIS: Settles Class Action Over Mislabeled Vapes
---------------------------------------------------------
Mike Rogoway, writing for The Oregonian/OregonLive, reports that an
Oregon court settlement is preparing to begin paying out up to $200
to people who bought vapes that were improperly labeled as 100%
marijuana.

Portland-based Cura Cannabis agreed to pay a $110,000 "dishonest
conduct" penalty in a January 2020 settlement with Oregon marijuana
regulators. The company's former owners then agreed last year to a
separate, $500,000 class-action settlement to people who bought the
Select brand marijuana vapes.

The case administrators said on Feb. 27 they are ready to begin
taking claims at oregonclassactionsettlement.com. Claim forms are
also available by writing to Cura Settlement, c/o CPT Group, Inc,
50 Corporate Park, Irvine, CA 92606; or by emailing
oregonclassactionsettlement@cptgroup.com.

Claimants must have purchased Select Elite, Select Pax or Select
Dabbables vapes between Aug. 15, 2018 and Nov. 22, 2019. The
packaging on the eligible products did not note that ingredients
included botanical terpenes.

The deadline for filing a claim or opting out of the settlement is
April 29.

Portland attorney Michael Fuller, who led the case for plaintiffs,
said claimants will receive their settlement by check, direct bank
deposit or through PayPal or Venmo. He said he modeled the
settlement after a 2014 Oregon class-action against BP, ensuring
that claimants receive cash rather than coupons or some other form
of diminished compensation.

Up to 186,000 Oregonians bought the mislabeled vapes, but the
settlement forecast that fewer than 1% will actually file claims
because Oregon marijuana sales are cash only and because buyers
bought the vapes through third-party retailers.

The settlement pays out $200 per claim, unless the number of claims
exceeds the funds available. Any unclaimed funds will be split
evenly between the Oregon State Bar and a consumer advocacy
nonprofit, the Oregon Consumer League.

Attorneys in the case are seeking a quarter of the $500,000
settlement, which amounts to $125,000.

Cura is now owned by a Massachusetts company called Curaleaf, which
is facing a separate investigation by Oregon regulators for
inadvertently including THC -- the psychoactive ingredient in
marijuana -- in CBD wellness drops sold in Oregon last year.

At least four people reported going to emergency rooms after
unwittingly consuming the tainted wellness drops. Curaleaf has
settled 10 individual lawsuits in that case. At least one suit is
still pending. [GN]


CURA PARTNERS: May 11 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
CPT Group, Inc., on Feb. 27 announced a proposed Settlement in a
class action lawsuit called Pope, et al. v. Cura Partners, Inc.,
State of Oregon, Multnomah County Circuit Court, Case No. 20CV05932
(the "Settlement").

What is this about? This Settlement proposes to release the claims
of Oregon consumers based on Cura Partners, Inc's ("Cura" or
"Defendant") alleged failure to disclose that 186,000 mislabeled
units of its products contained botanical terpenes, as alleged in
the class action complaint filed January 31, 2020. The Court has
not decided which side is right. Instead, the parties have decided
to settle this case.

Who is affected? Oregon residents who are over the age of 21, and
purchased in Oregon cannabis/THC product from the Select Elite,
Select Pax, and/or Select Dabbables product lines, including
cartridges, disposable pens, or pods (the "Product Lines"), during
the period between August 15, 2018 and November 22, 2019 (the
"Purchase Period"), and where the packaging did not include the
existence of botanically derived terpenes and/or medium-chain
triglyceride (MCT) as an ingredient in the Product Lines (the
"Product Packaging").

What does the Settlement provide? The Settlement provides monetary
relief.

Monetary Relief: The Settlement provides that defendant, directly
or through their insurers, shall pay $500,000 to the settlement
fund, which will be used to pay attorney fees to class counsel, and
to pay $200 on each timely and approved claim from the class
members, or less depending on how many claims are submitted until
the fund is fully exhausted.

How do I file a claim? To receive a cash payment, go to
www.oregonclassactionsettlement.com to file or download a Claim
Form. You can also write: Cura Settlement; c/o CPT Group, Inc, 50
Corporate Park, Irvine, CA 92606 or email
oregonclassactionsettlement@cptgroup.com. All Claim Forms must be
submitted online or postmarked by April 29, 2022.

What are my other options? You can do nothing, exclude yourself, or
object to the Settlement.

Do Nothing: If you do nothing, you will give up your right to sue
or continue to sue Cura for the claims in this case.

Exclude Yourself: If you exclude yourself or remove yourself from
the Class, you will keep your right to sue or continue to sue Cura
for the claims in this case. Exclusion requests must be postmarked
by April 29, 2022.

Object: If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, you may
object to it or tell the Court what you don't like about the
Settlement. Objections must be postmarked by April 29, 2022.

For details about your rights and options and how to exclude
yourself or object, go to www.oregonclassactionsettlement.com.

What happens next? The Court will hold a hearing on May 11, 2022,
at 9:00 AM PST in the courtroom of the Judge, Shelley D. Russell,
Multnomah County Courthouse, 1200 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR
97204, Courtroom 15-C, to consider the final approval of the
Settlement, payment of attorneys' fees to class counsel, incentive
awards for the class representative, and other related issues. The
motion(s) by class counsel for attorneys' fees and costs and
incentive awards for class representative will be available for
viewing at www.oregonclassactionsettlement.com after they are
filed. You may appear at the hearing in person or through your
attorney at your own cost, but you are not required to do so.

How do I get more information? For more information and to view the
full notice, go to www.oregonclassactionsettlement.com, or contact
the Settlement Administrator by writing Cura Settlement; c/o CPT
Group, Inc, 50 Corporate Park, Irvine, CA 92606 emailing
oregonclassactionsettlement@cptgroup.com, or calling
1-888-723-0618.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE [GN]

DOJO BRANDS: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dojo Brands LLC. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Dojo Brands LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01800 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

DoJo Brands LLC doing business as GATSBY --
https://www.gatsbychocolate.com/ -- offers plant-based and vegan
Almond Dark Chocolate and Sea Salt Extra Dark Chocolate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


DSMB PARTNERS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DSMB Partners, LLC.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. DSMB Partners, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01816-ALC (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

DSMB Partners, LLC is a California Domestic Limited-Liability
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


DUTCHESS RECREATIONAL: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dutchess Recreational
Vehicles, Inc. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Dutchess
Recreational Vehicles, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01828 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 3, 2022).

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

Dutchess Recreational Vehicles -- https://www.dutchessrec.com/ --
is a Kawasaki motorcycle dealer in New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELECTRIC LAST: Klein Law Firm Reminds of April 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on March 1 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Electric Last
Mile Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Forum Merger III Corp. (NASDAQ: ELMS)
alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.

Class Period: March 31, 2021 to February 1, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 4, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in ELMS:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/electric-last-mile-solutions-inc-f-k-a-forum-merger-iii-corp-loss-submission-form?id=24105&from=4

Electric Last Mile Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Forum Merger III Corp.
NEWS - ELMS NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
Electric Last Mile Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Forum Merger III Corp.
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) ELMS's previously issued financial statements
were false and unreliable; (2) ELMS's earlier reported financial
statements would need restatement; (3) certain ELMS executives
and/or directors purchased equity in the Company at substantial
discounts to market value without obtaining an independent
valuation; (4) on November 25, 2021 (Thanksgiving), the Company's
Board formed an independent Special Committee to conduct an inquiry
into certain sales of equity securities made by and to individuals
associated with the Company; and (5) 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.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in ELMS you have untilApril 4, 2022 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the ELMS lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this
link:https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/electric-last-mile-solutions-inc-f-k-a-forum-merger-iii-corp-loss-submission-form?id=24105&from=4.

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

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

EMPIRE POINT BOATING: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empire Point Boating
Center Inc. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Empire Point
Boating Center Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01829-ALC (S.D.N.Y., March 3,
2022).

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

Empire Point Boating Center -- https://empirepointmarina.com/home/
-- is a full service family owned marina since 1985 located in
Island Park, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Fogel Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Sarah Fogel, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC doing business as ERC, Case No. 7:22-cv-01870-VB
(S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2022).

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

Enhanced Recovery Company (ERC) -- https://ercbpo.com/ -- is a debt
collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com


EOS USA: Callirgos Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed EOS USA Inc. The case is
styled as Veronika Callirgos, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EOS USA Inc. d/b/a EOS CCA, Case No.
2:22-cv-01178 (D.N.J., March 3, 2022).

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

EOS -- https://www.eos-usa.com/ -- is one of America's largest
customer care and receivables management companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


FAKE BAKE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fake Bake LLC. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Fake Bake LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01809
(S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Fake Bake LLC -- https://www.fakebake.com/ -- is an industry leader
in Sunless Tanning products, from retail to professional
formulas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


FAT BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against FAT
Brands Inc. ("FAT Brands" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FAT) on behalf
of FAT Brands stockholders. Our investigation concerns whether FAT
Brands has violated the federal securities laws and/or engaged in
other unlawful business practices.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. FAT Brands is the subject of a report
published by the Los Angeles Times on February 19, 2022. According
to the Times, "Federal authorities have been investigating Andrew
Wiederhorn, Chief Executive of the company that owns the Fatburger
and Johnny Rockets restaurant chains, and examining one of his
family member's actions as part of an inquiry into allegations of
securities and wire fraud, money laundering and attempted tax
evasion, court records show."

On this news, FAT Brands' stock fell $2.42, or 22.9%, to close at
$8.14 per share on February 22, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired FAT Brands shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or
Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone
at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.  There is
no cost or obligation to you.

Contacts

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

FILTERS FAST: Judge Refuses to Approve Settlement for Second Time
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Privacy World previously covered the Powers litigation
pending in the Western District of Wisconsin, which involves a
class action filed in the wake of a data event that allegedly
involved the compromise of credit card information of Filters Fast,
LLC's customers between July 2019 and July 2020. The court
overseeing the case yet again declined to grant approval to a
settlement negotiated between the parties, sending both sides back
to the drawing board to address notice related concerns. Powers v.
Filters Fast, LLC, 20-cv-982-jdp (W.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2022).

CPW's Kristin Bryan, earlier in February the court had declined to
grant final sign off on a settlement based on deficiencies the
court identified in three areas: (1) adequacy of the notice to the
class, the (2) fairness of the settlement, and (3) the
reasonableness of class counsel's request for fees and costs. You
can read more about this prior decision here. The court ordered
supplemental briefing and information to be provided by Feb. 22 to
address these concerns.

However, only 48 hours after Plaintiffs submitted these materials
the court denied the motion for final settlement approval. Why? The
decision was apparently based on plaintiffs' own submission, as the
court said the filing "show[ed] that notice to the class was
deficient in two respects."

The general notice framework followed in the case was a three-step
process:

First, the class administrator sent an email to each of the
approximately 323,000 class members.

Second, the administrator sent notice through the U.S. mail to
class members that the administrator determined had not received
the email notice.

Third, approximately one month after sending the first email, the
administrator sent a "reminder" email to class members who hadn't
yet filed a claim.

Notwithstanding this multifaceted approach, the court noted that
the response rate of class members was only "a little over one
percent, or 3,740 claims." The court faulted this low response
rate, in light of the fact that the terms of the settlement itself
"allowed each class member to submit a claim for $25 without
showing any individualized injury, raising the question whether
something had gone awry during the notice process."
However, in response to concerns raised about the low take rate,
Plaintiffs' counsel failed to provide any explanation to the court
in their supplemental filing, stating only "you can lead a horse to
water, but you cannot make him drink."

Reviewing information provided by Plaintiffs, the court found that
"new information plaintiffs provided reveal two problems with the
notice process that may have contributed to the low response
rate."

First, the court observed that the "[settlement] administrator now
states that it did not even attempt to send mail notice to 6,728
class members who did not receive email notice" due to an
"administrative error." The court held that "Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 requires reasonable notice to all class members, so
the court will have to defer settlement approval until the parties
make reasonable efforts to send mail notice to the 6,728 class
members at issue."

Second, the court also faulted the email format of the
communications sent to the class as the subject line of the emails
merely stated "Legal Notice" and the sender was
"noreply@hcgsettlements.com." The court commented that this
"information does nothing to alert the reader what the subject of
the email actually is, who the email is from, or why the email is
important."

As a result of these findings, the court yet again denied the
motion for final approval without prejudice, cancelled the
settlement approval hearing, and directed the parties to cure the
notice defects before renewing their motion for final approval.

This decision underscores the importance of the mechanics of how
notice is provided to the class in any data privacy class action
settlement. The court's ruling in a nutshell was that "[t]he court
can't approve the settlement before these problems with notice are
resolved. A settlement that is otherwise fair provides little
benefit for the class if few of them are aware that they are
entitled to participate in the settlement." (emphasis supplied). Of
course, counsel in data privacy and cybersecurity litigations will
now be keeping a closer eye to these issues to avoid a similar
result in other cases. For more on this, stay tuned. CPW will be
there to keep you in the loop. [GN]

FILTERS FAST: Judge Rejects Proposed Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that would you open an
unsolicited mass email with the subject heading, "Legal Notice"?

Probably not, according to Chief U.S. District Judge James Peterson
of Madison, Wisconsin. You'd probably think the email was spam,
Peterson said, and would delete the message without reading it.
Even if you opened it, Peterson said, you'd likely be put off by
the repetition of the phrase, "legal notice," in the body of the
email. You'd probably not realize that the email was a notification
about a class action settlement that entitled you to a cash payout
of as much as $750.

That vague email subject line and off-putting text, Peterson said,
might explain why only 3,740 of the more than 323,000 people whose
credit and debit card information was allegedly exposed in a
year-long malware attack on online filter retailer Filters Fast LLC
actually filed a claim in the settlement - even though class
members were eligible for a $25 payout without documenting any
losses at all.

Peterson rejected the settlement proposed by class counsel from
Mason Lietz & Klinger, Federman & Sherwood, and Ademi & O'Reilly,
holding that they and class action administrator Kroll Settlement
Administration LLC failed to explain why class members were
notified about the deal in an email with an "uninformative"
header.

"The court cannot discern a plausible basis for it," the judge
wrote. "Common sense suggests that the email would deter rather
than facilitate a high response rate from class members."

Peterson's ruling was actually the second time the judge denied
approval of the proposed settlement. He first raised concerns about
the notice to class members in a Feb. 15 decision in which he also
questioned class counsel's request for $320,000 in fees and costs.
Peterson's new ruling, which followed a second round of briefing
from plaintiffs lawyers on both their fees and the claims process,
did not address the fee request.

Plaintiffs lawyer David Lietz of Mason Lietz told me by email that
he and his colleagues will try again to win approval. "We intend to
address the judge's concerns, cure any notice defects and bring
this settlement home for the benefit of the class," Lietz said.

It's worth taking a look at the structure of the proposed deal. You
may have noticed that I haven't mentioned the size of the
settlement fund. That's because there isn't one.

The so-called claims-made settlement offers $750 to any class
member who can document expenses or losses from a fraudulent
transaction involving a card compromised in the Filters Fast hack.
That offer is uncapped. So too is an offer of up to $60 for class
members who can show they spent time dealing with a fraudulent
transaction on a compromised card.

Class members with potentially compromised cards but no documented
losses or expenses are entitled to a $25 payout -- but Filters Fast
is only required to pay a total of $175,000 to class members in
that tier. If more than 7,000 class members submit valid claims for
the no-documents payout, their payments will be reduced pro rata.

As of mid-February, according to a plaintiffs' most recent filing,
85 class members had claimed $750 cash payouts, 121 had filed
claims for $60 and 3,534 had claimed $25. The total potential cash
payout to the 3,740 class members asserting claims, the filing
said, was expected to be about $110,000.

I asked plaintiffs' lawyers if a low claims rate was baked into the
settlement. The judge who rejected the deal said he couldn't
"discern a plausible basis" for the vague notice sent to class
members. But Filters Fast only promised to pay out cash to class
members who actually made claims. Wasn't that an incentive to keep
the claims rate low?

Filters Fast lawyers Christian Poland and Colin Dailey of Bryan
Cave Leighton Paisner did not respond to my query about the
rejected settlement. But class counsel Lietz denied that the deal
assumed a low claims rate.

"That's not accurate at all," he said. "There is no assumption of a
low claims rate in this settlement."

Class counsel, he said, were "keenly aware" that cash payouts to
the class depended on the number of class members who actually
filed claims. To maximize claims, he said, he and his colleagues
"fought hard" for a settlement provision calling for class members
to receive a second round of emails after the initial notice. That
kind of follow-up reminder notice "does not occur very often in any
class action settlement," Lietz said.

Plaintiffs lawyers also told Peterson in their latest filings that
the claims rate of just over 1% is in line with other data breach
settlements that have won approval, including a settlement that
Peterson approved last year. "Thus, while this may appear to be a
low response rate, it is not," class counsel said, although they
conceded that it was "perplexing that class members didn't step
forward in greater numbers to claim what is a substantial cash
benefit ($25) with essentially no documentation."

Notably, plaintiffs' request for $320,000 in fees and costs was
negotiated independently of the class settlement and is slated to
be paid directly by Filters Fast. In their original fee request,
class counsel portrayed $320,000 as 22% of the benefit claimed by
the class, citing, in addition to class claims for cash payouts,
credit monitoring service available to class members and business
practices changes pledged by the company. Peterson said he was
concerned about evaluating those changes, and, more fundamentally,
about awarding fees of more than twice the cash payout to the
class.

In their revised fee briefing, plaintiffs lawyers reframed their
$320,000 request as a lodestar fee with a very slight negative
multiplier. As I mentioned, Peterson's second rejection of the
settlement did not address the fee request. I would hope that when
he rules on class counsel's promised third try for approval, he
discusses the fee request in the context of a claims-made deal.
[GN]

FORD MOTOR: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Tershakovec Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled GEORGE TERSHAKOVEC, DIANA
TERSHAKOVEC, JACQUES RIMOKH, HERBERT ALLEY, MICHAEL DELAGARZA,
ATTILA GONDAN, ERIC KAMPERMAN, GREG ROBERTS, RICHARD KOWALCHIK,
TRAVIS MCRAE, MICHAEL MCCURRY, MARK HOCHSPRUNG, JOHN AUBREY, JOSE
CRUZ, ERIC EVANS, BYRON HARPER, and TODD NEWTON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Case No. 1:17-cv-21087-FAM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The Plaintiffs are purchasers of Defendant Ford's Shelby GT350
Mustang car. The Shelby Mustang is a performance version of the
standard Mustang. It is several cuts above both the base version of
the Mustang and the Mustang GT (which has a V8 engine). Only true
car enthusiasts opt for the Shelby GT350, and they do so mainly for
its racing and track capabilities. In fact, the name "Shelby" comes
from Carroll Shelby, a race car driver and designer for Ford in the
mid-20th century. Indeed, Ford touted the Shelby as "an all-day
track car that is also street legal."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 6, 2021, the Court
entered an order:

1. granting Ford summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims concerning
the occurrence of Limp Mode on public roads, all of Plaintiff
Cruz's claims, the express and implied warranty claims of
Plaintiffs Roberts, Hochsprung, Kowalchik, and Porter, as well as
the express warranty claims of any class members who did not
fulfill their presentment and notice obligations. Summary judgment
was denied on all other claims.

2. certifying nine state law classes and Magnuson-Moss classes in
Texas and California under Rule 23(b)(3). The class is defined as:

   "All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from a Ford-
   authorized dealer or distributor located in [insert state
   here] before April 1, 2016."

The Court said, "The class certification decision was closer than
the summary judgment decision. Ford raises the valid concern that
Plaintiffs cannot prove elements of their claims, such as reliance,
on a classwide basis and the valid concern that it will seek to
raise unique affirmative defenses for each class member. But
Plaintiffs have done enough to show that these facts permit
presumptions of reliance and that Ford's evidence of potential
affirmative defenses is not strong enough to defeat the
predominance of common issues. Requiring every issue to be common
would defeat the utility of the class action device. Thus, with the
class definition set out by the Court above, the Court certifies
statutory and common law fraud classes in California, Florida,
Illinois, New York, and Washington; statutory fraud classes in
Missouri and Texas; common law fraud classes in Oregon and
Tennessee; and implied warranty and Magnuson-Moss classes in
California and Texas. Grossman, Roth, Yaffa, and Cohen and Hagens
Berman are appointed as class counsel and are directed to give
absent class members appropriate notice under Rule 23."

The Defendant is taking a review from this order.

The appellate case is captioned as George Tershakovec, et al. v.
Ford Motor Company, Inc., Case No. 22-10575, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on February 28,
2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
before March 14, 2022 as to Appellant Ford Motor Company, Inc.;
and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before March 28, 2022 as to Appellee Herbert Alley.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC. is represented by:

          John H. Beisner, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
          1440 New York Ave NW Ste 600
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 371-7000

               - and -

          Sean Hernandez, Esq.
          Henry Salas, Esq.
          COLE SCOTT & KISSANE, PA
          9150 S Dadeland Blvd Ste 1400
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (954) 703-3705
          E-mail: henry.salas@csklegal.com

               - and -

          John M. Thomas, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT, PLLC
          2723 S State St Ste 400
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104-6188
          Telephone: (734) 214-7660
          E-mail: jthomas@dykema.com  

Plaintiffs-Appellees GEORGE TERSHAKOVEC, DIANA TERSHAKOVEC, JACQUES
RIMOKH, HERBERT ALLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; MICHAEL DELAGARZA, ATTILA GONDAN, ERIC
KAMPERMAN, GREG ROBERTS, RICHARD KOWALCHIK, TRAVIS MCRAE, MICHAEL
MCCURRY, MARK HOCHSPRUNG, JOHN AUBREY, JOSE CRUZ, ERIC EVANS, BYRON
HARPER, TODD NEWTON, WAYNE LINN, STEPHEN KELLY, JILL KELLY, FRANK
PORTER, ERNESTO LARIOS, SHAUNTI YANIK-LARIOS, and JOSH LONG are
represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 N Lake Ave Ste 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com   

               - and -

          Rachel W. Furst, Esq.
          GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, PA
          2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd Ste 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 442-8666
          E-mail: rwf@grossmanroth.com  

               - and -

          Catherine Y.N. Gannon, Esq.
          Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq.
          Shelby R. Smith, Esq.
          Nicholas Styant-Browne, Esq.
          Garth Daniel Wojtanowicz, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
          1301 2nd Ave Ste 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: catherineg@hbsslaw.com  

               - and -

          Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq.
          GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, PA
          2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd Ste 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 442-8666
          E-mail: szg@grossmanroth.com

FORD MOTOR: Michigan Judge Tosses Fuel Economy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brett Foote, writing for Ford Authority, reports that back in 2019,
a $1.2 billion dollar Ford fuel economy class-action lawsuit was
filed alleging that FoMoCo knowingly misrepresented fuel economy
numbers for the Ford F-150 and Ford Ranger by 10-15 percent.
Another similar Ford fuel economy class-action lawsuit was filed
roughly a year later alleging that F-150 and Ranger models were
sold with inaccurate fuel economy ratings listed on the window
stickers and that The Blue Oval cheated on fuel economy testing,
then advertised and sold the trucks with the wrong fuel economy
estimates. Now, a Michigan federal judge has dismissed the lawsuit
-- which has since been consolidated from multiple cases --
according to Car Complaints.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that both the Ranger and F-150
feature fuel economy ratings that are considerably higher than what
the window stickers state, which forces owners to pay thousands of
dollars more for fuel over the course of ownership than expected.

Regardless, Judge Sean F. Cox agreed with Ford's argument that the
lawsuit and its claims must be dismissed because they're preempted
under federal law, and for the fact that "EPA fuel economy
estimates are not, and have never been, guarantees of real-world
fuel economy performance." The judge agreed and noted that mileage
will vary. "Ratings are a useful tool for comparing the fuel
economies of different vehicles but may not accurately predict the
average [miles per gallon] you will get," Cox said.

Ford has noted all along that the EPA's fuel economy ratings are in
fact estimates, and Cox also pointed out that window stickers are
required to state that "actual results will vary for many reasons,
including driving conditions and how you drive and maintain your
vehicle." The EPA also stresses that real-world driving "will often
yield different results than those obtained under the EPA's testing
process."

We'll have more on all Ford lawsuits soon, so be sure and subscribe
to Ford Authority for the latest Ford F-Series news, Ford F-150
news, Ford Ranger news, Ford lawsuit news, and continuous Ford news
coverage. [GN]

FRONTSTREAM HOLDINGS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontstream Holdings,
LLC. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Frontstream Holdings, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01818-VEC (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2022).

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

Frontstream Holdings -- https://www.frontstream.com/ -- is a #1
digital fundraising platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


FUNKO LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Funko, LLC. The case
is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Funko, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01842 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 3, 2022).

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

Funko Inc. -- https://www.funko.com/ -- is an American company that
manufactures licensed and limited pop culture collectibles, best
known for its licensed vinyl figurines and bobbleheads.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


GATOS SILVER: ClaimsFiler Reminds of April 25 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until April 25, 2022 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
Gatos Silver, Inc. (NYSE: GATO), if they purchased the Company's
securities between October 28, 2020 and January 25, 2022, inclusive
(the "Class Period") and/or purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's shares pursuant to the Company's October 2020 initial
public offering (the "IPO"). This action is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.

Gatos Silver investors should visit us at
https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-gato or call toll-free (844)
367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to
discuss your legal options.

About the Lawsuit

Gatos Silver and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period and/or in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in conjunction
with the initial public offering, violating federal securities
laws.

On January 25, 2022, post-market, the Company revealed "errors in
the technical report entitled 'Los Gatos Project, Chihuahua,
Mexico' with an effective date of July 1, 2020 . . . , as well as
indications that there is an overestimation in the existing
resource model" and that on a preliminary basis, the Company
estimated a potential reduction of the metal content of its CLG's
mineral reserve ranging from 30% to 50% of the metal content
remaining after depletion.

On this news, shares of Gatos Silver fell $7.02 per share, or
approximately 68.9%, to close at $3.17 per share on January 26,
2022.

The case is Bilinsky v. Gatos Silver, Inc., et al., No. 22-cv-453.

About ClaimsFiler

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

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com. [GN]

GEICO CASUALTY: Purcell Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Purcell, Jr., individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Geico Casualty Company,
GEICO Indemnity Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on March 4, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00825 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

GEICO Casualty Company -- https://www.geico.com/ -- operates as an
insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          1114 Ave of The Americas 38th Fl.
          New York, NY 10036-7703
          Phone: (212) 389-5000
          Email: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com



GOLDEN KRUST: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Krust
Carribean Bakery, Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Golden Krust
Carribean Bakery, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01223 (E.D.N.Y., March 6,
2022).

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

Golden Krust Caribbean Bakery, Inc. -- https://www.goldenkrust.com/
-- is a Caribbean Fast casual restaurant operator and manufacturer
of Caribbean cuisine including Jamaican food, Jamaican patty, and
other baked goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Falberg ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Leonid Falberg, as
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the Goldman Sachs 401(k) Plan, Plaintiff v. The Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc., The Goldman Sachs 401(k) Plan Retirement
Committee, and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-09910-ER, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit accuses the Defendants of breaching their fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties and engaged in unlawful self-dealing with respect
to the Plan in violation of ERISA, to the detriment of the Plan and
its participants and beneficiaries. The Plaintiff brings this
action to remedy this unlawful conduct, prevent further
mismanagement of the Plan, and obtain equitable and other relief as
provided by ERISA.

The Defendants failed to administer the Plan in the best interest
of participants and failed to employ a prudent process for managing
the Plan, the Plaintiff contends. Instead, the Plaintiff argues,
the Defendants managed the Plan in a manner that benefited Goldman
Sachs at the expense of participants.

The interests of Goldman Sachs interfered with their Defendants'
management of the Plan in a number of ways, the Plaintiff points
out. Among other things, the Defendants retained underperforming
proprietary mutual funds that an objective fiduciary in the
Defendants' position would have removed. The Defendants also failed
to obtain lower-cost separate accounts or collective trusts in
place of proprietary mutual funds, says the complaint.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 13, 2021, the
Plaintiff asked the Court to enter an order: (a) certifying the
following proposed class in this action (or in the alternative,
such other class(es) as the Court may determine to be appropriate):
"All participants and beneficiaries of the Goldman Sachs 401(k)
Plan whose Plan account held any Goldman Sachs mutual fund (other
than money market funds) any time on or after October 25, 2013,
excluding Defendants, any of their directors, and any officers or
employees of Defendants with responsibility for the Plan's
investment or administrative functions;" (b) appointing the
Plaintiff as the class representative for the class; and (c)
appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.

On February 14, 2022, Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an order granting
Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

The Defendants are now filing a petition for permission to appeal
this order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f).  

The appellate case is captioned as LEONID FALBERG, AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON
BEHALF OF THE GOLDMAN SACHS 401(K) PLAN, Plaintiff-Respondent v.
THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., THE GOLDMAN SACHS 401(K) PLAN
RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, AND JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants-Petitioners,
Case No. 22-_____ in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on February 28, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., THE GOLDMAN
SACHS 401(K) PLAN RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, AND JOHN DOES 1-20 are
represented by:

          Richard C. Pepperman II, Esq.
          Thomas C. White, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Carter, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000
          E-mail: peppermanr@sullcrom.com
                  whitet@sullcrom.com
                  carterjo@sullcrom.com

GOOD GUY VAPES: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Good Guy Vapes Int
LLC. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Good Guy Vapes Int LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01850 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2022).

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

Good Guy Vapes Int. -- https://goodguyvapes.com/ -- is an
e-cigarette company offering electronic cigarettes, devices,
e-juice, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


GOOGLE LLC: To Settle Class Action Over COVID-19 App
----------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Google has agreed
to settle claims that it exposed sensitive medical information of
Android users who downloaded a COVID-19 contact-tracing app,
according to court papers filed on Feb. 24.

The court documents, filed with U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael
Cousins in San Jose, California, did not disclose terms.

Lawyers for Google and the Android users are expected to reveal
details of the settlement by March 11.

Attorneys for both sides told Cousins they reached a settlement on
February 18, after attending three mediation sessions via Zoom.

If finalized, the deal will resolve a class-action complaint filed
last year by California residents Jonathan Diaz and Lewis Bornmann,
who claimed that Google violated their right to privacy under
California law, as well as a state law regarding medical
information.

Diaz and Bornmann brought the complaint several days after the
security company AppCensus reported that Google's implementation of
a joint Google-Apple exposure notification system placed
information in a system log that could be read by pre-installed
apps on Androids. [GN]

GOVERNMENT Employees: Robinson & Cole Attorney Discusses Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq., of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that the Fifth Circuit issued a
short opinion that made an important point that does not arise
often in class certification decisions. Class certification failed
because the plaintiffs' proposed theory of liability would benefit
only some class members and disadvantage others, who would be
overpaid if the plaintiffs' theory were correct. For that reason
alone, the plaintiffs could not adequately represent the class.

Prudhomme v. Government Employees Insurance Company, No. 21-30157,
2022 WL 510171 (5th Cir. Feb. 21, 2022) (per curiam) was similar to
another case I recently wrote about—the plaintiffs claimed that
their insurer undervalued their vehicles that were deemed total
losses, in violation of Louisiana statutes. Sidestepping questions
about commonality and predominance, which are usually the focus of
class certification decisions, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
denial of class certification because the adequacy of
representation requirement was not met. This was because "a portion
of the proposed class members received payments above (that is,
benefitted from) the allegedly unlawful valuation." According to
the district court opinion, an expert witness opined that
approximately one-fifth of the class would have received less on
the plaintiffs' theory than they received from GEICO. While the
plaintiffs argued that class members who were overpaid on their
theory might still be entitled to some damages under Louisiana law,
that would likely create a typicality problem. Class
representatives cannot adequately represent a class if they offer
"a theory of liability that disadvantages a portion of the class
they allegedly represent."

Look out for this type of issue the next time you are litigating a
class action. It might be lurking in your case when you peel back
the onion. [GN]

GWG HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming April 19, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired GWG Holdings, Inc. ("GWGH" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: GWGH) L Bonds directly in GWGH's L Bond Offering ("LBO")
pursuant to a registration statement that became effective on June
3, 2020.

If you suffered a loss on your GWGH 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 www.glancylaw.com/cases/gwg-holdings-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.

In 2018, GWGH announced a major shift in its stated business
purpose: instead of investing in life insurance policies, the
Company would invest in The Beneficient Company Group L.P. ("Ben
LP"), an entity founded and controlled by Brad K. Heppner, the
then-Chairman of the Board of Directors of GWGH. In the period
leading up to the LBO, GWGH engaged in a series of transactions
that culminated in the Company's consolidation of ownership and
control of Ben LP.

GWGH was forced to discontinue the LBO in April 2021 when it was
unable to file its 2020 annual report. The Company ran into
liquidity problems and by August 2021, GWGH had pledged its entire
portfolio of life insurance policies as collateral for loans to
keep itself afloat. In November 2021, GWGH spun Ben LP off as an
independent entity.

In November 2021, the Company disclosed that it had received an SEC
subpoena in October 2020 for documents and information relating to
the LBO and its accounting practices.

In January 2022, GWGH missed its payments of interest and principal
due and owing to L Bond holders and announced the hiring of
restructuring counsel. In February 2022, GWGH disclosed that it was
unable to make the payments of the L Bonds within the grace period,
and that it would notify L Bond holders if and when L Bonds would
be able to make any future payments.

The L Bonds now lack value because of GWGH's inability to service
them.

The complaint filed in this action alleges that GWGH misrepresented
its investment in Ben LP.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired GWGH L Bonds directly in the
LBO, you may move the Court no later than April 19, 2022 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]

HARBORSIDE MARINE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harborside Marine,
Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Harborside Marine, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01748 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2022).

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

Harborside Marine, Inc. -- https://www.theboatplaceinc.com/ -- is a
boat service and repair company located in the heart of Port
Jefferson.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawpc.com


HARNEY HARDWARE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harney Hardware, Inc.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Harney Hardware, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01758 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2022).

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

Harney Hardware -- https://www.harneyhardware.com/ -- sells
high-quality door and bathroom hardware for residential and
commercial applications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HERSHA HOSPITALITY: Sanchez Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hersha Hospitality
Trust, et al. The case is styled as Steven Anthony Sanchez, on
behalf of himself, and others similarly situated v. Hersha
Hospitality Trust, Hersha Hospitality Management, L.P., Demetrius
Hodge, Case No. 1:22-cv-01731 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights.

Hersha Hospitality Trust -- https://www.hersha.com/ -- is a real
estate investment trust that invests in hotels.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HILLARY CLINTON: Trump Campaign Advisor Mulls Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Miller, writing for The Republic Brief, reports that Hillary
Clinton received a warning from former Trump campaign advisor Roger
Stone. In his statement, he said he was still dealing with the
consequences of her campaign's smear campaign against Trump and
that he plans to sue her for damages.

"I'm still here and now Mr. Durham confirms everything that I
said," Stone told The Beau Show in a new interview.

According to Stone, he would not be "suffering damages" for the
legal snag he went through had the Clinton campaign not tried to
smear Trump in the middle of October. Durham recently filed some
explosive documents that changed the narrative about how the Russia
collusion hoax got started with all signs pointing to Clinton.

When a political smear turned into an investigation and whether
lines were crossed and laws broken will be determined by Durham,
but Stone claims that he has suffered and continues to suffer
damages as a result.

As he cannot sue the government, he is planning to sue Hillary
through a class action suit.

According to Stone:

"Since I believe I am still suffering damages, I still get death
threats, my family still gets death threats, I continue to lose
employment opportunities, I'm prepared to file a class-action suit
against Hillary Clinton and John Podesta and Michael Sussman and
others.

"One of the flaws in our system is you can't sue the government,
you can't sue the prosecutors, you can't sue the FBI.

"They're immune from lawsuits no matter how corrupt, no matter how
dishonest they are."

In other legal news, several men who illegally funneled money to
Clinton's campaign are on trial.

A California businessman who donated more than $3 million illegally
to Hillary's campaign provided an explanation for his decision: he
feared Donald Trump's promised ban on Muslim visitors to the U.S.
would destroy his travel-oriented business.

"He believed that his contribution to Hillary Clinton's campaign
would save his business," said Megan Church, defense attorney for
Los Angeles luxury transport provider Rani El-Saadi. "His company
catered to clients who were travelers from Muslim-majority
countries in the Middle East -- the same people Mr. Trump intended
to ban from the U.S. A Trump presidency posed a fatal threat to Mr.
El-Saadi's business. That's why he donated."

Nevertheless, as El-Saadi's trial in Washington began on Feb. 24,
the prosecution offered an equally simplistic explanation for the
$150,000 El-Saadi paid to attend a Clinton fundraiser in October
2016: Andy Khawaja, a much wealthier man who is in the payments
business, gave El-Saadi the cash.

"This is a case about a large-scale conspiracy to funnel well in
excess of $1 million into the U.S. political system -- money that
came from the United Arab Emirates," prosecutor Michelle Parikh
told the jury during the trial.

The case is far from simple in reality. What jury members heard on
Feb. 24 was enticing, but they aren't being given many of the
eye-catching details.

Khawaja, the founder of Allied Wallet, is believed to be a
multibillionaire. Private jets, luxury hotels, and fancy cars
characterized his lavish lifestyle as a Lebanon-born American.
Jurors are aware that he is not present in court, but they are
unsure why. Having fought extradition to the U.S. for over 2 years,
he is currently in Lithuania. He has been declared a fugitive by
Judge Randy Moss.

"Khawaja wanted very badly to gain power and influence in the
U.S.," Parikh stated.

In addition to the men who have pleaded guilty, five others are
cooperating with the prosecution. One of them is George Nader, who
has worked closely with the Trump White House on Mideast issues but
has been charged with child pornography and received a 10-year
sentence for sexual assault in 2020.

Nader's cooperation with federal authorities, including Special
Counsel Robert Mueller, appears to have led to the indictment. But
Nader's credibility has been tainted to the point that prosecutors
won't call him at the current trial. It is expected that four other
men who have pleaded guilty will testify, Parikh said.

Parikh disclosed on Feb. 24 to jurors that millions donated to
Clinton and almost $1 million directed to Republicans after Trump's
victory originated in the United Arab Emirates, but she did not
bring up the more explosive allegation she aired in court: that the
money actually originated with the UAE government.

Diane Hamwi, the former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
fundraiser, was the prosecution's first witness who testified
Khawaja hired her for $7,500 a month in the spring of 2016 to help
him cultivate relationships with American politicians and to seek
appointment to a Mideast-related government post or commission.

"He hired me to help him develop more relationships in the
political sphere," Hamwi revealed.

"I was ensuring that when he made the large contributions he was
making that he was getting the most for that," Hamwi concluded.
[GN]

HOME BOX: Allegedly Discloses Personal Info to Facebook, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL MCDANIEL and CONSTANCE SIMON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HOME BOX OFFICE, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-01942 (S.D.N.Y. March 8, 2022) is a class action suit
brought on behalf of all persons who subscribe to HBO for damages
and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendant in knowingly disclosing personally
identifiable information -- including a record of every video clip
they view -- to Facebook without consent.

The Defendant allegedly violated the Video Privacy Protection Act
(VPPA) by knowingly transmitting Plaintiffs' and the putative
class's personally identifiable information to unrelated third
parties.

The United States Congress passed the Video Privacy Protection Act
("VPPA") in 1988, seeking to confer onto consumers the power to
"maintain control over personal information divulged and generated
in exchange for receiving services from video tape service
providers."

HBO develops, owns, and operates Max. HBO Max, one of the largest
streaming services in the United States.

Facebook is the largest social networking site on the planet,
touting 2.9 billion monthly active users. Facebook describes itself
as a "real identity platform," meaning users are allowed only one
account and must share "the name they go by in everyday life." To
that end, when creating an account, users must provide their first
and last name, along with their birthday and gender.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com
                  creilly@bursor.com

I.C. SYSTEM: Ginsberg Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The
case is styled as Sholom Ginsberg, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No.
3:22-cv-01147 (D.N.J., March 2, 2022).

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

IC System -- https://www.icsystem.com/ -- is the leader in accounts
receivable management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christofer Merritt, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS LLC
          1 University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (540) 907-8248
          Email: cmerritt@SteinSaksLegal.com


INFORMATICA INC: Bragar Eagel Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against
Informatica, Inc. (NYSE: INFA), C3.ai, Inc. (NYSE: AI), and
Cortexyme, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRTX). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Our investigations concern whether these companies have violated
the federal securities laws and/or engaged in other unlawful
business practices. Additional information about each case can be
found at the link provided.

Informatica, Inc. (NYSE: INFA)

Informatica provides software solutions. The Company offers an
end-to-end data management platform which connects, manages and
unifies data across any multi-cloud, hybrid system, empowering
enterprises to modernize and advance their data strategies.

On or around October 27, 2021, Informatica conducted its initial
public offering ("IPO"), issuing 29,000,000 shares priced at $29.00
per share. Then, on February 16, 2022, the Company reported a net
loss that widened to $66.3 million, or 25 cents a share, from $32.8
million, or 13 cents a share, in the year-ago period.

Informatica's stock price declined by $7.97 per share, or
approximately 28.3%, from $28.15 per share to close at $20.18 per
share on February 17, 2022.

For more information on the Informatica class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/INFA

C3.ai, Inc. (NYSE: AI)

On February 16, 2022, Spruce Point Capital Management ("Spruce
Point") published a report on C3, asserting that Spruce Point's
research failed to corroborate various claims made by C3.
Accordingly, the Spruce Point report concluded that there is a high
probability that C3 is overstating its numbers of paying and active
customers and has exaggerated its total addressable market.

On this news, C3's stock price fell $4.52 per share, or 14.21%,
over the following trading sessions, closing at $21.19 per share on
February 18, 2022.

For more information on the C3 class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/AI

Cortexyme, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRTX)

On October 26, 2021, Cortexyme issued a press release "report[ing]
top-line results from its Phase 2/3 GAIN Trial, a double-blind,
placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy of atuzaginstat
(COR388), an investigational orally administered small-molecule
that targets gingipain proteases from the bacterium Porphyromonas
gingivalis (P. gingivalis)." The press release reported, in
relevant part, that the study had failed to meet statistical
significance in its co-primary endpoints of improving cognitive and
functional abilities in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's
disease. On this news, Cortexyme's stock price fell $44.17 per
share, or 76.58%, to close at $13.51 per share on October 27, 2021.
Then, on January 26, 2022, Cortexyme disclosed receipt of a letter
from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") advising that
the FDA had "plac[ed] a full clinical hold on atuzaginstat's
(COR388) Investigational New Drug application (IND 134303)."

On this news, Cortexyme's stock price fell $2.85 per share, or
31.46% to close at $6.21 per share on January 26, 2022.

For more information on the Cortexyme class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CRTX

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Alexandra B.
Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com
[GN]

JACKSON NATIONAL: Violates Insurance Code, Marder Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE MARDER, by and through her guardian ad litem, DANA BEASON, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JACKSON
NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-01551 (C.D. Cal.,
March 8, 2022) seeks to remedy Jackson National's violations of the
Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 ("the Statutes") and
its wrongful termination of policies issued in California.

Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 ("the Statutes")
require insurers that issue life insurance policies in California
to: (1) provide a grace period of at least 60 days for nonpayment
of premium; (2) mail a notice of termination for any nonpayment of
premium to the policy owner and any other person designated to
receive notice of the termination within 30 days of the premium due
date and at least 30 days prior to the termination date; and (3)
annually 12 the policy owner of the right to change or make a
designee for receiving the notice. The Statutes became effective
January 1, 2013 and their requirements apply regardless of whether
a policy was originally issued prior to 2013. McHugh v. Protective
Life Insurance Company (2021) 12 Cal.5th 213.

Jackson National issued the Plaintiff a life insurance policy in
1990. The Plaintiff dutifully paid premiums under the policy for
years but, due to progressing dementia, missed her March 2021
payment. Despite the Statutes' clear mandate, Jackson National
failed to observe a 60-day grace period, failed to provide the
requisite notices, and terminated the policy. When Plaintiff's
daughter, Dana Beason ("Ms. Beason"), learned of the missed
payments and made inquiry of Jackson National, she was advised that
the policy had lapsed and that her only alternative was to seek
reinstatement. When she did so, Jackson National stated that her
mother's (Plaintiff's) dementia precluded reinstatement, says the
suit.

Renee Marder is an individual who at all relevant times has resided
in Los Angeles County, California. Concurrent with the filing of
this Complaint, the Plaintiff's daughter, Ms. Beason, is petioning
to be appointed guardian ad litem for Plaintiff, who suffers from
Alzheimer's disease/dementia.

Jackson National is an insurance company licensed to do business in
California and at all relevant timess has been domiciled in
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
          Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
          Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600
          Facsimile: (213) 489-1611
          E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
                  joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
                  adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com

JACKSON, MS: Residents Speak Out Over Checkpoints Amid Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
16WAPT reports that residents are speaking out over the Jackson
Police Department's ticket, arrest, and two safety checkpoints
initiatives.

Citizens stood on the steps and protested the TAT program. They
believe it targets lower-income and predominantly black areas in
the city.

Some shared their personal experiences with the checkpoints,
including two people who are involved in the class-action lawsuit.

"We're not here to attack the police or anything like that. We just
don't want to be attacked by the police," said James Hopkins.

JPD said the safety checkpoints help eliminate reckless driving in
the city and also help find people with warrants out for their
arrest in all parts of the city.

'"We're doing safety checkpoints throughout the city from all four
precincts in all communities to make sure that our roadways and
streets in Jackson are safe," said Jackson Police Chief James
Davis.

Residents are not sure that the TAT program is the best way to
increase police presence and reduce the number of people breaking
the law.

One woman has lived with her family for over five years in a
Jackson neighborhood.

She recalls the differences she saw in the areas she lives in and
works in.

"We get police checkpoints every few months, and I work in a
majority white neighborhood, and we live in a majority African
American neighborhood, and in the neighborhood that I work, I've
only had one police checkpoint in four years," said Lauren Rhodes.

Rhodes and her husband are involved in the lawsuit with the
Mississippi Center for Justice.

Another young child said she was riding in the car with her father
when they went through a roadblock.

Her mother said her husband, who was driving, could not pull up
their car insurance information on his phone, causing the little
girl to be afraid.

"Police stopped us at a roadblock, and I got scared when we
stopped," said Jubilee Jibol.

Some residents said there is little support for the TAT program.

"We found very little, negligible, support for these checkpoints,"
said Bezal Eel Jupiter.

Davis confirmed on Feb. 25 that JPD will continue to do
checkpoints.

The city of Jackson, including Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba, supports
the program. [GN]

JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Melba School Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MELBA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01401 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Melba School District is a unified school district with its offices
located at 511 Broadway Avenue in Melba, Idaho.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Centreville Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
CENTREVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01395 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Centreville Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 190 Hogan Street in Centreville, Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Lake Pend Oreille Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAKE PEND OREILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01396-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Lake Pend Oreille School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 920 Triangle Drive in Ponderay, Idaho.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Faces Caseville Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
CASEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01408 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Caseville Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 6609 Vine Street in Caseville, Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Long Prairie-Grey Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Minn.
------------------------------------------------------------------
LONG PRAIRIE-GREY EAGLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01406-WHO (N.D. Cal., March
4, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Long Prairie-Grey Eagle School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 205 2nd Street South in Long
Prairie, Minnesota.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Mackay School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
-------------------------------------------------------------
MACKAY SCHOOL DISTRICT #182, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01398 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Mackay School District #182 is a unified school district with its
offices located at 400 East Spruce Street in Mackay, Idaho.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Harbor Beach Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HARBOR BEACH COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01394 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Harbor Beach Community Schools is a unified school district with
its offices located at 402 South 5th Street in Harbor Beach,
Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Morrice Area Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
MORRICE AREA SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01392 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Morrice Area Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 111 East Mason in Morrice, Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Notus School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOTUS SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01400 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Notus School District is a unified school district with its offices
located at 25260 Notus Road in Caldwell, Idaho.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Post Falls Suit Alleges Youth Health Crisis in Idaho
---------------------------------------------------------------
POST FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01402 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Post Falls School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 206 West Mullan Avenue in Post Falls, Idaho.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: St. Lawrence-Lewis Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
------------------------------------------------------------------
ST. LAWRENCE-LEWIS BOCES, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01393 (N.D. Cal., March 4, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

St. Lawrence-Lewis BOCES is a unified school district with its
offices located at West Main Street in Canton, New York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

KEURIG GREEN: Settles Mislabeling Class Action for $10 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila A. Millar, Esq., Jean-Cyril Walker, Esq., and Anushka N.
Rahman, Esq., of Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, report that on February 24, 2022, Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc. (Keurig) agreed to pay $10 million to settle a
long-running class action that alleged the coffee company
deceptively advertised its K-Cups pods' recyclability by
misleadingly labeling and marketing them as "recyclable" when the
pods were in fact not accepted for recycling in many areas. The
settlement follows denial of a motion to dismiss in 2021. This is
the second recent multimillion dollar settlement Keurig has paid
out over its recyclability claims. In January, Keurig settled with
Competition Bureau Canada for $2.3 million (plus an $800,000
donation pledge to the Polypropylene Recycling Coalition) due to
similar complaints about the pods' lack of recyclability after the
Competition Bureau concluded that the pods were not widely accepted
for recycling in Canada.

The class action complaint, filed in the Northern District of
California on December 28, 2018, charges that Keurig deceptively
advertised its K-Cup pods as "recyclable." The company packaged the
pods with the slogan "Have your cup and recycle it, too" in large
type, and included detailed recycling instructions, including a
"check locally" notice. Under California state law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Section 17580.5, companies can defend against charges of
deceptive environmental marketing claims if they can show their ads
meet the standards laid out in the Federal Trade Commission's
Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (Green
Guides). The Green Guides state that claims of recyclability should
be qualified if recycling facilities are not available to a
"substantial majority" of consumers, and that "if a product is
rendered non-recyclable because of its size or components…then
labeling the product as recyclable would constitute deceptive
marketing." Keurig argued that it met the Green Guides standard for
qualified claims by putting a notice on its K-Cup packaging that
alerted consumers they should "check locally" for relevant
recycling facilities.

The plaintiffs countered that the qualifying language was not
precise enough to avoid giving consumers the misleading impression
that the pods were uniformly recyclable and failed to disclose "the
extremely limited chance that the Products will ultimately be
recycled." Although polypropylene is accepted for recycling in more
than half of recycling facilities in the U.S., the complaint
alleges that K-Cups were not recyclable by many municipal recycling
facilities for several reasons: the small size of the pods meant
that many recycling facilities were unable to process them; the
presence of food residue and metal contaminants in the used pods
made them unsuitable for recycling; and the lack of any market to
convert the pods to reusable material meant that most of the pods
ended up in landfills.

In addition to the $10 million payment, the settlement bars Keurig
from labeling, marketing, advertising, or otherwise claiming that
its K-Cups are recyclable absent qualifiers. The settlement terms
are precise about how and where Keurig must use qualifying
language, specifying that packaging for K-Cup products must contain
the qualifier "Check Locally – Not Recycled in Many Communities."
This language must be placed close to and be printed in a font size
more than half as large as any recycling claim language. The
settlement further requires that Keurig amends its other
advertising and website copy to ensure that consumers understand
that the company's pods may not be recyclable in their area.

As we have discussed previously, environmental claims are
increasingly subject to scrutiny. Recent state laws have been
enacted that impose stringent requirements on recyclability and
other claims, and new requirements for extended producer
responsibility and mandated recycled content minimums are being
adopted or considered. At the same time, businesses are working on
sustainability programs, including evaluating both products and
packaging. Consumers can benefit from understanding important
environmental attributes of products and packaging, but as this
settlement and other cases demonstrate, care in the claims made and
use of thoughtful, appropriately placed qualifiers are key to
minimizing the risk of false advertising challenges. [GN]

L'OREAL USA: Waterproof Mascaras Contain PFAS, Davenport Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMNER DAVENPORT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-01195-DSF-SK (C.D. Cal., February 22, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for breach of implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, and violations of California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act and California Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its waterproof mascara products. The Defendant represented that its
waterproof mascaras were safe, effective, high quality, and
appropriate for use on consumers' eyelashes. However, the Defendant
failed to disclose to consumers that its products contain per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which can have adverse effects
on humans and can bioaccumulate in human's bodies. Had the
Plaintiff and Class members known that L'Oreal's waterproof mascara
products contained PFAS, they would not have purchased the products
and/or would have paid less for them, says the suit.

L'Oreal USA, Inc. is a cosmetics company, with a principal place of
business in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Devin Bolton, Esq.
         WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 700
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 247-0921
         Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
         E-mail: dbolton@weitzlux.com

                 - and –

         James Bilsborrow, Esq.
         WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
         700 Broadway
         New York, NY 10003
         Telephone: (212) 558-5500
         Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
         E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

                 - and –

         Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
         Matt Pawa, Esq.
         Jeff Grand, Esq.
         Christopher Ayers, Esq.
         SEEGER WEISS LLP
         55 Challenger Road
         Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
         Telephone: (973) 639-9100
         Facsimile: (973) 679-8656
         E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                 mpawa@seegerweiss.com
                 jgrand@seegerweiss.com
                 cayers@seegerweiss.com

                 - and –

         Sam Strauss, Esq.
         Raina Borrelli, Esq.
         TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
         613 Williamson St., Suite 201
         Madison, WI 53703-3515
         Telephone: (608) 237-1775
         Facsimile: (608) 509 4423
         E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
                 raina@turkestrauss.com

LAKE CITY: Faces McAllister Suit Over Illegal Collection Letters
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELINDA MCALLISTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LAKE CITY CREDIT, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00041-SA-DAS
(N.D. Miss., March 8, 2022) seeks statutory damages against Lake
City for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which
prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and
unfair practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendant regularly mails a series
of letters to consumers who allegedly owe said debts. In addition
to sending collection letters, the Defendant employs collectors who
regularly contact consumers by phone to collect debts. The
Defendant sends collections letters to consumers. The Defendant is
engaged in the collection of debts from Mississippi consumers using
the mail and telephone.

The Plaintiff allegedly owed Fingerhut an outstanding balance on an
account that was supposedly active from 2008 through 2015. The
Plaintiff disputed owing such balance as she never opened said
account with Fingerhut.

The Defendant regularly attempts to collect consumer debts alleged
to be due by consumers in of the State of Mississippi. The
Defendant was and is a "debt collector."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Howard Gunn, Esq.
          310 South Hickory Street
          Post Office Box 157
          Aberdeen MS 39730
          Telephone: (662) 369-8533
          E-mail: whgunn@bellsouth.net

LL&G CONSTRUCTION: Royster Seeks Machine Operators' Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Royster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. L. L. & G. Construction, Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-00578-EEF-KWR (E.D. La., March 8, 2022) is a civil action
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal
Act seeking damages for the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff
time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over
40 during each seven day workweek while working for Defendant paid
on a day rate basis.

The Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members seek all damages
available under the FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages,
legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant on or about October
1, 2015. The Plaintiff is a former employee and stopped working for
Defendant on or about March 21, 2021.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Machine Operator in
connection with its construction services for oil and gas
production facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          Adam R. Credeur, Esq.
          Natalie M. DeJean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
          417 W. University Avenue (70506)
          P.O. Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235-5294
          Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
                  adam@kwdejean.com
                  natalie@kwdejean.com

               - and -

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net

META PLATFORMS: Faces Suit Over $10-B Loss From iOS Privacy Changes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 60 PENSION TRUST, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC.
(f/k/a 22 FACEBOOK, INC.), MARK ZUCKERBERG, DAVID WEHNER, SHERYL
SANDBERG, and SUSAN LI, Case No. 3:22-cv-01470 (N.D. Cal., March 8,
2022) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Meta securities
between March 2, 2021 and February 2, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), against the Defendants for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Facebook - now known as "Meta Platforms" after a recent rebranding
- is a social media giant. As a going concern that investors would
want to own for value, Meta cannot make money simply by operating a
social media platform that allows users to interact, post pictures
and videos, or communicate. To make money, Meta allegedly sells
ads. In fact, its revenues are almost entirely from selling ads to
businesses who want to get the attention of people who use social
media within Meta's family of companies, including Facebook and
Instagram. The Company admits as much:

   Substantially all of our revenue is currently generated from
   third parties advertising on Facebook and Instagram. As is
   common in the industry, our marketers do not have long-term
   advertising commitments with us.

A big part of those ad sales historically was targeted toward users
in the United States (and elsewhere) on iPhones. Meta made a lot of
money selling ads seen on iPhones. It successfully did this by
using a wealth of data obtained about its users by tracking their
activities, as it also admits:

   Our advertising revenue is dependent on targeting and
   measurement tools that incorporate data signals from user
   activity on websites and services that we do not control.

In other words, without the ability to track users' activity, Meta
cannot really sell ads, and thus, would suddenly experience a
material step down to the source of "substantially all" of its
revenue, the lawsuit contends.

Fast forward to June 2020. Apple Inc., the maker of the ubiquitous
iPhone, decided that iPhone users deserved to have more control
over their own privacy and the data associated with what people do
on their iPhones and other devices. So, Apple announced that it
would roll out a host of changes to the iOS operating software that
runs iPhones (and iPads). These changes would essentially cut off
Facebook and its sister services from almost all the tracking and
targeting abilities and information that they needed to sell
targeted ads as they had been for many years.

Apple's new privacy protections were a sea change to the
advertising world that Meta and its subsidiaries lived in. In fact,
they were certain to derail Meta's increasing revenue-growth
trajectory and high price-to-earnings ratio, and transform Meta
into a staid media company with a materially lower growth profile.


But Defendants failed to tell investors this. Throughout the Class
Period, which spans from March 2021 (shortly before the Apple
changes went into effect) to February 2022, TheDefendants --
including the most senior echelon of Meta's upper management --
misled investors about mitigation efforts that Meta was
implementing to try and counteract the devastating impacts to
Meta's advertising business from Apple's new privacy protections
The Defendants omitted to tell investors that Meta's mitigation
efforts were not adequately mitigating the headwinds to advertising
revenue caused by the new privacy protections or otherwise making
the iOS changes "manageable" for Meta's advertising business, the
lawsuit added.

The Defendants acknowledged that Apple's changes would be bad for
Meta. It would create "headwinds" to its advertising business. But
Defendants failed to tell investors by what order of magnitude the
changes would hurt the ad business until February 2, 2022, when
they admitted to a staggering $10 billion impact on revenue. At the
same time, the Defendants failed to also warn investors that it was
facing materially increasing competition from rival social media
platform TikTok, causing Meta to steer users from its services like
"Stories" to its "Reels" service.

Instead of being transparent with investors, Defendants painted a
false and misleading picture of the mitigation efforts Meta put in
place to counteract the changes in iOS and rebuild Meta's
advertising business model. These efforts included, inter alia,
requiring less data in targeted ad campaigns; claims that Meta was
building other data sources that advertisers could make use of;
having more onsite conversion opportunities for advertisers;
implementing "aggregated events management," which would allow Meta
and its advertisers to make use of aggregated ad-campaign-level
data for users who opted out of being tracked once the iOS changes
were implemented; closing a supposed "underreporting gap" to
identify a supposedly more robust and more accurate return on
investment for advertisers; and automation to allow advertisers to
leverage machine learning to find audiences for targeted ad
campaigns.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants omitted to tell investors
the true impact that these mitigation efforts were having, leading
investors to believe that any impacts of the iOS changes to Meta's
advertising business were, as Defendant Wehner put it,
"manageable." On February 2, 2022, Meta released weak Q4 2021
financial results and provided 10 disappointing 2022 revenue
guidance. During the related earnings call, Defendants disclosed
that the mitigation efforts in fact had not rendered the effects of
the iOS changes "manageable." Instead, Meta's advertising business
would suffer a shattering $10 billion revenue hit from the iOS
privacy changes. Defendants also attributed its weak results and
guidance on the slowing user growth due to competition from TikTok.
These admissions caused over 26% of Meta's market capitalization to
15 be wiped out in one day, as the value of Meta's common stock
sank over $85 a share.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
          Frank Busch, Esq.
          WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,
          BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 2250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 357-8900
          Facsimile: (415) 357-8910
          E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
                  busch@wvbrlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907 0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818 0477
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
                  ebelfi@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com

METROPOLITAN LEARNING: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Learning
Institute, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Metropolitan
Learning Institute, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01722-JPO (S.D.N.Y.,
March 1, 2022).

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

Metropolitan Learning Institute -- https://www.gettraining.org/ --
is a private, non-profit organization that was first established in
1996.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



MONEVO INC: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Monevo, Inc.
faces a proposed class action over its alleged practice of
obtaining consumer credit reports without proper authorization to
do so.

The seven-page case alleges that the personal credit platform has
violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by accessing
consumers' credit reports without a permissible purpose for doing
so. Permissible purposes for accessing someone's credit report
include, for example, a consumer-initiated credit transaction, a
credit offer, an employment-related matter or a business
transaction in which an individual has accepted personal liability
for business credit, the suit says.

The plaintiff, a Houston, Texas resident, says he obtained a copy
of his TransUnion credit report in November 2021 and noticed that
Monevo had accessed his report back in March 2020. According to the
case, the defendant had misrepresented that it had a "Permissible
Purpose/Written Authorization" to receive the plaintiff's credit
report.

The plaintiff claims to have never had a business relationship with
Monevo, applied for a loan through the company or otherwise
authorized it to access his credit report. In fact, the plaintiff
asserts in the lawsuit that he had "never heard of Monevo" before
reviewing his credit report in November 2021.

When the plaintiff contacted Moveno to inquire about the credit
report pull, the company insisted that his information had been
submitted through its platform on March 1, 2020, the complaint
relays. Nevertheless, Monevo has failed to provide a copy of the
application or an authorization to view the plaintiff's credit
report, according to the suit.

The lawsuit states that the plaintiff's credit report contained "a
trove of sensitive personal and private information," including his
birth date, credit history, pay history and employment details,
that Monevo was not authorized to access.

"Monevo never had a permissible purpose to obtain [the plaintiff's]
consumer report," the complaint charges. "Monevo obtained [the
plaintiff's] credit report under false pretenses to the credit
bureau because he never provided permission to Monevo."

The case claims that the plaintiff's experience is not unique and
that the defendant, "as a pattern and practice," regularly accesses
consumer credit reports without a permissible purpose to do so.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Texas whose consumer
report was obtained by Monevo without a permissible purpose between
February 25, 2020 and February 25, 2022. [GN]

MP MATERIALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 25 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of MP Materials, Inc. (NYSE:
MP) and Cerence, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRNC). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.

MP Materials Corp. (NYSE: MP)

Class Period: May 1, 2020 - February 2, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 25, 2022

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
MP Materials Corp f/k/a Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. The filed
complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Fortress
Value Acquisition Corp. ("FVAC") had overstated its due diligence
efforts and expertise with respect to identifying target companies
to acquire; (ii) FVAC performed inadequate due diligence into
Legacy MP Materials prior to the business combination, or else
ignored significant red flags regarding, inter alia, Legacy MP
Materials' management, compliance policies, and Mountain Pass's
profitability; (iii) as a result, the Company's future business and
financial prospects post-business combination were overstated; (iv)
MP Materials engaged in an abusive transfer price manipulation
scheme with a related party in the People's Republic of China to
artificially inflate the Company's profits; (v) MP Materials' ore
at the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine and Processing Facility was
not economically viable to harvest for rare earth metals; and (vi)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the MP Materials class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/MP

Cerence, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRNC)

Class Period: February 8, 2021 - February 4, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2022

Cerence is a Burlington, Massachusetts-based company that focuses
on building artificial intelligence-powered virtual assistants
primarily for the automotive market. Despite the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic, supply-chain issues, and the semiconductor shortage,
which reduced the global production of automobiles, Cerence
continued to report growing revenues and strong demand for software
licenses for its products. Cerence even touted its "visibility"
into demand for its products by providing revenue guidance for
fiscal year 2024, guidance that was a focus of securities analysts
and that the Company raised significantly during the Class Period.

The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects in violation of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that
the global semiconductor shortage had a materially negative impact
on demand for Cerence's software licenses; (2) that Defendants
masked the impact of the semiconductor shortage on demand for the
Company's software licenses by pulling forward sales; and (3) that,
as a result of the above, Defendants' statements about Cerence's
business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

The truth began to emerge during Cerence's earnings call on
November 22, 2021 for the fiscal fourth quarter of 2021 ended on
September 30, 2021, causing Cerence's stock price to fall and
investors to suffer substantial losses. On that call, Cerence
announced revenue guidance for fiscal year 2022 that was well below
analysts' expectations. In response to this revelation, Cerence's
stock price fell more than 20 percent from a closing price of
$104.06 the prior trading day, to a close of $82.59 on November 22,
2021. The Company's stock price continued to fall another 5% the
following day to close at $78.27 on November 23, 2021.

Then, approximately three weeks later, Cerence's Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO") Sanjay Dhawan abruptly resigned. On this news,
Cerence's stock price fell an additional 11% from a closing price
of $78.08 on December 14, 2021 to a closing price of $69.20 on
December 15, 2021.

Finally, on February 7, 2022, the Company announced results for its
fiscal first quarter of 2022 ended on December 31, 2021 and shocked
the market with three disclosures. First, the Company announced
that Chief Financial Officer Mark Gallenberger would be retiring,
effective March 11, 2022. Next, during its earnings conference
call, new CEO Stefan Ortmanns announced he had conducted a review
of each of the Cerence business units' plans, forecasts, and
assumptions, and determined the "conversion from bookings to
revenue will take longer than expected." As a result, Cerence was
forced to lower its fiscal year 2022 guidance, only a few months
after providing disappointing guidance for the same period.
Finally, Cerence completely withdrew the closely watched fiscal
year 2024 guidance. On this news, Cerence's stock price fell an
additional 30%, from a closing price of $63.58 on the prior trading
day of February 4, 2022, to close at $43.61 on February 7, 2022.

For more information on the Cerence class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CRNC

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact Information:

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

MP MATERIALS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 25 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed against MP Materials Corp. ("MP Materials") (NYSE: MP) f/k/a
Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. ("FVAC") (NYSE: FVAC; FVAC WS;
FVAC.U). The action charges MP Materials with violations of the
federal securities laws, including omissions and fraudulent
misrepresentations relating to the company's business, operations,
and prospects. As a result of MP Materials' materially misleading
statements to the public, MP Materials' investors have suffered
significant losses.

Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected
among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have
recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of
shareholders we represent.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: APRIL 25, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: MAY 1, 2020 THROUGH FEBRUARY 2, 2022

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:

James Maro, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at info@ktmc.com

MP MATERIALS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

MP Materials engages in the ownership and operation of integrated
rare earth mining and processing facilities. FVAC operated as a
special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"). In November 2020,
FVAC consummated a merger and changed its name to "MP Materials
Corp."

On February 3, 2022, Bonitas Research published a report accusing
MP Materials of executing an "abusive transfer price manipulation
scheme" with a related party in People's Republic of China
("China"), Shenghe Resources Holding Co., Ltd. ("Shenghe"), which
owned 7.7% of MP Materials as of March 22, 2021. Specifically, the
report alleged that, since the second quarter of 2021, MP Materials
and Shenghe "executed an abusive transfer price manipulation scheme
whereby Shenghe overpaid for MP [Materials] concentrates to
artificially inflate MP [Materials'] profits, [which] conveniently
coincided with the SPAC insider lock-up expiration so that MP
[Materials] insiders could sell MP [Materials] stock at
artificially inflated prices." In addition, the report cited a
September 2019 German academic study that concluded MP [Materials']
ore at Mountain Pass is "not economically viable to harvest for
rare earth metals while 12 of the other 13 well known rare earth
mines outside of China are economically feasible" at current market
prices.

Following this news, MP Materials' stock price fell $5.61 per
share, or 14.25%, to close at $33.75 per share on February 3,
2022.

WHAT CAN I DO?

MP Materials' investors may, no later than April 25, 2022 seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages MP Materials' investors who
have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to
acquire more information.

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad
guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

Contacts

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
(484) 270-1453
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]

NATERA INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Heebink, writing for Law/Street, reports that a class
action suit was filed in the Northern District of California on
Feb. 24 by plaintiff Amanda Law against defendant Natera, Inc. In
the suit, plaintiff Law alleges that defendant Natera represented
one of their products, a panorama test intended for pregnant women,
in a misleading and deceptive manner which caused Law and other
members of the class to suffer monetary damages.

According to the complaint, Natera produces and markets panorama
tests, which are intended to act as "prenatal screening tests for
pregnant women that screen for various chromosomal and genetic
conditions affecting a baby's health." The plaintiff asserts that
these panorama tests, though they are marketed as being effective
and accurate, are incorrect 85% of the time, making them "worth far
less than their market price." Since the tests are incorrect so
often, Law alleges that pregnant women can be subject to
unnecessary testing, genetic counseling, or even the erroneous
termination of a viable pregnancy.

In recent years, non-invasive methods of prenatal testing have
become popular due to their decreased risk, the complaint claimed.
Newer methods are called Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing, or NIPT.
NIPT uses DNA fragments from the blood of a pregnant woman to
determine if their fetus has any genetic abnormalities. Law asserts
that while NIPT is very popular, it is riddled with inaccuracies
and is known to give "pregnant women false positive results for
genetic conditions that their fetuses do not have." The complaint
even cites a New York Times study which found that for every 15
times the test correctly identifies a genetic disorder, it
misidentifies 85 others, making 85% of NIPT tests false positives.

Law argues that the inaccuracies of the defendant's NIPT test "can
lead to devastating personal consequences and painful decisions
that are premised upon this wrong information." She further
explains that had she been aware of the inefficiencies of the test,
she would not have purchased it, or would have paid significantly
less for the test.

The complaint cites breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and fraudulent omission, as
well as violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices
Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False
Advertising Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Law
is seeking class certification for all other persons that reside in
the state of Florida who purchased the defendant's panorama test,
favorable judgment on all counts, compensatory, statutory, and
punitive damages, prejudgment interest, restitution, monetary
relief, injunctive relief, and litigation fees.

The plaintiff is represented in the litigation by Bursor & Fisher.
[GN]

NELNET INC: Faces Class Action Over Student Loan Robocalls
----------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action claims Nelnet has placed unlawful debt collection
robocalls to consumers' cell phones without securing prior express
consent to do so.

The 10-page lawsuit alleges the loan servicer has run afoul of both
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act. The case, filed in Florida on
February 25, says Nelnet has placed student loan collection calls
that use a prerecorded or artificial voice to consumers who have
never consented to receive the calls, and even after they've asked
the company to stop calling.

The case emphasizes that the "primary purpose" of the TCPA is to
protect consumers from "the harassment, invasion of privacy,
inconvenience, nuisance, and other harms associated with
unsolicited, automated calls."

The plaintiff is a Gainesville, Florida resident whose
Nelnet-serviced student loans are in deferment status through May
1, 2022, according to the complaint. The suit alleges, however,
that Nelnet last fall began placing collecting calls to the
plaintiff in connection with the student loans.

The plaintiff states in the case that she was "perplexed" by
Nelnet's calls given her loans are in deferment status and since
she is still in school. Per the case, the plaintiff answered one of
the defendant's "erroneous" calls in February 2022, informed the
company of the status of her loans and requested that the calls
cease.

Nelnet nevertheless continued to call the plaintiff, according to
the complaint, and allegedly left the following prerecorded
voicemails:

"This is Nelnet calling on behalf of the United States Department
of Education. Call us today at 844-801-9992 or visit Nelnet.com to
go over all the options available to you regarding your student
loan account. Together, we can create a plan that will have you on
the road to long-term success."

"Please call Nelnet today at 844-801-1792 or visit Nelent.com to
review all of your available options regarding your student benefit
account. Together, we can create a plan that will put you on the
path to long-term success."

Per the suit, Nelnet placed "no less than ten (10)" robocalls to
the plaintiff's cell phone after she requested that the company
stop calling.

"Due to Defendant's refusal to honor Plaintiff's request that the
calls cease, Plaintiff was forced to retain counsel to compel
Defendant to cease its abusive collection practices," the lawsuit
states.

The plaintiff looks to represent anyone in the U.S. to whom Nelnet
or a third party acting on its behalf placed or caused to be placed
a call to their cell phone that used an artificial or prerecorded
voice without the individual's consent within the four years before
the lawsuit was filed and until the date of class certification.
[GN]

NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY: Donohue Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Danny Donohue, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DANNY DONOHUE, as President
of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000,
AFSCME, AFL-CIO; CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL
1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; WILLIAM COLEMAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; WILLIAM MILLER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOHN METZGIER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and
JACK WIEDEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. THOMAS J. MADISON, JR., in his official
capacity as Executive Director of the New York State Thruway
Authority and the New York State Canal Corporation; CARLOS MILLAN,
in his official capacity as Director of Employee Relations and
Employee Safety, New York State Thruway Authority and New York
State Canal Corporation; BRIAN U. STRATTON, in his official
capacity as Director of the New York State Canal Corporation;
HOWARD P. MILSTEIN, in his official capacity as Chairman of New
York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; E. VIRGIL
CONWAY, in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York
State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; NEW YORK STATE
THRUWAY AUTHORITY; NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION; DONNA J. LUH,
in her official capacity as Vice-Chairman of New York State
Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; RICHARD N. SIMBERG,
in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State
Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; BRANDON R. SALL, in
his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State
Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; J. DONALD RICE, JR.,
in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State
Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; and JOSE
HOLGUIN-VERAS, in his official capacity as Board Member of the New
York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors,
Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-918, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of New York.

The Plaintiffs are union-represented employees who contend that
their employers, Defendants New York State Thruway Authority and
New York State Canal Corporation terminated or otherwise adversely
impacted their positions as part of a reduction in force (RIF) that
targeted employees for their association with those unions.

On February 16, 2022, the Court entered an Order denying
Plaintiffs' original and corrected amended motions for class
certification. The Court ordered the Clerk of the Court to
terminate Plaintiffs Danny Donohue, CSEA, and Teamsters as
Plaintiffs in this action, and referred the matter to Magistrate
Judge Hummel for all further pretrial matters.

The Plaintiffs are taking an appeal from this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Donohue v. Madison, Case No.
22-435, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on March 2, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Danny Donohue, as President of the Civil
Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO;
Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME,
AFL-CIO; William Coleman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; William Miller, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; John Metzgier, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; and Jack Wiedeman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Daren John Rylewicz, Esq.
          CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
           INC., LOCAL 1000 AFSCME, AFL-CIO
          143 Washington Avenue
          P.O. Box 7125
          Albany, NY 12210
          Telephone: (518) 257-1443

Defendants-Respondents Thomas J. Madison, Jr., in his official
capacity as Executive Director of the New York State Thruway
Authority and the New York State Canal Corporation; Carlos Millian,
in his official capacity as Director of Employee Relations and
Employee Safety, New York State Thruway Authority and New York
State Canal Corporation; Brian U. Stratton, in his official
capacity as Director of the New York State Canal Corporation;
Howard P. Milstein, in his official capacity as Chairman of the New
York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; E. Virgil
Conway, in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York
State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; New York State
Thruway Authority; New York State Canal Corporation; Donna J. Luh,
in her official capacity as ViceChairman of New York State
Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; Richard N. Simberg,
in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State
Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; Brandon R. Sall, in
his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State
Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; J. Donald Rice, Jr.,
in his official capacity as Board Member of the New York State
Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors; and Jose
Holguin-Veras, in his official capacity as Board Member of the New
York State Thruway/Canal Corporation Board of Directors, are
represented by:

          William J. Dreyer, Esq.
          DREYER BOYAJIAN LLP
          75 Columbia Street
          Albany, NY 12210
          Telephone: (518) 463-7784

NINJARMM LLC: Vlack Seeks OT Wages for Inside Sales Representatives
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE VAN VLACK, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly
situated v. NINJARMM LLC, a foreign for profit Corporation, dba
NINJAONE, Case No. 8:22-cv-00539 (M.D. Fla., March 8, 2022) alleges
that the Plaintiff and the putative class of similarly situated
employees were not compensated for all hours worked over 40 in each
and every work week and were unlawfully and intentionally
misclassified as salaried exempt employees.

Allegedly, Defendant Ninja has improperly and willfully withheld
and refused to pay Plaintiff and all inside sales representatives
(ISRs) overtime wages and premiums for overtime hours worked in
violation of the nation's federal wage law, the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant's employment and payroll
records will demonstrably show that Plaintiff, and all ISRs were
classified as salaried exempt employees with blatant and shocking
disregard for the FLSA's overtime wage requirements for employers
and corporations such as Defendant.

Plaintiff Van Vlack and the class of similarly situated current and
former insides sales employees (ISR) all worked for Defendant under
job titles including: Sales Development Representative (SDR),
Account Manager or Account Executive and other various job titles
used to describe persons who performedsubstantially the same
requirements of an inside sales representative ("ISR"), and all
worked at the Defendant's physical offices, or after the Covid
Pandemic, worked remotely and their work was directed from
Defendant's multiple offices located in Clearwater, Florida, Austin
Texas and San Francisco, California.

The ISR's primary function was to use telecommunications such as
telephones, email and technology to solicit businesses to purchase
Ninja's IT tool and software on a subscription basis (SAAS).

In addition, Ninja employed numerous ISR in the role of business
development employees, titled as Sales Development Representatives
(SDR) whose job it was to primarily develop warm business leads by
soliciting businesses to attend computer demonstration appointments
with Account Executives who then would attempt to negotiate and
close sales or deals with them.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6916 W. Linebaugh Ave No. 101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

OLD CITY COFFEE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Old City Coffee, Inc.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Old City Coffee, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01759-MKV (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2022).

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

Old City Coffee -- https://oldcitycoffee.com/ -- is a small
coffeehouse where the brews use beans roasted on-site & the food
menu features light fare.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAN-O-GOLD BAKING: Fails to Pay Regular, OT Wages, Nelson Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
AZIZA NELSON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. PAN-O-GOLD BAKING COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00125-jdp
(W.D. Wisc. March 8, 2022) alleges that Defendant allegedly failed
to pay regular and overtime wages earned and due to Plaintiff and
members of the putative Unpaid Wage Class.

The Plaintiff was employed by Pan-O-Gold Baking Company as a molder
operator for Defendant.

During her employment, the Plaintiff was denied regular and
overtime wages under an illegal pay policy. Under this policy, the
Defendant provided the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees unpaid breaks during the workday. The Defendant required
these employees to clock out during these breaks and deducted any
breaks of 13 minutes or longer from their pay. These deductions
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which requires
employees to be compensated for short breaks of less than 20
minutes, and Wisconsin wage-and-hour law, which requires employees
to be compensated for short rest periods of less than 30 minutes,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff and the putative class and collective class members
are similarly situated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and
the FLSA as they commonly suffered, and continue to suffer, wage
losses as a result of Defendant's alleged illegal pay policy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Zoeller, Esq.
          Aaron J. Bibb, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          409 East Main Street
          Post Office Box 2155
          Madison, WI 53701-2155
          Telephone: (608) 257-0040
          Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
          E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com
                  abibb@hq-law.com

PARAGON SYSTEMS: Jean-Gilles Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Jean-Gilles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PARAGON SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01363
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2022), is brought against the Defendant by
failing to pay the Plaintiff the federal and state mandated
overtime wages in violation to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff overtime wages based on the correct regular rate for
hours worked in excess of 40 per week, in violation of the overtime
provision of the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendant intentionally,
willfully and repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice and/or
policy of violating the FLSA and NYLL, including but not limited
to, failing to pay the Plaintiff one and one half times their
respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a security guard
from February 2009 until present.

The Defendant is a provider of security services for its clients in
and around New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Wims, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
          1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11233
          Phone: (646) 393-9550


PHOENIX HOLDINGS: Court Okays Motion for Class Action Withdrawal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Meni Neeman, Chief Legal Counsel and Secretary of Phoenix
Holdings Ltd. on Feb. 27 disclosed that on February 23, 2022, a
judgement was rendered by the Tel Aviv-Yafo District Court
approving an agreed motion for the plaintiffs' withdrawal from a
motion to certify a claim as a class action that was filed against
a subsidiary of the company, The Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd.
(hereinafter: "The Phoenix Insurance"), in relation to the claim
that The Phoenix Insurance refused to fund the cost of a surgical
procedure, and that it, allegedly, refrained from proper disclosure
of the insurance coverage and its exceptions in some of the Health
insurance policies that were marketed after 1.10.2001 (for details,
see the Immediate Report dated 13 July, 2021 (reference no.
2021-01-052318) and, as stated in Note 7A(60) to the Company's
financial statements as of 30 September, 2021 that were published
on 30 November, 2021 (reference no. 2021-01-173703)).

This brings the proceeding to an end. [GN]

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: FDCPA Class Action Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
AccountsRecovery.net reports that a District Court judge in New
York has remanded a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action
lawsuit back to state court, ruling that the plaintiff did not
suffer a concrete injury to keep the case in federal court.

A copy of the ruling in the case of Pollak v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates can be accessed by clicking here.

The plaintiff originally filed the suit in state court, but the
defendant removed it to federal court and attempted to argue that
the plaintiff did suffer a concrete injury because he alleged in
his complaint that he hired an attorney to help prosecute his claim
and because he was seeking damages. But neither of those facts was
enough for the defendant to convince Judge Pamela K. Chen of the
District Court for the Eastern District of New York that the
plaintiff had suffered enough of an injury to have standing to sue
in federal court.

In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated
the FDCPA when it sent him a collection letter that allegedly
misrepresented the enforceability of a debt, was "materially
misleading" regarding the ownership of the debt, was "materially
deceptive" regarding the validity of the debt, and because the
amount that was alleged to be owed was "overstated."

Hiring an attorney "cannot be the sole basis for standing," noted
Judge Chen, while also pointing out that the plaintiff did not
allege "that he suffered any concrete harm resulting directly from
Defendant's alleged statutory violations."

Ultimately, the plaintiff did not spend time, money, or effort
mitigating the sufficient risk of harm associated with the alleged
injuries that he suffered, Judge Chen ruled. [GN]

PREMIUM RETAIL: Fraga Files Cross-Appeal in FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sara Fraga filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled SARA FRAGA, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, v. PREMIUM RETAIL SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 1:21-cv-10751-WGY, in the United States District Court District
of Massachusetts.

The lawsuit is a class action against the Defendant for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair
Wage Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated employees minimum wages and overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Ms. Fraga worked for the Defendant as a merchandiser in
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York from approximately
December 2020 to January 2021.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on February 16, 2022, the
Defendant sought a review of the January 31, 2022 order entered by
Judge William G. Young denying its motion to compel arbitration and
dismiss the complaint.

The Plaintiff are now filing a cross-appeal.

The appellate case is captioned as SARA FRAGA, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
PREMIUM RETAIL SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
22-1130, in the United States Court of Appeals For the First
Circuit, filed on February 28, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appearance
form, transcript order/order form, and docketing statement were due
March 14, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SARA FRAGA, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          Daniel F. Thornton, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  crodriguez@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net
                  dthornton@bm.net

               - and -

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jason@blockleviton.com

PROSEGUR SERVICES: White Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prosegur Services
Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Damon White, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prosegur Services
Group, Inc., Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22598241
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 17, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Prosegur Services Group (PSG) -- https://www.prosegur.com/ -- is a
team of professionals focused on providing full-solution security
services.[BN]


PULSE BIOSCIENCES: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Feb. 28 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of investors who purchased Pulse Biosciences,
Inc. (NASDAQ: PLSE) securities between January 12, 2021 and
February 7, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

If you have incurred losses in Pulse Biosciences, Inc. you may, no
later than April 18, 2022, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to
learn more about your rights as an investor in Pulse Biosciences,
Inc.

According to the filed complaint, defendants throughout the Class
Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:

Pulse's investigational device exemption study evaluating the use
of the CellFX System to treat sebaceous hyperplasia lesions failed
to meet its primary endpoints;

as a result, there was a substantial risk that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) would reject Pulse's 510(k) submission
seeking to expand the label for the CellFX System to treat
sebaceous hyperplasia lesions; and

as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
Pulse's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On February 8, 2022, Pulse Biosciences announced that the FDA
concluded there was insufficient clinical evidence to support Pulse
Biosciences' 510(k) submission to expand the label for the CellFX
System to treat sebaceous hyperplasia. Among other things, the FDA
found "that [Pulse Biosciences] had not met the primary endpoints
of the sebaceous hyperplasia FDA-approved IDE study." On this news,
Pulse Biosciences' share price fell by more than 34%, closing at
$7.12 per share, down $3.74 per share on the day.

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

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

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774

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

RED CRAB: Faces Wisdom Class Action Suit Over Sex Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVANIA WISDOM, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated v. RED CRAB LONG ISLAND INC.,
d/b/a RED CRAB JUICY SEAFOOD & BAR, and JOYCE LI, individually, and
ANDY LIN, individually, and DAVID DARITY, individually, and DEIRDRE
HESTER, individually, Case No. 2:22-cv-01271 (E.D.N.Y., March 8,
2022) is a civil action seeking monetary damages and other redress
against the Defendants for, collectively: (i) sex discrimination in
the form of appalling hostile work environment sexual harassment,
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"); and
(ii) retaliation in violation of Title VII and the NYSHRL.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants -- a New York corporation that
operates a Nassau-county based restaurant, its two owners, its
general manager, and its bar manager -- as a bartender from August
11, 2019, to March 9, 2020.

Beginning in or around September 2019, and continuing until the end
of her employment, Red Crab's General Manager, David Darity,
allegedly subjected Plaintiff to egregious hostile work environment
sexual harassment, which included, inter alia, Darity making vulgar
and overtly sexual comments about Plaintiff's physical appearance,
touching Plaintiff intimately on her lower back and buttocks
without consent, and propositioning her to go on dates with him,
all while at work. Making matters worse, when Plaintiff complained
to Defendants Li (also known as "Wang") and Lin about Darity
sexually harassing her, all Defendants retaliated by, collectively,
repeatedly suspending Plaintiff without pay, cutting her work
schedule in half, and ultimately terminating her employment on two
occasions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danielle Petretta, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027

REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Medical Suit Over RICO Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MEDICAL MUTUAL OF OHIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-10302 (D. Mass., Feb. 23, 2022) alleges
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures and sells
Eylea (aflibercept), a prescription drug administered by injection
for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration ("wet
AMD"), an eye disease that can render patients legally blind.

On a regular basis, the Defendant transferred funds to a so-called
"charity," the Chronic Disease Fund, Inc. ("CDF"), to provide
financial assistance to patients for their out-of-pocket share of
Eylea's costs. Pursuant to a secret arrangement between the
Defendant and CDF, the funds provided by the Defendant were
calculated to cover patients' out-of-pocket costs for Eylea but not
for competing drugs. The Defendant's arrangement with CDF made
Eylea cheaper for patients—but not for the Medicare program or
for private healthcare plans—in comparison with alternative
drugs.

As a result, the Defendant allegedly gained an unfair advantage
over its competitors by distorting the cost of Eylea in the view of
patients and their prescribers, while increasing the costs borne by
Medicare and private healthcare plans. The payments funneled by the
Defendant through CDF operated as kickbacks to patients who
otherwise had a contractual incentive to choose an equally
effective but lower-cost drug. The Defendant's scheme thus violated
the federal Anti-Kickback statute, among other laws.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company. The
Company discovers, develops, and commercializes pharmaceutical
products for the treatment of serious medical conditions. Regeneron
Pharmaceuticals serves the healthcare sector in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
          Rochella T. Davis, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
                 kristenj@hbsslaw.com
                 rochellad@hbsslaw.com

               -and-

          Mark D. Fischer, Esq.
          RAWLINGS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          One Eden Parkway
          LaGrange, KY 40031
          Telephone: (502) 587-1279
          Email: mdf@rawlingsandassociates.com

SEA EAGLE BOATS: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sea Eagle Boats, Inc.
The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Sea Eagle Boats, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01746 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2022).

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

Sea Eagle Boats -- https://www.seaeagle.com/ -- is the world's
premier source for inflatable sups, inflatable boats, inflatable
kayaks and canoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawpc.com


SOFTCHOICE CORPORATION: Cuaresma Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Softchoice
Corporation. The case is styled as Michael Cuaresma, Braxton
Griffin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Softchoice Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-01070 (N.D.
Ill., March 1, 2022).

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

Softchoice Corporation -- https://www.softchoice.com/ -- provides
information technology services. The Company offers cloud, hybrid
IT, end user productivity, security, and managed services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington. Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 419-1008
          Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com



STANDARD LITHIUM: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of March 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Feb. 27 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Instadose Pharma Corp. f/k/a Mikrocoze, Inc. (OTC PINK:INSD)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/instadose-pharma-corp-f-k-a-mikrocoze-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=24090&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 28, 2022
Class Period: December 8, 2020 - November 24, 2021

Allegations against INSD include that: (i) Instadose had performed
inadequate due diligence into the business combination with
Instadose Canada and/or ignored significant red flags associated
with Instadose Canada; (ii) Instadose's internal controls and
policies were inadequate to detect and/or prevent impermissible
trading activity by control persons of the Company; (iii) the
foregoing subjected Instadose to a heightened risk of regulatory
scrutiny and enforcement action; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Standard Lithium Ltd. (NYSE:SLI)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/standard-lithium-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=24090&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 28, 2022
Class Period: May 19, 2020 - November 17, 2021

Allegations against SLI include that: (i) the LiSTR Direct Lithium
Extraction technology's extraction recovery efficiencies were
overstated; (ii) accordingly, the Company's final product lithium
recovery percentage at the Demonstration Plant would not be as high
as the Company had represented to investors; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

MP Materials Corp. f/k/a Fortress Value Acquisition Corp.
(NYSE:MP)

If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/mp-materials-corp-f-k-a-fortress-value-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=24090&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 25, 2022
Class Period: May 1, 2020 - February 2, 2022

Allegations against MP include that: (i) Fortress Value Acquisition
Corp. ("FVAC") had overstated its due diligence efforts and
expertise with respect to identifying target companies to acquire;
(ii) FVAC performed inadequate due diligence into Legacy MP
Materials prior to the business combination, or else ignored
significant red flags regarding, inter alia, Legacy MP Materials'
management, compliance policies, and Mountain Pass's profitability;
(iii) as a result, the Company's future business and financial
prospects post-business combination were overstated; (iv) MP
Materials engaged in an abusive transfer price manipulation scheme
with a related party in the People's Republic of China to
artificially inflate the Company's profits; (v) MP Materials' ore
at the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine and Processing Facility was
not economically viable to harvest for rare earth metals; and (vi)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

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

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

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

STEWARD HEALTH: Faces Patient Fraud Class Action in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Anne Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a
proposed class action alleging a private, for-profit health system
tried make more money by fraudulently overbilling patients or
demanding payment from entities not responsible for their bills
will proceed, a federal court in Texas said.

Two proposed patient classes adequately alleged claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against Steward
Health Care System LLC, a physician-owned network headquartered in
Dallas, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
said.

Two former Steward patients are the named plaintiffs. Both were
treated at Steward's Wadley Regional Medical Center in Texarkana
for injuries suffered in motor vehicle. [GN]

SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Suit Over Internet Services
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that The
companies that operate as Suddenlink Communications face a proposed
class action nearly a month after being fined more than $2.4
million by the Public Service Commission of West Virginia for
allegedly failing to provide safe, adequate and reliable service to
subscribers.

The 34-page lawsuit stresses that Suddenlink's "wholly inadequate"
service has severely damaged the ability of West Virginia residents
to engage in commercial competition, obtain information,
communicate and enjoy entertainment. According to the case,
Suddenlink's failures have "significantly impeded the quality of
life of West Virginians," especially during a pandemic in which
many were required to engage in remote learning or work.

Per the complaint, the Public Service Commission of West Virginia
found on February 9, 2022 that Suddenlink had failed to provide
adequate service to subscribers in the state, apparently as a
result of intentional cuts to its maintenance work and budget and a
reduction of full-time employees. According to the suit, Suddenlink
also shifted how it communicated with subscribers and ignored the
thousands of consumer complaints filed as a result of these
changes.

The Public Service Commission of West Virginia found that Altice,
who provides cable television service in the state as Suddenlink,
painted a "rosy" picture concerning its qualifications,
capabilities and intentions as far as its operations in the state.
On the contrary, the lawsuit alleges that Suddenlink's services in
West Virginia are characterized by "frequent unpredicted prolonged
outages, sometimes at a single home in a neighborhood, sometimes
throughout an entire neighborhood."

The case blames Suddenlink's apparently shoddy service on its
alleged use of outdated equipment, failure to upkeep infrastructure
and hardware, failure to proactively deal with vegetation
encroaching on service lines and failure to staff experienced
technicians and otherwise adequately train employees. The complaint
also claims Suddenlink has failed to implement a crucial redundancy
configuration with regard to mission-critical equipment, which
causes a cascade of failures, and longer than necessary service
interruptions, should one piece of equipment fail.

According to the lawsuit, Altice has, since its acquisition of
Suddenlink in 2015, sought to aggressively cut costs year after
year. As the case tells it, since Altice took over Suddenlink's
operations in West Virginia, the Public Service Commission has
received as of August 26, 2021 more than 2,700 customer complaints,
with most filed since 2019.

The suit states that the Public Service Commission initiated its
case against Suddenlink in response to both the volume of customer
complaints and the commission's displeasure with the company's
initial response to the matter.

Lastly, the case contends that Suddenlink's standard customer
adhesion contract is "unconscionable" as it effectively imposes no
obligations on the company but a number of "unreasonable"
obligations on subscribers.

The lawsuit looks to cover all West Virginia customers of
Suddenlink video service, phone service and high-speed internet
service from January 1, 2016 to the present. Named as defendants in
the suit are Cebridge Acquisition, LLC; Cequel III Communications
I, LLC; Cequel III Communications II, LLC; and Altice USA. [GN]

SUNPOWER CORP: Securities Class Action Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until April 18, 2022 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
SunPower Corporation (NasdaqGS: SPWR), if they purchased the
Company's securities between August 3, 2021 and January 20, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

SunPower investors should visit us at
https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-spwr-1/ or call toll-free
(844) 367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to
discuss your legal options.

About the Lawsuit

SunPower and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On January 20, 2022, the Company disclosed that it had "identified
a cracking issue that developed over time in certain
factory-installed connectors" and that replacement of the
connectors would cause the Company to incur "approximately $27
million of supplier-quality related charges in fourth quarter 2021
and approximately $4 million in the first quarter of 2022."

On this news, shares of SunPower fell $3.22 per share, or 16.9%, to
close at $15.80 per share on January 21, 2022, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The case is Jaszczyszyn v. SunPower Corporation, et al., No.
22-cv-956.

About ClaimsFiler

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

To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com. [GN]

TASKUS INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of April 25 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against TaskUs, Inc. ("TaskUs" or
the "Company") and reminds investors of the April 25, 2022 deadline
to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class
action that has been filed against the Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 investing in TaskUs stock
or options between June 11, 2021 and January 19, 2022 and would
like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner
Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/TASK.

Cannot view this image? Visit:
https://orders.newsfilecorp.com/files/6455/116388_a1617e82343eaac8_001.jpg

There is no cost or obligation to you.

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

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that (1)
TaskUs was experiencing severe financial strain and business
challenges, particularly with its most important customer Facebook;
(2) the Content Security market was smaller than Defendants
represented and Defendants' representations were based on outdated
market data; (3) TaskUs improperly recognized revenue from certain
key contracts; (4) Defendants overstated the size of TaskUs'
workforce as well as employee retention rates, and understated
attrition rates; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On January 20, 2022, Spruce Point Capital Management, LLC ("Spruce
Point") issued a report titled "Moderating the Bull Case Content"
based on its "forensic financial and accounting review" of TaskUs.
Spruce Point found that TaskUs, "has a pattern of exaggerated and
inflated business claims, including revenue, and is covering-up
financial strain with reduced disclosures, cherry-picked market
data, and non-standard key performance metrics." Additionally,
Spruce Point stated, "we find evidence of increasing strain in the
relationship" between TaskUs and its largest customer Facebook "and
believe margins and cash flow are set to contract more than
expected." Spruce Point also stated, "we find a pattern of [TaskUs]
embellishing the size of its workforce and making overly optimistic
revenue growth claims."

On this news, TaskUs' stock fell $5.46 per share, or more than 15%,
from $35.59 per share on January 19, 2022, to $30.13 per share at
the close of trading on January 20, 2022, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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

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

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

TELOS CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 11 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that a
federal securities class action lawsuit has been in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Telos Corporation (NASDAQ:TLS) ("Telos") common stock
between November 19, 2020 and November 12, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

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

If you have incurred losses in Telos Corporation you may, no later
than April 11, 2022, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to
learn more about your rights as an investor in Telos Corporation.

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Telos
touted the positive financial impact two newly entered contracts --
one with the TSA and one with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services ("CMS") -- would have on the Company. Specifically, the
Company projected the contracts would generate "in excess of $135
million in revenue in 2021 and 2022." By August 16, 2021, Telos
announced the contracts were experiencing headwinds due to recent
cyber-attacks and adjusted its revenue projection for the contracts
downward. Despite further delays, Telos continued to affirm its
revenue guidance for
2021.

However, throughout the class period, Telos failed to disclose
that:

-- the TSA and CMS contracts, which constituted a majority of the
Company's future revenues, were not on track to commence as
represented at the end of 2021 and in 2022;

-- Defendants lacked a reasonable basis and sufficient visibility
to provide and affirm the Company's 2021 guidance in the face of
the uncertainty surrounding the TSA and CMS contracts;

-- COVID-19 and hacking scandal-related headwinds were throwing off
the timing for performance of the contracts and their associated
revenues; and

-- as a result of the delays, Telos would be forced to dramatically
reduce its revenue estimates.

On November 15, 2021, Telos revealed that the contracts would be
delayed with only the TSA contract commencing in 2022, while the
CMS contract was pushed back after full year 2022. In response,
Telos' stock fell $6.48 per share, or more than 28%, to close at
$17.54 per share on November 15, 2021, representing a $328 million
decline in market capitalization.

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

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

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774

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

TULA LIFE: Consumers to Receive Class Action Settlement Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Webster, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that
class action settlement checks have been sent out in four lawsuits
have been sent to consumers affected by false advertising and Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) violations.

Bargain Hunt FACTA Settlement Checks
Top Class Actions readers are reporting settlement checks of $100
from a $2 million Bargain Hunt class action settlement payout.

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased products from a
Bargain Hunt store between Aug. 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017, and
received a receipt which listed more than the last five digits of
their card number.

Plaintiffs in the Bargain Hunt class action lawsuit claimed the
bargain store violated the federal FACTA with its electronically
printed receipts. FACTA allows only the last five digits of a
payment card number to be shown on receipts. Bargain Hunt allegedly
violated these requirements by printing receipts showing the first
six and last four digits of payment card numbers.

Bargain Hunt did not admit any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve the
FACTA class action lawsuit with a $2 million settlement.

The FACTA settlement distributed $200,000 of the settlement amongst
Class Members with payments capped at $100 per claimant. TCA
readers reportedly received maximum payments of $100 from this
settlement deal.

In order to receive a payment, Class Members needed to submit a
valid claim form by July 12, 2021.

Plaintiffs and Class Members in the case are represented by Charles
Austin Gower Jr. and Shaun Patrick O'Hara of Charles A. Gower PC,
Chant Yedalian of Chant & Company PLC, and William Dixon James of
Wm. Dixon James PC.

The Bargain Hunt Class Action Lawsuit is Nowe, et al. v. Essex
Technology Group LLC, Case No. SC-2020-CV-694 in the Muscogee
County State Court of the State of Georgia.

Godiva FACTA Class Action Rebates
Payments ranging from $30 to over $150 are in the mail from another
FACTA class action settlement -- a $6.3 million deal with Godiva.

The settlement benefits consumers who made a purchase at a Godiva
store between April 6, 2013, and Nov. 20, 2015, and received a
receipt which showed more than the last five digits of a payment
card number.

According to the Godiva class action lawsuit, the chocolatier
violated FACTA by printing the first six and last four digits of
payment card numbers on consumer receipts. The plaintiffs in the
case contend that these receipts put them at risk for identity
theft and fraud.

Godiva agreed to pay $6.3 million to resolve these allegations but
did not admit any wrongdoing.

Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members were projected to
receive between $55 and $60. Final payment amounts varied, with
some Top Class Actions readers receiving payments as low as $32 or
as high as $162.

In order to receive a payment, Class Members were required to
submit a valid claim form by March 22, 2021.

The settlement Class is represented by lawyers from Keogh Law Ltd,
Scott D. Owens PA, and Bret Lusskin PA.

The Godiva FACTA Class Action Lawsuit is David S. Muransky, et al.
v. Godiva Chocolatier Inc., Case No. 2020CH07156 in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery
Division.

Guinness Class Action Settlement Checks
Top Class Actions readers received payments of up to $5 from a
false advertising settlement with Guiness.

The settlement benefited consumers who purchased six-pack or
12-pack cases of Guinness Extra Stout Beer in Massachusetts between
Dec. 15, 2011, and Sept. 3, 2015.

According to the Guinness class action lawsuit, Guinness Extra
Stout Beer was falsely advertised as being produced in and imported
from Ireland. Despite these advertising claims, the beer is
allegedly produced in Canada. Consumers say they paid a higher
price for Guinness Extra Stout Beer based on the false
representations.

Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members were eligible to
receive $0.50 per six-pack and $1.00 per 12-pack purchased.
Payments were capped at $10 without proof of purchase or at $20
with proof of purchase. TCA readers reported receiving payments of
$4 or $5 from the settlement.

In order to receive these payments, Class Members needed to submit
a valid claim form by Oct. 26, 2021.

Class Members in the Guinness settlement are represented by Kevin
McCullough of Forrest Mazow Mccullough Yasi & Yasi PC.

The Guinness False Ad Class Action Lawsuit is O'Hara, et al. v.
Diageo Beer Company USA, et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-14139-MLW
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

TULA Class Action Rebates
Payments of $4 are being reported in a $5 million TULA class action
settlement alleging the skincare company misrepresented their
products as containing live probiotics.

The settlement Class included consumers who purchased TULA Life
skincare products between Jan. 1, 2013, and Aug. 30, 2021.

According to the TULA class action lawsuit, the company falsely
advertised its products as containing live probiotic cultures. In
reality, the products did not contain live probiotics, the
plaintiffs contend. These false claims allegedly caused consumers
to pay more for cleansers, serums, scrubs, and creams sold by
TULA.

TULA Life didn't admit to any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve the
class action lawsuit with a $5 million settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members could receive a 10
percent refund on all purchases made on TULA products or a flat $4
payment -- whichever was greater. Payments were capped at $25 when
proof of purchase was provided. Without proof of purchase, Class
Members could receive a $4 payment.

Top Class Actions readers have reported receiving $4 payments from
this settlement.

Plaintiffs and Class Members in the settlement are represented by
Philip L. Fraietta, L. Timothy Fisher, and Brittany S. Scott of
Bursor & Fisher PA and Nick Suciu III of Barbat Mansour Suciu &
Tomina PLLC.

The TULA Life Class Action Lawsuit is Morrissey, et al. v. TULA
Life Inc., Case No. 2021L000646 in the Circuit Court of Dupage
County, Illinois, 18th Judicial District. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Air Force Officer Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AIR FORCE OFFICER, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LLOYD J.
AUSTIN, III, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense;
FRANK KENDALL, III, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
Air Force; and ROBERT I. MILLER, in his official capacity as
Surgeon General of the Air Force, Case No. 5:22-cv-00009-TES (M.D.
Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class consisting of:

      "all members of the United States Air Force who (a) are
      subject to a mandate of the Department of Defense or Air
      Force to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, (b) submitted a
      request for religious accommodation regarding such mandate
      based on a sincerely held religious belief, and (c) have
      received or will receive a final denial of such request
      from the Department of Defense or Air Force; and

   2. appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.

The United States Air Force is the air service branch of the United
States Armed Forces, and is one of the eight U.S. uniformed
services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tTLjmj
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Crampton, Esq.
          Mary Catherine Hodes, pro hac vice
          Michael McHale, pro hac vice
          THOMAS MORE SOCIETY -- Senior Counsel
          PO Box 4506
          Tupelo, MS 38803
          Telephone: (662)255-9439
          E-mail: scrampton@thomasmoresociety.org
                  mchodes@thomasmoresociety.org
                  mmchale@thomasmoresociety.org

               - and -

          Adam S. Hochschild, Esq.
          HOCHSCHILD LAW FIRM
          THOMAS MORE SOCIETY -- Special Counsel
          PO Box 401
          Plainfield, VT 05667
          Telephone: (314)503-0326
          E-mail: adam@hochschildlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul M. Jonna, pro hac vice
          LIMANDRI & JONNA LLP
          THOMAS MORE SOCIETY -- Special Counsel
          P.O. Box 9120
          Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
          Telephone: (858)759-994
          E-mail: pjonna@limandri.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Hirsh, Esq.
          HIRSH LAW OFFICE, LLC
          2295 Towne Lake Parkway, Suite 116-181
          Woodstock, GA 30189
          Telephone: (678) 653-9907
          E-mail: michael@hirsh.law

UNITED STATES: Appeals Ruling in Navy Seal Vaccine Mandate Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled NAVY SEAL 1, et al.,
for themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOSEPH R.
BIDEN, in his official capacity as President of the United States,
et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-02429-SDM-TGW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged enforcement of the
federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate and refusal to grant the
Plaintiffs' and similarly situated military personnel's request for
exemption from COVID-19 shots based on their religious beliefs.

On February 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(b)(1) and the Court's Order of October 18, 2021, moved the Court
for an emergency temporary restraining order to preserve the status
quo ante for two class members pending the Court's decision on
Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Supplemental
Memorandum and Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

On February 18, 2022, the Court entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief and ruled that
the Defendants are preliminarily enjoined (1) from enforcing
against Navy Commander and Lieutenant Colonel 2 any order or
regulation requiring COVID-19 vaccination and (2) from any adverse
or retaliatory action against Navy Commander or Lieutenant Colonel
2 as a result of, arising from, or in conjunction with Navy
Commander's or Lieutenant Colonel 2's requesting a religious
exemption, appealing the denial of a request for a religious
exemption, requesting reconsideration of the denial of a religious
exemption, or pursuing this action or any other action for relief
under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First
Amendment.

The Defendants seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Navy Seal 1, et al. v. President
of the United States, et al., Case No. 22-10645, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on February
28, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; SECRETARY OF
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; SECRETARY, US DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; SECRETARY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES MARINE
CORPS; SECRETARY US DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE; ADMINISTRATOR US
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; DIRECTOR US OFFICE OF PERSONNELL
MANAGEMENT; ACTING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; and CHAIR OF THE FEDERAL
ACQUISITION REGULATORY COUNCIL, are represented by:

          Sarah Jane Clark, Esq.
          Sarah Carroll, Esq.
          Casen Ross, Esq.
          Lowell Sturgill, Jr., Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-3511

               - and -

          Zachary A. Avallone, Esq.
          Andrew Evan Carmichael, Esq.
          Courtney Enlow, Esq.
          R. Charles Merritt, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1100 L St NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 307-0162

               - and -

          Amy Elizabeth Powell, Esq.
          DOJ-CIV
          150 Fayetteville St Ste 2100
          Raleigh, NC 27601

Plaintiffs-Appellees NAVY SEAL 1, United States Navy; NAVY SEAL 2;
EOD OFFICER, United States Navy; SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER, United
States Navy; CHAPLAIN, United States Navy; LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1,
United States Marine Corps; LIEUTENANT COLONEL 2, United States
Marine Corps; MAJOR, United States Marine Corps; SECOND LIEUTENANT,
United States Marine Corps; CAPTAIN, United States Marine Corps;
ARMY RANGER, United States Army; LANCE CORPORAL 1, United States
Marine Corps; LANCE CORPORAL 2, United States Marine Corps; AIR
FORCE MAJOR, United States Air Force; NATIONAL GUARDSMAN, Virginia
Army National Guard; COAST GUARD LIEUTENANT, United States Coast
Guard; TECHNICAL SERGEANT, United States Air Force; DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR, United States Department of Defense; FEDERAL
CIVILIAN ENGINEER CONTRACTOR; FEDERAL CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR EMPLOYER;
FEDERAL NUCLEAR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE; DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CIVILIAN
NUCLEAR TECH, for themselves and all others similarly situated;
COLONEL, United States Army; COMMANDER SURFACE WARFARE OFFICER,
United States Navy; NAVY CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER, United States Navy
Reserve; COLONEL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OFFICER, United States Marine
Corps; RESERVE LIEUTENANT COLONEL, United States Marine Corps;
CAPTAIN 2, United States Marine Corps; CAPTAIN 3, United States
Marine Corps; FIRST LIEUTENANT, United States Marine Corps; CHIEF
WARRANT OFFICER 3, United States Marine Corps; CHAPLAIN, United
States Air Force; RESERVE LIEUTENANT COLONEL 1, United States Air
Force; RESERVE LIEUTENANT COLONEL 2, United States Air Force;
MASTER SERGEANT SERE SPECIALIST, United States Air Force; CADET,
United States Air Force Academy; PILOT, United States Coast Guard;
LCDR PILOT, United States Coast Guard; MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM
ANALYST, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of
Homeland Security; and STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE 1, are represented
by:

          Roger K. Gannam, Esq.
          Horatio Gabriel Mihet, Esq.
          Daniel Joseph Schmid, Esq.
          Mathew Duane Staver, Esq.
          LIBERTY COUNSEL INC.
          PO Box 540774
          Orlando, FL 32854
          Telephone: (800) 671-1776

               - and -

          Richard L. Mast, Jr., Esq.
          LIBERTY COUNSEL, INC.
          PO Box 11108
          Lynchburg, VA 24506
          Telephone: (434) 592-3402

UNITED STATES: April 23 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior

Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations


THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

ALL CASES

Misc. Action No. 13-mc-1288 (RCL)

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION

TO:

ALL CURRENT HOLDERS OF JUNIOR PREFERRED STOCK IN FANNIE MAE AS OF
DECEMBER 7, 2021, OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO THE EXTENT
SHARES ARE SOLD AFTER DECEMBER 7, 2021 AND BEFORE ANY FINAL
JUDGMENT OR SETTLEMENT (THE "FANNIE PREFERRED CLASS");

ALL CURRENT HOLDERS OF JUNIOR PREFERRED STOCK IN FREDDIE MAC AS OF
DECEMBER 7, 2021, OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO THE EXTENT
SHARES ARE SOLD AFTER DECEMBER 7, 2021 AND BEFORE ANY FINAL
JUDGMENT OR SETTLEMENT (THE "FREDDIE PREFERRED CLASS"); AND

ALL CURRENT HOLDERS OF COMMON STOCK IN FREDDIE MAC AS OF DECEMBER
7, 2021, OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST TO THE EXTENT SHARES ARE
SOLD AFTER DECEMBER 7, 2021 AND BEFORE ANY FINAL JUDGMENT OR
SETTLEMENT (THE "FREDDIE COMMON CLASS").

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 District of Columbia, that the above-captioned action
("Action") against the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), the
Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"), and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac")
(collectively, "Defendants") has been certified as a class action
on behalf of the Classes set forth above, except for certain
persons and entities that are excluded from the Classes by
definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of Class Action
("Notice"). Plaintiffs Joseph Cacciapalle, Michelle M. Miller,
Timothy J. Cassell, and Barry P. Borodkin have been appointed by
the Court to represent the Classes.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF ONE OR MORE OF THE CLASSES, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THIS LAWSUIT. The full printed Notice is currently
being mailed to known Class Members. If you have not yet received a
full printed Notice, you may obtain a copy from the website for the
Action, www.fannie-freddieclassaction.com or by contacting the
Administrator:

Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Class Action
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173066
Milwaukee, WI 53217

If you did not receive the Notice by mail and you are a member of
one or more of the Classes, please send your name and address to
the Administrator so that if any future notices are disseminated in
connection with the Action, you will receive them.

If you are a member of one or more of the Classes, you have the
right to decide whether to remain a member of the Classes. If you
choose to remain a member of the Classes, you do not need to do
anything at this time other than retain your documentation
reflecting your holdings in Fannie Mae junior preferred stock,
Freddie Mac junior preferred stock, or Freddie Mac common stock.
You will automatically be included in the Classes, and you will be
bound by the proceedings in this Action, including all past,
present and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class Member and do not wish
to remain a member of the Classes, you must take steps to exclude
yourself from the Classes.

If you timely and validly request to be excluded from one or more
of the Classes, you will not be bound by any orders or judgments in
the Action as to that Class, and you will not be eligible to
receive a share of any money which might be recovered in the future
for the benefit of the Class(es) which you timely sought exclusion
from. To exclude yourself, you must submit a written request for
exclusion postmarked no later than April 23, 2022 in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the full printed Notice.

You must maintain ownership in the underlying security through the
date of any final judgment or settlement to remain a member of the
Classes. If you sell your shares of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
preferred stock or Freddie Mac common stock before that time, you
will no longer be a member of the Classes.

"Final judgment" means the judgment of the Court after (1) any and
all appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (the
"Court of Appeals") have been adjudicated, or the time for appeal
to the Court of Appeals has expired with no appeal having been
taken, (2) any and all petitions for writ of certiorari to the U.S.
Supreme Court (the "Supreme Court") have been adjudicated, or the
time for filing petitions for writ of certiorari has expired with
no petition having been filed, and (3) if any petition for writ of
certiorari is granted, any and all appeals to the Supreme Court
have been adjudicated.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to any
of the below Court-appointed Class Counsel:

Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
Samuel C. Kaplan, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
www.bsfllp.com
hhume@BSFLLP.com
skaplan@bsfllp.com

Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
www.ktmc.com
ezagar@ktmc.com
lrudy@ktmc.com

Michael J. Barry, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
www.gelaw.com
mbarry@gelaw.com

Adam Wierzbowski, Esq.
Richard D. Gluck, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
www.blbglaw.com
adam@blbglaw.com
rich.gluck@blbglaw.com

Further information may be obtained by contacting the Administrator
or visiting the website www.fannie-freddieclassaction.com.

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE COURT'S CLERK, OR THE JUDGE.
THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO ADDRESS YOUR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS.

DATED: January 24, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [GN]

UNITED STATES: Calixto Seeks Extension to File Class Status Reply
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS CALIXTO, et. al., v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et. al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01551-PLF (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting extension of time, to April 15, 2022, for
Defendants to file their certified administrative record index and
for Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of their motion for
class certification.

These deadlines have been extended by the Court several times
previously in order to accommodate the Parties' discussions
regarding a possible resolution of this matter as well as the
Parties' discussions regarding next steps for continuing the
litigation of this matter. The Plaintiffs' reply and Defendants'
certified administrative record index currently are due on March 1,
2022.

The parties are preparing for Court ordered mediation on March 24
and 25, 2022. The parties believe that this is the most efficient
manner to resolve this case and delaying these deadlines will
preserve the Court's time. The Court's granting of this extension
should not have any impact on any other previously scheduled
deadlines in this matter.

A copy of the Court's Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 28, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MsBhRg at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer M. Wollenberg, Esq.
          Douglas W. Baruch, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2541
          Telephone: (202) 739-5313
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: jennifer.wollenberg@morganlewis.com
                  douglas.baruch@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Bernard J. Garbutt III, Esq.
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178-0060
          Telephone: (212) 309-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
          E-mail: bernard.garbutt@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Colin C. West, Esq.
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
          Telephone: (415) 442-1121
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: colin.west@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Taylor C. Day, Esq.
          Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
          300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: taylor.day@morganlewis.com
                  megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew M. Graves, Esq.
          Brian P. Hudak, Esq.
          John Haberland, Esq.
          555 Fourth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 252-2574
          E-mail: john.haberland@usdoj.gov

UNITED STATES: Poffenbarger Preliminary Injunction Bid Partly OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL POFFENBARGER, v.
FRANK KENDALL, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00001-TMR-CHG (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Thomas M. Rose entered an order granting, in part,
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and issuing a
preliminary injunction.

Having considered the factors, the Court finds that a preliminary
injunction should issue. However, the Court will not grant much of
what Poffenbarger has requested for preliminary injunctive relief,
either because the requested relief fails to correspond with the
purpose of a preliminary injunction or because Poffenbarger has not
made a sufficient showing to grant such relief or that such relief
would be appropriate under the circumstances presented. Univ. of
Texas.

According to his testimony at the preliminary injunction hearing,
Poffenbarger enlisted in the Air Force in 2005 and served for a
number of years as an active duty member. His service included two
overseas deployments. In 2014, Poffenbarger decided to leave active
duty and transfer to the reserves. He has been a Christian for his
entire life, and he has a wife and four children under the age of
ten. Poffenbarger has full-time civilian employment, working as a
field surveyor. He does not receive health care benefits through
that employment; he and his family receive health care benefits
through his service with the Air Force Reserve.

Poffenbarger is a member of the Air Force Reserve who was
commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the fall of 2021. He is
assigned to work as an intelligence officer. Before he can perform
his duties as an intelligence officer,Poffenbarger must attend
intelligence technical school. Due to the sensitive nature of the
training, which includes the use of classified materials and
systems, the training takes place in a secured facility. Windows
and doors at secured facilities must remain closed. The classrooms
within the secured facility are consistently fully occupied and are
not large enough to ensure six feet of social distancing among
students and instructors. (Id.) Current Air Force policy does not
permit any unvaccinated individuals to attend new training courses
because service members would be in close contact with others
during training.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HMs1nK at no extra charge.[CC]

VIATRIS INC: Settles EpiPen Class Action for $3.3 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schloesser, writing for Endpoints News, reports that just as
Biocon signs off on a $3.3 billion buyout of their shared
biosimilars business, Viatris's pending lawsuit for its
controversial EpiPen might be no more -- if the court signs off on
it.

Keeping details short, the pharma snuck in an announcement about
its EpiPen product in its Q4 report:

The Company has agreed, subject to approval by the Court, to a $264
million settlement, while denying any allegation of wrongdoing, to
resolve the EpiPen Auto-Injector indirect purchaser class action
cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas.

The pharma added that "the Board of Directors believes that this
settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its
stakeholders. The resolution of these indirect purchaser cases will
allow the Company to move forward and continue focusing on its
strategic priorities."

The pharma player, created out of the merger of Upjohn and Mylan,
came under heavy fire amid accusations of greed and price gouging
after news surfaced in 2016 that the price of Mylan's EpiPen, an
auto-injector to treat severe allergic reactions, increased from
about $100 in 2007 to $608 for a two-pack. At the time, the company
had revenues of $11 billion a year -- fueling scathing critiques
about rising US drug prices.

Then-Mylan CEO Heather Bresch, daughter of Democratic senator Joe
Manchin, left the company after the merger in 2020. But she
vigorously defended the price increase at the time before the
Congress Oversight and Government Reform Committee, saying that
"Price and access exist in a balance, and we believe we have struck
that balance."

Fast forward one year, and Mylan finalized a $465 million
settlement with the US Department of Justice to resolve claims that
it overcharged the government for the EpiPen.

Daniel Crabtree
The class-action case, brought before Kansas City, KS judge Daniel
Crabtree, was on behalf of consumers and third-party payers such as
insurers -- with the plaintiffs seeking $1 billion in damages, a
sum that under some state antitrust laws could have been
multiplied.

The lawsuit accused both Mylan and Pfizer, which manufactured the
EpiPen, of engaging in anticompetitive conduct -- potentially
allowing the companies to maintain a monopoly over the market for
the devices. While the case was slated to go on trial in February,
Crabtree dismissed much of the case against Mylan last June,
leaving only a claim concerning a 2012 patent litigation settlement
with generic drugmaker Teva.

Pfizer had also settled last year for $345 million. [GN]

VIVINT INC: Loses Bid to Strike Fitzhenry Class Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK FITZHENRY v. VIVINT,
INC., et. al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00501-DAK-CMR (D. Utah.), the Hon.
Judge Dale A. Kimball entered an order denying the Defendant's
motion to strike class allegations.

Vivint seeks to strike the class allegations in Plaintiff's
Complaint because Plaintiff failed to seek class certification
within the ninety days required by this District's prior Local
Rules.  The deadline under the prior rules would have been November
22, 2021. As of December 1, 2021, however, this District's Local
Rules did away with the specific ninety-day rule and adopted
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's more general standard which
states that class certification should occur "at an early
practicable time."

The Plaintiff states that it was his understanding that the court
had otherwise ordered a schedule for class certification. This
District's prior Local Rules applied a ninety-day deadline "unless
the court otherwise orders."

The court entered a scheduling order in this case on October 15,
2021, and set a fact discovery deadline of April 14, 2022. The
Plaintiff believed that the court was allowing him to conduct
discovery before moving for class certification. The Plaintiff
explains that he has not moved for class certification because he
has been unable to serve one of the defendants and that defendant
has critical records that will determine the scope of the class
Plaintiff seeks to certify. The Plaintiff argues that to move for
class certification before any discovery can be taken from that
defendant would be premature.

The court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs have an obligation
to move the case along diligently. But the court notes that
Plaintiff has served some discovery and does not appear to be
failing to prosecute the case in general. Given the circumstances
in this case, the court declines to strike the class allegations
for failing to move for class certification within the ninety days
previously required by the court. The parties should meet and
determine the appropriate timing on obtaining the information
Plaintiff needs from RS&I to determine the scope of the class and
agree to a schedule for briefing class certification.

Vivint provides smart home products and services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CmDWrm at no extra charge.[CC]

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Bid to Vacate Case Management Deadlines OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATASHA DAVIS, JENNIFER
ELLIOTT, and MARLA ALIECE SIMS-KING, individually and as
representatives of a class participants and beneficiaries in and on
behalf of the WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, v.
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST.
LOUIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS
RETIREMENT PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST.
LOUIS PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, and WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN
ST. LOUIS EXECUTIVE VICE CHANCELLOR AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER, Case No. 4:17-cv-01641-RLW (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Ronnie L. White entered an order granting the joint motion to
vacate case management deadlines.

  -- The Plaintiffs' March 1, 2022 deadline to file oppositions
     to Defendants' summary judgment and Daubert motions, the
     Defendants' March 18, 2022 deadline to file replies in
     support of their summary judgment and Daubert motions, and
     the June 21, 2022 trial date are vacated.

  -- Any and all pending motions, including Plaintiffs' Notice
     of Motion and Motion for Class Certification, the
     Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Witness Testimony, the
     Defendants' Motion to File Under Seal Certain Documents in
     Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to
     Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert, Defendants' Motion to Exclude
     Plaintiffs' Expert Veronica Bray and Defendants' Motion for
     Summary Judgment are denied without prejudice.

  -- Counsel shall file, no later than April 15, 2022, a motion
     for preliminary approval of the settlement. Failure to
     comply timely with this order will result in the dismissal
     of this action with prejudice.

Washington University in St. Louis is a private research
university.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IQUD0a at no extra charge.[CC]

WENTZVILLE SCHOOL: Reverses Decision to Ban Tony Morrison Book
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a suburban St. Louis school
district has reversed its earlier decision to remove a book from
its school libraries in the face of criticism and a class-action
lawsuit.

The Wentzville School Board on Feb. 25 accepted a review
committee's recommendation to retain Tony Morrison's "The Bluest
Eye," which it had previously banned because of its explicit
descriptions of sex, violence, rape and incest, the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch reported.

School board vice president, Daniel Brice, said the district should
"tighten its policies" regarding some books, but he pointed out
parents already had the right to request certain titles not be
available to their children.

The district made national news in January when it removed "The
Bluest Eye" from its high school libraries. The board has also
temporarily banned other books while they are reviewed.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri earlier in February
sued the school district on behalf of two students.

"This is welcome news, but the fact remains that six books are
still banned. And Wentzville's policies still make it easy for any
community member to force any book from the shelves even when they
shamelessly target books by and about communities of color, LGBTQ
people and other marginalized groups," said Anthony Rothert,
director of integrated advocacy of ACLU of Missouri.[GN]

WORLD RUGBY: Rugby Players' Concussion Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shrivathsa Sridhar, writing for Reuters, reports that more than
half of the first 21 brains donated to the Australian Sports Brain
Bank by former athletes showed signs of chronic traumatic
encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative disease caused by repeated
concussions, a study showed.

CTE, which can only be detected when the brain is examined after
death, has been linked to mental health issues ranging from mood
and behavioural symptoms to cognitive impairment and dementia.

The study, which was approved by the Sydney Local Health District
Ethics Review Committee (Royal Prince Alfred Hospital), reported
its preliminary findings based on the first 21 completed donations
up to March 26, 2021.

"All 21 donors had participated in sports with risks of repetitive
head injury, including 17 who had played in football codes," the
study, which was published in the Medical Journal of Australia,
said.

"All but one donor exhibited some form of neurodegeneration, and 13
presented two or more neurodegenerative pathologies. The most
frequent neuropathology was CTE: 12 donors had pathognomonic CTE
lesions."

The paper added that six of the 12 donors with CTE, and one of nine
without CTE, had died by suicide.

Contact sports around the world are starting to deal with the
long-term consequences of players receiving repeated head-knocks
during their careers.

The National Football League in the United States set up a $1
billion fund in 2016 to compensate thousands of former players who
suffered brain injuries linked to repeated concussions.

A group of former rugby players filed a class-action lawsuit
against World Rugby and other governing bodies in December 2020,
alleging that their failure to protect them had led to early onset
of dementia.

The rugby governing body announced guidelines last year limiting
full contact training to 15 minutes per week and launched a brain
health education campaign for players. [GN]

[*] Applicant's Arbitration Pact Did Not Apply to Ex-Employers
--------------------------------------------------------------
PreEMPLOY reports that a California appellate court has found that
a business relationship between an applicant's potential employer
and a former employer will not extend an arbitration agreement
signed between the former parties to disputes between the applicant
and their former employers. Notably, despite having employment
agreements with both of the former employers, the applicant had
never signed an arbitration agreement with either.

The applicant later joined a class action lawsuit begun by other
employees for wage and hour violations against these employers.
Both former employers attempted to compel arbitration, which the
trial court rejected. The employers appealed this decision arguing
that the court was mistaken in holding that the agreement did not
apply to the plaintiff's individual claims.

On appeal, the court considered whether or not the employers'
business relationship was sufficient to establish an agreement to
arbitrate disputes with the plaintiff. When the plaintiff had
worked for the two prior employers, she had provided contracted
services for one of these employers to work as a packer for a
produce packing and shipping company.

After the plaintiff's employment with these two employers ended,
she applied to work for the third employer who provided payroll
services for the other two employers. The plaintiff wasn't hired
but did sign an arbitration agreement that defined the "company" to
which the agreement applied to include "all related entities,
including entities where employees are sent to work."

The court noted that contractual principles apply despite a general
policy that favors arbitration. Thus, a party cannot be forced into
arbitration they have not previously agreed upon. The court held
that the plaintiff's arbitration agreement in 2019 did not apply to
their previous employment in which they had different employers.

The plaintiff's agreement stated at the top in the first sentence
that it was part of an onboarding package. According to the court,
since the contract contained the word onboarding, it was meant to
apply to new employees. The court also stated that the fact the
plaintiff's prospective employer had a business relationship with
her former employers did not mean that the arbitration agreement
could be applied to disputes between the plaintiff and their former
employers.

The court also held that the plaintiff's two former employers were
not third-party beneficiaries of the agreement. The court found no
evidence that supported the idea the parties intended the former
employers to benefit from the arbitration agreement. Additionally,
the court rejected the argument by the former employers that the
arbitration agreement could be enforced since the companies were
alter egos or agents of each other as well because there wasn't any
evidence to support this claim. [GN]

[*] Dietary Supplement Industry Class Actions Cut in Half in 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Long, writing for Natural Products Insider, reports that the
number of class action lawsuits filed last year against the dietary
supplement industry was cut in half compared to 2020, reflecting
the second year of a steady reduction in new filings, according to
Perkins Coie LLP, an international law firm that defends food and
CPG litigation cases.

The supplement sector in 2021 faced 22 new filings, compared to 45
in 2020 and 65 in 2019, Perkins Coie divulged in its report, "Food
& Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation 2021 Year in Review." More
than half of the class action lawsuits (12) were filed in
California, followed by New York (6).

Lawsuits alleging false labeling comprised almost 70% of the
filings in 2021, Perkins Coie said, followed by "all natural"
claims in a "distant second."

While the supplement industry may have had reason to celebrate the
dwindling number of class action lawsuits, food and beverage
companies continue to get whacked with a large number of cases. A
record 325 cases were filed last year against the food and beverage
sector, Perkins Coie divulged, up from 221 cases in 2020.

Of note last year, 120 lawsuits targeted the baby food industry,
stemming from a congressional probe, the law firm revealed in its
annual report.

The class action lawsuits filed against supplement makers reflect
only part of the pressures they face from plaintiffs' lawyers.
"Demand letters are a whole different ballgame," Katie Bond, a
partner with the law firm Lathrop GPM LLP, who has defended dietary
supplement companies in litigation, said in an interview. Such
letters against the supplement sector are "very prevalent and just
get sorted out one way or another before there is any [court]
filing."

Trends in the supplement space also may drive up the number of
class action cases in a particular year, Bond observed. For
instance, she referenced lawsuits in prior years that challenged
statements that touted the benefits of glucosamine and chondroitin
joint health supplements. And several years ago, a wave of class
action lawsuits was tied to an investigation into herbal
supplements by the office of the New York Attorney General. More
recently, class action lawsuits against CBD companies began to pile
up in California in 2019 after FDA reiterated its stance in warning
letters and a news release that the compound cannot be lawfully
sold in dietary supplements.

"Despite the reported data, we have not seen a material change in
supplement class action litigation filings against our clients over
the past several years," said Matthew Orr, a partner with Amin
Talati Wasserman LLP, who has defended clients in lawsuits arising
under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Proposition 65 and
several other state and federal statutes. "It remains to be seen
whether fewer filings in 2020-21 is indicative of a purposeful and
sustained trend away from supplement claims or simply an anomaly.
Let's hope it's the former and not the latter."

Lack of substantiation, preemption
False advertising claims against dietary supplements frequently
allege marketing claims are not supported by competent and reliable
scientific evidence, Perkins Coie said. The annual litigation
report cited a trend in recent years suggesting "courts may not
recognize a private right of action for false advertising claims
based on a ‘lack-of-substantiation' theory."

Perkins Coie, for example, cited dismissals, in whole or in part,
of false advertising claims by federal courts in California and
Florida.

In one of the cases cited by Perkins Coie in the Southern District
of Florida, plaintiffs alleged the marketer of BANG energy drink,
Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. (VPX), falsely advertised the product
contained creatine and could help with Alzheimer's and other forms
of dementia.

Plaintiffs did not provide any factual support for their allegation
that the product's stated benefits were deceptive. Instead, the
allegations were based on a lack of substantiation for the
challenged statements, according to a June 7, 2021, order from U.S.
District Judge Raag Singhal.

Singhal dismissed plaintiffs' claims that VPX misrepresented BANG's
effectiveness, writing, "Without factual support for their claim
that BANG is ineffective, plaintiffs' conclusions are merely
speculation and not entitled to weight."

Perkins Coie cited another false labeling case against Walmart Inc.
in the Central District of California involving glucosamine sulfate
supplements. In that case, the court ruled the claims were
preempted and granted summary judgement to the defendants because
the plaintiffs had not used a testing method specified in FDA
regulations to determine compliance with standards, or an
alternative method considered appropriate and reliable, Perkins
Coie said. [GN]

[*] U.S. Class Action Spending to Continue to Increase in 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
D. Matthew Allen, Esq., and John Clabby, Esq., of Carlton Fields,
in an article for JDSupra, report that Carlton Fields is pleased to
share its 11th annual Class Action Survey, which provides an
overview of important issues and practices related to class action
matters and management. This annual publication reports on
historical trends captured since the inception of the survey and
includes information related to emerging issues in class action
litigation.

Class action spending has increased for seven consecutive years,
and it is expected to continue to rise in 2022. Companies with
class actions are seeing increases in the number of class actions
they face at a given time. The current portfolio reveals the
highest number of both ongoing matters and total matters since the
inception of this survey 11 years ago.

The 2022 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey is based on interviews
with general counsel or senior legal officers at more than 400
Fortune 1000 and other large companies across a variety of
industries. They shared their thoughts about class action exposure
and best practices for class action management.

Defense Spending on Class Actions Heads Up for the Seventh Straight
Year — Hits New Record

Companies are spending more upfront, face record caseloads, and are
keeping in-house attorneys at the same levels as last year. This
translates into increased spending to assess and defend class
action matters.

Labor and Employment Tops All Class Actions Companies Face

COVID-19 is seen as causing increased labor and employment claims
— especially wage and hour, discrimination, and workplace safety
claims.

Labor and Employment, Consumer Fraud, and Data Privacy Expected to
Lead Next Wave of Class Actions

Companies expect more labor-related claims along with data privacy
claims to lead the next wave of class actions. The two are related
as work-from-home and hybrid work environments increase the chances
of the unauthorized release of data.

Consumer Fraud Claims Expected to Soar

Companies' increasing use of social media to make statements is
becoming a magnet for plaintiffs' counsel to allege false claims.
The audiences for such claims are wide and the plaintiffs' bar is
aggressive, with statements regarding environmental, social, and
governance (ESG) issues drawing particular attention.
Pharmaceutical and supplement manufacturers increasingly are
attracting new claims.

Class Action Caseload at Each Company to Hit a Record High in 2022

The typical large company can anticipate a 27% increase in class
action caseload in 2022.

Number of In-House Attorneys Managing Class Actions Is Down One
Attorney Since 2018

Most companies are keeping in-house staffing levels unchanged from
2020, which is one attorney lower than our 2018 survey.

Companies Plan to Increase Reliance on Outside Counsel

The increased caseload, variability of issues between cases, and
unpredictable staffing needs
find in-house counsel increasingly relying on outside counsel to
defend class actions.

Fewer AFAs Being Used

More companies are opting for hourly rates to move through their
caseload after years of experimentation with alternative fee
arrangements (AFAs).

Trusted Outside Counsel, Early Case Assessment Equal Powerful Cost
Reduction Tools

Companies point to trust in outside counsel to do the right thing
for companies as the most effective cost management tool. This is
followed closely by early case assessment, which is especially
valuable when performed by trusted outside counsel.

Bet-the-Company Matters on the Decline

The number of companies facing bet-the-company matters dropped
substantially to less than 5%. While the class actions these
companies face may be complex, they are now less likely to be
perceived as critical to the balance sheet or the stock price.

The full report is available to download at
https://classactionsurvey.com/. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2022. 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 ***