---

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

              Friday, November 18, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 225

                            Headlines

ARGO GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due December 20
BISSELL HOMECARE: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Product Warranties
BMW MANUFACTURING: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Airbag Inflators
BOB DEAN: Settles Nursing Home Class Action for $12.5-Mil.
BP RETIREMENT: Putative Class Member Motions to Intervene Denied

CANADA: Education Dep't., Council Sued Over Student Seclusions
CAREERBUILDER LLC: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Laporte et al. Claim
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Briefing on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid in Jan.
COMEDY PARTNERS: Faces Class Action Over SiriusXM Licensing Deal
COOPERATIEVE RABOBANK: 2nd Circuit Affirms Class Action Dismissal

CRODA INC: Baker Petitions for Cert. of Question of Law to S.C.
D.W.S ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Cruz Suit Alleges
DESERT AUTO: Hao-Keppel Files Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Wage Theft Class Action Suit Trial Begins
EAGLE EQUITY: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger With Skillz

EVOLUS INC: Reilly FTSA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
FASHION NOVA: Shabtai Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
FEDEX CORP: Settles Class Action Over Unattended Drop Boxes
FRESHWORKS INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over False IPO Statements
GEICO: Agrees to Settle Insurance Class Action for $19.1 Million

GENERAL POWER: Faces Class Suit Over Defective SnapRS 801 Switches
GOLDMAN SACHS: 401(k) Fee Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
GOODYEAR TIRE: Faces Wiretapping Class Suit in Massachusetts
GOOGLE LLC: Court OKs $118-M Pay Disparity Class Action Settlement
GREYSTAR REAL: Faces Rental Price-Fixing Class Action in Colorado

HARD ROCK: Dibenedetto Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
HOLIDAY INNS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Nunez Suit Alleges
HOME DEPOT: Fails to Provide Work Schedule Notices, Bermudez Says
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Tripoli Suit Moved From S.D. Ind. to S.D. Ohio
JUUL LABS: Benton County Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Wood Suit Says
JUUL LABS: East St. Louis Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
JUUL LABS: Faces Greene Central Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Cahokia Unit Says
JUUL LABS: Puyallup School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction

JUUL LABS: South Tippah Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
KIA CORP: Faces Class Suit After Viral TikTok Causes Rise in Thefts
KIND LLC: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Davide Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
MERCURY INDEMNITY: Appeal Filed in Thomas Suit

MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Chewing Gums
NRG ENERGY: Continues to Face Winter Storm Uri Suits in Harris Cty.
NRG ENERGY: Suits v. Direct Energy Pending in N.Y. and N.J.
ONTARIO: Ct. of Appeal Set Extension to Opt Out Class Proceedings
ONTARIO: Lerners LLP Attorneys Discuss Ruling in Prison Class Suit

PBM NUTRITIONALS: Nov. 30 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
SCUPPER'S WATERSPORTS: Faces Cadwell Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
T. ROWE: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Capture of Biometrics
TAMARA LICH: List of Defendants in Protest Suit May Be Expanded
TOM'S OF MAINE: May Face Suit Over PFAS in Toothpaste Products

TOWN & COUNTRY EVENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Angulo Alleges
TRICOLOR AUTO: Cross Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
UNILEVER PLC: Dry Shampoo Recall May Prompt Class Action Suit
WAKEMED HEALTH: Faces Breach Class Action Over Tracking Pixels
[*] Food, Beverage Companies Vulnerable to Mislabeling Class Suit

[*] Gibson Dunn Issues Third Quarter 2022 Update on Class Actions

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Has 160 Exposure Cases Pending at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Faces Several Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Faces Personal Injury Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Holdings Has $162.4MM Loss on Divestiture
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Faces Numerous Exposure Lawsuits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Defends Numerous PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Has 17,220 Pending PI Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l Paper Has $104MM Liability as of Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech Has 451 Open Cases as of Oct. 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Estimates $25MM Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Has 25,880 Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Technologies Defends Asbestos-Related Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Paid $64MM in Asbestos Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Defends 550 Cases in US and EU
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Defends 218 Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Air Brake Faces Exposure Claims


                            *********

ARGO GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due December 20
------------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.

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

CONTACT US HERE:

https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/argo-group-class-action-form/?id=33238&from=4
CLASS PERIOD: This lawsuit is on behalf of investors that purchased
or otherwise acquired Argo common stock between February 13, 2018
and August 9, 2022.

ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Argo's reserves were wholly
inadequate and its underwriting standards were not prudent as was
represented; (ii) Argo had dramatically changed its underwriting
policies on certain U.S. construction contracts as far back as
2018; and (iii) these policies were underwritten outside of the
Company's "core" business including in certain states and for
certain exposures that were far riskier than investors understood
and that the Company no longer would service moving forward.

DEADLINE: December 20, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/argo-group-class-action-form/?id=33238&from=4

NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of ARGO during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is December 20, 2022. There
is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.

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

CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]

BISSELL HOMECARE: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Product Warranties
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims that Bissell Homecare has illegally
stated that its warranties will be void if customers use
unauthorized servicers to repair its vacuum cleaner and floor care
products.

The 15-page case alleges that the vacuum cleaner manufacturer has
violated the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act's "Anti-Tying
Rule," which prohibits the "anticompetitive practice" of
conditioning a product warranty on a consumer's use of only
authorized repair services and replacement parts.

The plaintiff, a Pennsylvania consumer, claims that they purchased
a Bissell Little Green Multi-Purpose Portable Carpet and Upholstery
Cleaner 1400B in July 2022 with a warranty that does not cover
"[d]amage or malfunction caused by negligence, abuse, neglect,
unauthorized repair, or any other use not in accordance with the
User's Guide."

Bissell's alleged misconduct allows it to develop a monopoly on
repairing its products and selling after-market parts since "many
consumers won't attempt even simple, inexpensive repairs -- or use
inexpensive third-party repair services -- if they believe doing so
will void the warranties they purchased with Defendant's products,"
the suit says.

The filing argues that Bissell's tying arrangement stifles
competition, which drives up repair costs and wait times. By
limiting consumers' options, Bissell can cause shortages as supply
chains struggle to keep up with increased demand, the complaint
contests.

Moreover, the filing says Bissell's conduct enables it to force
consumers to buy new products through "planned obsolescence."

"When it costs almost as much to repair an existing product as it
does to buy a new version of the same product, consumers will
likely opt to buy the new product," the case reads. "Whereas, in a
repair marketplace where costs are lowered through competition, it
is cheaper to repair an existing piece of electronics than to buy a
new one."

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Pennsylvania who purchased
a product subject to Bissell Homecare's warranty within the past
three years. [GN]

BMW MANUFACTURING: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Airbag Inflators
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a BMW
airbag class action alleges vehicles are equipped with ARC airbag
inflators at risk of exploding.

The lawsuit alleges BMW has known about the allegedly dangerous
airbag inflators since at least July 2015 based on a federal
investigation.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened the 2015
investigation following reports of two injuries from the airbag
inflators. Both injuries occurred in non-BMW vehicles.

NHTSA upgraded the investigation following the death of a Canadian
woman in a 2009 Hyundai Elantra.

According to the BMW airbag class action, the ARC airbag inflators
in these BMW vehicles are the same inflators involved in deaths and
injuries in vehicles built by other automakers.

2014-2017 BMW i3
2014-2017 MINI Cooper 2-Door
2015-2017 MINI Cooper 4-Door
2016-2017 MINI Cooper Convertible
2016-2017 BMW X1
2014-2017 BMW X5
2015-2017 BMW X6

The lawsuit says the BMW vehicles are equipped with ARC driver's
hybrid toroidal inflators CADH/DH-7 single-stage and DCADH
dual-stage inflators. The passenger-side contans ARC PH7-90 or
PH7-120 single stage inflators and PH7-120 or DPH7 dual stage
inflators.

The BMW airbag class action lawsuit was filed by South Carolina
plaintiff Ryan Charles Clark who purchased a 2015 BMW X5 in
November 2019.

The plaintiff says the ARC airbag inflators have significantly
diminished the value of the vehicles.

The BMW airbag class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina (Charleston Division):
Ryan Charles Clark v. BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, et al.

The plaintiff is represented by Motley Rice LLC. [GN]

BOB DEAN: Settles Nursing Home Class Action for $12.5-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------
Kylee Bond, writing for WGNO, reports that a $12.5 million
settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against
Louisiana nursing home operator Bob Dean following the evacuation
of hundreds of residents to a warehouse during Hurricane Ida.

On Monday (Nov. 7), attorney Morris Bart, who is representing the
families in the lawsuit, Jefferson Parish Judge Michael Mentz
agreed that the multi-million dollar payout will be split among the
hundreds of patients. This includes the families of several
residents who died as a result of the evacuation.

However, despite a reached settlement, attorneys say they plan to
appeal the decision, arguing that $12.5 million is not enough. They
claim that Dean has more than $15 million in wealth and believe the
defendant should be paying out-of-pocket for the damages, rather
than the settlement being covered by insurance claims.

Dean will still face criminal charges in this case, including
cruelty to the infirmed and Medicaid fraud. [GN]



BP RETIREMENT: Putative Class Member Motions to Intervene Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Flannery, Esq., Andrew Gann, Esq., and R. Trent Taylor, Esq.,
of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on
October 7, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
denied a purported class representative's attempt to intervene in a
class action. The class representative had argued that his
interests were not adequately represented.

This case, Guenther v. BP Retirement Accumulation Plan, 50 F.4th
536 (5th Cir. 2022), concerns two actions: the Guenther action, and
the Press action. Two Sohio Legacy Employees filed the Guenther
action against their employers for violations of ERISA. Four years
later, 277 employees of Sohio Legacy Employees filed the Press
action against the same employers, claiming violations under
Section 404(a). The Press action was stayed pending resolution of
the Guenther action, which was "nearly identical" and at an
advanced stage of litigation. The Press plaintiffs filed a motion
to intervene in the Guenther action.

The district court in the Southern District of Texas found that
"both the Guenther and Press Plaintiffs had the same ultimate
objective" creating a presumption of adequate representation. The
district court acknowledged that this presumption can be overcome
by showing an "adversity of interest, collusion, or nonfeasance[,]"
but held that the Press plaintiffs failed to overcome this
presumption, denying the motion to intervene. The Press plaintiffs
appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit.

When evaluating a motion for intervention as of right, a
four-factor test is applied. The fourth factor concerns whether the
plaintiffs seeking intervention were adequately represented by
existing parties. Traditionally, the movant only had to show that
existing representation "may be inadequate[,]" which is a very
minimal burden. But courts, like the Fifth Circuit, have
interpreted this so-called minimal burden as one that is in fact
difficult to overcome. In this case, the Fifth Circuit determined
that the Press plaintiffs were unable to prove "their interests
diverged from those of the Guenther [p]laintiffs in any meaningful
way[,]" despite the Press plaintiffs' evidence indicating
otherwise.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently found in
accordance with this Fifth Circuit decision, rejecting a similar
motion to intervene on an inadequate representation theory. In this
case, Kang v. Fyson, No. 22-15694, 2022 WL 6943174, at *3 (9th Cir.
Oct. 12, 2022), the court not only denied the motion to intervene,
but explicitly acknowledged that "the better course for class
members who oppose a settlement is to object to the settlement
rather than seeking to intervene."

These decisions show that at least two U.S. Courts of Appeals are
skeptical over attempts of purported putative class members to
intervene and challenge some aspect of the class counsel's
representation. Companies, however, must remain diligent over
continued attempts to intervene. This is especially true after
class certification has been denied and the named plaintiff's
claims have been resolved on an individual basis. In that instance,
intervenors may attempt to intervene arguing that the named class
member can no longer represent the interests of the class and
appeal the class certification denial. [GN]

CANADA: Education Dep't., Council Sued Over Student Seclusions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Hong, writing for CBC News, reports that a new proposed
class-action lawsuit alleges a number of students at Whitehorse's
Jack Hulland Elementary School were repeatedly subject to holds and
seclusion -- sometimes for hours on end.

The incidents are alleged to have happened between 2002 and last
school year, and to have been to the point where some students
developed post-traumatic stress disorder.

Two representative plaintiffs, still children, and their guardians
are suing both the Yukon Department of Education and Jack Hulland
Elementary School Council.

A statement of claim filed to the Yukon Supreme Court on Oct. 31
alleges both children, who are only identified by their initials,
were "subjected to holds and involuntary seclusion on a frequent
and repeated basis" by school staff beginning in 2015.

However, the document also alleges a series of policies at Jack
Hulland allowed the widespread use of holds and seclusion on
students, including equipping a staff team with hand-held radios so
they could be called for help and the construction of four
"isolation cells" in a classroom.

"I have never seen anything like this in my life," lawyer James
Tucker, who's representing the plaintiffs, said in an interview.
"And I'm from another generation where what might be considered
corporal punishment was occasionally employed."

The lawsuit is seeking to be certified as a class-action on behalf
of all students "who were subject to holds and restraints and who
were locked in a room and/or placed in seclusion" at the school
between Jan. 1, 2002, and June 30, 2022.

No statements of defence have been filed yet and the allegations
have yet to be tested at trial.

A spokesperson for the Yukon's Justice Department, which handles
the government's legal affairs, declined the CBC's request for
comment.

Holds, seclusion allegedly used on 'emotionally heightened,' upset
students
According to the statement of claim, staff at Jack Hulland
including administration, teachers and educational assistants used
holds to "confine, transport or restrict the movement" of students
from around September 2002 to October 2021.

While the Department of Education and Jack Hulland School Council
were responsible for ensuring the safety and wellbeing of students
at the school, the lawsuit alleges they knew about the use of holds
and seclusion from the beginning but didn't stop it.

According to the statement of claim, the council "adopted and
implemented policies which authorized and/or, in particular
circumstances, directed the use of holds, restraints and seclusion
on students as a means of controlling and modifying student
behaviour."

Those "forcible confinement policies," the lawsuit claims, were
approved by the department and used to enforce the "Hawk Rules" at
Jack Hulland, a series of directives meant to apply to both adults
and children.

The rules, contained in a parent handbook, are listed under the
heading, "behaviour management and building self discipline" and
include "have respect for yourself and others" and "will follow
instructions (the 1st time)."

The lawsuit alleges staff used holds "when there was no
justification or reason to do so," including on "emotionally
heightened, dysregulated, and/or upset" students who weren't at
risk of harming themselves or others, and when students "were
disobedient and/or did not follow instructions from the staff the
first time instructions were given."

Staff members were "routinely assigned" to be part of a
two-to-three-person team and given handheld radios used to call on
them to help place students in holds, the lawsuit says. Some
students were allegedly put in holds "on a continuous basis for
hours" to the point where staff would take turns holding a student
as their colleagues "became exhausted," and a "hold" could include
staff sitting on a student's torso or applying pressure on a
student's arm and shoulder joints, creating a "dangerous and
injurious" situation.

As well, staff, on occasion, would allegedly place students in
holds to drag them "against their will to a place where they would
be placed in seclusion."

Students would allegedly be locked alone in various rooms at Jack
Hulland, or in a place referred to as the "study hall" and later as
"the Nest."

Students locked in 3'x3' isolation cells, lawsuit claims
The Nest, according to the statement of claim, was a small
classroom home to four "isolation cells" constructed in around
2008.

The cells were approximately three feet by three feet and had doors
with glass windows in them. The doors could be locked from the
outside, the lawsuit says,  and there was a video camera in the
room connected to a monitor in the school's main office so staff
could monitor students locked in the cells remotely.

Students placed in seclusion in the Nest or elsewhere would "remain
locked up for varying lengths of time," the statement of claim
alleges, including for "several hours" and sometimes through lunch
and recess periods -- sometimes daily.

All throughout, staff didn't inform the parents of students being
placed in holds and seclusion about the extent of what was
happening, the lawsuit claims. When staff did speak to parents,
they allegedly "deceived" them and said the holds or seclusion were
necessary to regulate or de-escalate their child. The lawsuit also
alleges it was suggested to parents that "there were factors from
home contributing to the school behaviour … and/or that they were
bad parents."

The lawsuit alleges the use of holds and seclusion on students
amounted to battery, assault, false imprisonment and corporal
punishment, and that the representative plaintiffs suffered
emotional distress, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress
disorder as a result.

The lawsuit is seeking compensation for all impacted students,
including aggravated and punitive damages, both for the two
representative plaintiffs and, if approved as a class action, all
class members.[GN]

CAREERBUILDER LLC: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Laporte et al. Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NOAH LAPORTE and GORDON KIRCHNER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CAREERBUILDER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06096 (N.D. Ill.,
November 3, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendant as Account Executives
- Plaintiff Laporte was between December 2, 2019 and on or about
June 19, 2020, while Plaintiff Kirchner was between approximately
January 13, 2020 and on or about July 10, 2020.

The Plaintiffs claim that they and other similarly situated Account
Executives and Sales and Business Development Representatives
customarily worked more than 40 hours each week. However, the
Defendant failed to compensate them for all time they worked,
including overtime worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work
weeks at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of
pay.

The Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a class and collective
action, for himself and all others similarly situated Account
Executives and Sales and Business Development Representatives,
against the Defendant to recover all unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems appropriate and
just.

CareerBuilder LLC operates an online job portal. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
          Michael M. Tresnowski, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington St., Ste. 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Tel: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsa.com
                  sarendt@flsa.com

CASSAVA SCIENCES: Briefing on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid in Jan.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cassava Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that
briefing on the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action over simufilam is scheduled to be completed
by January 23, 2023.

Between August 27, 2021 and October 26, 2021, four putative class
action lawsuits were filed alleging violations of the federal
securities laws by the Company and certain named officers. The
complaints rely on allegations contained in Citizen Petitions
submitted to FDA, and allege that various statements made by the
defendants regarding simufilam were rendered materially false and
misleading.

The Citizen Petitions were all subsequently denied by FDA. These
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas.

The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's securities.

On June 30, 2022, a federal judge consolidated the four class
action lawsuits into one case and appointed a lead plaintiff and a
lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
on August 18, 2022 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
the Company's securities between September 14, 2020 and July 26,
2022.

Briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss is scheduled to be
completed by January 23, 2023.

Cassava Sciences, Inc. is a biotechnology corporation based in
Austin, Texas.

COMEDY PARTNERS: Faces Class Action Over SiriusXM Licensing Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that comedian
Myq Kaplan has filed a proposed class action in which he alleges a
"secret direct licensing deal" between Comedy Central Records and
SiriusXM years ago has led to a significant reduction in royalties
paid to comedians whose work is broadcast by the satellite radio
provider.

The 20-page breach-of-contract lawsuit says that for years,
SiriusXM paid royalties for digital performances of works produced
under the Comedy Central Records label in accordance with the
licensing provisions of the Digital Performance in Sound Recordings
Act of 1995 (DPSRA).

Around May 2013, however, defendant Comedy Partners, the Paramount
Global subsidiary who runs the Comedy Central TV channel and record
label Comedy Central Records, executed with SiriusXM a "secret
direct licensing deal" through which the satellite radio company
would pay royalties for digital comedy works on Comedy Central
Records directly to Comedy Partners as opposed to SoundExchange,
the non-profit designated by Congress to administer digital
performance royalties under the DPSRA, the complaint states.

Per the suit, Comedy Partners represented that comedians would
continue to be paid royalties at the proper statutory licensing
rates under the deal, and Kaplan and proposed class members were,
for a time, paid proper royalties for their performances broadcast
on SiriusXM, the lawsuit says. The case alleges, however, that in
the years since the consummation of the Comedy Partners/SiriusXM
pact, the defendant has "engaged in conduct that has significantly
reduced the amount and portion of revenues" payable to comedians
for performances of their works on SiriusXM.

Under the DPSRA, digital service providers such as SiriusXM are
required to pay royalties for digital performances of copyrighted
works on their platforms, the suit explains. In the absence of a
direct licensing agreement between a digital service provider and a
copyright owner, the provider's digital performance of copyrighted
work is subject to the DPSRA's statutory licensing provisions, the
complaint states. In such cases, a digital service provider pays
royalties based on federally approved licensing rates to
SoundExchange, who then accounts for and pays 50 percent of the
royalties to the copyright owner and 45 percent to the featured
artists of the copyrighted work, according to the suit.

Where there exists a direct licensing agreement between a digital
service provider and a copyright owner, the lawsuit relays,
royalties are paid at negotiated rates and the responsibility to
collect, account for, and pay royalties to featured artists falls
to the copyright owner.

Per the suit, SiriusXM, "[u]p to and through roughly the fourth
quarter of 2013," paid the 50-45-percent split of royalties for
digital performances produced under Comedy Central Records in
accordance with the provisions of the DPSRA. Earlier in 2013,
however, Comedy Partners "secretly negotiated and signed a deal"
with SiriusXM through which royalties owed by the digital service
provider for performances of proposed class members' works would
"no longer be subject to statutory licensing under DPSRA," the case
alleges.

"The details of this deal have been kept hidden by Defendant. In
fact, Defendant did not notify Plaintiff or the Class Members of
the deal until nearly two years after it was executed, and even
then, knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the effect of the
deal upon the royalties that would be paid to Plaintiff and the
Class Members for performances of their Works on SiriusXM."

From roughly early 2014 through late 2017, Comedy Partners paid
Comedy Central Records performers for their works broadcast on
SiriusXM at the statutory licensing rates, the filing states. Yet
around early 2018, the royalties paid by Comedy Partners to
proposed class members for performances of their works on SiriusXM
"sharply declined, despite the number of such performances
remaining stable," the lawsuit alleges.

Since 2018, the royalties paid to Comedy Central Records performers
for broadcasts of their work on SiriusXM have "dwindled down to 2 -
4% of what they previously received" and would receive on a
per-performance basis if they were still paid in accordance with
the DPSRA's statutory licensing rates, the complaint says.

Compounding matters is that Comedy Partners' royalty statements
lack any information that would help Comedy Central Records
performers "evaluate the adequacy" of the royalties they're paid
for performances of their works on SiriusXM, the suit adds.

The lawsuit charges that as a result of Comedy Partners'
"systematic and continuous breach" of its duty to Comedy Central
Records performers, coupled with its "bad faith conduct" concerning
the SiriusXM deal, the company has caused proposed class members to
incur "substantial damages."

The suit looks to represent all persons and entities in the United
States, their agents, successors in interest, assigns, heirs,
executors, trustees, and administrators who are or were parties to
licensing agreements with Comedy Partners and any of its
predecessors and subsidiaries that do not contain a blanket license
exclusion and whose works have been publicly performed by digital
audio transmission on SiriusXM pursuant to such licensing
agreements. [GN]

COOPERATIEVE RABOBANK: 2nd Circuit Affirms Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP disclosed that on October 18, 2022, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
dismissal by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York of a putative class action against more than
twenty banks and certain brokers alleging a conspiracy to
manipulate Yen-LIBOR ("LIBOR") and Euroyen TIBOR ("TIBOR") rates.
Laydon v. Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A., et al., No. 20-3626 (2d Cir.
Oct. 18, 2022). Plaintiff brought claims under the Commodity
Exchange Act ("CEA"), 7 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq., and the Sherman
Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq., and sought leave to
assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962, 1964(c). The
Court affirmed the district court's order dismissing the CEA and
antitrust claims and denying leave to add the RICO claims, holding
that the alleged conduct was impermissibly extraterritorial under
the CEA, plaintiff lacked antitrust standing because he would not
be an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws, and plaintiff
failed to allege proximate causation for a RICO claim.

The complaint alleged that defendants conspired to manipulate
benchmark LIBOR and TIBOR rates, which reflected the interest rates
at which banks could lend Japanese Yen outside of Japan. LIBOR and
TIBOR rates differ in two key respects. First, TIBOR rates are set
by the Japanese Bankers Association ("JBA"), while LIBOR rates are
set by the British Bankers' Association ("BBA"). Second, TIBOR
rates are set at 11:00 a.m. Tokyo time each business day, while
LIBOR rates are set at 11:00 a.m. London time each business day.
According to the complaint, defendant banks served as panel banks
for the BBA in setting Yen-LIBOR rates, and the brokers allegedly
helped manipulate the Yen-LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR rates.

Plaintiff is a U.S. resident who allegedly traded three-month TIBOR
futures contracts between January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2011.
According to the complaint, these contracts were "agreement[s] to
buy or sell a Euroyen time deposit having a principal value of
100,000,000 Japanese Yen with a three-month maturity commencing on
a specific future date." Plaintiff allegedly initiated short
positions on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME"), a U.S. based
futures exchange, and allegedly incurred a loss as a result of
defendants' purported manipulative behavior. Specifically,
plaintiff alleged that defendants presented false Yen-Libor
submissions to the BBA, which in turn allegedly affected the TIBOR
rates (and consequently the value of plaintiff's three-month TIBOR
futures) because the LIBOR rates were set earlier in the day.
Plaintiff also alleged that certain conflicts of interest drove
defendants' purported manipulation, including that defendants held
their own Euroyen-based derivatives positions and that their
traders' compensation was based in part on the profit and loss
calculation of defendants' trading books. Plaintiff attempted to
support his allegations with information purportedly revealed in
various domestic and foreign enforcement proceedings, which
generally consisted of allegations that foreign-based employees
submitted false rates to the BBA, and that traders allegedly asked
other employees responsible for sending submissions to the BBA to
move the benchmark rate in a direction that would benefit the
traders' position.

The Second Circuit first addressed plaintiff's CEA claims,
affirming that plaintiff failed to state a claim under the CEA
because the alleged conduct occurred predominantly outside the U.S.
The Court noted that under Section 22 of the CEA, a claim must
involve both a domestic application of the statute and sufficiently
domestic conduct. The Court found that the derivative the plaintiff
traded was tied to the value of a foreign asset because the value
of the futures was determined by interest rates set by foreign
entities in foreign countries (the JBA and BBA). The Court also
rejected plaintiff's argument that the conduct at issue was
sufficiently domestic because the CME is a domestic exchange and
some communications in furtherance of the conspiracy were sent
while employees were traveling in the U.S. Separately, the Court
determined that the subjects of the alleged manipulation -- LIBOR
and TIBOR rates -- were not "commodities traded on a domestic
exchange" under the CEA. In this regard, the Court reasoned that
the benchmark-based futures in this case were a "time deposit," and
while the rates affect the value of the time deposit, "that does
not make the Euroyen TIBOR itself a commodity." The Court also
noted that, "unlike commodities, benchmark rates do not themselves
have any value," and "the purchaser of a Euroyen TIBOR future does
not receive 'rights' or 'interest' in Euroyen TIBOR itself, but in
the product based on that rate," which was the underlying Japanese
Yen deposit.

In so holding, the Second Circuit relied on Prime Int'l Trading, 25
Ltd. v. BP P.L.C., 937 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2019), in which plaintiffs
traded futures on a U.S.-based exchange that were tied to a
benchmark rate dependent on the value of crude traded in Northern
Europe. There, the Court held that plaintiffs' claims were
impermissibly extraterritorial because "the derivatives at issue
were 'pegged to the value of' foreign assets" and plaintiffs made
"no claim that any manipulative oil trading occurred in the United
States." The Court noted that in the present case, as in Prime,
plaintiff "purchased a futures contract on a domestic market that
incorporated an index tied to a foreign market, with that index
being set by a foreign entity." As such, the Court affirmed the
dismissal of plaintiff's CEA claims as being impermissibly
extraterritorial.

The Second Circuit also affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's
Sherman Act claims because plaintiff failed to plead antitrust
standing. To establish antitrust standing, a plaintiff must show
that it has suffered an antitrust injury and that is it an
"efficient enforcer" of the antitrust laws. Courts generally look
to four factors to determine whether a plaintiff is an efficient
enforcer, including (1) how direct or indirect the plaintiff's
injury is in the chain of causation between the defendants' conduct
and the injury; (2) whether there are more direct victims of the
defendants' conduct; (3) the extent to which the plaintiff's claim
for damages is speculative, and (4) whether the plaintiff's claims
will result in either duplicate recoveries or complex apportionment
of damages. The Second Circuit agreed that plaintiff lacked
antitrust standing because (1) plaintiff did not transact directly
with any of the named defendants and therefore his injury was not
proximately caused by them; (2) his theory of liability depended on
a long series of causal steps between the defendants' alleged
conduct and his purported injury; and (3) he was only an indirect
victim of the alleged conspiracy and not a direct victim.
Additionally, the Court noted that because plaintiff's theory of
liability was "indirect and imprecise," it would be difficult to
apportion damages and there was a risk of duplicative recovery.

Finally, the Court found that plaintiff failed to establish
proximate causation for his proposed RICO claims. The Court
reiterated that plaintiff's alleged injury (a change in the value
of his TIBOR futures contract) was "several steps removed" from
defendants' alleged conduct (sending fraudulent LIBOR submission to
the BBA).

Laydon v. Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A., et al.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]

CRODA INC: Baker Petitions for Cert. of Question of Law to S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE BAKER filed a petition for certification of question of
law to the Delaware Supreme Court concerning her appeal from a
court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Catherine Baker,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Croda Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1-20-cv-01108, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Croda owns a Delaware chemical plant that uses ethylene oxide, a
known carcinogen. In 2018, Croda's plant leaked thousands of pounds
of ethylene oxide into the surrounding neighborhood. Although Croda
reacted quickly, residents worried that they had inhaled the
chemical and now fear they will get cancer.

One resident, Baker, brought a class action on behalf of her
neighbors, alleging strict liability, public and private nuisance,
negligence, willful and wanton conduct, and medical monitoring. She
admits that no neighbor "has been currently diagnosed with cancer
or illness of the kind caused by ethylene oxide." But she says they
all suffer "an increased risk of illness."

In her complaint, Ms. Baker asked the court to recognize "a[n]
increased risk of illness" as a compensable tort injury. Delaware
law has not addressed the question of whether an increased risk of
illness, without more, may constitute a cognizable injury.
Accordingly, she asks the Delaware Supreme Court to answer this
question of law:

"Whether an increased risk of illness, without present
manifestation of a physical harm, is cognizable injury
under Delaware law? Or put another way, does an increased risk of
harm only constitute a cognizable injury once it manifests in a
physical disease?"

The Plaintiff previously sought a review of the November 23, 2021
order entered by Judge Stephanos Bibas of the District of Delaware,
dismissing all claims without prejudice, in an appellate case
assigned Case No. 21-3360, file in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.

The Plaintiff filed her opening brief and the appendix in Case No.
21-3360 before filing a second appeal to review the Court's
February 18, 2022 order, dismissing the case with prejudice for the
reasons set forth in the Court's November 23, 2021 Memorandum
Opinion. [BN]

D.W.S ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Cruz Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SANTIAGO CRUZ, individually and on behalf of and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D.W.S ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a DWS
Printing & Packaging; and ANDREW STAIB, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-06732 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2022) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Cruz was employed by the Defendants as press helper.

D.W.S ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a DWS Printing & Packaging is a label
printing and packaging company specializing in labels
and packaging serving the beverage, craft beer and food industries.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, New York 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com

DESERT AUTO: Hao-Keppel Files Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER HAO-KEPPEL, on behalf of the State of California, as a
private attorney general, Plaintiff v. DESERT AUTO GROUP V, LLC; a
business entity form unknown, and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2022-00044571-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct.,
November 3, 2022) brings this complaint against the Defendants
seeking to recover civil penalties pursuant to the Private
Attorneys General Act of California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant from approximately
January 1, 2022 to sometime in July 2022.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendant failed to provide him and other aggrieved
employees accurate itemized wage statements;

     -- The Defendants failed to properly record and provide
legally required meal and rest periods;

     -- The Defendants failed to pay minimum wages & overtime
wages;

     -- The Defendants failed to reimburse for required expenses;
and

     -- The Defendants failed to provide wages when due.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff has sent a written notice to the Labor
and Workforce Development Agency by electronic mail on August 10,
2022 and by certified mail to the Defendant.

Desert Auto Group V, LLC is a car dealership company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur R. Botham, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR R. BOTHAM, JR., ALC
          2169 First Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Tel: (619) 358-9738
          Fax: (619) 393-0103
          
                - and –

          Zachary T. Tyson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ZACHARY T. TYSON ALC
          2169 First Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Tel: (619) 237-9292

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Wage Theft Class Action Suit Trial Begins
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily Woods, writing for Australia Associated Press, reports that
Domino's Pizza allegedly instructed Australian franchisees to
underpay thousands of workers through its tightly controlled
bookkeeping and training systems, a court has been told.

Lawyers for the fast food giant have faced the Federal Court for
the first day of a class action trial, brought by ex-employee Riley
Gall.

Mr Gall, a former Queensland pizza delivery driver, has alleged
Domino's underpaid him over five years by telling franchise
operators to pay staff under the wrong workplace instrument.

He is seeking more than $10,000 in underpaid wages and
entitlements, from June 2013 to January 2018.

Mr Gall claimed Domino's wrongly told franchisees to pay delivery
and in-store workers under enterprise agreements struck with the
SDA union, rather than according to the Fast Food Industry Award.

"The award applied, not the agreement," class action barrister
Rachel Doyle SC told the court in Melbourne on Wednesday.

She said Domino's franchisees all used the same training and
bookkeeping software, which had pay rates from the SDA agreements
"hard-coded in it".

"We say that's misleading or deceptive conduct," she said.

"The system tells you whether they should be paid 'X rate' because
they're 16, or 'Y rate' because they're 21."

Ms Doyle said Domino's ran its franchise as a centralised business
model using a high degree of control, including by issuing
franchise agreements.

"There are clauses in the franchise agreements that require
franchise operators to do what was asked of them," she said.

Domino's has denied it underpaid any workers.

The court heard it will argue the case should not run as a class
action as its franchisees were each different from one another.

Domino's will claim its representations about what rates
franchisees should pay workers were opinion and not a fact, and
that some franchises did not open emails or download training
materials sent to them.

Ms Doyle said this was a "curious position" for Domino's to adopt.

"It amounts to them submitting 'we were a single uniform business .
. . it was an epic failure because we sent a whole lot of stuff
out, unfortunately nobody ever read it, much less did they act on
it," she said.

"That is a forensic difficulty that we suggest Your Honour will
need the respondent to untangle."

The trial continues on Thursday, when Domino's barrister Gregory
Harris KC will make opening statements. [GN]

EAGLE EQUITY: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger With Skillz
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARCY LIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EAGLE EQUITY PARTNERS II, LLC, HARRY E.
SLOAN, SCOTT M. DELMAN, JOSHUA KAZAM, ALAN MNUCHIN, LAURENCE E.
PAUL, ELI BAKER, and JEFF SAGANSKY, Defendants, Case No.
2022-0972-PAF (Del. Ch., October 27, 2022) is a verified class
action complaint against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary
duty and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants issued materially false
and misleading Registration Statement in connection with the
acquisition of Skillz Inc. by Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. to
convince Flying Eagle Class A stockholders to approve the merger.
After receiving the false statements in the Registration Statement,
Flying Eagle stockholders approved the merger, with barely any
exercising their redemption rights. When the truth about Skillz's
technical capabilities and market health slowly leaked out to
investing public, Skillz stock price fell and now trades under
$1.00 per share. Thus, if stockholders receive proper disclosures
about a value-destructive proposed merger transaction, they can
mitigate their fair price damages by simply accepting the
redemption payment in lieu of suffering from the bad deal, says the
suit.

Eagle Equity Partners II, LLC is a limited liability company based
in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
         Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 364-3601

                - and -

         Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         1251 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10020
         Telephone: (212) 554-1400

                - and -

         Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
         Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
         ROBBINS LLP
         5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990

                - and -

         Aaron T. Morris, Esq.
         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Andrew W. Robertson, Esq.
         MORRIS KANDINOV LLP
         1740 Broadway, 15th Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (877) 216-1552

EVOLUS INC: Reilly FTSA Class Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERIN REILLY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. EVOLUS, INC., Case No. 2022-11515-CIDL, was
removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in
and for Volusia County, State of Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on October 27, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 6:22-cv-01982 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of sending
telephonic sales calls to the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers in Florida without prior express consent in violation of
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

Evolus, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in
California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         April Boyer, Esq.
         K&L GATES LLP
         Southeast Financial Center
         200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Ste. 3900
         Miami, FL 33131-2399
         Telephone: (305) 539-3300
         Facsimile: (305) 358-7095
         E-mail: april.boyer@klgates.com

FASHION NOVA: Shabtai Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SHABTAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FASHION NOVA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-08025-FMO-JEM (C.D. Cal., November 3, 2022) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has started sending
numerous text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
ending in 9746 since July 1, 2021 in an attempt to promote its
business without obtaining the Plaintiff's prior express written
consent. Allegedly, the Defendant has used an "automated system for
the selection or dialing of telephone numbers" to transmit the
subject text messages to the Plaintiff's 9746 Number.  Because the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone alerts him whenever he receives a
text message, each telephonic sales call by or on behalf of the
Defendant to the Plaintiff's 9746 Number invaded the Plaintiff's
privacy and intruded upon his seclusion upon receipt.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief sufficient to ensure the
Defendant to refrain from violating the FTSA in the future. The
Plaintiff also seeks to recover statutory damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Fashion Nova LLC is an American fast fashion retail company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FEDEX CORP: Settles Class Action Over Unattended Drop Boxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Niki Scheinberg, writing for Memphis Commercial Appeal, reports
that FedEx agreed to a settlement in a California class action
lawsuit in September that will require the company to assess all
its unattended drop boxes and modify them to be accessible to
customers with mobility disabilities.

The suit was filed in October 2021 by business owner Janne Kouri,
alleging that FedEx Express was in violation of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination
against individuals with disabilities in the enjoyment of goods,
services or facilities. Kouri, who was paralyzed by a spinal cord
injury and requires the use of a wheelchair, filed his initial
complaint after attempting to use a FedEx Express drop box and
finding that the opening was beyond reach of wheelchair users and
the operation of the drop box doors required force beyond ADA
guidelines.

"I contacted my attorneys . . . to investigate whether this problem
was widespread across FedEx's drop box locations," Kouri said in a
court document. "It turns out it is."

The terms of the preliminary settlement, agreed to in September,
include FedEx paying $900,000 in attorneys' fees and $20,000 to
Kouri for a release of his individual claims. Over the course of
the next four years, FedEx must also engage with an ADA consultant,
train its drop box team in ADA compliance measures, survey each of
its roughly 34,000 drop boxes, remove any access barriers and
ensure that new drop boxes adhere to 2010 ADA standards.

The settlement also provides that Kouri's counsel will receive a
report of the survey results and any modifications to check that
FedEx has complied with the terms.

"We are committed to providing proper access to drop boxes for our
customers," FedEx said in an emailed statement. "We have agreed to
inspect our drop boxes and make any adjustments needed to ensure
ADA compliance."

In March, a similar class suit was filed in Memphis by Mississippi
resident Ben Weisfeld, also alleging that FedEx drop boxes are
inaccessible for wheelchair users and customers with disabilities
due to excessive reach and force requirements. FedEx motioned to
stay proceedings for the case in September pending the approval of
the settlement in the California case.

The preliminary approval hearing in the California case is
scheduled for Nov. 30. [GN]

FRESHWORKS INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over False IPO Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bhavya Dilipkumar, writing for moneycontrol, reports that US-based
law firms Scott+Scott and The Schall Law Firm on Nov. 2 filed a
lawsuit against Nasdaq-listed SaaS major Freshworks alleging that
the offering documents used to validate Freshworks' Initial Public
Offering (IPO) were false and misleading.

The law firms alleged that the company omitted to state at the time
of the offering, the business had encountered obstacles.

According to the Complaint, Freshworks made false and misleading
statements to the market and that was facing considerable business
difficulties at the time of the IPO.

"The Company's net dollar retention rate had plateaued, and both
the revenue growth rate and billings were slowing down . . . Based
on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the IPO period. When the market
learned the truth about Freshworks, investors suffered damages,"
The Schall Law Firm said in a statement.

Scott+Scott said that the company's net dollar retention rate was
plateauing, and its revenue growth rate and billings were
decelerating during IPO.

"As the truth about the Company's business reached the market, the
value of its shares declined dramatically, causing Freshworks
investors to suffer significant damages. Indeed, by the
commencement of the action, Freshworks' shares traded as low as
$10.51 per share, representing a decline of over 70% from the
Offering Price," the statement said.

The statements from both the law firms further stated that
"Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted in
September 2021, the IPO, are encouraged to contact the firm before
January 3, 2023".

Freshworks conducted its IPO, offering 28.5 million shares of its
common stock to the investing public at a price of $36 per share in
2021.

Freshworks' spokesperson said," We don't comment on pending
litigation and intend to defend this and any similar Cases
vigorously," in an emailed response to Moneycontrol's queries.

The company, in fact, reported its third-quarter results on Nov. 2
where it saw revenue growing by 37% to $129 million. However, the
company said that the overall macroeconomic pressure has led to
slow expansion during the quarter.

The firm's operational loss was recorded at $58.3 million during
the quarter under review, which has come down from $67.4 million
recorded in the previous quarter on the back of undertaking cost
efficiency measures during the third quarter. [GN]

GEICO: Agrees to Settle Insurance Class Action for $19.1 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Huffman, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that several
more major corporations have agreed to class action settlements,
handing out millions of dollars. But affected consumers have no
time to waste as the deadlines for filing a claim expire this
month.

For starters, Humana has agreed to settle a lawsuit brought over
its 2020 data breach. Settlement documents did not disclose how
much the health benefits provider has agreed to pay. It affects
those who were notified by Humana that their personal health
information was compromised when hackers broke into the company's
network.

Hackers got access to sensitive health information as well as
personal identifying information, such as Social Security Numbers.
The deadline for filing a claim is Nov. 15.

Two Geico settlements
Geico is settling two class actions this month. In the first, the
auto insurance company is paying $19.1 million to resolve claims
that it did not pay sales tax and other fees when paying California
customers who suffered a total loss.

The settlement covers California policyholders who did not get
compensated for the tax and fees for total loss claims submitted
between June 27, 2015, and Aug. 27, 2020. The deadline to file a
claim in the settlement is Nov. 11.

Geico has also agreed to pay an undisclosed amount to resolve a
class action suit that it underpaid healthcare providers in Florida
for treating covered patients. That claim deadline is Nov. 28.

Consumers who purchased the drug Remicade (infliximab) between
April 5, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2022 may be eligible for a cash
settlement from Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen. The
companies have agreed to a combined $25 million payment to settle
claims they violated antitrust laws by suppressing generic
competitors.

The suit claimed that action resulted in higher prices for
Remicade, a prescription medication to treat Chrone's disease. To
be eligible for compensation, consumers must submit claim forms by
Nov. 30.

Baby formula misinformation
Amidst an ongoing baby formula shortage, PBM Nutritionals has
agreed pay $2 million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed
the company's baby formula product doesn't produce the advertised
number of servings.

Consumers who purchased Well Beginnings, Meijer Baby, Little
Journey, Wesley Farms, Burt's Bees Baby, Berkley Jensen, Parent's
Choice, Earth's Best Organic, Comforts, Up & Up, Babies "R" Us,
Member's Mark or Bobbie Baby brand baby formula between Jan. 1,
2017, and July 21, 2022 may be eligible for compensation.

Claims in that case must be filed by Nov. 30. [GN]

GENERAL POWER: Faces Class Suit Over Defective SnapRS 801 Switches
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges Generac Power Systems' SnapRS 801 switch is
defective in that the residential PWRcell solar energy system part
is prone to repeatedly turn on and off before eventually deforming
and melting during normal use.

The 42-page complaint alleges the defective SnapRS 801 switch,
known more fully as the Generac SnapRS Rapid Shutdown Inline
Disconnect Switch, has decreased or "completely imped[ed]" energy
production for residential solar users. In some cases, the lawsuit
says, the SnapRS 801 switch, which is designed to be installed
between each solar panel to allow for rapid shutdown, "deformed,
melted, and/or caught fire during normal use," causing property
damage.

According to the suit, Generac knew that the SnapRS 801 switch was
defective as early as April 2021, when solar contractor Pink Energy
reportedly discovered a melted SnapRS 801 switch during a service
call in Ohio, yet continued to manufacture and distribute the
component while failing to notify the public. Generac also failed
to timely provide replacement switches or compensate consumers for
electric bills and replacement and troubleshooting costs incurred
as a result of their SnapRS 801-equipped solar energy systems not
working properly and at full efficiency, the case says.

"Plaintiff and Class Members would not have purchased residential
solar energy systems equipped with SnapRS 801 switches and solar
contractors would not have installed solar energy systems in
Plaintiff's and Class Members' homes if the defects and potential
safety hazards of the SnapRS 801 switches had been disclosed and
mitigated," the filing states.

Rapid shutdown capability is required by the National Electrical
Code as a way to de-energize residential solar panel systems,
including to protect against lightning and in situations in which
emergency responders need to access a roof equipped with solar
panels where there's an electric shock risk, the complaint relays.
According to the lawsuit, Generac designed its PWRcell solar energy
systems with the SnapRS 801 switch as a way to satisfy the NEC's
rapid-shutdown requirements.

With a SnapRS 801 switch installed for each solar panel, a
residential system with 50 panels would thus have 50 SnapRS 801
switches, the filing explains. In most cases, the suit says, a
homeowner's solar energy system will include "arrays" of roughly
eight solar panels, with each array connected to a link that
conducts the electrical energy to the inverter before it's supplied
to the home.

After discovering a melted SnapRS 801 switch in April of last year,
Pink Energy, who earlier in October was hit with a proposed class
action after terminating roughly 1,500 employees in a layoff the
company blamed in part on its partnership with Generac, immediately
reported the problem to the defendant, the suit says. Then, in
August 2021, another solar installer, Valley Solar, shared with the
defendant similar reports that its SnapRS 801 switches were
"experiencing a high failure rate and showing signs of heat
deformation and charring," the lawsuit relays. That same month,
according to the suit, fires broke out at the homes of Pink Energy
customers in Kentucky and South Carolina. The blazes were later
determined to have been caused by overheating SnapRS 801 switches
in the homeowners' solar energy systems, the complaint says.

Also in August 2021, a Generac director informed Pink Energy that
the company had found that SnapRS 801 switches were "overactive" by
turning on and off repeatedly when they should stay in either the
on or off state, the suit continues. This condition, the case
claims, was attributed to heat in the switches causing them to
"bubble out," and Generac assured Pink Energy that a firmware
update would remedy the problem, per the complaint.

Generac, however, knew that the firmware update would have an
adverse effect on the overall operation and energy production of
residential solar systems equipped with the faulty SnapRS 801
switches, the lawsuit alleges. Even with the firmware update, the
SnapRS 801 switches at issue continued to malfunction, the suit
shares.

In the spring of this year, after continued incidents involving
SnapRS 801 switches, Pink Energy asked Generac whether it had filed
a report with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and
whether a recall had been initiated, the case goes on. In response,
Generac said that it had submitted a report to the CPSC, but that
it did not believe "corrective action," including a recall, was
necessary, the complaint states.

In May, Pink Energy requested a copy of the report Generac filed
with the CPSC, but the company "refused" to provide that
information, the lawsuit claims. The following month, Generac
"acknowledged a near 50% failure rate" with its SnapRS 801
switches, the suit states.

"To date, the vast majority of Class Members remain unaware of the
defects and potential safety hazards of the SnapRS 801 switches,
including decreased energy production and the potential for damage
to equipment and property because Generac has failed to issue a
general communication to all homeowners who had solar energy
systems equipped with the SnapRS 801 switches."

The case stresses that Generac customers relied on the company's
representations concerning its PWRcell solar energy technology and
the SnapRS 801 switches, and had no way of knowing that the
defendant's claims were "false and misleading," or that the
switches were plagued by "common design defects."

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons and entities in the United
States, including its territories and the District of Columbia,
that purchased and installed a residential solar energy system
equipped with Generac SnapRS Rapid Shutdown Inline Disconnect
Switches. [GN]

GOLDMAN SACHS: 401(k) Fee Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles F. Seemann III, Esq., and Blaine A. Veldhuis, Esq., of
Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review,
report that a New York district court recently summarily dismissed,
with prejudice, a 401(k) plan participant's putative class action
complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duty. Falberg v. Goldman
Sachs Grp., Inc., No. 19-cv-9910, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167064
(S.D.N.Y. Sep. 14, 2022). The Plaintiff alleged that the Plan
fiduciary-Defendants breached their duties of prudence and loyalty
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")
by (1) failing to adopt an Investment Policy Statement ("IPS"), and
(2) making decisions regarding the choice to remove or retain
certain underperforming investment options based on their own
self-interest. The Plaintiff further alleged that Plan
fiduciary-Defendants engaged in a prohibited transaction by failing
to claim "fee rebates" in the form of revenue sharing on behalf of
the Plan.

First, the Court rejected Plaintiff's claim that the Plan's lack of
an IPS was a breach of the fiduciaries' duty of prudence. To the
contrary, the Court found that the Defendants had robust policies
and procedures in place for monitoring and evaluating the Plan's
investment options. In doing so, the Court reiterated that not
adopting an IPS is not a per se ERISA violation.

Second, the Plaintiff argued that the Defendants breached their
duty of loyalty when they allegedly (1) failed to acknowledge an
alleged conflict of interest; (2) retained certain underperforming
investment funds; (3) gave preferential treatment to certain
investment funds; and (4) removed investment options to avoid
litigation. The Court summarily dismissed this claim, holding that
there was no conflict of interest with the Plan offering investment
options managed by the Defendants' asset management group.
Specifically, the Plaintiff had the burden of establishing that the
Defendants acted for the purpose of providing benefits to
themselves or someone else. The Court held that no Defendant
committee member had a personal financial incentive to prefer the
investment funds held by Defendants' asset management group and
there was no evidence that the Defendants applied a different
standard to the investment funds held by Defendants' asset
management group. Likewise, the Court found unpersuasive the
Plaintiff's argument that the inclusion of the allegedly
underperforming investment funds amounted to a breach of the duty
of loyalty. This is because the court found that the company had
well-vetted and unbiased processes to evaluate investment options,
including an established investment option rating system, monthly
and quarterly performance reports, quarterly and ad hoc meetings to
discuss the Plan's investment options, and that the Defendants
reasonably relied on their retained investment advisors. In
addition, the Court found no merit in the allegation that the
removal of investment options to avoid litigation amounted to an
ERISA violation.  

Third, the Court analyzed Plaintiff's argument that the Plan's
failure to collect fee rebates in the form of revenue-sharing
payments on every investment option constituted a prohibited
transaction. Having noted that the Plan's recordkeeper was
ineligible to receive revenue sharing payments from the subject
investment funds, the Court found that the Plan was treated no less
favorably than similarly situated plans with respect to fee
rebates, and dismissed Plaintiff's prohibited transaction claim.

Finally, the Court held that the claim for breach of the duty to
monitor was not viable because duty of loyalty claims are
derivative in nature, and that Plaintiff could not maintain any of
the underlying fiduciary breach claims.

This decision is important because the Court points to specific
practices and aspects of the Plan's management that allowed Goldman
to prevail in the lawsuit. Employers can adopt such practices to
avoid or combat the wave of more than 220 similar class action
lawsuits that have been filed around the country since 2020. [GN]

GOODYEAR TIRE: Faces Wiretapping Class Suit in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
PIRG reports that the tire company Goodyear currently faces class
action lawsuits in two states: in California, for violating the
state's Invasion of Privacy Act, and now in Massachusetts, for
violating the state's wiretapping law. The latter was filed on Oct.
26.

The suits allege that the company's website uses a variety of tools
to elicit personal information from visitors that is then shared
with other companies for commercial purposes. The chatbot feature
of Goodyear's site, for example, is licensed by a third party
company that harvests any data a customer provides. As the
California suit alleges, the chatbot is particularly problematic as
it "convincingly impersonates an actual human that encourages
consumers to share their personal information."

This kind of data collection, sharing and sales increases the risks
of unnecessary harm to consumers. The more data that is collected
and shared about a person with an increasing number of companies,
the more likely it is that data will be the subject of a breach or
hack, as it's unlikely every company in the data trading business
has sufficient security measures in place.

The answer is simple: companies should follow the principle of data
minimization, only using customer data it collects to deliver the
service the customer is expecting to get, and nothing else. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Court OKs $118-M Pay Disparity Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexa L. Foley, Esq., and Debra Ellwood Meppen, Esq., of Gordon
Rees Scully Mansukhani, in an article for Lexology, report that
Google agreed to pay $118 million to resolve class action claims
that it engaged in discrimination against its' female employees by
paying them less than their male counterparts.

On September 14, 2017, three former employees of Google LLC
("Google") filed a class action lawsuit accusing Google of
systematically discriminating against women by paying female
engineers less than their male counterparts. The class consisted of
women who were employed by Google primarily as software engineers
in California dating back to September 2013. In May 2021, Judge
Andrew Y.S. Cheng of the San Francisco County Superior Court
certified a class of approximately 15,500 current or former female
Google employees.

Specifically, the lawsuit focused on Google's alleged violations of
the Equal Pay Act and Unfair Competition Law claiming that women in
the same job position were paid less than men. The lawsuit alleged
that men were placed in higher salary bands than women who had the
same job title and performed substantially equal or similar work.

On October 25, 2022, the court granted final approval of the
settlement in which Google agreed to pay $118 million to settle the
class action lawsuit. As part of this settlement, the court
approved class counsel's request for $29.5 million in attorney's
fees. Additionally, as part of the terms of the settlement, Google
agreed to retain both an independent third party expert who will
further analyze Google's hiring practices and an independent labor
economist who will review the company's pay equity studies. A third
party administrator will allocate the settlement amounts based on
an objective formula to each qualifying class member.

This lawsuit and the significant class action settlement award is a
resounding wake up call for employers to examine pay equity within
their organization. This is the time for all employers to review
their pay practices and make sure that they are equitable, legal
compliant and above reasonable scrutiny. This is a complicated
analysis as salary variances will naturally occur based upon years
of experience, educational qualifications, performance, ties to
clients, tenure and possibly other significant factors specific to
an employer's industry. [GN]

GREYSTAR REAL: Faces Rental Price-Fixing Class Action in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DJ Summers, writing for KDVR, reports that tens of thousands of
Coloradans live in apartment complexes whose management companies
are accused of algorithmic price-fixing that inflated rental prices
across the nation.

A group of apartment renters brought a class-action lawsuit against
some of the nation's largest landlords on Oct. 19, including:

Greystar Real Estate Partners
Lincoln Property Co.
FPI Management
Mid-America Apartment Communities
Avenue5 Residential, LLC
Equity Residential
Essex Property Trust
Thrive Communities Management
Security Properties

Companies accused of inflating rent prices
The lawsuit includes real estate analytics software firm RealPage
as a defendant. A ProPublica investigation preceding the lawsuit
found high concentrations of RealPage-using landlords in cities
where rents have risen dramatically in the past few years.

Denver suburb rent rising even faster than city core
It alleges that each of the management companies illegally shared
RealPage's algorithm-born pricing with each other in order to
inflate rental prices, rather than competing with each other on
rent prices to attract renters.

Property managers vigorously disputed the charges in comments to
ProPublica.

Apartment landlords in Colorado named in lawsuit
Six of the landlords named in the lawsuit have properties in
Colorado: Greystar Real Estate Partners, Lincoln Property Co., FPI
Management, Mid-America Apartment Communities, Avenue5 Residential
and Equity Residential.

The landlords managed at least 200 upscale apartment complexes in
the Denver metro from Castle Rock to Boulder, with the majority in
Adams, Arapahoe, Denver and Jefferson counties. Most have dozens or
hundreds of units.

About half are owned by Greystar. Equity Residential operates 32
and Avenue5 Residential 24.

Prices range widely across properties by location and apartment
size. The average low end of the price is $1,609. The average
highest price is $5,327.

The lawsuit hits home in an era where broader consumer inflation is
colliding with unprecedented spikes in both home sales prices and
rental prices, particularly in Colorado. [GN]

HARD ROCK: Dibenedetto Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT DIBENEDETTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL
(USA), INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-06759 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 5,
2022) alleges that the Defendant is engaged in deceptive business
practices.

To participate in Defendant's slots and electronic table games,
customers insert cards, cash, tokens, and coins. After a gaming
session, players "cash out" unused credits on the machine. Instead
of paying out the full balance of the "cash out" tickets and
returning the funds to the customer in full, Defendant converts
"cash out" tickets into a partial cash payment and another "cash
out" ticket in lieu of dispensing coins. Most of these "cash out"
tickets for coins are never redeemed. Many players are unsure of
where to redeem their vouchers, and the ones who are decide it is
inconvenient to wait in a line for over forty minutes to obtain the
change they are entitled to.

The result is that players like the Plaintiff discard their
vouchers or even toss them into a fountain, the same way people
toss actual change into fountains. The Plaintiff attempted to cash
out these tickets at ticket redemption kiosks in the casino.
However, the Defendant only returned the whole dollar amount to
Plaintiff instead of the full ticket amount, says the suit.

When the Plaintiff received "cash out" tickets from the ticket
redemption machines instead of coins, the Plaintiff either inserted
these new tickets into other slot machines or discarded them
because of the time, inconvenience, and obstacles to redeeming
them. This deceptive business practice compounded Plaintiff's
overall losses, the suit asserts.

HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC. provides hospitality
services. The Company offers facilities for stay, restaurants,
bars, as well as hosts venue for events, meetings, and weddings.
Hard Rock Cafe operates globally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
          Great Neck NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               -and-

          James Chung, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES CHUNG
          43-22 216th St
          Bayside NY 11361
          Telephone: (718) 461-8808
          Email: jchung_77@msn.com

HOLIDAY INNS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Nunez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
OLGA MARI NUNEZ individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. HOLIDAY INNS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-06761-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2022) is an action against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate
wage statements.

Plaintiff Nunez was employed by the Defendant as housekeeper.

HOLIDAY INN (CHONGQING), INC. was founded in 1986. The company's
line of business includes operating public hotels and motels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417

HOME DEPOT: Fails to Provide Work Schedule Notices, Bermudez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BERMUDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 221100617 (Pa. Com. Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Nov. 4, 2022)
alleges that the Defendant failed to provide written notice of work
schedules with at least 10 or 14 days notice, schedules at the last
minute, failing to provide sufficient time between shifts, and
failing to offer new shifts to current employees before hiring new
employees in violation of the Philadelphia Fair Workweek Employment
Standards.

Plaintiff Bermudez was employed by the Defendant as staff.

THE HOME DEPOT, INC. is a home improvement retailer. The Company
offers wide range of building materials, home improvement, lawn,
and garden products, as well as provides DYI ideas, installation,
repair, and other services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
          WILLIG WILLIAMS, & DAVIDSON
          1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 565-3600
          Facsimile: (215) 567-2310
          Email: rhancock@wwdlaw.com

               - and -

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Krysten Connon, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (267) 256-9973
          Email: ssb@llrlaw.com
                 kconnon@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          335 18th PI NE
          Washington, DC
          Telephone: (202) 830-2016
          Email: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com

HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Tripoli Suit Moved From S.D. Ind. to S.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TREVOR TRIPOLI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF
AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01488, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on October 27,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 2:22-cv-03828-SDM-EPD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Indiana Minimum Wage Law, and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute.

Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC is an automobile
company based in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
         PARMET PC
         3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
         Houston, TX 77056
         Telephone: (713) 999-5228
         E-mail: matt@parmet.law

                - and -

         J. Corey Asay, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1200
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Telephone: (859) 286-8368
         Facsimile: (859) 286-8384
         E-mail: CAsay@forthepeople.com

JUUL LABS: Benton County Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
-------------------------------------------------------------
BENTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06620 (N.D. Cal., October 27, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violation of 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.

Benton County School District is a public school district with
administrative offices in Ashland, Mississippi.

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.

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.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Steven D. Davis, Esq.
         Jacob W. Plattenberger, Esq.
         TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
         210 South Main Street
         Edwardsville, IL 62088
         Telephone: (618) 656-4400
         Facsimile: (618) 656-4401
         E-mail: sdavis@thlawyer.com
                 jake@thlawyer.com

                - and -

         Philip C. Hearn, Esq.
         HEARN LAW FIRM, PLLC
         1438 N. State Street
         Jackson, MS 39202
         Telephone: (601) 720-3541
         Facsimile: (662) 524-3530
         E-mail: philiphearn@yahoo.com

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Wood Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WOOD RIVER-HARTFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15, 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-06596 (N.D. Cal., October
27, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Illinois 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.

Wood River-Hartford School District No. 15 is a public school
district with administrative offices in Wood River, Illinois.

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.

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.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Steven D. Davis, Esq.
         Jacob W. Plattenberger, Esq.
         TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
         210 South Main Street
         Edwardsville, IL 62088
         Telephone: (618) 656-4400
         Facsimile: (618) 656-4401
         E-mail: sdavis@thlawyer.com
                 jake@thlawyer.com

                - and -

         Garrett P. Hoerner, Esq.
         BECKER, HOERNER & YSURSA, P.C.
         5111 West Main Street
         Belleville, IL 62226
         Telephone: (618) 235-0020
         Facsimile: (618) 235-8558
         E-mail: gph@bhylaw.com

JUUL LABS: East St. Louis Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
EAST ST. LOUIS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 189, 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-06600 (N.D. Cal., October 27, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Illinois 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.

East St. Louis School District No. 189 is a public school district
with administrative offices located in East St. Louis, Illinois.

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.

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.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Steven D. Davis, Esq.
         Jacob W. Plattenberger, Esq.
         TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
         210 South Main Street
         Edwardsville, IL 62088
         Telephone: (618) 656-4400
         Facsimile: (618) 656-4401
         E-mail: sdavis@thlawyer.com
                 jake@thlawyer.com

                - and -

         Garrett P. Hoerner, Esq.
         BECKER, HOERNER & YSURSA, P.C.
         5111 West Main Street
         Belleville, IL 62226
         Telephone: (618) 235-0020
         Facsimile: (618) 235-8558
         E-mail: gph@bhylaw.com

JUUL LABS: Faces Greene Central Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------
GREENE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06626 (N.D. Cal., October 27, 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.

Greene Central School District case has been consolidated in MDL
No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Greene Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 40 S. Canal St. in Greene, 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

JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Cahokia Unit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CAHOKIA UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 187, 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-06613 (N.D. Cal., October 27, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Illinois 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.

Cahokia Unit School District No. 187 is a public school district
with administrative offices in Cahokia, Illinois.

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.

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.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Steven D. Davis, Esq.
         Jacob W. Plattenberger, Esq.
         TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
         210 South Main Street
         Edwardsville, IL 62088
         Telephone: (618) 656-4400
         Facsimile: (618) 656-4401
         E-mail: sdavis@thlawyer.com
                 jake@thlawyer.com

                - and -

         Thomas R. Ysursa, Esq.
         Garrett P. Hoerner, Esq.
         Becker, Hoerner & Ysursa, P.C.
         5111 West Main Street
         Belleville, IL 62226
         Telephone: (618) 235-0020
         Facsimile: (618) 235-8558
         E-mail: try@bhylaw.com
                 gph@bhylaw.com

JUUL LABS: Puyallup School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
PUYALLUP SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06584 (N.D. Cal., October 27, 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.

Puyallup School District case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Puyallup School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 302 2nd St. SE. in Puyallup, Washington.

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: South Tippah Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH TIPPAH SCHOOL DISTRICT, TIPPAH COUNTY, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,
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-06610 (N.D.
Cal., October 27, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Mississippi
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.

South Tippah School District is a school district with
administrative office located at 402 Greenlee Avenue, Ripley,
Mississippi.

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.

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.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com

KIA CORP: Faces Class Suit After Viral TikTok Causes Rise in Thefts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sydni Eure, writing for WKBW, reports that Kia is facing a
class-action lawsuit from drivers who say the company hasn't done
enough. Attorney's in Orange County, California said they're taking
action on the West coast in order to bring the concerns right to
Kia and Hyundai's front doors. Meanwhile here in Buffalo, victims
are hoping some solutions will make their way back here to the Easy
coast.

"I'm just upset overall," said Kareemah Perry, victim of the Tik
Tok Kia Theft Challenge. "Like I said its traumatizing. I will
never be the same."

It started out as a day of celebration. Perry who is a Buffalo
State College Student and Teacher in the Buffalo Public School
System purchased a new Kia in January of 2020. However, just two
years later, her dream car turned into a nightmare.

"Typical day," said Perry. "I was getting up for work. I had my
dog, I had my lunch, purse everything else and I'm headed out to
the door. I realize as soon as I got down the stairs that my car
was gone."

Perry said that rainy morning she headed for the space where she
always parked her car but said when she got there, all she saw was
an empty spot, a puddle of water and some broken glass.

"I'm looking around and I'm like, I know I'm not crazy," said
Perry. "Before I overreact, let me just take a deep breath."

Perry said she called her parents right away and told them her car
was gone. Soon after they called the police.

"The police officer explained to me everything that happened with
my car before I even saw it," said Perry. "He said it's a Kia
Challenge going on."

The viral challenge got its start on Tik Tok. People taking part in
the challenge break into Kia modeled cars, damage wires under the
steering wheel and use USB chords to start them up and take off.

"I'm like, wait a minute," said Perry. "That's not making any sense
to me. You're telling me they're going to use my charger chords
that I have in my car to start my car? They're like yeah."

Jonathan Michaels, MLG Attorney's at Law Principal, said similar
cases have been stacking up and said the best way to describe them
all is madness.

"This is just one of the craziest situations I've ever seen quite
frankly," said Michaels. "You know it started with this, it really
got going with this Tik Tok video, this challenge. One of the
things that is just really interesting and unique about this is
that we've seen zero slow down. I mean this has just been going and
going and going."

Michaels said the challenge came out back in July, which is the
same month Perry's car was stolen, the first time.

"My car wasn't back with me for more than 24 hours and my car was
stolen again," said Perry. "So, my car was stolen twice."

Perry said between car rentals and other fees she's had to come out
of pocket $3,000 while still paying the car note and monthly
insurance bill for the car she doesn't have access to.

"Any way I can get help, I'm looking for it," said Perry. "Again,
first way I can is Google it and that's how I found the Lawyer in
California."

That lawyer is Michaels who told 7 News a class-action lawsuit was
filed in September 2022 and said since then his firm has heard from
more than 500 victims nationwide.

"We're asking for a nationwide recall to fix all of these cars,"
said Michaels. "We're asking for compensation to be brought to
everyone that's had their car stolen and everyone who has not had
their car stolen but owns one of these vehicles, to provide
compensation to them as well because the market is falling out for
these cars."

Those reasons are why Perry said she just wants out of the car
altogether.

"That's all I want because it's not fair," said Perry."

Michaels said he's hoping to give victims hope. He said there are
10 million cars on the road nationwide experiencing this issue. He
estimates that if a recall was issued it would amount to $5
billion. Michaels said that would make it the 3rd largest recall in
the entire country. [GN]

KIND LLC: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that KIND
overstates the protein content of its nut and cereal products in
its marketing, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Chris Guerra filed the class action lawsuit against KIND
LLC Oct. 28 in a California federal court, alleging violations of
state and federal consumer laws.

According to the lawsuit, KIND deceptively labels its nut bars,
cereals, oatmeal, snack mixes, and other products by making protein
claims on the front of the packages while omitting a statement of
the corrected amount of protein from the Nutrition Facts Panel
(NFP).

KIND is capitalizing on consumers' desire for high-protein foods by
providing specific amounts of protein per serving depending on the
product, the lawsuit alleges.

One example is by labeling "6g PROTEIN" per serving on the front
label of its KIND Dark Chocolate Nuts & Sea Salt nut bars.

The primary protein source in KIND's products are almonds, peanuts,
and oats, Guerra says.

The FDA-approved scores for all three fall between approximately .4
and .5, which means the products will provide nutritionally less
than half of the protein quantity claimed, he adds.

KIND bars protein claims are unlawful, lawsuit alleges
The protein claims on the front of the KIND bar packages are
unlawful because they do not comply with the regulatory
requirements for making a protein claim, Guerra says.

As a result, he is looking to represent anyone in California who
bought KIND products between June 11, 2017 and now.

Guerra is suing for violations of California consumer law, fraud
and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff is seeking certification of
the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.

Meanwhile, Nestle Healthcare Nutrition Inc has been hit with a
class action lawsuit alleging it misrepresents the amount of
protein contained in its Carnation Breakfast Essentials product.
[GN]

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Davide Sues Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZOE DAVIDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Montgomery
County, MD), Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02851-ELH (D. Maryland,
November 3, 2022) is a collective and class action complaint
brought against the Defendant for its alleged illegal practices
that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt and
salaried employee from November 2021 until July 2022.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to keep
accurate track record of the hours that the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees since at least 2021 when its
timekeeping software and hardware operator Kronos suffered a
disruption in service due to a ransomware attack. As a result, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were in many cases
underpaid, including overtime hours. The Plaintiff has been
regularly working more than 40 hours per week, but since the Kronos
outage he was not timely compensated for her actual hours worked
each week, including minimum wage and proper overtime premium for
all hours worked on time.

In addition, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
did not receive all of the tips earned by them. The Defendant
allegedly retained a portion of the tips they have received from
the Defendant's customers, thereby failing to pay them minimum
wages, says the suit.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
wages, as well as liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as may be
necessary and appropriate.

Marriott International, Inc. owns, operates, franchises, and
licenses hotel, residential, and timeshare properties. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Tel: (713) 999-5228
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

                - and –

          Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Tel: (407) 420-1414
          Fax: (407) 245-3383
          E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com

MERCURY INDEMNITY: Appeal Filed in Thomas Suit
----------------------------------------------
An appeal from a lower tribunal ruling was filed in the lawsuit
entitled Catherine Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Mercury Indemnity Company of America, Case
No. 2021-CA-010641-O, in the Lower Court of Orange County,
Florida.

The case type is stated as Non-Final Civil Other Notice.

The appellate case is captioned Mercury Indemnity Company of
America vs. Catherine Thomas, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Case No. 5D22-2519, in the Florida Fifth
District Court of Appeal, filed on October 21, 2022. [BN]

MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Chewing Gums
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims that the front label of Trident-brand
"Original Flavor" chewing gum is misleading since it fails to
disclose that the product's taste comes from "natural" and
artificial flavoring, not mint or peppermint ingredients.

The 11-page lawsuit argues that the label leads consumers to
wrongly assume that the gum's taste comes from mint or peppermint
ingredients because the it does not explicitly disclose the
product's flavor beyond the word "original" and a picture of a blue
peppermint leaf. However, the ingredient list cites only "Natural
and Artificial Flavors," which signifies that "any mint or
peppermint, if present, is at trace or de minimis levels as part of
the natural flavor ingredient," the case says.

According to the complaint, federal and state labeling regulations
stipulate that a product's front label must display the source of
its characterizing flavor, meaning defendant Mondelez Global is
required to clearly label its product as "Natural and Artificially
Flavored Mint" or "Natural and Artificially Flavored Peppermint"
since the gum's added natural and artificial flavor "simulates" its
primary mint taste.

The case contends that Mondelez has released other misleading
representations about its Trident gum, including the use of
"Refreshing[ly]" on product labels, which consumers associate with
the freshness of mint flavoring, and materials it distributes to
third parties that describe the product's flavor as a combination
of peppermint and cinnamon.

Mondelez's alleged misconduct allows it to sell its Trident gum at
a higher price, even though natural and artificial flavors are less
expensive than real mint and peppermint, the filing argues.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Illinois, South Dakota,
South Carolina, Kentucky, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Virginia, West
Virginia or Wyoming who purchased Trident "Original Flavor" chewing
gum during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]

NRG ENERGY: Continues to Face Winter Storm Uri Suits in Harris Cty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the "Winter
Storm Uri Lawsuits".

The Company has been named in certain property damage and wrongful
death claims that have been filed in connection with Winter Storm
Uri in its capacity as a generator and a retail electric provider.


As a power generator, the Company is named in 161 cases with claims
ranging from: wrongful death; personal injury only; property damage
and personal injury; property damage only; and subrogation.

As a retail electric provider, the Company is named in 27 lawsuits
with similar claims: wrongful death; property damage only; personal
injury only; and both personal injury and property damage.

The power generators and retail electric providers filed five
motions to dismiss that represent the breadth of the claims filed
against them. Briefing is complete and oral arguments occurred on
October 11-12, 2022.

All of the lawsuits related to Winter Storm Uri are consolidated
into a single multi-district litigation matter in Harris County
District Court.

The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters.            
                                                                   
                                             

NRG Energy, Inc. is an American energy company, headquartered in
Houston, Texas. It was formerly the wholesale arm of Northern
States Power Company, which became Xcel Energy, but became
independent in 2000. NRG Energy is involved in energy generation
and retail electricity.

NRG ENERGY: Suits v. Direct Energy Pending in N.Y. and N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that Direct
Energy, a company subsidiary, continues to defend putative class
action suits in New York and New Jersey.

There are four putative class actions pending against Direct
Energy:

(1) Linda Stanley v. Direct Energy (S.D.N.Y Apr. 2019) - The
parties mediated in June 2021 and agreed on a settlement. In April
2022, the Court granted final approval of the settlement, which was
primarily paid during the second quarter of 2022;

(2) Martin Forte v. Direct Energy (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 2017) - In
December 2021, the Court granted Direct Energy's Motion for summary
judgment effectively ending the matter at the district court level.
In January 2022, Forte appealed. The briefing is complete. Oral
arguments are anticipated for late 2022 or early 2023;

(3) Richard Schafer v. Direct Energy (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 2019; on
appeal 2nd Cir. N.Y.) - The 2nd Circuit sent the matter back to the
trial court in December 2021. After discovery, Direct Energy filed
summary judgment; and

(4) Andrew Gant v. Direct Energy and NRG (D.N.J. Aug. 2022) -
Direct Energy and NRG filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 18,
2022.

NRG Energy, Inc. is an American energy company, headquartered in
Houston, Texas. It was formerly the wholesale arm of Northern
States Power Company, which became Xcel Energy, but became
independent in 2000. NRG Energy is involved in energy generation
and retail electricity.

ONTARIO: Ct. of Appeal Set Extension to Opt Out Class Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lesley A. Campbell, Esq., of Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that the Ontario Court of
Appeal has provided new guidance to litigants seeking to opt out of
class proceedings.

TIn the usual course, a class member has until the deadline set by
the court at the time the court certifies a class proceeding to opt
out of a class action (i.e. to no longer be considered a member of
the class). But what happens when a member who wishes to opt out of
the proceeding has missed the deadline to do so?

In Johnson v. Ontario, the Court of Appeal articulated the test for
determining when a court should exercise its discretion to extend
the time for the class member to opt out of the proceeding.

Simply put, the test for an extension to opt out of a class
proceeding requires the class member to show both that their
neglect in complying with the court-imposed deadline is excusable
(i.e. the neglect occurred in good faith and with a reasonable
basis) and an extension will not result in prejudice to the class,
the defendant, or the administration of justice (i.e. the integrity
of the process will not be compromised).

In the case before it, the Court of Appeal determined that the
motions judge erred by not applying the above test and in denying
the appellant's request for an extension of time to opt out of an
ongoing class proceeding.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant did not have actual
notice of the class proceeding and therefore his neglect in
complying with the court-imposed deadline was excusable. It also
stated that an extension of the time to opt out in the form of 30
days would not result in prejudice to the class, the defendant, or
the administration of justice. With respect to the issue of
prejudice, the Court specifically noted that the respondent did not
point to any prejudice that it would suffer and observed that the
appellant's behaviour did not show " . . . any flouting of, a
cavalier attitude toward, or a strategic wait-and-see approach to,
the court-ordered opt-out deadline, such that granting him an
extension would cause prejudice to the integrity of the process or
the administration of justice."

This decision reaffirms that the right to opt out is integral to
the class proceedings scheme under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.
The newly confirmed test balances an individual's need for a
meaningful ability to exercise their right not to participate in a
class proceeding against the court's interest in having its orders
(especially those that contain court-imposed deadlines) followed.
[GN]

ONTARIO: Lerners LLP Attorneys Discuss Ruling in Prison Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea S. Levstik, Esq., of Lerners LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that on Nov. 2 disclosed that in Johnson v
Ontario, 2022 ONCA 725, the Court of Appeal for Ontario confirmed
the test governing the court's discretion to extend the time to opt
out of a class action.

In order to be granted an extension to opt out of a class
proceeding, a class member must demonstrate (1) "excusable
neglect"; and (2) that the extension will not prejudice the class,
the defendant, or the administration of justice.

Background

Johnson involved a consolidated class action brought on behalf of
persons incarcerated at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre
("EMDC") during a defined class period. The action sought
declaratory relief and damages for negligence and violations of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms arising from the
conditions, operations, and management of EMDC.

The certification order provided that class members could opt out
by providing written notice to class counsel. The court approved
the notice plan, which contemplated two forms of notice and
prescribed an opt out deadline. A short form of notice was
published in local newspapers, and a long form of notice was posted
on class counsel's website and sent to the last known address of
each class member.

The appellant was incarcerated in federal custody and did not
receive the notice sent to his last known address, where his father
resided. The appellant failed to provide class counsel with an opt
out form by the prescribed deadline.

The appellant became aware of the consolidated class action after
he commenced his own action and sought an extension of time to opt
out. At first instance, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
denied the motion. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and found
that the motion judge had failed to articulate or apply the correct
test. The motion judge's approach to the discretion to extend was
too narrow. The court found that a proper application of the test
and consideration of the relevant factors in this case indicated
that the extension to opt out should have been granted.

The Test

The Court of Appeal affirmed the excusable neglect / no prejudice
test adopted by the Superior Court of Justice in Young v. London
Life Insurance Co.[1] as the test to be applied on a motion to
extend the time to opt out of class proceedings.

In doing so, the court recognized the importance of balancing class
members' right to opt out with the importance properly attributed
to court-ordered deadlines, which promote certainty in class
proceedings.

Extensions should only be granted where:

1. The delay in opting out is due to excusable neglect, in good
faith and with a reasonable basis; and
2. The court has considered whether any prejudice will result to
participating class members, the defendant, or the integrity of the
process.

In applying the test, the Court of Appeal found that the
appellant's neglect was "excusable." The appellant did not receive
the notices and was incarcerated when the short-form notice was
published and when the long-form notice was sent to his last known
address at which he was not physically present. There was no
evidence to suggest that the appellant should have implemented a
system to monitor mail while he was in custody. The court found the
appellant's commencement of an independent action without
addressing the consequences of a class action to be consistent with
his lack of awareness of the class proceeding, or of any opt out
deadline or requirement. The court found that evidence about what
the appellant would have done had he received the notices should
not have been considered by the motion judge. Rather, the
appropriate question was whether the fact that the appellant did
not opt out was the result of excusable neglect.

The Court of Appeal noted that the motion judge did not address or
make any findings of prejudice to the class, to Ontario, or to the
integrity of the process or the administration of justice. The
court considered the fact class counsel did not oppose the appeal
to be a strong indicator that an extension of time would not result
in prejudice to the class. The respondent did not identify any
prejudice which would result from an extension being granted. The
appellant's behaviour was neither strategic nor cavalier toward the
court-ordered opt out deadline, and the court found that granting
an extension would not cause prejudice to the integrity of the
process or the administration of justice.

The Johnson decision provides significant clarity to the issue of
when discretion to extend the time to opt out should be exercised.
The court noted that, prior to this decision, there had been no
appellate authority in Ontario that had expressly considered the
excusable neglect / no prejudice test or definitively articulated
any other test. [GN]

PBM NUTRITIONALS: Nov. 30 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Avery, writing for CNET, reports that your claim form must be
postmarked or submitted online by 11:59 p.m. Central Time on Nov.
30, 2022.

If you've bought baby formula from Target, Walmart or another
big-box retailer since 2017, you may be due part of a $2 million
class action settlement. PBM Nutritionals, a major manufacturer of
infant formula, has agreed to the payout to resolve claims its
products don't make as many servings as advertised.

Plaintiffs in White, et al. v. PBM Nutritionals allege the
company's formula makes 8% to 12% fewer liquid servings than is
listed on the packaging. Following the printed directions, "the
products contain nowhere near enough powdered baby and infant
formula to make the represented number of bottles of formula,"
according to their complaint.

A subsidiary of health care corporation Perrigo, PBM makes infant
formula for Sam's Club's Member's Mark brand, Target's Up & Up
brand, BJ's Wholesale Club's Berkley Jensen label and Walmart's
Parent's Choice, as well as for Burt's Bees Baby, Earth's Best and
numerous other companies.

The settlement comes as parents have been struggling with a massive
baby formula shortage, as another major manufacturer temporarily
shuttered its plant amid concerns products were exposed to
dangerous bacteria.

Perrigo declined to comment on the case. In a press release, PBM
denied the allegations raised in the suit and said it was settling
the matter "to avoid further litigation and distraction of
resources from its business."

In addition to the cash payments, PBM has also agreed to update its
labels to better inform customers about its products' serving
capabilities.

Here's what you need to know about the PBM baby formula settlement,
including who is eligible to receive payment, what you need to file
a claim and how much money you could receive.

For more on class action suits, see if you're eligible for part of
from Capital One's $190 million payout, T-Mobile's $350 million
data breach case or Facebook's $90 million data-tracking payout.

What baby formula brands are included in the PBM Nutritionals class
action case?
Brands covered by the settlement include Well Beginnings, Meijer
Baby, Little Journey, Wellsley Farms, Burt's Bees Baby, Berkley
Jensen, Parent's Choice, Earth's Best Organic, Comforts, Up & Up,
Babies "R" Us, Member's Mark and Bobbie Baby. (For a full list of
products, visit PBMlabelSettlement.com.)

If you reside in the US and purchased any of these brands from Jan.
1, 2017, to July 21, 2022, for personal use, you can file a claim.
How much money could you receive from the PBM baby formula
settlement? The amount you're entitled to depends on the number of
cans of baby formula you purchased during the class period and
whether you kept your receipts.

Without proof of purchase, you can claim reimbursement for up to
five containers at a rate of $2 each -- for a maximum payment of
$10. With proof of purchase, you can claim up to 15 containers, for
a maximum payout of $30.

How do I file a claim in the PBM Nutritionals formula case?
You can complete the online claim form in the case or print out a
physical form and mail it to:

White v. PBM Nutritionals, LLC
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
P.O. Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-539

What is the deadline to file a claim?
Your claim form must be postmarked or submitted online by 11:59
p.m. Central Time on Nov. 30, 2022.

If you do not want to be part of the settlement and wish to reserve
the right to file your own legal claim, the deadline is Oct. 18,
2022.

When will I receive a check?
A final approval hearing for the case was set for Oct. 26, 2022.

Payments are typically dispersed within 90 days of a settlement
receiving final approval but can be delayed significantly by
appeals. [GN]

SCUPPER'S WATERSPORTS: Faces Cadwell Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
WYATT CADWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCUPPER’S WATERSPORTS L.L.C., a Florida
limited liability company, and ROBERT F. BORTELL III, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-10100-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November 3,
2022) seeks unpaid overtime wages and other relief as a result of
the Defendants' alleged intentional and willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a "Mate"
approximately from January 2019 until approximately July 28, 2022.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to properly
compensate him and other similarly situated employees, who have
performed services for the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants
failed to pay them proper overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each overtime
hours they have worked. Aside from all unpaid overtime wages, the
Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest,
reasonable attorney's fee and costs, and other relief as the Court
deems just and equitable.

Scupper's Watersports L.L.C. offers the most activities on the
water in the Upper Keys. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Militzok, Esq.
          MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
          8958 W. State Road 84, #1036
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324
          Tel: (954) 780-8228
          Fax: (954) 791-4456
          E-mail: bjm@militzoklaw.com

T. ROWE: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Capture of Biometrics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims T. Rowe Price Retirement Plan Services
has failed to obtain callers' consent before using voice
recognition software to capture their biometric voice prints.

The 12-page suit alleges that T. Rowe Price, who provides
retirement services, deploys this system to "authenticate or refute
the true identity of callers" and examine the honesty of their
statements.

According to the filing, T. Rowe Price has violated the California
Invasion of Privacy Act by utilizing a device that examines or
records individuals' voice prints or voice stress patterns to
"determine the truth or falsity of statements made by such person"
without securing their express written consent.

The complaint alleges that T. Rowe Price creates a unique voice
print for each caller from a recording of their initial call and
stores it in a database for reference during subsequent calls.

"Creating a voice print requires extracting an individual's
phonetic features (including their unique speech patterns, tones,
and other characteristics) from their voice," the complaint says.
"As such, a voice print serves as an audible 'fingerprint' which
can directly identify an individual and can even reveal the
speaker's behavioral traits."

As the case tells it, T. Rowe Price's system examines a caller's
speech patterns to detect audible indications of lying, such as
changes in breathing, repeating words or phrases, difficulty
speaking or using odd inflections.

The security section of the company's website admits that it uses
"Voice Biometrics" to verify the identity of callers as they engage
with the call center, but T. Rowe Price fails to obtain express
written permission before scrutinizing the authenticity of
California residents' voices, the filing contends.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in California who had their
voice prints or other voice stress patterns examined or recorded by
T. Rowe Price Retirement Plan Services to determine the truth or
falsity of their statements. [GN]

TAMARA LICH: List of Defendants in Protest Suit May Be Expanded
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glen McGregor, writing for CTV News, reports that the lawyer
leading a potential class-action lawsuit against the Freedom Convoy
wants to expand the list of defendants to include all truckers who
occupied Ottawa earlier this year, as well as anyone who donated to
the fund the protest.

If successful, the legal manoeuvre could make the owners of
approximately 400 trucks and tens of thousands of donors
financially liable for a share of $300 million in damages the
lawsuit claims.

Lawyer Paul Champ first filed the litigation in February, naming
public servant Zexi Li, who lives in downtown Ottawa, as a
representative of a class of residents who claim they suffered from
the noise and disruption caused by hundreds of trucks parked on
city streets for three weeks.

Champ later added representatives plaintiffs of two Ottawa
businesses and employees of other downtown businesses as additional
classes of plaintiffs -- meaning they could share the damages
should the court certify the classes, and if the litigation
succeeded.

The lawsuit initially named Tamara Lich, Tom Marazzo, Chris Barber
and other convoy organizers as defendants, along with unnamed "John
Doe" and "Jane Doe" truckers and donors.

Now Champ has brought an unusual motion to add two defendant
classes to the litigation, potentially making liable anyone who
brought their truck to the Ottawa protest or contributed
financially through crowdfunding sites like GiveSendGo or
GoFundMe.

In an application filed in Ontario Superior Court, Champ identifies
the operator of an Ontario trucking company and a New Brunswick
businessman as representatives of the two defendant classes.

The motion identifies Brad Howland, of Kars, N.B., as a
representative defendant of a potential donor class. He owns owns
Easy Kleen Pressure Systems Ltd., which donated "$75,000 USD on or
about February 9, 2022, to GiveSendGo to support, encourage and
facilitate" the protest, the motion alleges.

Howland confirmed to CTV News that his company had donated to the
convoy but he says he isn't sure where it ended up.

"The money was to support and pay for expenses for the people that
were giving up so much time to put their voice forward and their
time forward to explain how we want freedom in the country," he
said.

Howland said he had heard rumours he might be drawn into the
litigation but wasn't certain until contacted by CTV News.

The motion also seeks to add Harold Jonker of Caistor Centre, Ont.,
as the representative defendant. It claims his company, Jonker
Trucking, "owned at least 11 semi-tractor trucks that were driven
to Ottawa and used to participate in the tortious activities of the
Freedom Convoy protest."

Jonker could not immediately be reached for comment Wednesday.

Many of the convoy defendants to the lawsuit are testifying before
the Public Order Emergency Commission currently studying the
federal government's use of the Emergencies Act to end the
protests.

Champ is also appearing at the inquiry on behalf of a coalition of
downtown Ottawa residents and businesses. Li testified during the
first week of the inquiry hearings.

None of the defendants named in the lawsuit have filed
statements-of-defence yet, and none of the allegations have been
proved in court.

Champ and other lawyers working on the case have successfully
frozen millions of dollars donated through crowdfunding sites. The
money is held in escrow pending resolution of the case.

Champ also used the Li lawsuit to successfully obtain an injunction
to stop the truckers from blowing truck and train horns.

The plaintiffs still face major legal hurdles, to certify about
24,000 downtown residents as a class, and now, to certify the
additional defendant classes.

Even if the plaintiffs eventually win a judgment in court, to
collect damages, they will have to prove individuals belong to the
defendants classes.

The plaintiffs are expected to rely on the enormous number of
pictures and video posted to social media to identify individual
truckers who participated in the protests. They could also use
donor records from crowdsourcing platforms to identify members of
the donor defendant class. [GN]


TOM'S OF MAINE: May Face Suit Over PFAS in Toothpaste Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClassAction.org reports that attorneys are investigating the Tom's
of Maine products listed below:

Kids' Toothpaste
Whole Care Peppermint Toothpaste
Luminous White Clean Mint Toothpaste

They're investigating whether the toothpastes contain toxic
"forever" chemicals known as PFAS and whether a class action
lawsuit could be filed on behalf of consumers. They believe
products sold by a company with "safe" and "natural" branding
should not contain PFAS, exposure to which has been linked to
cancer, high cholesterol, fertility problems, decreased vaccine
response in children and other health effects.

Why Might My Toothpaste Have Harmful PFAS Chemicals?
PFAS are used in many consumer products due to their resistance to
heat, water, stains, oil and grease. Indeed, PFAS can be found in
everything from clothing and non-stick cookware to fast-food
packaging and guitar strings.

One article published by Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts
on the uses of PFAS notes that toothpaste products might include
the chemicals to help inhibit tooth decay and enhance the formation
of "fluorapatite," a powerful defense against cavities. It also
notes the "low surface tension" of PFAS, which may allow for the
toothpaste to better clean the teeth.

How Could a Class Action Lawsuit Help?
If filed and successful, a class action lawsuit could give
consumers a chance to get back some of the money they spent on
certain Tom's of Maine toothpaste products and potentially force
the company to change its marketing.  

According to Tom's of Maine's website, the company spawned from two
parents' "passion for helping others live a natural life" and
stands by its mission of "doing good, for real." Tom's of Maine
claims to make products that are "good for you and the planet" –
but PFAS are anything but good for humans and the environment.

Tom's of Maine was previously hit with litigation in 2016 and 2020
for the use of so-called "bad" ingredients, with two proposed class
actions alleging the company's "natural" product labels are
deceptive. One case took issue with the presence of xylitol and
sodium lauryl sulfate in Tom's toothpaste, while the other claimed
several of Tom's oral, baby, lip and body care products contain a
laundry list of processed chemicals. The lawsuits have since been
dismissed but highlighted the potential for Tom's of Maine to be
taken to task over its advertising. [GN]

TOWN & COUNTRY EVENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Angulo Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LIDIA ANGULO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOWN & COUNTRY EVENT RENTALS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 22STCV352Q4 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Nov. 4, 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 Angulo was employed by the Defendant as staff.

TOWN & COUNTRY EVENT RENTALS, INC. was founded in 1998. The
company's line of business includes renting or leasing equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          Ivan P. Medina, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603

TRICOLOR AUTO: Cross Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled THOMAS CROSS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. TRICOLOR AUTO GROUP, LLC; TRICOLOR CALIFORNIA
AUTO GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No.
34-2022-00325056, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on October 27, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01946-JDP to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide required meal periods, failure to
provide required rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due to
discharged and quitting employees, failure to maintain required
records, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred
in discharge of duties, unfair and unlawful business practices, and
penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.

Tricolor Auto Group, LLC is a car financing services company based
in Dallas, Texas.

Tricolor California Auto Group, LLC is a car financing services
company doing business in California. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Ryan H. Crosner, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 239-9800
         Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
         E-mail: ryan.crosner@ogletree.com

                  - and -

         Briana Labriola, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
         695 Town Center Drive
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (714) 800-7900
         Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
         E-mail: briana.labriola@ogletree.com

UNILEVER PLC: Dry Shampoo Recall May Prompt Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Lopez-Martinez, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that after
the brand Unilever filed a recall for more than 1.5 million dry
shampoo products over the detection of a cancer-causing chemical,
lawyers say customers are likely to take legal action especially as
the number of incident reports related to the product increase.

Health Canada issued a recall in October for 1,574,426 dry shampoo
products under popular drugstore brands like Dove, Bed Head TIGI
and Tresemme following the detection of the chemical benzene.
Unilever said while it does not use benzene in its products, it
issued the recall to be cautious.

This liquid chemical found in gasoline is a carcinogen and in cases
of exposure to large amounts of it, can lead to cancers like
leukemia or other life-threatening blood disorders. As of
Wednesday, Health Canada has already reported more than 100
inquiries, incidents and injuries. Most of the incidents and
injuries have involved irritation and allergic reactions following
the use of the affected dry shampoo products.

"This can absolutely lead to a class action lawsuit," B.C.-based
class-action lawyer David Klein told CTVNews.ca on Wednesday.

Klein says if a class-action lawsuit were to ensue, there are two
specific groups of people that would be able to make a claim if
they're able to prove the manufacturer knew or should have known
about the contamination.

"The first is, of course, people who have suffered any form of
injury as a result of benzene, and the second are those (related)
to the over a million products that were purchased and are now of
no value and have to be thrown in the garbage," he said.

Ontario-based personal injury lawyer Peter Murray told CTVNews.ca
in a phone interview on Nov. 2 that class-action lawsuits can only
work if all plaintiffs can show they experienced the same issue,
which may be difficult to prove for the first group since injuries
can differ from person to person.

In this case, Murray says, Unilever could be faced with a "mass
tort," which is when several individual claims are made about the
same product but have similar issues instead of identical.
Nonetheless, a class-action lawsuit could be easily made for the
second group who had to spend money on a now-useless product and
potentially feels anxious about using products from a brand they
had once trusted, Murray says.

Unilever's recall advised customers to stop using the products
immediately and dispose of them, additionally including an offer of
reimbursement or refund to customers. The effectiveness of the help
given to affected customers will likely determine the amount of
legal action they could face, Murray says.

"It's only when there's a disconnect between doing the right thing
and the profit motive of some manufacturers that you really get
into class action or the need for class action," he said.

Murray recommends any Canadians who purchased the product or
experienced any damage to keep any proof they have if they are
considering legal action. Proof like store receipts, photos of
physical injury or a doctor's note will be crucial to building a
case.

"It'd be good to find out if you have any specific allergy or high
sensitivity to exposure to benzene because some people are more
sensitive and 'thin-skulled' as we call it than others," he said.

While it can be in good faith for companies to give individuals who
weren't significantly impacted a refund or reimbursement, Murray
says for those who may want to file a claim should read all the
details of the compensation and consider getting legal advice
first.

"If you're talking about return of a bottle that's one thing, and
it probably is insignificant, but if it's significant skin damage
or otherwise, then it's something that you may want to consider
getting more details and getting yourself more informed prior to
signing on the dotted line," he said. [GN]

WAKEMED HEALTH: Faces Breach Class Action Over Tracking Pixels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jill McKeon, writing for Health IT Security, reports that WakeMed
Health and Hospitals is the subject of a proposed class action
lawsuit stemming from a data breach that allegedly led to patient
data being transmitted to Facebook (Meta) through the use of
tracking pixels.

In October, WakeMed notified more than 495,000 individuals that
their information was involved in the breach.

As previously reported, Meta and a variety of health systems are
facing scrutiny over the use of tracking pixels on hospital
websites. Tracking pixels are typically used for targeted marketing
and tracking user activity, but in the case of numerous hospitals,
the pixel was found on password-protected patient portals.

WakeMed's notice to patients noted that "the pixel's software code
may have also transmitted some of the information entered into the
MyChart patient portal and appointment scheduling page back to
Facebook."

WakeMed has since disabled the pixel and launched a review of its
policies and procedures relating to gathering website user data.

Similarly, Advocate Aurora Health notified 3 million individuals of
a breach stemming from the use of tracking pixels, and Novant
Health notified 1.3 million individuals of potential unauthorized
data disclosures resulting from its use of pixels.

"Despite WakeMed's status as one of the largest healthcare
providers in the country, WakeMed knowingly incorporated tracking
software on its website that disclosed the Private Information of
Plaintiff's and Class Members to an unauthorized third party
without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff and Class Members,"
the lawsuit alleged.

The plaintiff, a WakeMed patient, "reasonably expected that her
online communications with WakeMed were confidential, solely
between herself and WakeMed, and that such communications would not
be transmitted to or intercepted by a third party," the filing
stated.

WakeMed's notice did not specify when it first discovered that the
pixel was potentially sending data back to Facebook. However,
WakeMed did note that the pixel was in use on its website from
March 2018 to May 2022.

"Healthcare providers like Defendant that collect and store Private
Information have statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law
duties to safeguard that information and ensure it remains private
and safe from disclosure to unauthorized parties," the lawsuit
continued.

The plaintiff alleged that WakeMed failed to implement reasonable
safeguards to prevent improper disclosures, failed to adequately
train employees, and failed to comply with industry-standard data
security practices. [GN]

[*] Food, Beverage Companies Vulnerable to Mislabeling Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bradford G. Hughes, Esq., Kraig D. Jennett, Esq., and R. Kevin
Williams, Esq., of Clark Hill, disclosed that in 1970, California
enacted the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), creating what
remains the most comprehensive state consumer protection statute in
the country. Under the CLRA, consumers who bought goods or services
that were sold through "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair
or deceptive acts" may bring an individual or class action lawsuit
seeking damages or injunctive relief. Accompanied by similar
consumer protection statutes such as California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL), the CLRA has
created a complex minefield of legal pitfalls for companies
conducting business in the state. In recent years, litigation under
the CLRA and other California consumer protection laws has
increased substantially, encouraged by the success of specialized
consumer protection law firms, large class action settlements, and
favorable judicial outcomes.

Companies with food and beverage products are particularly
vulnerable to consumer lawsuits that allege the use of "false or
misleading" or otherwise deficient labeling under California law.
California courts are increasingly a hotbed for these types of
mislabeling claims. Barilla, a multinational Italian food company
and the world's largest producer of pasta, is the most recent
company under fire. They were recently sued in a putative class
action under the CLRA, UCL, and FAL, with plaintiffs taking issue
with the company's slogan, printed on every box: "Italy's #1 Brand
of Pasta." Other mainstream food brands such as Nestlé, Kodiak
Cakes pancake batter, and Celsius energy drinks have also fallen
victim to mislabeling claims.

The main problem facing the food and beverage industry is a
compliance nightmare of confusing regulations. Under California's
Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (Sherman Law), which regulates
the packaging, labeling, and advertising of food, the state adopted
all of the FDA's food-labeling rules. Applicable regulations
include the FDA's complex requirements for representing sugar,
protein, or nutrient content on a label. These rules are
ill-defined and subject to inconsistent interpretation. As a
result, companies that sell food products in California must comply
with hundreds of vague and complicated federal regulations to the
"T," or potentially face substantial losses in consumer class
actions. [GN]

[*] Gibson Dunn Issues Third Quarter 2022 Update on Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gibson Dunn's Third Quarter 2022 Update on Class Actions provides
an overview of significant class action developments during the
third quarter of 2022 (July to September).

Part I summarizes an important Ninth Circuit decision reversing
class certification on predominance grounds;

Part II analyzes recent Eleventh and Third Circuit opinions
addressing Article III standing in putative class actions;

Part III discusses decisions from the Second and Eleventh Circuits
addressing standing issues in the class settlement context; and

Part IV covers a Third Circuit decision addressing the
applicability of Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct.
1773 (2017), to claims by out-of-state plaintiffs in an opt-in
collective action.

I. The Ninth Circuit Reverses Certification in Employment
Misclassification Case Because of Individualized Questions
Regarding Injury and Damages

In July, the Ninth Circuit published an important decision
analyzing Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement in a worker
misclassification action. In Bowerman v. Field Asset Services,
Inc., 39 F.4th 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit reversed
class certification based on individualized injury and damages
issues. This decision refutes a frequent argument by plaintiffs'
counsel that individualized damages issues are irrelevant to class
certification.

Bowerman involved a putative class of workers whom the defendant
allegedly misclassified as independent contractors rather than
employees. As a result, the plaintiffs claimed they were owed
overtime and business expenses. Id. at 657. The plaintiffs did not
dispute that they lacked common proof showing that the putative
class members worked overtime hours or that claimed expenses were
reimbursable, but argued that under the Ninth Circuit's decision in
Leyva v. Medline Industries Inc., 716 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2013),
"the presence of individualized damages cannot, by itself, defeat
class certification." Id. at 661-62 (quoting Leyva, 716 F.3d at
514).

The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that class certification was
improper for several reasons:

First, the court distinguished between "the calculation of damages
and the existence of damages in the first place." Id. at 662. The
problem in Bowerman was the latter: The defendant's "liability to
any class member . . . would implicate highly individualized
inquiries on whether that particular class member ever worked
overtime or ever incurred any ‘necessary' business expenses."
(emphases omitted).

Second, even damages issues (as opposed to liability) can defeat
class certification if the class members' purported damages are not
capable of measurement on a classwide basis. In Bowerman, the
plaintiffs lacked common proof of entitlement to overtime wages or
expense reimbursement, so they failed to show that "the whole class
suffered damages traceable to the same injurious course of conduct
underlying the plaintiffs' legal theory," as required by Comcast
Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013). 39 F.4th at 663.
Third, the court also noted that class certification may be denied
where calculating classwide damages "isn't easy." In Bowerman,
because determining individual class members' damages would require
"the individual testimony of self-interested class members," the
plaintiffs had failed to "present[] a method of calculating damages
that is not excessively difficult," and therefore "failed to
satisfy Comcast's simple command that the case be ‘susceptible to
awarding damages on a class-wide basis.'" Id. (quoting Comcast, 569
U.S. at 32 n.4).
II. The Eleventh and Third Circuits Further Opine on Standing and
Article III Injury in Putative Class Actions

Questions about standing and Article III injury continue to
confront the federal courts of appeals, with the Eleventh and Third
Circuits being the latest to analyze these questions during this
past quarter.

In Hunstein v. Preferred Collection & Management Services, 48 F.4th
1236 (11th Cir. 2022), a divided en banc Eleventh Circuit held that
a statutory violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA) was insufficient to establish an injury giving rise to
Article III standing.

The plaintiff had alleged a debt collection agency violated the
FDCPA when it disclosed information about his debt to a mail vendor
that sent out debt-collection notices. Id. at 1240. In analyzing
Article III standing, the en banc Eleventh Circuit agreed the
common-law comparison approach (endorsed by the Supreme Court in
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021)) was appropriate,
but it ultimately concluded there was no "close relationship"
between the alleged statutory violation and the common-law tort
analogue. 48 F.4th at 1243-45 (explaining that under Spokeo, Inc.
v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 341 (2016), a statutory violation
qualifies as a concrete harm if it has a "close relationship" to a
harm traditionally recognized in tort law). The court explained
that even though the alleged statutory harm need not be an "exact
duplicate" of a traditionally recognized harm, there is no "close
relationship" when an element "essential to liability" for the
common-law analogue is missing. 48 F.4th at 1242. Here, a "public
disclosure" was essential to the tort of "public disclosure of
private facts," yet the plaintiff did not allege their information
had been disclosed to anyone other than a single third-party mail
vendor. Id. at 1248. Without the critical element of public
disclosure, the plaintiff's statutory violation was not analogous
to a common-law tort and did not confer standing—and the court
stated that finding otherwise would be tantamount to "hammering
square causes of action into round torts." Id. at 1241, 1249.

In Adam v. Barone, 41 F.4th 230 (3d Cir. 2022), the Third Circuit
held that the offer of a pre-litigation refund did not extinguish
the plaintiff's standing to sue. Id. at 236. The case involved a
plaintiff who alleged that she was fraudulently charged $100 for
beauty products that the defendants marketed as free samples. Id.
at 232. Before the lawsuit was filed, defendants offered her a full
refund in the ordinary course of business, which the plaintiff
refused. Id. The district court held the refund offer mooted the
plaintiff's claim and dismissed the case. Id. at 233, 236.

The Third Circuit reversed. It held that a pre-litigation "refund
offer . . . made in the ordinary course of business" is not a
categorical bar to a plaintiff's standing to sue. Id. at 234. In
particular, the $100 charge qualified as an "injury in fact"
because the plaintiff "neither received a refund nor accepted any
alternative to a refund," and, applying traditional contract
principles, the rejection of the refund offer "le[ft] the matter as
if no offer had ever been made." Id. at 234-35 (citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153, 162 (2016)).

III. The Second and Eleventh Circuits Consider Standing in the
Context of Class Action Settlements

The Second and Eleventh Circuits also weighed in on how the Article
III standing requirements should be applied in the specific context
of class settlements.

In Hyland v. Navient Corp., 48 F.4th 110 (2d Cir. 2022), the Second
Circuit affirmed the district court's certification of a Rule
23(b)(2) injunctive relief settlement class and held that class
standing was satisfied even though some class members no longer had
any relationship with the defendant. The case was filed by a group
of public servants whose loans were not forgiven through the
federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, allegedly because
the defendant loan service companies misled them regarding their
eligibility for the program. Id. at 115. The parties agreed to a
nationwide non-monetary settlement class while also preserving
class members' rights to file individual claims for money damages.
Id. at 114. In return, the defendants agreed to changes in their
business practices and funded a cy pres award of $2.25 million to
establish a loan counseling nonprofit. Id. at 116. The district
court approved the settlement and several class members objected.

On appeal, the objectors argued that because "[s]ome class members
were no longer using the company to service their loans when the
class was certified, . . . the class as a whole . . . lacked
standing to pursue injunctive relief." Id. at 117. The Second
Circuit rejected this argument, stating that "[s]tanding is
satisfied so long as at least one named plaintiff can demonstrate
the requisite injury." Id. at 117-18 (citing cases). The court
noted that the named plaintiffs alleged they "were likely to suffer
future harm because they continued to rely on [the company] for
information about repaying their student loans," and at least six
of them still had a relationship with the company. Id. at 118. In
the injunctive relief context, at least, these allegations were
therefore "enough to confer standing on the entire class." Id.
(citing Amador v. Andrews, 655 F.3d 89, 99 (2d Cir. 2011) ("In a
class action, once standing is established for a named plaintiff,
standing is established for the entire class.")).

In Drazen v. Pinto, 41 F.4th 1354 (11th Cir. 2022), the Eleventh
Circuit confronted a similar issue in the context of a damages
class. There, it vacated and remanded a class settlement after
determining that not all settlement class members had experienced
an Article III injury. The plaintiffs alleged the defendant
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending them
unauthorized calls and text messages. Even though the Eleventh
Circuit had previously held that the receipt of a single unwanted
text message is not enough to constitute an Article III injury, the
district court nevertheless approved the settlement, reasoning that
"only the named plaintiffs must have standing." Id. at 1357. Only a
small percentage (~7%) of the settlement class members had received
a single text message. Id.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed. The court first stated that "even at
the settlement stage of a class action, we must assure ourselves
that we have Article III standing at every stage of the
litigation." Id. at 1360. The court further reasoned that under
TransUnion, "[t]o recover individual damages, all plaintiffs within
the class definition must have standing," such that "when a class
seeks certification for the sole purpose of a damages settlement
under Rule 23(e), the class definition must be limited to those
individuals who have Article III standing." Id. at 1361. And here,
because the settlement class may have included individuals who only
received a single unwanted text message, approving the settlement
would allow "individuals without standing [to] receiv[e] what is
effectively damages in violation of TransUnion." Id. at 1362.

IV. Joining the Sixth and Eighth Circuits, the Third Circuit Holds
that Bristol-Myers Squibb Requires Out-of-State Plaintiffs in FLSA
Collective Actions to Show Specific Jurisdiction Over Their
Individual Claims

In Fischer v. Federal Express Corp., 42 F.4th 366 (3d Cir. 2022),
the Third Circuit joined the Sixth and Eighth Circuits in
concluding that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S.
Ct. 1773 (2017)—which held that a state court lacks jurisdiction
over out-of-state plaintiffs' claims unless their claims are
sufficiently connected to the forum—also prohibits a district
court from exercising jurisdiction over the claims of opt-in
plaintiffs in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action
unless such a connection is established.

Fischer involved an FLSA collective action filed by a Pennsylvania
resident against FedEx in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
alleging FedEx misclassified employees in her position as exempt
from the FLSA's overtime rule. 42 F.4th at 371. Two former,
non-resident FedEx employees sought to join the collective action
in Pennsylvania, but the district court denied their request. Id.
Relying on Bristol-Myers, the district court reasoned that it
lacked personal jurisdiction over FedEx with respect to those
employees' claims since they did not work for FedEx in
Pennsylvania, and thus, their claims did not "arise out of or
relate to the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state."
Id. at 371.

The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that under Bristol-Myers, a
district court can exercise specific jurisdiction over the
out-of-state plaintiffs' claims under the FLSA only if the claims
arise out of or relate to the defendant's minimum contacts with the
forum state. Id. at 370. In so holding, the Third Circuit joined
the Sixth and Eighth Circuits (Canaday v. Anthem Cos., 9 F.4th 392
(6th Cir. 2021); Vallone v. CJS Sols. Grp., LLC, 9 F.4th 861 (8th
Cir. 2021)), and widened a split with a First Circuit case reaching
the opposite conclusion (Waters v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc., 23
F.4th 84 (1st Cir. 2022)).

The following Gibson Dunn lawyers contributed to this client
update: Paulette Miniter, Nasim Khansari, Roark Luskin, Wesley Sze,
Lauren Blas, Bradley Hamburger, Kahn Scolnick, and Christopher
Chorba.

Gibson Dunn attorneys are available to assist in addressing any
questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact
the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work in the firm's
Class Actions, Litigation, or Appellate and Constitutional Law
practice groups, or any of the following lawyers:

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. - Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7000,
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com)
Christopher Chorba - Co-Chair, Class Actions Practice Group - Los
Angeles (+1 213-229-7396, cchorba@gibsondunn.com)
Theane Evangelis - Co-Chair, Litigation Practice Group, Los Angeles
(+1 213-229-7726, tevangelis@gibsondunn.com)
Lauren R. Goldman - New York (+1 212-351-2375,
lgoldman@gibsondunn.com)
Kahn A. Scolnick - Co-Chair, Class Actions Practice Group - Los
Angeles (+1 213-229-7656, kscolnick@gibsondunn.com)
Bradley J. Hamburger - Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7658,
bhamburger@gibsondunn.com)
Lauren M. Blas - Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7503,
lblas@gibsondunn.com)[GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Has 160 Exposure Cases Pending at Sept. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. has been, and continues to be,
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death
and seeking various monetary damages due to exposure to asbestos in
building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The majority of cases are pending in Illinois state courts. There
were 160 asbestos cases pending as of September 30, 2022.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims. The aggregate settlement costs and legal and
administrative fees associated with the Company's asbestos
litigation has been immaterial for the last three years. As of
September 30, 2022, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount
related to pending claims.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3E68MFM


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Faces Several Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business
which was acquired by the Company and do not involve products which
were manufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with these
lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the
Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The
Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended
by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in all
respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such
party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future. To date,
no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of
any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good
and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend
them vigorously."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3X3czwg



ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Faces Personal Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., from time to time named, along with
numerous others, are defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of
individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and
anticipates that additional claims may be asserted in the future,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Some facilities owned by the Registrants or their predecessors
contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other
asbestos-containing materials. Although their ultimate outcome
cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants do not expect
these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a
material adverse effect on their financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3GlmcR0


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Holdings Has $162.4MM Loss on Divestiture
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Holdings, Co., during the third quarter of 2022, has
completed the divestiture of asbestos-related assets and
liabilities and recorded a loss of $162.4 million, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Crane Holdings states, "Based on existing U.S. income tax guidance,
the Company did not record an income tax benefit related to this
transaction. However, the Company released a valuation allowance
previously recorded against certain state deferred tax assets based
on available evidence indicating it to be more likely than not the
Company will realize a state income tax benefit for certain
non-asbestos related future tax deductions. Specifically, the
Company considered the impact of the lack of future asbestos
settlement and defense payments on state taxable income, projected
future state taxable income exclusive of reversing deferred taxes,
the Company's U.S. business resulting net deferred tax liability
position after the asbestos-related transaction, and the lack of
separate state income tax filings.

"The combination of a loss on the asbestos-related transaction and
the lack of a related tax benefit resulted in the Company's
negative tax rate for the three months ended September 30, 2022.
This negative tax rate represents a tax expense recorded against a
book loss. In this context, the Company's tax rate for the three
months ended September 30, 2022, is higher than the prior year's
comparable period primarily due to the absence of a tax benefit
recorded against the asbestos-related transaction as well as higher
non-U.S. taxes, partially offset by the aforementioned release of
valuation allowance and the statutory U.S. deduction related to our
non-U.S. subsidiaries' income.

"Our effective tax rate for the three months ended September 30,
2022 is higher than the statutory U.S. federal tax rate of 21%
primarily due to the absence of a tax benefit recorded against the
asbestos-related transaction, earnings in jurisdictions with
statutory tax rates higher than the United States, expenses that
are statutorily non-deductible for income tax purposes and U.S.
state taxes, partially offset by the aforementioned release of
valuation allowance, excess share-based compensation benefits, tax
credit utilization, and the statutory U.S. deduction related to our
non-U.S. subsidiaries' income."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3O6VIoh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Faces Numerous Exposure Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.
("Crown Cork"), is one of many defendants in a substantial number
of lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "These claims arose from the insulation
operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown
Cork purchased in 1963.

"Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel
in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet
filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims
under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown Cork
in the future. The projected value of these claims is included in
the Company's estimated liability as of September 30, 2022.

"As of September 30, 2022, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $221,
including $180 for unasserted claims. The Company determines its
accrual without limitation to a specific time period.

"It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual. However, the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due
to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 82% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2021), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before
or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate the
alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company’s asbestos cases
are filed)."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Xa8kPI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Faces Product Liability Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation plc is subject to asbestos claims from historic
products which may have contained asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "Insurance may cover some of the costs
associated with these claims and proceedings. Although it is not
possible to predict with certainty the outcome or cost of these
matters, the Company believes they will not have a material adverse
effect on the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3V2yi5N


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured
and/or distributed by its heritage companies in the past, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought
against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. While the
overall number of asbestos-related claims in which we or our
predecessors have been named has generally declined in recent
years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or
that the average cost per claim to us will not further increase.
Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products
were encapsulated and used as internal components of process
equipment, and we do not believe that significant emission of
asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment.

"We believe that our reserve for asbestos claims and the receivable
for recoveries from insurance carriers that we have recorded for
these claims reflects reasonable and probable estimates of these
amounts. Our estimate of our ultimate exposure for asbestos claims,
however, is subject to significant uncertainties, including the
timing and number and types of new claims, unfavorable court
rulings, judgments or settlement terms and ultimate costs to
settle. Additionally, the continued viability of carriers may also
impact the amount of probable insurance recoveries. We believe that
these uncertainties could have a material adverse impact on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows, though we currently believe the likelihood is remote."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3EzaHEo


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Defends Numerous PI Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a defendant in numerous
lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries
purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain
products manufactured by us or present in certain of its
facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought
against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. To date,
we have disposed of approximately 156,900 claims by defending,
obtaining the dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The
sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to
date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled
approximately $573 million through September 30, 2022 and $560
million through December 31, 2021.

"We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of the
liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and estimate
our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We recorded
gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims,
inclusive of defense costs, totaling $132 million and $131 million
at September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively. In
determining the estimate of our asbestos liability, we evaluated
claims over the next ten-year period. Due to the difficulties in
making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change
in circumstances arising in the future may result in an increase in
the recorded obligation, and that increase could be significant.

"We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under
coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess
liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After
consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving
consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers,
the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance
carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we
expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We record a
receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that
recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a
particular recovery.

"We recorded an insurance receivable related to asbestos claims of
$77 million at both September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021. We
expect that approximately 60% of asbestos claim related losses
would be recoverable through insurance during the ten-year period
covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, $12 million
was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at
both September 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021. The recorded
receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect under
coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary and excess
insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of
recovery from certain of our other excess insurance carriers.

"We believe that, at December 31, 2021, we had approximately $540
million in excess level policy limits applicable to indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under coverage-in-place
agreements. We also had additional unsettled excess level policy
limits potentially applicable to such costs. In addition, we had
coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and defense
costs for asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits
pursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement, as well as coverage for
indemnity and defense costs for asbestos premises claims pursuant
to coverage-in-place agreements.

"With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is
reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in
excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be
reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject
to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not
limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure),
alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and
disease alleged. Recoveries may also be limited by insurer
insolvencies or financial difficulties. Depending upon the nature
of these characteristics or events, as well as the resolution of
certain legal issues, some portion of the insurance may not be
accessible by us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3GfrygF

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Has 17,220 Pending PI Cases at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation is named as one of many defendants
(approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions in the
U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos
over the past several decades, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

At September 30, 2022, there were approximately 17,220 pending
asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company.  Of
those actions, approximately 16,585 were filed in the New York
Supreme Court (New York County), 115 were filed in other New York
State Supreme Court Counties and 520 were filed in courts located
in other states.

The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form
that contains a standard damages demand of $20 million or $25
million, regardless of the individual plaintiff’s alleged medical
condition, and without identifying any specific Company product.

At September 30, 2022, approximately 16,550 of the actions filed in
New York Supreme Court (New York County) were on the
Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the court in December 2002 for
all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot
demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible
physical impairment. The remaining approximately 35 cases in New
York County are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created
for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or
physical impairment.

The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary
and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if
necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might
ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions referred to above.
The costs and expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by
the Company's insurers.
In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the
future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases. At September 30, 2022, the
Company has obtained dismissal in approximately 28,400 cases by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3g5BjDB


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l Paper Has $104MM Liability as of Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company, as of September 30, 2022, has total
recorded liability with respect to pending and future
asbestos-related claims of $104 million, net of estimated insurance
recoveries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various
asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state and
federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of
certain companies previously acquired by the Company. While it is
reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses in excess of
its recorded liability with respect to asbestos-related matters, we
are unable to estimate any loss or range of loss in excess of such
liability, and do not believe additional material losses are
probable."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3tonoex


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech Has 451 Open Cases as of Oct. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc., as of October 2, 2022, has recorded 451
open asbestos cases related to certain talc products previously
sold by Barretts Minerals Inc., which is an increase in volume from
previous years, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Minerals Technologies states, "The Company is party to a number of
lawsuits arising in the normal course of our business. The Company
and certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous
defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing materials related to talc products
sold by the Company's subsidiary Barretts Minerals Inc. These
claims typically allege various theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seek
compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages, but most of
these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their
merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or
the magnitude of such liability, if any. We are unable to state an
amount or range of amounts claimed in any of these lawsuits because
state court pleading practices do not require the plaintiff to
identify the amount of the claimed damage. The Company's position,
as stated publicly, is that the talc products sold by Barretts
Minerals Inc. are safe and do not cause cancer.

"The Company records accruals for loss contingencies associated
with legal matters, including talc-related litigation, when it is
probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the
loss can be reasonably estimated. Amounts accrued for legal
contingencies often result from a complex series of judgments about
future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and
assumptions including timing of related payments. The ability to
make such estimates and judgments can be affected by various
factors, including whether damages sought in the proceedings are
unsubstantiated or indeterminate, the stage of the litigation, the
factual and legal matters in dispute, the ability to achieve
comprehensive settlements, the availability of co-defendants with
substantial resources and assets participating in the litigation,
and our evaluation of the unique attributes of each claim.

"While costs relating to the defense of talc-related cases has
increased concurrently with the volume, the majority of these costs
have historically been borne by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms
of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's
initial public offering in 1992. The Company is entitled to
indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for liabilities related to
sales prior to the initial public offering. The Company continues
to receive information with respect to potential costs associated
with the defense and/or settlement of talc-related cases not
subject to indemnification from Pfizer. Although the Company
believes that the talc products are safe and that claims to the
contrary are without merit, Barretts Minerals Inc.
opportunistically settled certain talc-related cases in the third
quarter and fourth quarter of 2022. As a result of these
settlements and defense costs incurred to date, the Company
reviewed its estimates of the probability and amount of losses in
connection with its talc-related cases and recorded $31 million for
litigation costs in the third quarter of 2022 to defend against,
opportunistically settle, and establish a reserve for claims
associated with certain talc products from Barretts Minerals Inc."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3fRBKky



ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Estimates $25MM Asbestos Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
The ODP Corporation's subsidiary OfficeMax, is named as a defendant
in a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the
operation of certain paper and forest products assets prior to
those assets being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to
retain responsibility, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "As part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to
retain responsibility for all pending, threatened and future
proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the
operation of the paper and forest products assets prior to the
closing of the sale. The Company has made provision for losses with
respect to the pending proceedings. Additionally, as of September
24, 2022, the Company has made provision for environmental
liabilities with respect to certain sites where hazardous
substances or other contaminants are or may be located. For these
liabilities, the Company's estimated range of reasonably possible
losses was approximately $15 million to $25 million. The Company
regularly monitors its estimated exposure to these liabilities. As
additional information becomes known, these estimates may change,
however, the Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax
retained proceedings are material to the Company's financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3hB38DW

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Has 25,880 Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Global, as of September 30, 2022, had pending
approximately 25,880 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 27,770 as of December 31, 2021, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "During the third quarter of 2022, we received
approximately 660 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive
docket approximately 1,570 claims. We report claims as closed when
we become aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court
or when we have reached agreement with the claimants on the
material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the
seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the
quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. Our
total costs for the years 2021 and 2020 for settlement and defense
of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were
approximately $63 million and $35 million, respectively. Our costs
for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year
and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period
as the insured portion of the expenses.

"We are a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries
related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred
as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by
Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s.
Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos.
We are typically named as one of a large number of defendants in
both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits,
the plaintiffs have not identified which of our products is the
basis of a claim. Claims against us in which a product has been
identified most commonly relate to allegations of exposure to
asbestos-containing insulating material used in conjunction with
turbines and electrical equipment.

"Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly
asbestos-related disease. The predominant number of pending claims
against us are non-cancer claims. It is difficult to predict future
asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may impact the
estimate of our asbestos liabilities, including, among others, the
number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims.
We record an accrual for a loss contingency when it is both
probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount of
the loss can be reasonably estimated. We believe that our accrual
and insurance are sufficient to cover our asbestos liabilities. Our
liability estimate is based upon many factors, including the number
of outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the
breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs
per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims, as well as
consultation with a third party firm on trends that may impact our
future asbestos liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3E96dCN

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Technologies Defends Asbestos-Related Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Roper Technologies, Inc., or its subsidiaries have been named
defendants along with numerous industrial companies in
asbestos-related litigation claims in certain U.S. states,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

To date, no significant resources have been required by Roper to
respond to asbestos claims. In the first quarter of 2022, Roper
completed a transaction in which it transferred the remainder of
exposure for asbestos claims to a third party. In connection with
this transaction, Roper incurred a one-time charge of $4.1, which
is recorded as a component of "Other income (expense), net" within
the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings for the nine
months ended September 30, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Uyn4Gd


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Paid $64MM in Asbestos Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., at September 30, 2022, had
approximately 1,550 cases outstanding for which they may be
responsible for any related liabilities, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Since inception in September 2001 through
September 30, 2022, the amounts paid for settled claims and awards
of asbestos-related damages, including interest, were approximately
$64 million.  We do not have insurance coverage for the indemnity
and defense costs associated with the claims we face.

"In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold
in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued
operation in the accompanying statement of operations.  When we
originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future
liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.
In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to
assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after
September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number
of claims filed against us on or after September 2001, and the
amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages,
and defense of such claims.  

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an
independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are
filed, and the status and results of such claims.  As is our
accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants
with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to
estimate our potential claim liability; and perform an actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year and whenever events or
changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may be
necessary.  The methodology used to project asbestos-related
liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1)
historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an
analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing
rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending
claims; (4) an analysis of our settlements and awards of
asbestos-related damages to date; and (5) an analysis of closed
claims with pay ratios and lag patterns in order to develop average
future settlement values.  Based on the information contained in
the actuarial study and all other available information considered
by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of
settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages was more
likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos
liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded
liability to determine if an adjustment is required.

"In accordance with our policy to perform an annual actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year, an updated actuarial
study was performed as of August 31, 2022.  The results of the
August 31, 2022 study included an estimate of our undiscounted
liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related
damages, excluding legal costs, ranging from $68.8 million to
$111.6 million for the period through 2065.  The change from the
prior year study, which was in August 31,2021, was a $7.9 million
increase for the low end of the range, and an $11.4 million
increase for the high end of the range.  The increase in the
estimated undiscounted liability from the prior year study at both
the low end and the high end of the range reflects our actual
experience, our historical data, recent settlements and certain
assumptions with respect to events that may occur in the future.

"Based upon the results of the August 31, 2022 actuarial study, in
September 2022, we increased our asbestos liability to $68.8
million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental
pre-tax provision of $18.5 million in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations.  Future legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and
reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the
accompanying statement of operations, are estimated, according to
the August 31, 2022 study, to range from $53.2 million to $105.7
million for the period through 2065.  Total operating cash outflows
related to discontinued operations, which include settlements,
awards of asbestos-related damages and legal costs, net of taxes,
were $11 million and $6.7 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2022 and 2021, respectively."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3EyTCKD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Defends 550 Cases in US and EU
------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc. has recorded a current docket of active and inactive
cases of approximately 500 cases in the United States and less than
50 in Europe, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Tenneco states, "For many years, the Company has been and continues
to be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health
problems as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"With respect to the claims filed in the United States, the
substantial majority of the claims are related to alleged exposure
to asbestos in the Company's line of Walker(R) exhaust automotive
products although a significant number of those claims appear also
to involve occupational exposures sustained in industries other
than automotive. A small number of claims have been asserted
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars. The
Company believes, based on scientific and other evidence, it is
unlikely that U.S. claimants were exposed to asbestos by the
Company's former products and that, in any event, they would not be
at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work
with these products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants. Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do
not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages.

"With respect to the claims filed in Europe, the substantial
majority relate to occupational exposure claims brought by current
and former employees of Federal-Mogul facilities in France and
amounts paid out were not material. A small number of occupational
exposure claims have also been asserted against Federal-Mogul
entities in Italy and Spain.

"As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of
business or file for bankruptcy, the Company may experience an
increased number of these claims. The Company vigorously defends
itself against these claims as part of its ordinary course of
business. In future periods, the Company could be subject to cash
costs or charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved
unfavorably to the Company. To date, with respect to claims that
have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, the
Company has regularly achieved favorable resolutions. Accordingly,
the Company presently believes that these asbestos-related claims
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s annual
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3GqzyLE


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Solutions Defends 218 Cases at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Univar Solutions Inc., as of September 30, 2022, had approximately
218 asbestos-related cases it has the obligation to defend and
indemnify; however, this number tends to fluctuate up and down over
time, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Historically, the vast majority of these asbestos cases have been
dismissed without payment or with a nominal payment.

The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos. The claims result primarily from
an indemnification obligation related to Univar Solutions USA
Inc.'s ("Univar") 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical Company from
McKesson Corporation ("McKesson"). Once certain conditions have
been met, Univar will have the ability to pursue insurance
coverage, if any, that may be available under McKesson's historical
insurance coverage to offset the impact of any fees, settlements,
or judgments that Univar is obligated to pay because of its
obligation to defend and indemnify McKesson.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Ec0wUT


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Air Brake Faces Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation and certain of its
affiliates have received claims in various jurisdictions across the
United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "The vast majority of the claims are submitted
to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity, or to
non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the
asbestos-containing products at issue. We cannot, however, assure
that all of these claims will be fully covered by insurance, or
that the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable.
Our ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these
claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be
estimated. A limited number of claims are not covered by insurance,
nor are they subject to indemnity from non-affiliated parties.
Management believes that the costs of the Company's
asbestos-related cases will not be material to the Company's
overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Oh298o



                            *********

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 ***