CAR_Public/181114.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, November 14, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 228

                            Headlines

NEW YORK: NY Police Investigators Assoc Appeals Class Suit Ruling
3D SYSTEMS: Says KBC Asset Management's Class Action Concluded
ADVANCE AMERICA: Gonzales Hits Illegal Account Debiting
ADVANTAGE TENNIS: Seeks to Hire Bederson LLP as Accountant
ALL ABOUT YOU: Lewis Seeks Overtime Pay for Caregivers

AMEDISYS INC: Says Bach Class Action Concluded
BAYADA HOME: Appeals Reed Suit Ruling to Penn. Super. Ct.
BOK FINANCIAL Bondholders' Suit Underway in New Jersey
BOK FINANCIAL: Bondholders' Class Action Ongoing in Oklahoma
BOK FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Texas Class Suit

C. R. BARD: Removes MSP Case to Southern District of Florida
CAGLE STUCCO: Medina Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
CARVE FOOD: Kitchen Staff Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Sells Contaminated Pet Food, Jerding Claims
CHEMOURS COMPANY: $1.4M Paid for Medical Monitoring at Sept. 30

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Faces Lawsuits over GenX Discharge
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Faces Suit over Indiana Superfund Site
CIGNA CORP: Court Increases Attorneys' Fees in Amara Class Suit
CIGNA CORP: Still Faces Class Suits over Express Scripts Merger
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Brown Class Suit vs. Subsidiary Still Ongoing

CITRUS CTY, FL: Female Workers File Discrimination Suit v. Sheriff
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Medina Securities Class Suit Settled
COLUMBIA SUSSEX: $981K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Cohan FLSA Suit
COMPASSIONATE FRIENDS: Eden et al Seek Overtime Pay for Caregivers
CONNECTONE BANCORP: Two Suits over Greater Hudson Merger Underway

CONSOL ENERGY: Still Defends Amended Casey Suit in West Virginia
COVANCE MARKET: Sealock Suit Granted Conditional Certification
CURO GROUP: Seeks to Compel Arbitration for Putative Class Lawsuit
DHI GROUP: FCRA Suit Re-Filed and Pending in Calif. Superior Court
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Suit in Garland County, Arkansas Underway

DUKE ENERGY: Dismissal of Florida Class Action Now Final
EAGLE MATERIALS: Settlement Reached in Homebuilders' Suit
EAGLE MATERIALS: Settlement with Indirect Purchasers Wins Approval
EAGLE ROAD OIL: Adams Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma
EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Sanfilippo Class Action Still Pending

EL POLLO LOCO: 9th Cir. Denies Appellate Review in Turocy Suit
EL POLLO LOCO: Oct. 2019 Deadline for Olvera Case Trial
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Reaches $6.5MM Settlement in Sponn Suit
ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Trial in Mesirov Suit to Begin 2Q 2019
ENDURANCE INT'L: Awaits Court's Initial OK on Machado Settlement

ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Court's OK on McGee Settlement
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Bid for Dougherty En Banc Rehearing Pending
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Bailey Securities Class Suit
ETRADE FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Schwab Suit
EVERCORE INC: EGL Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Texas

EXLSERVICE HOLDINGS: Expects Final Court OK on Class Pact in 4Q
EXTREME NETWORKS: Inks Term Sheet to Settle Class Suit
FANNIE MAE: Still Faces Suits over Stock Purchase Agreements
FCB FINANCIAL: Bushansky Files Suit Over Sale to Synovus
FINAL EXPENSE: Jamari Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls

FINANCIAL INDEMNITY: Partly Compelled to Produce Files in Bhasker
FLEX LTD: Lead Plaintiff to File Amended Class Suit by Nov. 30
FLUOR CORP: Shareholder Class Action in Texas Underway
FORSTER & GARBUS: Nussenzweig Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
FREDDIE MAC: Class Cert. Bid in Ohio Public Employees Suit Denied

GC SERVICES: Spence Suit Removed to E.D. Michigan
GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Court Takes Bid to Nix Suit Under Advisement
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Status in SunEdison Lawsuit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Commodities-Related Lawsuit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix U.S. Treasury Securities Suit Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Narrows Plaintiffs' Claims in Currencies Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Must Defend Against Securities Lending Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Parties in Cobalt Underwriting Suit Reach Agreement
GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint in Adeptus Class Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Gender Pay Discrimination Lawsuit

GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Valeant Underwriting Suit in Canada
GOLDMAN SACHS: Underwriter Defendants Dismissed in Snap IPO Suit
GOPRO INC: Bid to Drop 2018 Shareholder Class Complaint Pending

GOPRO INC: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif.
HASBRO INC: Faces Class Suit over Toys "R" Us Disclosure
INSPERITY INC: Bid to Dismiss 401(k) Plan Suit Underway
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss Amended DeSmet Suit
LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in Davis Class Action Still Ongoing

LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Underway
LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Sequenom Shareholders Suit Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Faces Haro Class Suit in California
LABORATORY CORP: Settlement in Principle Reached in Sundusky Suit
LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Cunningham Suit

LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Bloomquist Class Suit
LABORATORY CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Gonzalez Suit
MASTEC INC: Chartier Hits Illegal Deduction, Unpaid Overtime Wages
MDL 2672: Court Throws Out Mississippi CPA Claims
MGT CAPITAL: Guyer Hits Share Drop Over Pump-and-Dump Scheme

MICHAELS STORES: Armstrong Discovery Letter Briefs Deemed Untimely
MIDLAND FUNDING: Can't Arbitrate May Couple's Claims
MILLER STARK KLEIN: Holmes Sues Over Auto-dialed Calls
MONSANTO COMPANY: Mabus Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Musso Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Newton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
N&A PRODUCTIONS INC: Shortchanges Workers on Wages, Rendon Says
NATIONAL BANKCARD: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
NEW BALANCE: Prelim Approval of Dashnaw Suit Settlement Denied
NEW ENTRY INC: Jerrell Seeks Overtime Pay for Supervisors

OVASCIENCE INC: Adlard Files Securities Suit Over Millendo Merger
OZARK WAFFLES: Butler Files Suit Over Tip Credit Deduction
SALSA AND BEER: Gets $369K Sanction in Velasquez for Non-compliance
SOUTHERN COPPER: Settlement Hearing in Lacey Suit Set for Nov. 27
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Action over $15-Per-Bag Fees Ongoing

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for March 2019
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Still Awaits Service of Saskatchewan Claim
ST. ELIZABETH: Court Denies Reconsideration Bid in Boden ERISA Suit
UNIVERSITY OF FASHION: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in New York
WABASH NATIONAL: Files Second Bid to Dismiss Indiana Class Suit

WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Defending Against Suits over No-Poach Policy
WHOLE FOODS: Retirement System Suit Dismissal w/ Prejudice Affirmed

                            *********

NEW YORK: NY Police Investigators Assoc Appeals Class Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs have taken an appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals, Second Circuit, from a ruling in the case captioned as NEW
YORK STATE POLICE INVESTIGATORS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 4 IUPA, AFL-CIO,
by its President JEFFREY KAYSER; JOSEPH BARRETT; TIMOTHY MULVEY;
JAMES O'CONNOR; LAWRENCE SHEWARK; PATRICIA HYNES; PAULA OLSEN; and
JEFFREY KAYSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, in his official capacity
as Governor of the State of New York; PATRICIA A. HITE,
individually and in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner of
the New York State Department of Civil Service; CAROLINE W. AHL, in
her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Civil
Service Commission; J. DENNIS HANRAHAN, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the New York State Civil Service Commission; ROBERT
L. MEGNA, his official capacity as Director of the New York State
Division of the Budget; THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, in his official
capacity as Comptroller of the State of New York; STATE OF NEW
YORK; NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE; NEW YORK STATE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL RETIREMENT
SYSTEM; and NEW YORK STATE POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Defendants, Original Case No. 11-cv-1527.  The notice of appeal was
filed October 17, 2018. The United States Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit, assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-03066 to the proceedings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Thomas Walsh, Jr., Esq.
          GLEASON DUNN WALSH & O'SHEA
          40 Beaver Street
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 432-7511

The Defendants are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE
          OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005


3D SYSTEMS: Says KBC Asset Management's Class Action Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
3D Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Company and
certain of its former executive officers have been named as
defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class action
lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina. The consolidated action is styled KBC
Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No.
0:15-cv-02393-MGL.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint (the "Complaint"), which was
filed on December 9, 2015, alleges that defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and
misleading statements and omissions and that the former officers
are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares
of the Company's common stock between October 29, 2013, and May 5,
2015 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.

On February 14, 2018, following mediation, the parties entered into
a Stipulation of Settlement that provided for, among other things,
payment of $50,000 by the Company's insurance carriers and a mutual
exchange of releases. The Stipulation of Settlement called for a
dismissal of all claims against the Company and the individual
defendants with prejudice following Court approval, a denial by
defendants of any wrongdoing, and no admission of liability.

On February 15, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On February 21,
2018, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement
and Providing for Notice. The Court held a final fairness hearing
on June 25, 2018, and entered the Order and Final Judgment and
Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees on the same day. The Company's
insurance carriers have funded the entire settlement amount.

The time for any party to appeal expired on July 25, 2018 and no
appeals were filed. The matter is now concluded. At December 31,
2017 the Company's balance sheet reflected the entire settlement as
a current liability with an offsetting receivable for related
insurance proceeds.

3D Systems Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
three-dimensional (3D) printing products and services worldwide.
The company offers 3D printers, such as stereolithography,
selective laser sintering, direct metal printing, multi jet
printing, and color jet printers that transform data input
generated by 3D design software, CAD software, or other 3D design
tools into printed parts under the Accura, DuraForm, LaserForm,
CastForm, and VisiJet brand names. The company was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Rock Hill, South Carolina.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Gonzales Hits Illegal Account Debiting
-------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers of California, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-08647, (C.D.
Cal., October 9, 2018), seeks damages, restitution, and all other
relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

Sometime in September 2017, Plaintiff obtained a loan from the
Defendant and provided her debit account information for the
purposes of automatically debiting her account to make payments on
the account upon signing up for the loan. After a month, Gonzales
then requested to stop the automatic debit facility, thereby
revoking consent for such withdrawals. However, despite her clear
revocation of authorization, Defendant continued to deduct funds
from her account, notes the complaint.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of California, LLC, is a
company engaged in the business of providing loans to consumers.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
            mgeorge@toddflaw.com
            abacon@toddflaw.com
            twheeler@toddflaw.com


ADVANTAGE TENNIS: Seeks to Hire Bederson LLP as Accountant
----------------------------------------------------------
Advantage Tennis, LLC, seeks authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Jersey to employ Bederson LLP, as
accountant to the Debtor.

Advantage Tennis requires Bederson LLP to:

   -- provide accounting services to the Debtor; and

   -- prepare tax returns and analyze the Debtor's finances.

Bederson LLP will be paid at these hourly rates:

     Partners                   $390-$515
     Managers                   $305-$325
     Senior Accountants         $240-$265
     Staff Accountants          $170
     Paraprofessionals          $170

Bederson LLP will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses incurred.

Timothy J. King, a partner at Bederson LLP, assured the Court that
the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in
Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not represent any
interest adverse to the Debtor and its estates.

Bederson LLP can be reached at:

     Timothy J. King
     BEDERSON LLP
     347 Mt. Pleasant Avenue
     West Orange, NJ 07052
     Tel: (973) 736-3333

                    About Advantage Tennis

Advantage Tennis LLC has a leasehold interest in a tennis facility
located at 99 Clarksville Road, Princeton, New Jersey valued by the
company at $1.9 million.

Advantage Tennis LLC, based in Cranbury, NJ, filed a Chapter 11
petition (Bankr. D.N.J. Case No. 18-30214) on Oct. 10, 2018.  In
the petition signed by Frank Marckioni, member, the Debtor
disclosed $1,935,355 in assets and $2,028,451 in liabilities.
David L. Bruck, Esq., at Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis LLP, serves
as bankruptcy counsel.


ALL ABOUT YOU: Lewis Seeks Overtime Pay for Caregivers
------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs ALL ABOUT YOU HOME HEALTCHARE, INC. and
SATRICA WILLIAMS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01409 (W.D. La.,
Oct. 29, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, All About You is a home healthcare
provider located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Lewis began working
for All About You in September 2016. Lewis was employed as a
caregiver providing in-home services to All About You's clients.
All About You was well aware of the overtime requirements of the
FLSA, the lawsuit says.

All About You failed to pay Lewis, and other workers like her,
overtime as required by federal law. Instead, All About You paid
Lewis, and other workers like her, the same hourly rate for all
hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek, the
lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

           Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
           PARMET PC
           800 Sawyer St.
           Houston, TX 77007
           Telephone: 713 999 5228
           Facsimile: 713 999 1187
           E-mail: matt@parmet.law

                - and -

           James R. Bullman, Esq.
           THE BULLMAN LAW FIRM, LLC
           201 St. Charles St.
           Baton Rouge, LA 70802
           Telephone: (225) 993-7169
           Facsimile: (225) 387-3198
           E-mail: james@thebullmanlawfirm.com


AMEDISYS INC: Says Bach Class Action Concluded
----------------------------------------------
Amedisys Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has
entered a final order and judgment on the case entitled, Bach, et
al. v. Amedisys, Inc., et al.

Between June 10 and July 28, 2010, several putative securities
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the "District Court")
against the Company and certain of its former senior executives.
The cases were consolidated into the first-filed action Bach, et
al. v. Amedisys, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:10-cv-00395, and the
District Court appointed as co-lead plaintiffs the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico
Teachers' Retirement System (the "Co-Lead Plaintiffs").

The Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a First Amended
Consolidated Complaint (the "First Amended Securities Complaint")
on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of Amedisys' securities
between August 2, 2005 and September 30, 2011.

The First Amended Securities Complaint alleged that the Company and
seven individual defendants violated Section 10(b), Section 20(a),
and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by materially
misrepresenting the Company's financial results and concealing a
scheme to obtain higher Medicare reimbursements and additional
patient referrals by (1) providing medically unnecessary care to
patients, including certifying and re-certifying patients for
medically unnecessary 60-day treatment episodes; (2) implementing
clinical tracks such as "Balanced for Life" and wound care programs
that provided a pre-set number of therapy visits irrespective of
medical need; (3) "upcoding" patients' Medicare forms to attribute
a "primary diagnosis" to a medical condition associated with higher
billing rates; and (4) providing improper and illegal remuneration
to physicians to obtain patient certifications or
re-certifications.

The First Amended Securities Complaint sought certification of the
case as a class action and an unspecified amount of damages, as
well as interest and an award of attorneys' fees.

On June 12, 2017, the Company reached an agreement-in-principle to
settle this matter. All parties to the action executed a binding
term sheet that, subject to final documentation and court approval,
provided in part for a settlement payment of approximately $43.7
million, which the company accrued as of June 30, 2017, and the
dismissal with prejudice of the litigation.

Approximately $15.0 million of the settlement amount paid by the
Company's insurance carriers during the three-month period ended
September 30, 2017, was previously recorded within other current
assets in the company's condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
June 30, 2017. The net of these two amounts, $28.7 million, was
recorded as a charge in our condensed consolidated statements of
operations during the three-month period ended June 30, 2017 and
paid with cash on hand during the three-month period ended
September 30, 2017. On December 19, 2017, the Court entered the
final order and judgment on the case.

Amedisys Inc. provides home health and hospice services including
practical nursing services and physical and occupational therapy.
The company’s services also comprise speech pathology, social
work to help families address acute and chronic illnesses, home
health aide services, and private duty services. Hospice services
use a team made up of a physician, patient care manager, registered
nurses, certified home health aides, social workers, a chaplain, a
homemaker, and volunteers. Amedisys was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


BAYADA HOME: Appeals Reed Suit Ruling to Penn. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. filed a notice of appeal from an
order entered by the Philadelphia County Court Court of Common
Please in the case captioned Latisha Reed and Nadeem Pierre
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Bayada Home Health Care, Inc.

The appeal was brought before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on
Nov. 2, 2018, and assigned Case No. 3129-EDA-2018.

BAYADA Home Health Care, Inc. provides clinical care and support
services at home for children and adults in the United States. Its
specialty practices include home health, adult nursing, assistive
care, pediatrics, hospice, and rehabilitation.[BN]

The Appellee Latisha Reed, et al. is represented by:

     Michael D. Shaffer, Esq.
     Shaffer & Gaier, LLC
     Shaffer & Gaier LLC
     1628 John F Kennedy Blvd Ste 400
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-2137
     Phone: (215) 751-0100

          - and -

     James Craig Shah, Esq.
     Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, L.L.P.
     35 E State State
     Media, PA 19063
     Phone: (610) 891-9880
     Fax: (610) 891-9883

The Appellant Bayada Home is represented by:

     Thomas G. Collins, Esq.
     Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
     409 N 2ND St Ste 500
     Harrisburg, PA 17101-1357
     Phone: (717) 237-4800

          - and -

     Holly Lechliter Cline, Esq.
     Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
     409 N Second St Ste 500
     Harrisburg, PA 17101
     Phone: (717) 237-4841


BOK FINANCIAL Bondholders' Suit Underway in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a putative class action lawsuit in
New Jersey involving bondholders.

On August 26, 2016, the Bank was sued in the United States District
Court for New Jersey by two bondholders in a putative class action
on behalf of all holders of the bonds alleging the Bank
participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals. On September 14, 2016, the Bank was sued in the
District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma by 19 bondholders alleging
the Bank participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the
principals.

Two separate small groups of bondholders have filed arbitration
complaints with the Financial Institutions Regulatory Association
respecting the bonds and other bonds for which the Bank served as
indenture trustee. Management has been advised by counsel that the
Bank has valid defenses to the claims.

On September 15, 2017, the principal of the bond issuances filed
for protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy
Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. The principal subsequently sought and obtained
an order dismissing the Chapter 11 proceeding. The obligation of
the principal to pay all principal and interest on the bonds is
non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.

A hearing on a motion by the principal to extend the time within
which to perform the Court ordered payment plan until December 31,
2019 and a motion by Court Monitor compelling the principal to
perform his obligation to maintain the minimum segregated account
balance before the Federal Judge in New Jersey is scheduled for
October 26, 2018.

BOK Financial said, "We expect that the extension will be granted,
but there is no assurance that it will be. The Bank continues to
expect the Court ordered payment plan will result in the payment of
the bonds by the principals. Accordingly, no loss is probable at
this time and no provision for loss has been made. If the payment
plan does not result in payment of the bonds, a loss could become
probable. A reasonable estimate cannot be made at this time though
the amount could be material to the Company."

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BOK FINANCIAL: Bondholders' Class Action Ongoing in Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a putative class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma by bondholders.

On March 14, 2017, the Bank was sued in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by bondholders in a
second putative class action representing a different set of
municipal securities. The bondholders in this second action allege
two individuals purchased facilities from the principals who are
the subject of the SEC New Jersey proceedings by means of the
fraudulent sale of $60 million of municipal securities for which
the Bank also served as indenture trustee.

The bondholders allege the Bank failed to disclose that the seller
of the purchased facilities had engaged in the conduct complained
of in the New Jersey action. The Bank properly performed all duties
as indenture trustee of this second set of municipal securities,
timely commenced proceedings against the issuer of the securities
when default occurred, is cooperating with the SEC in actions
against the two principals, is not a target of the SEC proceedings,
and has been advised by counsel that the Bank has valid defenses to
the claims of these bondholders.

Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable and
that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated.

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

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


BOK FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Texas Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the District Court
dismissed the putative class action suit in Texas.

On March 7, 2017, a plaintiff filed a putative class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
alleging an extended overdraft fee charged by the Bank is interest
and exceeds permitted rates.

This action makes the same allegations as a putative class action
that was dismissed by the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma on October 19, 2015. On August 22,
2018, a plaintiff filed a second putative class action in the
United States District Court for New Mexico making the same
allegations as the Texas action. On September 18, 2018, the
District Court dismissed the Texas action.

Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable in the
New Mexico action or the Texas action and that the loss, if any,
cannot be reasonably estimated.

BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company
for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services
in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado,
Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments:
Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK
Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in
Tulsa, Oklahoma.


C. R. BARD: Removes MSP Case to Southern District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. removed the state court action captioned as MSP
RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware series limited liability
company, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
and SERIES PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO RECOVERY II LLC, a
Delaware series limited liability company, the Plaintiffs, vs. C.
R. BARD, INC., a New Jersey for-profit corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 2018-030774-CA-06, from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Oct. 29,
2018. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:18-cv-24511-EGT to the proceeding.

The Complaint is brought by three Plaintiffs seeking to recover
payments on behalf of their own Medicare Payer assignors.
Historically, Plaintiffs have brought their MSP Act reimbursement
actions as putative class actions on behalf of themselves
(vis-a-vis their assignors) and on behalf of all other
similarly-situated Medicare Payers. To the extent Plaintiffs pursue
a future amendment of the Complaint to seek recovery against
Defendant for reimbursement on behalf of numerous unnamed, but
similarly-situated plaintiffs, Defendant preserves its right to
amend this Notice to assert the Class Action Fairness Act as an
additional basis for removal of the action to this Court. Defendant
also preserves its right to amend this Notice as additional
information providing grounds for removal to this Court develops.

The removal of this action terminates all proceedings in the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida. See 28 U.S.C. section 1446(d).

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          E-mail: serve@msprecovery.com
                  jruiz@msprecovery.com

Counsel for C. R. Bard, Inc.:

          Sabrina R. Gallo, Esq.
          Jay A. Yagoda, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
          333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 579-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 579-0717
          E-mail: gallos@gtlaw.com
                  yagodaj@gtlaw.com


CAGLE STUCCO: Medina Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
Ramses Medina individually and on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAGLE STUCCO & MASONRY, LLC,
the Defendant, Case 4:18-cv-04093 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

According to the complaint, Cagle violated the FLSA by employing
Medina and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a
workweek longer than 40 hours, but refusing to compensate them for
their employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one
and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or were
employed."

Cagle did not pay Medina overtime "at a rate not less than one and
one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed." Instead,
Cagle collectively paid Medina at his straight time rate, without
an overtime premium, regardless of the number of hours he worked.
In other words, Cagle paid Medina for the overtime that he worked
at a rate less than one and one-half times the regular rate at
which he was in employed in violation of the FLSA, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & A SSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


CARVE FOOD: Kitchen Staff Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Alexis Alin Carino, Jimmy Linares Cazales and Jonathan Reyes
Galicia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Carve Food Emporium Inc., Carve Deli ESLT
LLC, Carve New York LLC, Ali Mohammed Abdula, Najmadeem Abdula,
Rafael Fernandez and Ali Jameel, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-09233
(S.D. N.Y., October 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum,
overtime and spread-of-hours wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control two restaurants, located at 717
8th Avenue, New York, New York 10036 and at 760 8th Ave., New York,
New York 10036, both under the name "Carve Cafe." Alexis Alin
Carino, Jimmy Linares Cazales and Jonathan Reyes Galicia were
employed as a cashier, a grill man, and a food preparer
respectively. Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping
of the hours worked, failed to pay them for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium and the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
they had to work over 10 hours a day, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Sells Contaminated Pet Food, Jerding Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA JERDING, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. CHAMPION
PETFOODS USA, INC. and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, the Defendants,Case
1:18-cv-02756 (D. Colo, Oct. 29, 2018), alleges that the Defendants
failed to fully disclose the presence of heavy metals and toxins in
their pet food products sold throughout the United States.  Nowhere
in the labeling, advertising, statements, warranties and/or
packaging do the Defendants disclose that the Contaminated Pet
Foods contain levels of arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium and/or
BISPHENOL A ("BPA") -- all known to pose health risks to humans and
animals, including dogs, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute,
and sell pet food under the brand names Acana (TM) and Orijen (TM)
throughout the United States, including in this District. The
Defendants have created a niche in the pet food market by "making
biologically 'appropriate' pet food -- as close to what animals
would eat in nature as possible -- and producing it using fresh,
natural ingredients." They then charge a premium for this
purportedly higher-quality food. The founder of the company, Peter
Muhlenfeld, said, "Our core family beliefs are entrenched in the
company, and that is to make the very best food." The Defendants
tout that "Biologically Appropriate ORIJEN (TM) represents a new
class of food, designed to nourish dogs and cats according to their
evolutionary adaptation to a diet rich and diverse in fresh meat
and protein" and that it is "trusted by pet lovers everywhere."
Defendants' packaging and labels further emphasize fresh, quality,
and properly sourced ingredients and even declares its dog food has
"ingredients we love".[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Kevin A. Seely, esq.
          Steven M. Mckany, esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
                   smckany@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Charles Laduca, Esq.
          Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: 202 789-3960
          Facsimile: 202 789-1813
          E-mail: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
                  charles@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Depalma, Esq.
          Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  scruzhodge@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Glen Devalerio, Esq.
          Daryl Andrews, Esq.
          ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
          265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 936-2796
          E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com
                  daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com

               - and -

          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
                  sjadams@pomlaw.com


CHEMOURS COMPANY: $1.4M Paid for Medical Monitoring at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018, that approximately US$1.4 million has
been disbursed from the escrow account as of September 30, 2018,
for medical monitoring related to Washington Works facility.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water.


E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) and attorneys for the
class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000
residents.  In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and expenses of US$23 million and made a payment of US$70 million,
which class counsel designated to fund a community health project.
DuPont funded a series of health studies which were completed in
October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (C8 Science
Panel).  The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA
to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable
link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between
exposure to PFOA and human disease.  The C8 Science Panel found
probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between
exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including
preeclampsia, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease,
ulcerative colitis, and diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of
eligible class members.  In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results.  The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol.  DuPont is obligated to fund up to US$235 million
for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in
addition, administrative cost associated with the program,
including class counsel fees.

In January 2012, DuPont put US$1 in an escrow account to fund
medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement.  The
court-appointed director of medical monitoring established the
program to implement the medical panel's recommendations, and the
registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is ongoing.
Diagnostic screening and testing is ongoing, and associated
payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow
account.  The Company may place additional funds into the escrow
account from time to time, as necessary.

As of September 30, 2018, approximately US$1.4 million has been
disbursed from the escrow account related to medical monitoring.
While it is probable that the Company will incur costs related to
the medical monitoring program, such costs cannot be reasonably
estimated due to uncertainties surrounding the level of
participation by eligible class members and the scope of testing.

In addition, under the Leach settlement agreement, DuPont must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of
PFOA in water to six area water districts and private well users.
At separation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours, which is
included in the accrual amounts recorded as of September 30, 2018.

Under the Leach settlement, class members may pursue personal
injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for
which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists.
Approximately 3,500 lawsuits were filed in various federal and
state courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in
multi-district litigation (MDL) in Ohio federal court.

In March 2017, DuPont entered into an agreement with the MDL
plaintiffs' counsel providing for a global settlement of all cases
and claims in the MDL, including all filed and unfiled personal
injury cases and claims that are part of the plaintiffs' counsel's
claim inventory, as well as cases that have been tried to a jury
verdict (MDL Settlement).  The total settlement amount was US$670.7
million in cash, with half paid by Chemours and half paid by
DuPont.  DuPont's payment was not subject to indemnification or
reimbursement by Chemours, and Chemours accrued US$335 million
associated with this matter at December 31, 2016.  In exchange for
payment of the total settlement amount, DuPont and Chemours
received a complete release of all claims by the settling
plaintiffs.  The MDL Settlement was entered into solely by way of
compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of
liability or fault by DuPont or Chemours.  By September 30, 2017,
Chemours had paid the full US$335 million accrued under the MDL
Settlement.

DuPont and Chemours agreed to a limited sharing of potential future
PFOA costs (indemnifiable losses, as defined in the separation
agreement between DuPont and Chemours) for a period of five years.
During that five-year period, Chemours will annually pay future
PFOA costs up to US$25 million and, if such amount is exceeded,
DuPont will pay any excess amount up to the next US$25 (which
payment will not be subject to indemnification by Chemours), with
Chemours annually bearing any further excess costs under the terms
of the separation agreement.  After the five-year period, this
limited sharing agreement will expire, and Chemours'
indemnification obligations under the separation agreement will
continue unchanged.  Chemours has also agreed that it will not
contest its indemnification obligations to DuPont under the
separation agreement for PFOA costs on the basis of ostensible
defenses generally applicable to the indemnification provisions
under the separation agreement, including defenses relating to
punitive damages, fines or penalties, or attorneys' fees, and
waives any such defenses with respect to PFOA costs.  Chemours has,
however, retained other defenses, including as to whether any
particular PFOA claim is within the scope of the indemnification
provisions of the separation agreement.

All MDL lawsuits were dismissed or resolved through the MDL
Settlement.

The MDL Settlement does not resolve PFOA personal injury claims of
plaintiffs who did not have cases or claims in the MDL or personal
injury claims based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11,
2017.  Since the resolution of the MDL, 37 personal injury cases
have been filed and are pending in West Virginia, Ohio, and New
York courts.  The New York matters, which are not part of the Leach
class, are brought by three individual plaintiffs alleging
negligence and other claims in the release of perfluorinated
compounds, including PFOA, into drinking water, and seeking
compensatory and punitive damages against current and former owners
and suppliers of a manufacturing facility in Hoosick Falls, New
York.

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


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Faces Lawsuits over GenX Discharge
----------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company remains a defendant in class action lawsuits
related to the discharge of the polymerization processing aid HFPO
Dimer Acid (sometimes referred to as GenX or C3 Dimer) and
perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds from the Company's
facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina into the Cape Fear River,
groundwater and air, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

Civil actions have been filed against the Company and DuPont in
North Carolina federal court relating to discharges from the
Fayetteville site.  These actions include a consolidated action
brought by public water suppliers seeking damages and injunctive
relief, a consolidated purported class action seeking medical
monitoring and property damage and/or other monetary and injunctive
relief on behalf of the putative classes of property owners and
residents in areas near or that draw drinking water from the Cape
Fear River, and an action by private well owners seeking
compensatory and punitive damages.

In July 2018, Cape Fear River Watch (CFRW), a non-profit
organization, filed a citizen suit against NC DEQ in North Carolina
state court seeking review of NC DEQ's denial of requests for
certain actions related to discharges from the Fayetteville
facility.  Chemours intervened in that action.

Also in July 2018, CFRW filed a citizen suit against Chemours in
North Carolina federal court alleging violations of the Clean Water
Act and/or the Toxic Substances Control Act seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief and penalties.

Chemours Company said, "The Company believes it has valid defenses
to the litigation including that the discharges did not impact the
safety of drinking water or cause any damages or injury.  It is
possible that additional litigation may be filed against the
Company and/or DuPont concerning the discharges."

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


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Faces Suit over Indiana Superfund Site
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company still defends against a putative class lawsuit
filed by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead
Refinery Inc. multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

Seven lawsuits, including one putative class action, are pending
against DuPont by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and
Lead Refinery multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana.
Six of the lawsuits allege that Chemours is now responsible for
DuPont environmental liabilities.

The lawsuits include allegations for personal injury damages,
property diminution, and damages under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA,
often referred to as Superfund).

At separation, DuPont assigned Chemours its former plant site,
which is located south of the residential portion of the Superfund
area, and its responsibility for the environmental remediation at
the Superfund site.  DuPont has requested that Chemours defend and
indemnify it, and Chemours has agreed to do so under a reservation
of rights.

The Company said, "Management believes a loss is reasonably
possible, but not estimable at this time due to various reasons
including, among others, that such matters are in early stages and
have significant factual issues to be resolved."

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


CIGNA CORP: Court Increases Attorneys' Fees in Amara Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the court in the class action suit filed
by Janice Amara made an interim ruling on October 17, 2018, on two
issues relating only to the calculation of attorneys' fees that
increased the amount of the fees immediately payable as compared to
previous guidance.  Based on preliminary analysis, management
believes that the Company's reserve for this litigation remains
adequate.

In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna
Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated Plan participants affected by
the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.

The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including that the Plan's
cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that
the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the
pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion
benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or
inadequate disclosures about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to
convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2)
found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required
the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-conversion
traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the
post-conversion cash balance formula.  From 2008 through 2015, this
case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in
the original District Court order being largely upheld.  In 2015,
the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method for
calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members
and plaintiffs responded.

In January 2016, the District Court ordered the method of
calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members.
The court order left several aspects of the calculation of
additional plan benefits open to interpretation.  From that time
through July 25, 2018, both parties have disputed various aspects
of the Court's interpretation and the Court has attempted to
clarify.

On July 14, 2017, the Court issued a ruling clarifying certain
aspects of the January 2016 order.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration of the July 14, 2017 ruling that was denied by
the Court on November 7, 2017.  On July 25, 2018, the Court issued
a preliminary oral ruling indicating  that the Plan should be
amended promptly and remedy benefits should begin to be paid as
soon as practicable thereafter.  However, a final written ruling
was not issued.

After additional disputes were raised by the parties following the
oral ruling, the Court ordered additional briefing, which was
completed on September 6, 2018.

On October 17, 2018, the Court made an interim ruling on two issues
relating only to the calculation of attorneys' fees that increased
the amount of the fees immediately payable as compared to previous
guidance.  Based on preliminary analysis, management believes that
the Company's reserve for this litigation remains adequate.

Cigna Corporation, a health services organization, provides
insurance and related products and services in the United States
and internationally. It operates through Global Health Care, Global
Supplemental Benefits, Group Disability and Life, and Other
Operations segments. Cigna Corporation was founded in 1792 and is
headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut.


CIGNA CORP: Still Faces Class Suits over Express Scripts Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation still defends itself against putative class
action lawsuits related to the merger agreement with Express
Scripts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

Following announcement of the Company's Merger Agreement with
Express Scripts, putative class action complaints (collectively the
"complaints") have been filed against Express Scripts and the
Express Scripts board of directors.

Certain of these complaints also include Cigna, New Cigna, Cigna
Merger Sub and Express Scripts Merger Sub as defendants.

The complaints allege that the registration statement filed in
connection with the Merger (and certain amendments thereto) omitted
material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, rendering the registration statement false and
misleading.

Among other remedies, the complaints seek to enjoin the Express
Scripts special meeting and the closing of the Merger, as well as
damages, costs and attorneys' fees.  The defendants believe that
the lawsuits are without merit.

Cigna Corporation, a health services organization, provides
insurance and related products and services in the United States
and internationally. It operates through Global Health Care, Global
Supplemental Benefits, Group Disability and Life, and Other
Operations segments. Cigna Corporation was founded in 1792 and is
headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut.


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Brown Class Suit vs. Subsidiary Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that the case styled Silken Brown v. Cinemark
USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division, remains ongoing.

The case presents putative class action claims for penalties and
attorney's fees arising from alleged violations of the California
wage statement law.  The claim is also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for
penalties. The Court granted class certification.

The Company said it denies the claims, denies that class
certification is appropriate, denies that the plaintiff has
standing to assert the claims alleged and is vigorously defending
against the claims.  The Company also denies any violation of law
and plans to vigorously defend against all claims.  The Company is
unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or the range of
potential loss.

Cinemark Holdings is a leader in the motion picture exhibition
industry, with theatres in the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, Chile,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa
Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia, Curacao and Paraguay. The Company
is based in Plano, Texas.

CITRUS CTY, FL: Female Workers File Discrimination Suit v. Sheriff
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Alexander, Lisa Ventimiglia and Michele Tewell, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mike
Prendergrast, as Sheriff of Citrus County, FL, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-00519 (S.D. N.Y., October 9, 2018), seeks to recover wages,
salary, employment benefits, and other compensation denied or lost,
liquidated, compensatory damages, exemplary and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs of the action pursuant to the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act
of 1992.

Dawn Alexander, Lisa Ventimiglia and Michele Tewell are employees
of the Citrus County Sheriff's Office under current Sherrif, Mike
Prendergrast. They claim discrimination against female employees
with respect to mandatory physical abilities tests, despite the
common knowledge that they have a disparate impact upon female
employees. CCSO also retaliates against female employees who
complain about this discrimination, says the complaint. Female
employees allegedly receive less compensation, are promoted less
frequently and are discharged at greater rates than their male
counterparts. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
      William J. Sheslow, Esq.
      WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
      One Progress Plaza
      200 Central Avenue, #400
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Telephone: (727) 822-1111
      Facsimile: (727) 898-2001
      Email: pls@theFLlawfirm.com
             lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
             will@theFLlawfirm.com


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Medina Securities Class Suit Settled
-----------------------------------------------------
The securities class action lawsuit filed by Sonny P. Medina was
settled on October 26, 2017, according to Clovis Oncology, Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 1, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, on November
19, 2015, Sonny P. Medina, a purported Clovis shareholder, filed a
purported shareholder class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Medina
Complaint"). The Medina Complaint purported to be asserted on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased Clovis stock between May
20, 2014 and November 13, 2015, and it generally alleged that
Clovis and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws
by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the
progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market success
of rociletinib.

On June 18, 2017, the Clovis Defendants entered into a stipulation
and agreement of settlement with the Arkin Plaintiffs, the lead
plaintiffs in the class action.  Pursuant to the deal, Clovis will
issue to the plaintiffs and participating class members a total
consideration comprised of $25.0 million in cash and the issuance
of a to be determined number of shares of Clovis common stock (the
"Settlement Shares") equal to $117.0 million divided by the volume
weighted average price of Clovis common stock over the 10 trading
days immediately preceding the date of the hearing set by the
Medina Court to consider the final approval of the settlement.

The Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the SEC on
August 3, 2017, that on July 14, 2017, the Medina Court issued an
order preliminarily approving the settlement and a final hearing to
determine whether the settlement should be approved was scheduled
for October 26, 2017.

Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring,
developing and commercializing innovative anti-cancer agents in the
United States, Europe and additional international markets.


COLUMBIA SUSSEX: $981K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Cohan FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN MICHAEL COHAN, WACKSON BARTHELEMY Individually
and for and on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBIA SUSSEX MANAGEMENT, LLC along with any other
related corporate entities doing business as Melville Marriott,
Defendants, Case No. CV 12-3203 (AKT) (E.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge
A. Kathleen Tomlinson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs and for Approval of Service Awards.

The Court previously granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement in the case.
At that time, for settlement purposes, the Court appointed Virginia
& Ambinder, LLP and Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as the class counsel,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).  The Fairness Hearing was held
on Feb. 13, 2018.  No written objections to the settlement had been
received by that date and no objectors appeared at the hearing.

The Class Counsel have moved for approval of their application for
attorneys' fees and costs and for approval of service awards in
conjunction with the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final
approval of the proposed settlement.  Specifically, the Class
Counsel seeks $980,633.19 in attorneys' fees and $19,336.01 in
costs from the Qualified Settlement Fund.

Magistrate Judge Tomlinson finds that all of the factors set forth
in Goldberger v. Integrated Res. Inc. weigh in favor of the
reasonable fee award of 30% of the Qualified Settlement Fund.  She
also finds that the fees requested are reasonable under the
lodestar method.  According to the undisputed billing records, the
Virginia & Ambinder firm expended approximately 1040.35 hours of
attorney, paralegal and staff member time and Leeds Brown Law firm
expended approximately 389.92 hours of attorney, paralegal and
staff member time over the course of six years.  Based on its
knowledge of this case, the Magistrate finds the 2.3 multiplier to
be well within the range awarded by courts in the Second Circuit.
Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, she finds that the
attorneys' fee request of $980,663.99 is reasonable and warranted
by the circumstances of the case and the fee award is therefore
granted.

The Class Counsel also seeks to recover $19,336.01 for
out-of-pocket expenses to be paid from the Qualified Settlement
Fund.  These costs include the Plaintiffs' court and process server
fees, postage and courier fees, costs to the claims administrator
for sending notice and processing consent to join forms from the
FLSA collective, photocopies, travel expenses, discovery costs and
legal research.  Because the Class Counsel have provided the
underlying documentation supporting these claimed expenses, the
Magistrate finds that these costs are reasonable and were
incidental and necessary to the litigation.  The Plaintiffs'
request for $19,336.01 in costs is therefore granted.

At the Fairness Hearing, the Class Counsel requested that named
Plaintiffs John Michael Cohan and Wackson Barthelamy be given
Service Awards of $10,000 each, which amounts to approximately
0.31% of the total recovery.  The Magistrate finds that the Service
Awards when compared to incentive awards given generally to named
plaintiffs across a variety of class actions fall solidly in the
middle of the range.  These amounts shall be paid from the
Settlement Fund.  Given the reasonable amount of the proposed
awards, the Plaintiffs' motion is granted and the named Plaintiffs
John Michael Cohan and Wackson Barthelamy shall receive Service
Awards of $10,000 each drawn from the Qualified Settlement Fund.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Tomlison granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs
and for Approval of Service Awards to the extent set forth in her
Decision and Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Decision and Order
is available at https://is.gd/axLNLB from Leagle.com.

John Michael Cohan & Wackson Barthelemy, Individually and for and
on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
represented by James Emmet Murphy -- jmurphy@vandallp.com --
Virginia & Ambinder LLP, Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Leeds Brown Law,
P.C., Lloyd Robert Ambinder -- lambinder@vandallp.com -- Virginia &
Ambinder LLP, Alison G. Renner -- AGRenner@mintz.com -- Virginia &
Ambinder LLP, Daniel Harris Markowitz, Leeds Brown Law, P.C.,
Isabel Ann Gardocki, Virginia & Ambinder LLP, Kara Sue Miller --
kmiller@vandallp.com -- Virginia & Ambinder LLP, Michael Alexander
Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law, P.C. & Suzanne Brooke Klein, Leeds Brown
Law, P.C.

Marie C. Victor, Plaintiff, represented by Alison G. Renner,
Virginia & Ambinder LLP, James Emmet Murphy, Virginia & Ambinder
LLP, Michael Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law, P.C. & Suzanne
Brooke Klein, Leeds Brown Law, P.C.

Columbia Sussex Management, LLC, along with any other related
corporate entities, Defendant, represented by George Vinci --
gvinci@lawsgr.com -- Spector Gadon & Rosen, pro hac vice, Alan B.
Epstein -- aepstein@lawsgr.com -- Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C., pro
hac vice & David B. Picker -- dpicker@lawsgr.com -- Spector, Gadon
& Rosen, P.C..


COMPASSIONATE FRIENDS: Eden et al Seek Overtime Pay for Caregivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE MCMACKIN 737 North Broadway Street Medina, Ohio 44256;
BONNIE CHAVEZ 3673 West 116 th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44111; and
JOANNE EDEN 4249 Brookside Boulevard Cleveland, Ohio 44135, the
Plaintiffs, vs. COMPASSIONATE FRIENDS HOMECARE, LLC c/o United
States Corporation Agents, Inc. 3250 West Market Street, Suite 205
Fairlawn, Ohio 44333; and DAN KOPRONICA c/o Compassionate Friends
Homecare, LLC 271 Finch Drive Elyria, Ohio 44035, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02497 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 29, 2018), is a "collective
action" instituted by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants'
practices and policies of not paying their non-exempt employees,
including Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, for all hours
worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, McMackin, Chavez, and and Eden are
former employees of Defendants. The Defendants operate a home
healthcare service, providing in-home health care to individuals in
lieu of nursing home care.  Plaintiffs routinely worked in excess
of forty hours per workweek.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          Peter C. Mapley, Esq.
          SOBEL, WADE & MAPLEY, LLC
          2460 Fairmount Boulevard, # 314
          Cleveland, OH 44107
          Telephone: (216) 223-7213
          Facsimile: (216) 223-7213
          E-mail: mapley@swmlawfirm.com

CONNECTONE BANCORP: Two Suits over Greater Hudson Merger Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018, that two complaints have been filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York in connection with the
Company's previously announced merger with Greater Hudson Bank.
Each seeks class action status and asserts that Greater Hudson Bank
and the members of its Board violated their duties to Greater
Hudson Bank shareholders in connection with the proposed merger.
One of these complaints also alleges that ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc.
has aided and abetted the individual defendants in their alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.

ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
ConnectOne Bank, a state chartered bank that provides various
commercial banking products and services.  The Company was formerly
known as Center Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name to ConnectOne
Bancorp, Inc. in July 2014.  ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc. was
incorporated in 1982 and is headquartered in Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.


CONSOL ENERGY: Still Defends Amended Casey Suit in West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consol Energy Inc. continues to face the Casey Litigation in West
Virginia Federal Court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

Three nonunion retired coal miners have sued Fola Coal Company LLC,
Consolidation Coal Company ("CCC") and CONSOL of Kentucky Inc.
("COK") (as well as ParentCo) in West Virginia Federal Court
alleging ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care
benefits (Fitzwater Litigation).

The Plaintiffs contend they relied to their detriment on oral
statements and promises of "lifetime health benefits" allegedly
made by various members of management during Plaintiffs' employment
and that they were allegedly denied access to Summary Plan
Documents that clearly reserved the right to modify or terminate
the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan subject to Plaintiffs' claims.

Pursuant to Plaintiffs' amended complaint filed on April 24, 2017,
Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated and
seek to represent a class of all nonunion retirees who were
associated with AMVEST and COK areas of operation.

A class action lawsuit (Casey Litigation) was filed on August 23,
2017 on behalf of two nonunion retired coal miners against
Consolidation Coal Company, CONSOL of Kentucky Inc., CONSOL
Buchanan Mining Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori in West Virginia
Federal Court alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act in the termination of retiree health care benefits.

Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and
raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied
to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits"
allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs'
employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary
Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify
or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan.

Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for
them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all
nonunion retirees of any ParentCo subsidiary that operated or
employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer Counties, West Virginia,
or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia whose retiree welfare
benefits were terminated.

On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an
order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey.  The Casey complaint was
amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs, add defendant
CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and eliminate defendant
CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand the class
of retirees.

The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to
vigorously defend this suit.

CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous thermal and
crossover metallurgical coal. The company owns and operates its
mining operations in the Northern Appalachian Basin. CONSOL Energy
Inc. was founded in 1864 and is headquartered in Canonsburg,
Pennsylvania.


COVANCE MARKET: Sealock Suit Granted Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in John Sealock,
et al. v. Covance Market Access Services, Inc., has been granted

On September 7, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, John Sealock, et al. v. Covance Market Access
Services, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint alleges that Covance Market
Access Services, Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York labor laws by failing to provide overtime wages, failing to
pay for all hours worked, and failing to provide accurate wage
statements.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive
relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

In November 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Strike Class
Allegations, which was denied. In December 2017, the Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective
Action, which was granted in May 2018.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


CURO GROUP: Seeks to Compel Arbitration for Putative Class Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
CURO Group Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that in September 2018, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the Southern
District of California alleging that certain loans made by the
Company in excess of US$2,500 are unconscionable and therefore a
violation of California law.  The Company filed its answer and
motion to compel arbitration on October 30, 2018.

CURO Group Holdings Corp. operates as a consumer finance company.
The Company offers unsecured and secured installment, open-end, and
single-pay loan services, as well as renders other customer
service, robust operating systems, call center, and a track record
services.  CURO Group serves customers in the United States, United
Kingdom, and Canada.


DHI GROUP: FCRA Suit Re-Filed and Pending in Calif. Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
DHI Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2018, that the re-filed "Douglas" class action lawsuit related
to Fair Credit Reporting Act is pending in the Superior Court of
Santa Clara County, California (Case No. 18CV331732).

The Company said, "During the first quarter of 2018, the Company
recorded a US$1.0 million liability related to a class action
lawsuit regarding the applicability of provisions of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (the "FCRA") to one of our products.  The
recorded liability reflects a tentative settlement, which upon
execution and final approval by the court, will resolve all
remaining claims subject to the lawsuit.  The lawsuit was brought
by Ian Douglas, individually, as a representative of the class and
on behalf of the general public, against DHI Group, Inc. and Dice
Inc. asserting six claims under the FCRA that the Company's Open
Web profiles are "consumer reports" and Dice is a "consumer
reporting agency" under the FCRA, including claims pursuant to the
private right of action in 15 U.S.C. Section 1681n for alleged
willful violations of the FCRA.  The action was originally filed in
a federal district court on July 26, 2017, but as a part of the
settlement process, the action has been re-filed and is pending in
the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California (Case No.
18CV331732)."

DHI Group, Inc., provides specialized Websites focused on select
professional communities in the United States and internationally.
It operates through three segments: Tech & Clearance, Global
Industry Group, and Healthcare.  The Company serves small,
mid-sized, and large direct employers; staffing companies;
recruiting agencies; consulting firms; and marketing departments of
companies.  The Company was formerly known as Dice Holdings, Inc.
and changed its name to DHI Group, Inc. in April 2015.  DHI Group,
Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Suit in Garland County, Arkansas Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. still faces a purported class
action suit filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the Quarterly Period Ended:
September 30, 2018.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Center").

The Company answered the original complaint in 2009, and there was
no other activity in the case until May 2017.

At that time, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting new
causes of action.  The amended complaint alleges that the
defendants breached their statutory and contractual obligations to
the patients of the Center over a multi-year period by failing to
meet minimum staffing requirements, failing to otherwise adequately
staff the Center and failing to provide a clean and safe living
environment in the Center.

The Company has filed an answer to the amended complaint denying
plaintiffs' allegations and has asked the Court to dismiss the new
causes of action asserted in the amended complaint because the
Company was prejudiced by plaintiff's long delay in filing the
amended complaint.

The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, so the
lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet be certified by
the court as a class action.  The Company intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.

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

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care
services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents
primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest United States.
Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
based in Brentwood, Tennessee.


DUKE ENERGY: Dismissal of Florida Class Action Now Final
--------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Florida, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018, that the dismissal of the lawsuit filed
of a putative class of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L's customers in
Florida is deemed final in light with the fact that no petition for
cert was filed by the October 9 deadline.

On February 22, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a putative
class of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L's customers in Florida. The
suit alleges the state of Florida's nuclear power plant cost
recovery statutes (NCRS) are unconstitutional and pre-empted by
federal law. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to repayment of all
money paid by customers of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L as a result
of the NCRS, as well as an injunction against any future charges
under those statutes. The constitutionality of the NCRS has been
challenged unsuccessfully in a number of prior cases on alternative
grounds.

Duke Energy Florida and FP&L filed motions to dismiss the complaint
on May 5, 2016. On September 21, 2016, the court granted the
motions to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied. On January 4, 2017, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of
Appeals (Eleventh Circuit).

On July 11, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the U.S. District
Court's dismissal of the lawsuit. The deadline to file a petition
for cert was October 9, 2018, and no petition was filed; therefore,
the dismissal of the lawsuit is final.

Duke Energy Florida, LLC, a regulated public utility, generates,
transmits, distributes, and sells electricity in Florida. The
company was founded in 1899 and is based in St. Petersburg,
Florida. Duke Energy Florida, LLC is a subsidiary of Progress
Energy, Inc.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Settlement Reached in Homebuilders' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a settlement
agreement has been reached in the homebuilders' class action suit.

In March 2015, a group of homebuilders filed a complaint against
the defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the same
conduct alleged in the consolidated class action complaints. In
March 2015, the JPML transferred this action to the multidistrict
litigation already pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Effective May 8, 2018, American Gypsum and the homebuilder
plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement (the Homebuilder
Settlement Agreement) to settle all claims made against American
Gypsum.

The Homebuilder Settlement Agreement, in which American Gypsum
denies all wrongdoing, includes releases by the homebuilder
plaintiffs of American Gypsum as well as its subsidiaries,
affiliates, and other related parties, for the time period prior to
and including the date of execution of the Homebuilder Settlement
Agreement.

Eagle Materials said, "Under the Homebuilder Settlement Agreement,
American Gypsum agreed to pay a total of $6.0 million in cash to
settle the claims against it. At March 31, 2018, we accrued the
total amount of this settlement, and this amount was paid on May
18, 2018."

Eagle Materials Inc. makes, distributes, and sells gypsum
wallboard, Portland cement, recycled paperboard, and concrete and
aggregates. Eagle Materials, formerly Centex Construction Products
Inc., was founded in 1963 and is based in Dallas.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Settlement with Indirect Purchasers Wins Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the District Court
has approved the settlement of a class action lawsuit by indirect
purchasers of wallboard products.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States District Courts, including the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North
Carolina, and the Northern District of Illinois, against the
Company and the Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC
(American Gypsum), alleging that the defendant wallboard
manufacturers conspired to fix the price of drywall sold in the
United States in violation of federal antitrust laws, and in some
cases related provisions of state law.

In addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits
included certain other wallboard manufacturers. These cases were
subsequently transferred and consolidated to the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action complaints asserted
claims on behalf of purported classes of direct purchasers or end
users of wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for
unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some
cases injunctive relief. The Company and American Gypsum denied all
allegations that they conspired to increase the price of drywall
and asserted affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims.

Following completion of the initial discovery, the Company and
remaining co-defendants moved for summary judgment. On February 18,
2016 the court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment.  

On August 23, 2017, the court granted the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a class
consisting of all persons or entities that purchased paper-backed
gypsum wallboard in the United States from January 1, 2012 through
January 31, 2013 directly from American Gypsum, the Company,
Lafarge, New NGC, PABCO, USG, and/or L&W Supply Corporation (which
was a subsidiary of USG Corporation during the class period). In
addition, on August 24, 2017, the court denied the indirect
purchaser's motion for class certification.

On December 29, 2017, American Gypsum and the Company, as well as
New NGC and PABCO, which are not affiliated with the Company,
entered into a settlement agreement (the Direct Purchaser
Settlement Agreement) with counsel representing the direct
purchaser class to settle all claims made against the Company,
American Gypsum, New NGC, and PABCO in the direct purchaser class
action. The Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement, in which the
Company and American Gypsum deny all wrongdoing, also includes
releases by the participating class members of the Company and
American Gypsum as well as their subsidiaries, affiliates, and
other related parties, for the period from January 1, 2012 through
the date of execution of the Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement.


On January 5, 2018, American Gypsum, New NGC, and PABCO entered
into a settlement agreement (the Indirect Purchaser Settlement
Agreement) with counsel representing the indirect purchaser class
to settle all claims against American Gypsum, New NGC, and PABCO in
the indirect purchaser class action. The Indirect Purchaser
Settlement Agreement was approved by the District Court on October
26, 2018. Under the Direct and Indirect Purchaser Settlement
Agreements, the Company and American Gypsum agreed to pay a total
of approximately $39.1 million in cash to settle the claims against
them. These claims were accrued at the time of the settlements, and
during March 2018 we deposited approximately $38.8 million into a
qualified settlement fund. The amount owed under the Direct
Purchaser Settlement was paid in July 2018 after approval by the
District Court.

Eagle Materials Inc. makes, distributes, and sells gypsum
wallboard, Portland cement, recycled paperboard, and concrete and
aggregates. Eagle Materials, formerly Centex Construction Products
Inc., was founded in 1963 and is based in Dallas.


EAGLE ROAD OIL: Adams Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as James Adams on behalf of himself and
other Oklahoma citizens similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Eagle Road
Oil LLC, Cummings Oil Company, Territory Resources, LLC, Enervest
Operating, L.L.C, Petro Warrior, L.L.C, Petroquest Energy, L.L.C,
Trinity Operating (USG) LLC, John Doe sued as Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. CJ-2016-00078 was removed from the District
Court of Pawnee County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma on November 2, 2018, and assigned Case No.
4:18-cv-00568-GKF-FHM.

The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land.

Eagle Road Oil LLC is a Private Exploration & Production company
operating in the United States. The Company has operation in the
Anadarko Basin.

Cummings Oil Co. owns and operates retail gas stations, convenience
stores, quick service restaurants, a tanker transport division, and
commercial/industrial sales of fuel and lubricants.

Territory Resources, LLC, an energy company, engages in the
acquisition and exploitation of oil and gas properties in northern
Oklahoma. It also operates and explores in the Mid-continent,
Permian Basin, East Texas, Illinois Basin, Rockies, and
Appalachians.

EnerVest Operating, L.L.C. owns and operates oil and gas producing
properties. The Company acquires, develops, and produces oil and
natural gas. EnerVest Operating serves clients in the United
States.

Petro Warrior, LLC is a privately held company in Broken Arrow, OK
and is a Single Location business, categorized under Wholesale Fuel
Oil.

PetroQuest Energy, L.L.C. acquires and explores oil and natural gas
properties in Gulf Coast basin and offshore Gulf of Mexico. The
company was formerly known as PetroQuest Energy One, L.L.C. and
changed its name to PetroQuest Energy, L.L.C. in December, 2000.
The company was incorporated in 1995 and is based in Lafayette,
Louisiana. PetroQuest Energy, L.L.C. operates as a subsidiary of
PetroQuest Energy Inc.

Trinity Operating is an independent oil and natural gas company
located in Tulsa, Oklahoma with headquarters in Houston,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alex T Gray, Esq.
     Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson, PLLC
     400 W Capitol Ave, Ste 2910
     LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
     Phone: (501) 251-1587

          - and -

     Billy Joe Ellington, Esq.
     PO BOX 491
     PAWNEE, OK 74058
     Phone: (918) 762-2589
     Fax: (918) 762-2589
     Email: bjelaw33@gmail.com

          - and -

     Curt Douglas Marshall, Esq.
     Weitz & Luxenberg, PC
     700 BROADWAY
     NEW YORK, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 558-5500
     Fax: (212) 344-5461
     Email: cmarshall@weitzlux.com

          - and -

     Jeremy Hutchinson, Esq.
     Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson, PLLC
     400 W Capitol Ave, Ste 2910
     LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
     Phone: (501) 251-1587

          - and -

     Nate Steel, Esq.
     Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson, PLLC
     400 W Capitol Ave, Ste 2910
     LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
     Phone: (501) 251-1587

          - and -

     Robin Lynn Greenwald, Esq.
     Weitz & Luxenberg, PC
     700 BROADWAY
     NEW YORK, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 558-5500
     Fax: (212) 344-5461
     Email: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com

          - and -

     Scott Emory Poynter, Esq.
     Poynter Law Group
     400 W CAPITOL AVE, STE 2910
     LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
     Phone: (501) 251-1587
     Fax: (501) 244-2614
     Email: scott@poynterlawgroup.com

Defendant Eagle Road Oil LLC is represented by:

     Ryan Andrew Pittman, Esq.
     Gable & Gotwals (Tulsa)
     100 W 5TH ST, STE 1100
     TULSA, OK 74103-4217
     Phone: (918) 595-4872
     Fax: (918) 595-4990
     Email: rpittman@gablelaw.com

          - and -

     Steven Joseph Adams, Esq.
     Gable & Gotwals (Tulsa)
     100 W 5TH ST, STE 1100
     TULSA, OK 74103-4217
     Phone: (918) 595-4800
     Fax: (918) 595-4990
     Email: sadams@gablelaw.com

Defendant Cummings Oil Company is represented by:

     Christa Sullivan, Esq.
     Jacqueline Gayle Stone, Esq.
     Edinger Leonard & Blakley PLLC
     100 PARK AVE STE 500
     OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
     Phone: (405) 702-9900
     Fax: (405) 605-8381
     Email: jstone@elbattorneys.com

          - and -

     Kenneth H Blakley, Esq.
     Edinger Leonard & Blakley PLLC
     100 PARK AVE STE 500
     OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
     Phone: (405) 702-9900
     Fax: (405) 605-8381
     Email: kblakley@elbattorneys.com

          - and -

     Travis Brown, Esq.
     
Defendant Territory Resources LLC is represented by:

     Justin Todd Woolery, Esq.
     McAfee & Taft
     211 N ROBINSON 10TH FL
     OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
     Phone: (405) 235-9621
     Fax: (405) 235-0439
     Email: todd.woolery@mcafeetaft.com

          - and -

     Patrick L Stein, Esq.
     McAfee & Taft
     211 N ROBINSON 10TH FL
     OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
     Phone: (405) 235-9621
     Fax: (405) 235-0439
     Email: patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com

Defendant Petroquest Energy LLC is represented by:

     John Louis Randolph, Jr., Esq.
     Pray Walker PC
     100 W 5TH ST, STE 900
     TULSA, OK 74103-4292
     Phone: (918) 581-5500
     Fax: (918) 581-5599
     Email: jrandolph@praywalker.com

          - and -

     Robert J Winter, Esq.
     Pray Walker PC
     100 W 5TH ST, STE 900
     TULSA, OK 74103-4292
     Phone: (918) 581-5500
     Fax: (918) 581-5599
     Email: rwinter@praywalker.com

Defendant Trinity Operating(USG) LLC is represented by:

     J Kevin Hayes, Esq.
     Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson (Tulsa)
     320 S BOSTON, STE 200
     TULSA, OK 74103-3706
     Phone: (918) 594-0460
     Fax: (918) 594-0505
     Email: khayes@hallestill.com
     
          - and -

     James C T Hardwick, Esq.
     Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson (Tulsa)
     320 S BOSTON, STE 200
     TULSA, OK 74103-3706
     Phone: (918) 594-0400
     Fax: 594-0505
     Email: jhardwick@hallestill.com

          - and -

     Michael D Morfey, Esq.

          - and -

     Michele R Blythe, Esq.

          - and -

     Pamela S Anderson, Esq.
     Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson (Tulsa)
     320 S BOSTON, STE 200
     TULSA, OK 74103-3706
     Phone: (918) 594-0448
     Fax: (918) 594-0505
     Email: panderson@hallestill.com


EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Sanfilippo Class Action Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Edge Therapeutics, Inc. continues to face the "Sanfilippo"
purported securities class action in New Jersey, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On April 23, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed against the Company, Brian Leuthner (the Company's
President and Chief Executive Officer) and Andrew Saik (the
Company's Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Sanfilippo v. Edge
Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-8236.

The complaint alleges that the Company, Mr. Leuthner and Mr. Saik
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
business, operations and prospects by failing to disclose that
EG-1962 would likely fail a futility analysis.  The complaint is
brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock
between December 27, 2017 and March 27, 2018, and seeks unspecified
damages.

None of the Company, Mr. Leuthner, or Mr. Saik has been served with
the complaint and their time to respond has not yet expired.

Various individuals have moved to be appointed lead plaintiff to
act on behalf of the putative class.  After the court appoints that
party (or parties), it is expected that the lead plaintiff will
file an amended complaint.  The Company and its executives intend
to defend themselves vigorously in the action.  There can be no
guarantee as to the outcome or timing of any resolution.

Edge Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company,
discovers, develops, and seeks to commercialize hospital-based
therapies for acute life-threatening neurological and other
conditions. Edge Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2009 and is
headquartered in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey.


EL POLLO LOCO: 9th Cir. Denies Appellate Review in Turocy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 19, 2018, denied the
Defendants' petition for appellate review of a portion of the
California Central District Court's July 3, 2018 class
certification order in the "Turocy, et al." lawsuit, according to
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 26, 2018.

Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case
No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron
Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No.
8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on October 22, 2015.  The two
lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs and class
counsel.

A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf
of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging
violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings
common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of
call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and
August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period").

The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance
Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC, Trimaran Capital
Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the "Controlling
Shareholder Defendants").

Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early 2015,
Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in California
and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such rising costs,
removed a US$5 value option from the Company's menu, which resulted
in a decrease in traffic from value-conscious consumers.
Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings
and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false and
misleading statements that concealed the effect that these factors
were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings stock
continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices.  As a
result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class
allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
Holdings' stock during the Class Period.  In addition, Plaintiffs
allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder
Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the
operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other
things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving
rise to the alleged securities law violations.  In both cases,
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs
and expenses (including attorneys' fees).

On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without
prejudice, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim.  Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend
their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22,
2016.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 20,
2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint and granted
Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint on April 17, 2017.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on or
about May 17, 2017.  The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss
the third amended complaint on August 4, 2017.  On December 8,
2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and on
July 3, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion and certified a
class as to all of Plaintiffs' claims.

Defendants filed a petition for appellate review of a portion of
the Court's July 3, 2018 class certification order.  On October 19,
2018 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition.
Defendants intend to continue to defend against the claims
asserted.

El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept
that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and
operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment.


EL POLLO LOCO: Oct. 2019 Deadline for Olvera Case Trial
-------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 26, 2018, that the deadline for the
plaintiff to bring the "Olvera" action to trial is October 1,
2019.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco,
Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) on behalf of all
putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the
present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws,
including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide
meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage
statements.  The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies
include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the
complaint.

The court recently certified two classes of plaintiffs - one class
encompasses restaurant employees who were not provided proper rest
breaks because they were not allowed to leave the premises during
their breaks and the other class encompasses restaurant employees
who were required to wait at the restaurant after they finished
working for the night until the manager set the alarm for safety
purposes.  The deadline for the plaintiff to bring the Olvera
action to trial is October 1, 2019.

El Pollo Loco said, "Purported class actions alleging wage and hour
violations are commonly filed against California employers.  The
Company has similar cases pending that overlap in part with the
Olvera action and fully expects to have to defend against similar
lawsuits in the future."

El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept
that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and
operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment.


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Reaches $6.5MM Settlement in Sponn Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is set for January 22, 2019 regarding the final approval
of a settlement agreement in the "Sponn" shareholder class action
lawsuit, according to Emergent Biosolutions Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.  The agreement, which the Company
reached in principle with the Plaintiffs on August 27, 2018, will
settle all of the related claims of any individual plaintiff that
purchased Company stock from January 11, 2016 to June 21, 2016, for
US$6.5 million, an amount that will be paid by the Company's
insurance carrier.  The settlement requires no payment by any of
the Defendants.  The parties executed the settlement agreement on
October 16, 2018, and filed the agreement with the court on October
17, 2018.  The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on October 18, 2018.

On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff William Sponn ("Sponn"), filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between January 11, 2016 and June 21, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain
of its senior officers and directors, collectively, the Defendants.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company made
materially false and misleading statements about the government's
demand for BioThrax and expectations that the Company's five-year
exclusive procurement contract with HHS would be renewed and
omitted certain material facts.  Sponn is seeking unspecified
damages, including legal costs.

On October 25, 2016, the Court added City of Cape Coral Municipal
Firefighters' Retirement Plan and City of Sunrise Police Officers'
Retirement Plan as plaintiffs and appointed them Lead Plaintiffs
and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel.  On December
27, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that cites the
same class period, names the same defendants and makes similar
allegations to the original complaint.  The Company filed a Motion
to Dismiss on February 27, 2017.  The Plaintiffs filed an
opposition brief on April 28, 2017.  The Company's Motion to
Dismiss was heard and denied on July 6, 2017.  The Company filed
its answer on July 28, 2017.  The parties then engaged in the
process of exchanging discovery.

The Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification and
appointment of Sponn and Geoffrey L. Flagstad as lead plaintiffs on
December 20, 2017.  A hearing on that motion was heard on May 2,
2018.  On June 8, 2018 the Court granted class certification with a
shortened class period, May 5, 2016 to June 21, 2016.

The Defendants have denied, and continue to deny any and all
allegations of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages.  However,
recognizing the risk, time, and expense of litigating any case to
trial, on August 27, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in
principle with Plaintiffs to settle all of the related claims of
any individual plaintiff that purchased Company stock from January
11, 2016 to June 21, 2016, for US$6.5 million, an amount that will
be paid by the Company's insurance carrier.  The settlement
requires no payment by any of the Defendants.  The Company and
Defendants continue to deny any and all liability.

The parties executed the settlement agreement on October 16, 2018,
and filed the agreement with the court on October 17, 2018.  The
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on October 18,
2018 and has scheduled a hearing regarding final approval for
January 22, 2019.

The Company said, "Although the court has granted preliminary
approval, the court could decide not to grant final approval of the
settlement or change terms of the settlement, and the law requires
that individual plaintiffs have the right to opt-out of the
settlement and bring their own, individual claims.  The Company,
therefore, at this time, cannot predict the results of this lawsuit
and possible other legal proceedings with certainty.  Defendants
continue to believe that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit.  As of the date of this filing, the range of
potential loss cannot be determined or estimated."

Emergent Biosolutions is a global life sciences company seeking to
protect and enhance life by focusing on providing specialty
products for civilian and military populations that address
accidental, intentional and naturally emerging public health
threats.


ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Trial in Mesirov Suit to Begin 2Q 2019
-------------------------------------------------------
Trial remains scheduled for the second quarter of 2019 in the case
JUDY MESIROV v. ENBRIDGE ENERGY CO., INC. ET AL., according to
Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.  On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Fifth
Amended Complaint, adding Enbridge Inc. and the Director Defendants
as defendants to the derivative claims.

On July 20, 2015, plaintiff Peter Brinckerhoff (the Plaintiff),
individually and as trustee of the Peter R. Brinckerhoff Trust,
filed a Verified Class Action and Derivative Complaint in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Enbridge Energy
Company Inc., Enbridge Inc., Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P.,
Enbridge Pipelines (Alberta Clipper) L.L.C., Enbridge Energy,
Limited Partnership, the Company, and the following individuals:
Jeffrey A. Connelly, Rebecca B. Roberts, Dan A. Westbrook, J.
Richard Bird, J. Herbert England, C. Gregory Harper, D. Guy Jarvis,
Mark A. Maki, and John K. Whelen, (collectively, the Director
Defendants).  The initial Complaint asserted both class action
claims on behalf of holders of the Partnership's Class A Common
Units, as well as derivative claims brought on behalf of the
Partnership.  The Plaintiff's claims arose out of the January 2,
2015 repurchase by the Partnership of the General Partner's 66.67%
interest in the pipeline that runs from the Canadian international
border near Neche, North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin on the
Partnership's Lakehead System (Alberta Clipper Pipeline), known as
the 2015 Transaction.  First, the Plaintiff alleged that the 2015
Transaction improperly amended without Public Unitholder consent
the Sixth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership
(the LPA) so as to allocate to the Public Unitholders gross income
that should have been allocated to the General Partner (the Special
Tax Allocation).  Second, the Plaintiff alleged that the
Partnership paid an unfair price for the General Partner's 66.67%
interest in the Alberta Clipper Pipeline such that the 2015
Transaction breached the LPA because it was not fair and reasonable
to the Partnership.  The initial Complaint asserted claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, breach of residual fiduciary duties, tortious
interference, aiding and abetting, and rescission and reformation.

On April 29, 2016, the Court of Chancery granted Enbridge Inc.'s
and the Director Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the
case in its entirety.  On May 26, 2016 the Plaintiff appealed that
dismissal to the Delaware Supreme Court.  On March 20, 2017, the
Delaware Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the
ruling of the Court of Chancery.  Specifically, the Delaware
Supreme Court affirmed that the enactment of the Special Tax
Allocation did not breach the LPA, but reversed on the question of
whether the Plaintiff had adequately alleged that the price the
Partnership paid in the 2015 Transaction, including the Special Tax
Allocation component, was fair and reasonable to the Partnership.
On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Verified Second Amended
Complaint (the Second Amended Complaint).  The Second Amended
Complaint added Piper Jaffray & Co. as successor to Simmons &
Company International (Simmons) as a direct Defendant.  Simmons
acted as the financial advisor to the Company's Special Committee
in the 2015 Transaction.  The Second Amended Complaint also revised
many of the allegations against Enbridge Inc. and the Director
Defendants.  On December 18, 2017, all Defendants except Simmons
filed their brief in support of their motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint.  On January 19, 2018, Simmons filed its brief in
support of its motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On February 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a
Verified Third Amended Complaint and a Motion to Intervene on
behalf of a proposed new plaintiff, Judy Mesirov (subsequently
amended).  On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Verified Third
Amended Complaint and a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of
Brinckerhoff.  On April 3, 2018, all Defendants filed their briefs
in support of their motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff Brinckerhoff has now been dismissed as a named
Plaintiff.  Plaintiff Mesirov filed a Fourth Amended Complaint,
which is substantially the same as the Third Amended Complaint
except that it substitutes Judy Mesirov in place of Peter
Brinckerhoff as the named Plaintiff.  On August 29, 2018, the Court
granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
the Third (now Fourth) Amended Complaint.  All direct claims have
now been dismissed, and only derivative claims for breach of
contract (including equitable remedies of rescission or
reformation) against Enbridge Energy Company Inc and aiding and
abetting a breach of contract against Simmons remain in the Fourth
Amended Complaint.

On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint,
adding Enbridge Inc. and the Director Defendants as defendants to
the derivative claims.

On September 18, 2018, Enbridge Inc. announced that it (on behalf
of itself and certain of its wholly owned U.S. subsidiaries) had
entered into definitive merger agreements with the Company, under
which Enbridge Inc. would, subject to certain approvals of
shareholders and other conditions, acquire all of the Company's
Listed Shares (other than those held by Enbridge and its wholly
owned subsidiaries). If the Proposed Merger transaction to buy-in
Enbridge Energy Partnership, L.P. closes and Enbridge Inc. acquires
all of the outstanding Class A common units of Enbridge Energy
Partnership, L.P., Plaintiff will lose standing to continue her
derivative claims on behalf of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., and
Enbridge will become the owner of such derivative claims. Trial is
currently scheduled for the second quarter of 2019.

Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C. is a limited partner of Enbridge
Energy Partners, L.P., (the Partnership), through its ownership of
i-units, a special class of the Partnership's limited partner
interests.


ENDURANCE INT'L: Awaits Court's Initial OK on Machado Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the case styled Machado v. Endurance International Group
Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO, as
amended, are awaiting the Court's preliminary approval of a
proposed settlement, according to Endurance International Group
Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

On May 4, 2015, Christopher Machado, a purported holder of the
Company's common stock, filed a civil action in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the
Company and its former chief executive officer and former chief
financial officer, captioned Machado v. Endurance International
Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 8, 2015, and a
second amended complaint on March 18, 2016.  The Company moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint, but before the court ruled on
the Company's motion, with the Company's assent, the plaintiff
filed a third amended complaint on June 30, 2017.

In the third amended complaint, plaintiffs Christopher Machado and
Michael Rubin allege claims for violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's securities between October 25, 2013 and December 16,
2015, including persons or entities who purchased or acquired the
Company's shares pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
October 25, 2013 initial public offering.

The plaintiffs challenge as false or misleading certain of the
Company's disclosures about the total number of subscribers,
average revenue per subscriber, the number of customers paying over
US$500 per year for the Company's products and services, and the
average number of products sold per subscriber.  The plaintiffs
seek, on behalf of themselves and the purported class, compensatory
damages, rescissory damages as to class members who purchased
shares pursuant to the offering and the plaintiffs' costs and
expenses of litigation.

The Company moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on August
29, 2017.  The plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to the
Company's motion to dismiss was filed on October 30, 2017, and the
Company's reply memorandum was filed on December 14, 2017.  On
January 12, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all
proceedings pending the outcome of a mediation between the parties
scheduled for February 23, 2018.  The court granted the stay on
February 21, 2018.  The parties did not resolve the matter at the
mediation on February 23, 2018, but continued thereafter to
productively discuss a potential resolution of this matter.  The
court extended the stay to allow the parties to continue their
discussions.

On May 17, 2018, the parties executed a term sheet memorializing
their agreement in principal to settle the action.  The parties
then negotiated the terms and conditions of a stipulation and
agreement of settlement and related papers, which provide for the
release of all claims asserted against the Company and its former
chief executive officer and former chief financial officer.

On July 6, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, certification of
the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, and
approval of notice to the settlement class.  The court has not yet
ruled on this motion.

Endurance International said, "The Company's contribution to the
settlement pool under the proposed settlement would be
approximately equal to the amount it reserved in connection with a
possible settlement of this action.  The aggregate amount of this
reserve and the reserve for the Constant Contact McGee litigation
was originally US$8.5 million recorded during the three months
ended March 31, 2018, and subsequently adjusted to US$8.3 million
during the three months ended June 30, 2018 and to US$7.3 million
during the three months ended September 30, 2018.  The Company
cannot make any assurances as to whether or when the settlement
will be approved by the court."

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation which, together with its wholly owned subsidiary
company, EIG Investors Corp. ("EIG Investors"), its primary
operating subsidiary company, The Endurance International Group,
Inc. ("EIG"), and other subsidiary companies of EIG, collectively
form the "Company." The Company is a provider of cloud-based
platform solutions designed to help small- and medium-sized
businesses succeed online.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Court's OK on McGee Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al,
the parties are awaiting the Court's approval of a proposed
settlement, according to Endurance International Group Holdings,
Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On February 9, 2016, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Constant Contact.

On December 10, 2015, Constant Contact received a subpoena from the
Boston Regional Office of the SEC, requiring the production of
documents pertaining to Constant Contact's sales, marketing, and
customer retention practices, as well as periodic public disclosure
of financial and operating metrics.  

On June 5, 2018, the Company announced that it had settled both
this investigation and the Endurance investigation by consenting to
the SEC's entry of the Order, without admitting or denying the
SEC's findings set forth in the Order, and by paying a civil
monetary penalty.  The Company accrued the penalty in its fiscal
quarter ended September 30, 2017 and paid the penalty in the fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2018.

On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee
v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant
Contact and two of its former officers.  An amended complaint,
which named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed
December 19, 2016.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading
statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding
Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance
during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23,
2015.

The parties mediated the claims on March 27, 2018, and as a result
of that mediation reached an agreement in principle with the lead
plaintiff to settle the action.

The parties then negotiated the terms and conditions of a
stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers, which
provide for the release of all claims asserted against Constant
Contact and its former officers.

On May 18, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, certification of
the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, and
approval of notice to the settlement class.  The court has not yet
ruled on this motion.

Endurance International said, "The Company's contribution to the
settlement pool under the proposed settlement would be
approximately equal to the amount it reserved in connection with a
possible settlement of this action.  The aggregate amount of this
reserve and the reserve for the Endurance Machado litigation was
originally US$8.5 million recorded during the three months ended
March 31, 2018, and subsequently adjusted to US$8.3 million during
the three months ended June 30, 2018 and to US$7.3 million during
the three months ended September 30, 2018.  The Company cannot make
any assurances as to whether or when the settlement will be
approved by the court."

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation which, together with its wholly owned subsidiary
company, EIG Investors Corp. ("EIG Investors"), its primary
operating subsidiary company, The Endurance International Group,
Inc. ("EIG"), and other subsidiary companies of EIG, collectively
form the "Company." The Company is a provider of cloud-based
platform solutions designed to help small- and medium-sized
businesses succeed online.


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Bid for Dougherty En Banc Rehearing Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 23, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals directed
plaintiffs in the "Dougherty" class suit to respond to Esperion
Therapeutics, Inc.'s October 11 petition for rehearing en banc,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and Tim
Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics,
Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089).  The lawsuit alleges that the
Company and Mr. Mayleben violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly
failing to disclose in an August 17, 2015, public statement that
the FDA would require a cardiovascular outcomes trial before
approving the Company's lead product candidate.  The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, compensatory damages in connection with an
allegedly inflated stock price between August 18, 2015 and
September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit and
on July 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On December 27, 2016, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the
Company's favor.

On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion
to alter or amend the judgment.  In May 2017, the court denied the
plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment.

On June 19, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and on September 14, 2017, they
filed their opening brief in support of the appeal.  The appeal was
fully briefed on December 7, 2017, and it was argued before the
Sixth Circuit on March 15, 2018.

On September 27, 2018, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in which
it reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings.  On October 11, 2018, the Company filed a petition for
rehearing en banc and, on October 23, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals directed plaintiffs to respond to that petition.

Esperion Therapeutics said, "The Company is unable to predict the
outcome of this matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate
of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an
unfavorable outcome."

Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., a lipid management company, focuses on
developing and commercializing oral therapies for the treatment of
patients with elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan.


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Bailey Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit captioned Kevin Bailey v.
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 18-cv-11438) remains
pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

On May 7, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed the
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.  An amended complaint was filed on October
22, 2018, against the Company and certain directors and officers.

The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
based on allegedly making false and misleading statements about the
facts and circumstances surrounding the Phase 3 trial results for
bempedoic acid that the Company announced on May 2, 2018.  The
lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in
connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between February
22, 2017, and May 22, 2018, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Esperion Therapeutics said, "The Company is unable to predict the
outcome of this matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate
of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an
unfavorable outcome."

Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., a lipid management company, focuses on
developing and commercializing oral therapies for the treatment of
patients with elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan.


ETRADE FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Schwab Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on October 26,
2018, upheld the dismissal of a putative class action by Craig L.
Schwab against E*TRADE Financial Corporation, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 1, 2018, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

On July 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by Craig L.
Schwab, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, naming
E*TRADE Financial Corporation, E*TRADE Securities, and former
Company executives as defendants.  The complaint alleges that
E*TRADE violated federal securities laws in connection with the
routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and
exchanges.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the
Company, and attorneys' fees.  By stipulation both matters are now
venued in the Southern District of New York.

On July 10, 2017 the Court dismissed the Schwab claims without
prejudice.  The plaintiff in Schwab filed a third amended complaint
on August 9, 2017, which E*TRADE moved to dismiss.

On January 22, 2018, the Court dismissed all claims with prejudice.
Plaintiffs have appealed to the Second Court of Appeals on October
23, 2018.

E*TRADE is a financial services company that provides online
brokerage and related products and services primarily to individual
retail investors.


EVERCORE INC: EGL Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Evercore Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated
class suit in Texas, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

Beginning in November 2016, several putative class actions were
filed, and thereafter consolidated, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas relating to Adeptus Health Inc.'s
("Adeptus") June 2014 initial public offering and May 2015, July
2015 and June 2016 secondary offerings.  Among others, the
defendants included Adeptus and the underwriters in the offerings,
including Evercore Group L.L.C. ("EGL").

On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was
subsequently removed as a defendant.  On November 21, 2017,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint that alleged as to the
underwriters' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in
connection with the four offerings.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss on February 5, 2018.  On
September 12, 2018, the defendants' motions to dismiss were granted
as to the claims relating to the initial public offering and May
2015 secondary offering, but denied as to the claims relating to
the July 2015 and June 2016 secondary offerings.

EGL underwrote approximately 294 shares of common stock in the July
2015 secondary offering, representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately US$30.8 million, but did not underwrite any shares
in the June 2016 secondary offering.

On September 25, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
relating to the July 2015 and June 2016 secondary offerings.

Evercore Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent investment banking advisory firm in the United States,
Europe, Latin America, and internationally.  It operates through
two segments, Investment Banking and Investment Management.  The
Company was formerly known as Evercore Partners Inc. and changed
its name to Evercore Inc. in August 2017.  Evercore Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


EXLSERVICE HOLDINGS: Expects Final Court OK on Class Pact in 4Q
---------------------------------------------------------------
ExlService Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018, that the final court approval of a
US$2,400,000 settlement of a putative class action lawsuit in
California is expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2018
"although there can be no guarantee as to approval or timing."

In March 2017, the Company was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in California, which included several causes of
action seeking damages but did not include a monetary demand.  The
Company filed its answer in April 2017 vigorously denying the
allegations.  Both parties agreed to participate in a
court-approved mediation which occurred in March 2018.

The parties reached an agreement in principle whereby the Company,
without any admission of wrongdoing or liability, would pay
US$2,400 to settle the litigation, which amount has been accrued
under "General and administrative expenses" for the nine months
ended September 30, 2018.

The Company said, "The agreement remains subject to final court
approval, which is expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2018
although there can be no guarantee as to approval or timing."

ExlService Holdings Inc. outsources business processes, including
transaction processing and Internet and voice-based customer care
services, to Global 1000 companies in banking, financial services,
and insurance. ExlService also offers technical support and
advisory services. The company's clients are located principally in
the U.S. and Britain. The company was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in New York.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Inks Term Sheet to Settle Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled, In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities
Litigation, the parties have signed a term sheet to settle the
litigation and are preparing further documentation for the
settlement to submit for court approval, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

On October 23 and 29, 2015, punitive class action complaints
alleging violations of securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company and three of its former officers (Charles W. Berger,
Kenneth B. Arola, and John T. Kurtzweil).  Subsequently, the cases
were consolidated (In re Extreme Networks, Inc.  Securities
Litigation, No. 3:15-CY-04883-BLF).

Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the securities laws by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and
concealing material adverse facts regarding the Company's financial
condition, business operations and growth prospects.  Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
investors who purchased the Company's common stock from September
12, 2013 through April 9, 2015.  On June 28, 2016, the Court
appointed a lead plaintiff.

On September 26, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint.  On November 10, 2016, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which the Court granted with leave to amend on April 27,
2017.

On June 2, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which, on July 10, 2017, defendants again moved to dismiss.  In a
March 21, 2018 Order (the "March 2018 Order"), the Court granted in
part and denied in part the defendants' motion.

The March 2018 Order narrowed the scope of the case, but allowed
certain claims to proceed.  The parties have signed a term sheet to
settle the litigation and are preparing further documentation for
the settlement to submit for court approval.  

Extreme Networks, Inc. provides software-driven networking
solutions for enterprise customers worldwide. Extreme Networks,
Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


FANNIE MAE: Still Faces Suits over Stock Purchase Agreements
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association continues to defend itself in
lawsuits, including a consolidated class action, related to Senior
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

A consolidated putative class action ("In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action
Litigations") and three non-class action lawsuits filed by Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders are pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia against the Company, Federal
Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") as the Company's conservator, and
Freddie Mac that challenge the August 2012 amendment to each
company's senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury.

In the consolidated class action and two of the non-class action
suits, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae and Fairholme Funds
v. FHFA, plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 1, 2017
alleging that the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior
preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012
amendments nullified certain of the shareholders' rights,
particularly the right to receive dividends.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs in the class
action seek to represent several classes of preferred and/or common
shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac who held stock as of
the public announcement of the August 2012 amendments.  On
September 28, 2018, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs'
claims except for their claims for breach of an implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.  On October 15, 2018, defendants filed
a motion for partial reconsideration.

On May 21, 2018, a pro se plaintiff in a third non-class action
case, Angel v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, filed a
complaint for declaratory relief and compensatory damages against
Fannie Mae (including certain members of its Board of Directors),
Freddie Mac (including certain members of its Board of Directors)
and FHFA, as conservator.  Plaintiff in that case asserts claims
for breach of contract, breach of implied covenants of good faith
and fair dealing, and aiding and abetting the federal government in
avoiding an alleged implicit guarantee of dividend payments.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on July 12, 2018.

The Company said, "Given the stage of these lawsuits, the
substantial and novel legal questions that remain, and our
substantial defenses, we are currently unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this
litigation."

Federal National Mortgage Association provides liquidity and
stability support services for the mortgage market in the United
States.  The Company was founded in 1938 and is based in
Washington, the District of Columbia.


FCB FINANCIAL: Bushansky Files Suit Over Sale to Synovus
--------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FCB Financial Holdings, Inc., Vincent S.
Tese, Leslie J. Lieberman, Alan S. Bernikow, Thomas E. Constance,
Howard R. Curd, Kent S. Ellert, Gerald Luterman, William Lawrence
Mack, Paul Anthony Novelly II, Stuart I. Oran and Frederic V.
Salerno, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-62399 (S.D. Fla., October 9,
2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
acquisition of FCB by Synovus Financial Corp. through its
wholly-owned subsidiary Azalea Merger Sub Corp., or rescinding it
in the event Defendants consummate the merger.  The Plaintiff
further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

FCB stockholders will be entitled to receive 1.055 shares of
Synovus common stock per share of FCB Class A common stock. The
proposed transaction is valued at approximately $2.9 billion.

The complaint says the proxy statement filed with respect the
proposed transaction omitted the valuation analyses performed by
the Company's financial advisors, Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P.,
Guggenheim Securities, LLC and Evercore Group LLC. FCB's public
stockholders are forced to make a voting decision on the merger
without full disclosure of all material information, asserts the
complaint.

FCB is a bank holding company, with one wholly-owned national bank
subsidiary, Florida Community Bank, National Association. Synovus
is a Georgia financial services company located at 1111 Bay Avenue,
Suite 500, Columbus, GA 31901. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
      James E. Felman, Esq.
      KYNES MARKMAN & FELMAN, PA
      PO Box 3396, Tampa, FL 33601
      Tel: (813) 229-1118
      Fax: (813) 221-6750
      Email: KYanes@kmf-law.com
             JFelman@kmf-law.com

            - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010
      Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
             mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
             kmoran@weisslawllp.com


FINAL EXPENSE: Jamari Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
MERANDA KAIL JAMARI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FINAL EXPENSE DIRECT, INC.
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
2:18-at-01654 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2018), contends that the
Defendant, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
contacted Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, number ending in
-6273, beginning in or around January of 2018, in an effort to sell
or solicit its services.

The Plaintiff never provided the Defendant with consent to contact
Plaintiff on her cellular phone.  Those calls constituted calls
that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. Sec.
227(b)(1)(A).  The calls were placed to telephone number assigned
to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incur a charge
for incoming calls 19 pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1).

Plaintiff is not a customer of the Defendant's services and has
never provided any personal information, including her cellular
telephone numbers, to the Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. In
addition, Plaintiff told the Defendant at least once to stop
contacting them and Plaintiff has been registered on the
Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days prior to the Defendant
contacting her. Accordingly, the Defendant never received
Plaintiff' "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice on their cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1)(A), the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
          abacon@toddflaw.com
          E-mail: mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


FINANCIAL INDEMNITY: Partly Compelled to Produce Files in Bhasker
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HELEN BHASKER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendant, CIV No. 17-260 JB/JHR (D. N.M.), Magistrate Judge Jerry
R. Ritter of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Defendant to Respond to Written Discovery Requesting Claims Files
and Communications and her Memorandum in Support.

Bhasker, was rear-ended by a third party while traveling eastbound
on I-40 on June 24, 2015, and sustained bodily injuries and other
damages as a result of the collision.  Thereafter, the Plaintiff
received the full extent of liability coverage carried by the
tortfeasor ($25,000), and turned to her own insurance carrier, the
Defendant, to recover underinsured motorist benefits.

The parties agree that the Plaintiff's damages exceed $50,000.
However, the Plaintiff's insurance policy with the Defendant only
contained minimal underinsured motorist coverage of $25,000 per
person and $50,000 per accident; therefore, the Defendant denied
her claim, reasoning that New Mexico is a difference state.  The
Plaintiff claims that the underinsured motorist coverage she
purchased from the Defendant was, accordingly, illusory under New
Mexico law.

The Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint for Breach of
Statutory, Common Law, and Contractual Duties in New Mexico state
court on Dec. 30, 2016.  The Defendant removed the case to the
Court on Feb. 24, 2017, citing the Class Action Fairness Act and
diversity of the parties.  The Defendant conceded that from Dec.
30, 2010 to Dec. 30, 2016, there were approximately 795 claims in
New Mexico where the insured had minimum UIM limits of $25,000 and
it did not pay UIM coverage.

The Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on March 23, 2017.
In her Complaint, she alleges that the Defendant failed to act
honestly and in good faith when it solicited and sold superfluous
and illusory minimal limits underinsured motorist coverage to their
insureds (in whole or in part) in violation of New Mexico law,
and/or they denied claims for the benefits of that coverage.

The Plaintiff brings the following claims on her own behalf and on
behalf of the putative class: negligence (Count I); violation of
New Mexico's Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count II); violation of
New Mexico's Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Count III); breach of
contract (Count IV); breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing (Count V); and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief
(Counts VI-VII).

The Plaintiff defines the putative class as all persons (and their
heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns) who, in
the prior six years from the date of the filing of the complaint,
were a policy holder and/or insured, of a Motor Vehicle Policy
issued by the Defendant where that policy did not and does not
provide underinsured coverage paid for by the policyholder, and
sold and solicited by the Defendant, due to the application of an
offset as set forth in NMSA 66-5-301, otherwise known as the New
Mexico offset law or being a difference state.

The matter is now before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to
compel certain discovery from the Defendant.  Specifically, the
Plaintiff's Motion targets Requests for Production numbers 1-2 and
8.  She also moves the Court for production of the redacted
portions of her claim file that have been withheld by the
Defendant.

In Request No. 1, the Plaintiff requests the complete Claim Files
for the 795 individuals the Defendant identified and referenced in
its Notice of Removal.  In Request No. 2, she requests the Claim
Files for individuals that purchased underinsurance motorist
coverage from the Defendant within six years prior to the filing of
the lawsuit and submitted a claim for underinsured motorist
coverage.  In Request No. 8, the Plaintiff asks the Defendant to
produce any and all communications between the Defendant and its
New Mexico agents, brokers, and agencies regarding underinsured
motorist coverage.

Magistrate Judge Ritter finds that the Defendant sought shelter in
federal court under the CAFA, ostensibly to secure a more neutral
litigation forum.  However, with a federal forum comes federal
rules of procedure and discovery practice.  Here, those rules favor
the broad discovery that the Plaintiff is seeking in order to
establish that her claims are common to, and typical of, the class
of persons she seeks to represent.

Wherefore, for the forgoing reasons, he granted in part the
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.  Within 30 days of the entry of the
Order, the Defendant must produce:

     a) The Claim Notes portion of the 795 claims files it admits
are relevant to the Plaintiff's claims in the action, as well as
any correspondence rejecting or denying such claims due to New
Mexico's offset law or being a difference state contained in the
Documents portion of those files;

     b) Any and all communications between the Defendant and its
New Mexico agents, brokers, and agencies regarding underinsured
motorist coverage, to the extent those communications exist; and

     c) The Plaintiff's entire, unredacted, claims file.

In all other respects the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/qKb5La from Leagle.com.

Helen Bhasker, Plaintiff, represented by Kedar Bhasker & Corbin
Hildebrandt, Corbin Hildebrandt, P.C.

Financial Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Kerri Lee
Allensworth , O'Brien & Padilla, Alicia M. Santos --
asantos@obrienlawoffice.com -- O'Brien & Padilla, PC & Mark L.
Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons, pro hac vice.


FLEX LTD: Lead Plaintiff to File Amended Class Suit by Nov. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern District of California Court has ordered that the
recently assigned lead plaintiff in the putative class action
complaint against Flex Ltd. shall file an amended complaint by
November 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2018.

On May 8, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder,
alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's
financial results, press releases and SEC filings made during the
putative class period of January 26, 2017 through April 26, 2018.

On October 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the case.  On October 15, 2018, the Court
issued an order providing that lead plaintiff shall file an amended
complaint by November 30, 2018 and that defendants shall respond to
the amended complaint by January 10, 2019, and setting the hearing
on defendants' motion to dismiss for March 21, 2019.

The Court also set a case management conference for December 12,
2018.  The Company believes that the claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend this case.

Flex Ltd. provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply
chain services and solutions to original equipment manufacturers
worldwide. It operates through Communications & Enterprise Compute,
Consumer Technologies Group, Industrial and Emerging Industries,
and High Reliability Solutions segments. Flex Ltd. was founded in
1990 and is based in Singapore.


FLUOR CORP: Shareholder Class Action in Texas Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Fluor Corporation is still facing a shareholders' class suit in
Texas, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018.

In May 2018, a purported shareholder filed a complaint against
Fluor Corporation and certain of its current and former executives
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.  The plaintiff purports to represent a class of shareholders
who purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor common stock from August
14, 2013 through May 3, 2018, and seeks to recover damages arising
from alleged violations of federal securities laws.

Fluor Corp. said, "At this time, the company has not been served
with the complaint.  The company believes that the claims asserted
in the complaint are without merit."

Fluor Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides engineering,
procurement, construction, fabrication and modularization,
commissioning and maintenance, and project management services
worldwide.  The Company was founded in 1912 and is headquartered in
Irving, Texas.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Nussenzweig Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster and Garbus
LLP, et al. The case is styled as Yides Nussenzweig, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Forster and Garbus LLP d/b/a Forster, Garbus & Garbus, John Does
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-15677 (D. N.J., Nov. 5, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


FREDDIE MAC: Class Cert. Bid in Ohio Public Employees Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case entitled,
Ohio Public Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Et
Al., has been denied.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August
1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) later intervened as Conservator, and the plaintiff amended
its complaint on several occasions.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements concerning the company's business, risk management, and
the procedures the company puts into place to protect the company
from problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorney and expert fees.

In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with
prejudice. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On July 20, 2016,
the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On
August 14, 2018, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification. Plaintiff has requested interlocutory
appeal of that decision.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage said, "At present, it is not possible
for us to predict the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any
potential effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity,
or results of operations. In addition, we are unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event
of an adverse judgment in the foregoing matter due to the following
factors, among others: the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial
litigation; there has yet to be a final resolution of plaintiff's
motion for class certification; and the District Court has not yet
ruled upon motions for summary judgment. In particular, absent a
final resolution of whether a class will be certified, the
identification of a class if one is certified, and the
identification of the alleged statement or statements that survive
dispositive motions, we cannot reasonably estimate any possible
loss or range of possible loss."

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary
mortgage market in the United States. The company purchases
residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as
invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation was founded in 1970 and is
headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


GC SERVICES: Spence Suit Removed to E.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------
The class action captioned Stephen Spence, on behalf of himself and
a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GC Services
Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, and Sheila M.
Fews, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 17462-CZ filed in Otsego
County Circuit Court, State of Michigan, was removed to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
November 2, 2018, and assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-13444-TLL-PTM.

Plaintiff Stephen Spence filed this action against GC Services and
Fews on October 9, 2018, in the Circuit Court of Ostego County,
Michigan. Plaintiff brings this action as a putative class action
alleging two counts. Count I alleges that Defendants willfully
violated the provisions of the Michigan Occupational Code by
sending, on behalf of the State of Michigan, letters demanding
payment of taxes and other Michigan State obligations. Plaintiff
seeks against both Defendants damages or other equitable relief,
attorney's fees, and costs. In Count II, Plaintiff seeks actual
damages on behalf of himself and the putative class against GC
Services for alleged breaches of contract, including damages for
financial loss, lost time and opportunity, aggravation, and mental
distress, as well as attorney's fees and costs.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Marcus R. Sanborn, Esq.
     BLEVINS SANBORN JEZDIMIR ZACK PLC
     1842 Michigan Avenue
     Detroit, MI 48216
     Phone/Fax: (313) 338-9500
     Email: msanborn@bsjzlaw.com

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lawrence A. Friedman, Esq.
     Post Office Box 609
     Grayling, MI 49738
     Email: lfriendman@friendmanpartners.net

          - and -

     WM Paul Slough, Esq.
     145 North Otsego Avenue
     Gaylord, MI 49735
     Email: paul@gaylordlaw.com



GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Court Takes Bid to Nix Suit Under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Genocea Biosciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that in the consolidated "Emerson"
lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
has taken into advisement a pending motion to dismiss and a motion
to strike.

On October 31, 2017, three putative class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
naming the Company, Chief Executive Officer William D. Clark, and
former Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Poole as defendants.  Each
complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 in connection with disclosures from March 31, 2016
to September 25, 2017 concerning Genocea's development of GEN-003,
the Company's proprietary HSV-2 vaccine.  The court consolidated
the three actions into one case, captioned Emerson et al. v.
Genocea Biosciences, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 17-cv-12137-PBS
(D.  Mass.), and appointed the Genocea Investor Group (a group of
five purported shareholders) as lead plaintiff.

On March 29, 2018, counsel for the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in the District of Massachusetts that alleges the same
causes of action and seeks the same relief as the original
complaints.  The amended complaint adds Seth V. Hetherington,
former Chief Medical Officer, to the original named defendants.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 14, 2018.
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on
June 28, 2018, as well as a motion to strike exhibits referenced in
defendants' motion to dismiss, on June 29, 2018.  The Company and
the other named defendants filed a reply brief to plaintiffs'
opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, and an opposition
brief to plaintiffs' motion to strike, on July 30, 2018.

The court held oral argument on the motion to dismiss and motion to
strike on September 25, 2018, and took each motion under
advisement.

Genocea Biosciences, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, discovers
and develops novel cancer vaccines.  The company uses its
proprietary discovery platform AnTigen Lead Acquisition System to
design immunotherapies and vaccines that act through T cell immune
responses. Its lead product candidate is GEN-003, an
investigational immunotherapy that is in Phase III trial for the
treatment of genital herpes infections.  Genocea Biosciences, Inc.
was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Cambridge,
Massachusetts.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Status in SunEdison Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification remains pending in a consolidated
class action related to SunEdison, Inc., according to The Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2018.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative class actions and individual actions
filed beginning in March 2016 relating to the August 2015 public
offering of US$650 million of SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison)
convertible preferred stock.  The defendants also include certain
of SunEdison's directors and officers.

On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The
pending cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and on March 17, 2017, plaintiffs in
the putative class action filed a consolidated amended complaint.

GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares of SunEdison
convertible preferred stock in the offering, representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately US$139 million.

On March 6, 2018, the defendants' motion to dismiss in the class
action was granted in part and denied in part, and on June 13,
2018, plaintiffs in the class action moved for class
certification.

On April 10, 2018 and April 17, 2018, certain plaintiffs in the
individual actions filed amended complaints.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Commodities-Related Lawsuit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the third consolidated amended
complaint in the Commodities-Related Litigation remains pending,
according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.  No further updates were provided
in the Company's SEC report.

Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in
putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and
palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently
amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The amended complaint generally
alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the
Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices
and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble
damages in an unspecified amount.  Defendants moved to dismiss the
third consolidated amended complaint on July 21, 2017.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix U.S. Treasury Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the U.S. Treasury Securities Litigation is
still pending, according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. No further updates
were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named
as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the
market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015
and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers
named as defendants in a similar individual action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August
25, 2017.

The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29,
2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws
in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the
when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and
that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude
trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms
in order to impede competition in the bidding process.

The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding
manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as
related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act.

The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble
damages in an unspecified amount and restitution.  Defendants moved
to dismiss on February 23, 2018.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Narrows Plaintiffs' Claims in Currencies Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that in the Currencies-Related
Litigation against the Company, the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
replead was denied as to the claim under federal antitrust law and
granted as to the claims under state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") and the Company ("Group Inc.")
are among the defendants named in putative class actions filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
beginning in September 2016 on behalf of putative indirect
purchasers of foreign exchange instruments.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on June 30, 2017,
generally alleges a conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency
exchange markets and asserts claims under federal and state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and seeks
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.

On March 15, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss,
and on October 25, 2018, plaintiffs' motion for leave to replead
was denied as to the claim under federal antitrust law and granted
as to the claims under state antitrust and consumer protection
laws.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Must Defend Against Securities Lending Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a putative class suit over securities lending
antitrust matters involving The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s unit
has been denied, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company ("Group Inc.") and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.")
are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action
and an individual action relating to securities lending practices
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York beginning in August 2017.  The complaints generally assert
claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in
connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to
preclude the development of electronic platforms for securities
lending transactions.

The individual complaint also asserts claims for tortious
interference with business relations and under state trade
practices law.

The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
treble damages and restitution in unspecified amounts.

Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action
on January 26, 2018.

Defendants moved to dismiss the individual action on June 1, 2018.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied
on September 27, 2018.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Parties in Cobalt Underwriting Suit Reach Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that parties in a putative
securities class action related to Cobalt International Energy have
reached a settlement, subject to court approval.

The Company ("Group Inc."), certain former directors of Cobalt
International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), who were designated by
affiliates of Group Inc., and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.")
are among defendants in a putative securities class action relating
to certain offerings of Cobalt’s securities.  They are also among
the parties that have reached a settlement, subject to court
approval.  The firm has reserved the full amount that it expects to
contribute under the settlement.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint in Adeptus Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that on September 25, 2018,
plaintiffs in class action litigation related to Adeptus Health
filed an amended complaint to remove the claims previously
dismissed by the court on September 12.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is one of the underwriters named
as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in October 2016 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  In addition to the
underwriters, the defendants include certain past and present
directors and officers of Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), as well as
Adeptus' sponsor.

As to the underwriters, the consolidated amended complaint, filed
on November 21, 2017, relates to the US$124 million June 2014
initial public offering, the US$154 million May 2015 secondary
equity offering, the US$411 million July 2015 secondary equity
offering, and the US$175 million June 2016 secondary equity
offering.

GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in the June
2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately US$37 million, 962,378 shares of common
stock in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately US$61 million, 1.76 million shares of common
stock in the July 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately US$184 million, and all the shares of common
stock in the June 2016 offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately US$175 million.

On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On September 12, 2018, the defendants' motions to dismiss were
granted as to the June 2014 and May 2015 offerings but denied as to
the July 2015 and June 2016 offerings.

On September 25, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to
remove the dismissed claims.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Gender Pay Discrimination Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018, that in a class suit related to
gender pay inequality matters, the Plaintiffs advised the district
court on September 27, 2018 that they would not seek to certify a
class for injunctive and declaratory relief.  Previously, on March
30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as to the
plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees.  The complaint, as subsequently amended,
alleges that the Company ("Group Inc.") and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
("GS&Co.") have systematically discriminated against female
employees in respect of compensation, promotion and performance
evaluations.  The complaint alleges a class consisting of all
female employees employed at specified levels in specified areas by
Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under
federal and New York City discrimination laws.  The complaint seeks
class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of
compensatory, punitive and other damages.

On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in
part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of
plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked
standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group
Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations
in their entirety as premature.

On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the named
plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an
arbitration agreement with the firm.

On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge
assigned the remaining plaintiffs' May 2014 motion for class
certification recommended that the motion be denied in all
respects.

On August 3, 2015, the magistrate judge granted the plaintiffs'
motion to intervene two female individuals, one of whom was
employed by the firm as of September 2010 and the other of whom
ceased to be an employee of the firm subsequent to the magistrate
judge's decision.

On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as
to the plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims.

On September 4, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied
defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district
court's class certification decision and subsequently denied
defendants' petition for rehearing.

On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs advised the district court that
they would not seek to certify a class for injunctive and
declaratory relief.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a consolidated securities class action lawsuit against The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., among other entities, the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York challenging the adequacy of the Company's
public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in
the Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) market, and the firm's
conflict of interest management.

The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which
names as defendants the Company and certain current and former
officers and employees of the Company and its affiliates, generally
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and seeks unspecified damages.

On August 28, 2018, defendants filed a petition with the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals seeking interlocutory review of the
district court's August 14, 2018 grant of class certification.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to face Interest Rate Swap
Antitrust Litigation in New York, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company ("Group Inc."), Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co."),
Goldman Sachs International (GSI), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs
Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in a
putative antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest
rate swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named
in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York beginning in April 2016 by three operators of swap
execution facilities and certain of their affiliates.

These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among
the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps.
The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under
state antitrust law.  The complaints seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.

Defendants moved to dismiss the class and one of the individual
actions on January 20, 2017.  On July 28, 2017, the district court
issued a decision dismissing the state common law claims asserted
by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and otherwise
limiting the state common law claim in the putative class action
and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from 2013 to
2016.

On May 30, 2018, plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a
third consolidated amended complaint, adding allegations as to the
surviving claims.

On August 28, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in the second individual action.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Valeant Underwriting Suit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to defend in a putative
class action in Canada related to Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS
Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named as
defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in the
Superior Court of Quebec, Canada.  In addition to the underwriters
and initial purchasers, the defendants include Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Valeant), certain directors
and officers of Valeant and Valeant's auditor.

As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint relates to the June 2013
public offering of US$2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013
Rule 144A offering of US$3.2 billion principal amount of senior
notes, and the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of US$900 million
principal amount of senior notes.  The complaint asserts claims
under the Quebec Securities Act and the Civil Code of Quebec.

On August 29, 2017, the court certified a class that includes only
non-U.S. purchasers in the offerings.  Defendants' motion for leave
to appeal the certification was denied on November 30, 2017.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

GS&Co. and GS Canada, as sole underwriters, sold 5,334,897 shares
of common stock in the June 2013 offering to non-U.S. purchasers
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$453
million and, as initial purchasers, had a proportional share of
sales to non-U.S. purchasers of approximately CAD14.2 million in
principal amount of senior notes in the June 2013 and November 2013
Rule 144A offerings.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Underwriter Defendants Dismissed in Snap IPO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2018, that in putative securities class actions
relating to Snap Inc.'s US$3.91 billion March 2017 initial public
offering, The Goldman Sachs Group and other underwriter defendants
have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

In its 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018,
the Company has disclosed that it underwrote 57,040,000 shares of
common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately US$970 million.

Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a
bank holding company.  It is also an investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides services to clients
that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and
high-net-worth individuals.


GOPRO INC: Bid to Drop 2018 Shareholder Class Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the June 18 consolidated amended shareholder
class action complaint remains pending, according to GoPro, Inc.'s
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.  A hearing on
the motion to dismiss was scheduled for November 5, 2018.  No
further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The Company said, "Beginning on January 9, 2018, the first of four
purported shareholder class action lawsuits (the "2018 Shareholder
Class Action") were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, Mr. Woodman,
and Mr. McGee.  Similar complaints were filed on January 11, 2018
and January 24, 2018.  On April 20, 2018, the court consolidated
the four cases and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  On
June 18, 2018, plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended
Complaint (the "Complaint").  The Complaint purports to bring suit
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly
traded securities between November 2, 2017 and January 5, 2018.
The Complaint adds Mr. Prober, GoPro's former COO, as a defendant
(together with GoPro, Mr. Woodman and Mr. McGee ("Defendants")),
and purports to allege that Defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"), asserts claims under Section 20A of
the 1934 Act against Mr. Woodman and Mr. McGee, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs.  Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the Complaint on August 17, 2018 and a hearing
on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for November 5, 2018."

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and
accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through
retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website.
The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San
Mateo, California.


GOPRO INC: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that parties in a purported shareholder class
action lawsuit that was originally filed in November 2016 have
reached an agreement in principle to settle the action following
the September 11 mediation.

The Company said, "On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit (the "2016 Shareholder Class Action") was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and Mr. Woodman, our Chairman and
CEO, Brian McGee, our CFO, and Anthony Bates, our former President
("Defendants").  The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities
between September 19, 2016 and November 4, 2016.  The complaint
purports to allege that Defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and
costs.  On February 6, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.  On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint against the Company and certain of its officers
("GoPro Defendants") on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and
November 8, 2016.  On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 26, 2017, the
court denied that motion and directed plaintiff to amend its
complaint to add all defendants the plaintiff intended to sue.  On
August 4, 2017, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which
Defendants answered on September 8, 2017.  On September 11, 2018
the parties participated in a mediation session and following the
mediation reached an agreement in principle to settle the action.
The settlement, which is subject to final documentation and the
approval of the Court, among other conditions, will be funded
entirely by the Company's insurance carriers."

GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and
accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through
retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website.
The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San
Mateo, California.


HASBRO INC: Faces Class Suit over Toys "R" Us Disclosure
--------------------------------------------------------
Hasbro, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that a putative securities class action
complaint was filed on September 28, against the Company and
certain of its officers and/or directors in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Rhode Island, on behalf of all purchasers of
Hasbro common stock between April 24, 2017 and October 23, 2017,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleging that
Defendants purportedly made materially false and misleading
statements in connection with the financial condition of Toys "R"
Us, Inc. and its impact on the Company, as well as the financial
impact on the Company's business of economic conditions in the
United Kingdom and Brazil.

Defendants deny liability and intend to vigorously defend the
action.

Hasbro, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a play
and entertainment company.  The Company was founded in 1923 and is
headquartered in Pawtucket, Rhode Island.


INSPERITY INC: Bid to Dismiss 401(k) Plan Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2018, that in the Worksite Employee 401(k) Retirement
Plan Class Action Litigation, a motion for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of all claims is "now awaiting a ruling by the court."
Briefing on that motion was completed in September 2018.

In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and the third-party discretionary trustee of the Insperity
401(k) retirement plan that is available to eligible worksite
employees (the "Plan") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of Plan
participants.

The suit generally alleges that Insperity's third-party
discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity breached their
fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting an Insperity
subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing
participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the
Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other fiduciaries, and
by making imprudent investment choices.

The parties filed a stipulation concerning class certification that
defined the class as "all participants and beneficiaries of the
Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009 through September 30,
2017." In November 2017, the court approved the class certification
stipulation and denied the plaintiffs' request for a jury trial.  A
date for the bench trial has not yet been set.  Discovery is
complete.

On June 8, 2018, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of all claims.  Briefing on that motion was
completed in September 2018, which motion is now awaiting a ruling
by the court.

The Company said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses, and we
intend to vigorously defend this litigation.  As a result of
uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter, no provision has
been made in the accompanying consolidated financial statements."

Insperity, Inc. provides human resources (HR) and business
solutions to enhance business performance for small and
medium-sized businesses in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to
Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Kingwood, Texas.


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss Amended DeSmet Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the purported shareholder class action filed
by Judith DeSmet in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2018.

The Company said, "On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder
class action, initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, naming us and certain of our
officers as defendants.  The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the
lawsuit on June 1, 2018, and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on July 31, 2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., naming us and certain of
our current and former officers as defendants.  The lead plaintiffs
claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise
acquired our common stock between June 9, 2016 and September 20,
2017.  This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact were made in our public disclosures
during the period from June 9, 2016 to September 20, 2017, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The alleged improper disclosures
relate to statements regarding Ocaliva dosing, use and
pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well as our operations,
financial performance and prospects.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class, an
award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, and
rescissory damages.  On September 14, 2018, we filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

"Separately, on January 5, 2018, a follow-on derivative suit,
styled Davis v. Pruzanski et al., was filed in New York state court
by shareholder Gregg Davis based on substantially the same
allegations as those set forth in the securities case.  On December
1, 2017, a purported shareholder demand was made on the Company
based on substantially the same allegations as those set forth in
the securities case.

"While we believe that we have a number of valid defenses to the
claims described above and intend to vigorously defend ourselves,
the matters are in the early stages of litigation and no assessment
can be made as to the likely outcome of the matters or whether they
will be material to us.  Accordingly, an estimate of the potential
loss, or range of loss, if any, to us relating to the matters is
not possible at this time."

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases,
including primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis ("NASH"), primary sclerosing cholangitis ("PSC")
and biliary atresia.  The Company currently has one marketed
product, Ocaliva (obeticholic acid or "OCA").  Founded in 2002 in
New York, Intercept has operations in the United States, Europe and
Canada.


LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in Davis Class Action Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
an appeal from the decision in the Patty Davis lawsuit remains
pending.

On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The Complaint alleges
that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices
Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the
Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief
and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's
fees and legal expenses.

In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff has appealed the Circuit
Court's ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. The
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
the company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated Bouffard
and Anderson class action suit.

On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the
Company's patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates
negotiated for the same services with private and public health
insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws.
The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or
quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks
statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and
recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In May 2017, the Company
filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Strike Class
Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was granted in March 2018
without prejudice.

On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl
Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina. The complaint contained similar allegations and sought
similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional
counts regarding state consumer protection laws. On August 10,
2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which consolidated
the Bouffard and Anderson actions.

On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations, which
remains pending. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuits.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Sequenom Shareholders Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in the class action lawsuit over the acquisition of
Sequenom, Inc. remains pending.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, Inc. (Sequenom)
between August 15, 2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative
class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom
stockholders (captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02054- JAH-BLM, Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02101- WQH-KSC, Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al.,
No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al.,
No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California challenging the acquisition
transaction.

The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its
Board of Directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action
also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants.

The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e),
14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing
to disclose certain allegedly material information. In addition,
the complaints in the Malkoff action, Asiatrade action, and the
Cusumano action alleged that the Individual Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to Sequenom shareholders. The actions
sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger.


On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions. On
September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for all
pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above under
the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No.
16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from the Malkoff
action as the operative complaint for the consolidated action. On
November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two separate
stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995.

On June 7, 2017, the Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as
the lead plaintiff and approving Mr. Reilly's selection of lead
counsel. The parties agree that the MOU has been terminated. The
Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
July 24, 2017, and the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which
remains pending. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Faces Haro Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
the company has been named as a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit entitled, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of
America et al.

On September 21, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America et
al., which was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles.

Plaintiff alleges that employees were not properly paid overtime
compensation, minimum wages, meal and rest break premiums, did not
receive compliant wage statements, and were not properly paid wages
upon termination of employment.

Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various Labor Code
provisions and constitute an unfair competition practice under
California law. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil
penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Settlement in Principle Reached in Sundusky Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
the parties in Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., have reached a settlement in principle,
which requires Court approval.

On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on or about
February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the U.S. Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to
Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without the recipients'
prior express invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks the
greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation,
subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief.

In September of 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted. Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal. On May 3, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision and order reversing the
District Court's denial of class certification. The Eighth Circuit
remanded the matter for further proceedings. On December 7, 2016,
the District Court granted the Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Class
Certification.

The parties have reached a settlement in principle, which will
require Court approval.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Cunningham Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a
settlement in principle has been reached in Craig Cunningham, et
al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings d/b/a LabCorp
suit.

On April 2, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Craig Cunningham, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings d/b/a LabCorp, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by contacting Plaintiff at least
twice on his cell phone without his prior consent using a
prerecorded or artificial voice. The lawsuit seeks actual damages
for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and
injunctive relief.

The parties have reached a settlement in principle.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Bloomquist Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
the company continues to defend itself from a putative class action
suit entitled, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al.

On August 3, 2016, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al., filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The
Complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California Labor
Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to
provide overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods,
failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all wages
owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements to Clinical Research Associates and Senior Clinical
Research Associates employed by Covance in California.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive
relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

On October 13, 2016, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California. On May 3, 2017, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
remanded the case back to the Superior Court.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


LABORATORY CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Gonzalez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
the parties in the case entitled, Maria T. Gonzalez, et al. v.
Examination Management Services, Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of
America Holdings, have reached a tentative settlement.

On August 1, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Maria T. Gonzalez, et al. v. Examination Management
Services, Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.

The complaint alleges that the Company misclassified phlebotomists
as independent contractors through an arrangement with the
co-Defendant temporary staffing agency. The complaint further
alleges that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code by failing to pay minimum
wage, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all
wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate
itemized wage statements. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil
penalties, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and
costs.

The parties have reached a tentative settlement subject to Court
approval. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for November 8,
2018.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.


MASTEC INC: Chartier Hits Illegal Deduction, Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Chartier, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mastec, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-12109, (D. Mass., October 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and illegal deductions from their earned wages resulting
from issues regarding customer installations under the
Massachusetts Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

MasTec, Inc. is a home service provider for DirecTV where Chartier
worked as a satellite installation technician. Technicians often
work as much as 6 days per week and up to 60 hours per week yet
only receive a fixed piecework payment, notes the complaint. Mastec
often deducts a "rollback fee" if DirectTV informs MasTec of a
customer complaint, without giving the technician the opportunity
to challenge the deduction, it adds. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      Matthew Thomson, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             mthomson@llrlaw.com


MDL 2672: Court Throws Out Mississippi CPA Claims
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN
DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: Dkt. Nos. 5019, 5021, 5153, Case
MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.).

In 2009, VW began selling its VW and Audi branded TDI "clean
diesel" vehicles, which it marketed as being low-emission,
environmentally friendly, fuel efficient, and high performing.
Concealed was the fact that VW had installed software in these cars
that caused their emission controls to perform one way during
emissions testing, and another (less effective) way during normal
driving conditions.  During regular on-road use, the cars are
alleged to have emitted nitrogen oxides (NOx) at levels that were
sometimes 40 times higher than EPA's legal limit.

On Sept. 18, 2015, the public learned of the fraud when EPA issued
a Notice of Violation to VW, alleging that the company's use of the
defeat device violated the Clean Air Act.  Consumers nationwide
responded by filing hundreds of lawsuits.  The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred those cases here.  The Court
then appointed the Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel and a Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee ("PSC"), which filed a consolidated class action
complaint against VW, related entities, and Bosch (who allegedly
assisted in developing and implementing the defeat device).  The
consolidated complaint was on behalf of all persons and entities in
the United States who purchased or leased an affected vehicle.

Settlement talks began almost immediately, and VW and Bosch soon
agreed to a series of settlements to compensate consumers who were
registered owners or lessees of the cars as of Sept. 18, 2015.

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit after the Court approved the
PSC-led settlements.  They contend that VW, VW related entities
(such as Audi), Bosch, and certain individual defendants engaged in
a racketeering enterprise in violation of RICO, and that VW also
violated 21 states' consumer protection and false advertising laws
by deceiving consumers about its vehicles.  The complaint also
includes a claim for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
but Plaintiffs have agreed not to pursue that claim.

VW and Bosch have filed motions to dismiss the complaint.  VW
argues that the allegations are insufficient to support an injury
in fact under any of these theories.

Judge Breyer granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.  He finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have Article
III standing; (ii) their RICO claims against Bosch are well pled;
and (iii) their state law claims are not preempted.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs' state law
misrepresentation claims do not currently satisfy Rule 9(b); their
omission claims do.  The Plaintiffs have leave to amend the
misrepresentation claims.  In addition, he finds that the damages
and proximate cause elements of the Plaintiffs' state law claims
are well pled.  Reliance is also well pled as to the omission
claims.

The Judge deferred considering the reliance element for the
misrepresentation claims until the Plaintiffs are able to correct
their pleadings to satisfy Rule 9(b).  He also deferred resolving
whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to American Pipe tolling for
their Arizona and Oregon claims.  The parties should address the
issues highlighted in this order with respect to American Pipe's
application in any briefing of motions to dismiss an amended
complaint.

He will not determine whether Mississippi's and Utah's class action
limitations apply in federal court at the pleading stage.

Judge Breyer further finds that (i) the Mississippi's pre-suit
requirement applies, and because the Plaintiffs have not complied
with it their Mississippi CPA claims are dismissed without
prejudice; (ii) the Texas DTPA claims will not be abated; and (iii)
the Plaintiffs lack statutory standing to bring their claims under
Ohio's DTPA.

The Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint no later than 30 days
after the Order is entered.  With their amended complaint,
theyshall also file a separate statement explaining how they intend
to prove (1) the portion of the "clean diesel" premium that was for
a low-emission vehicle, and (2) the portion of the premium that
depreciated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mkWfqR from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

David Fiol, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet, Audet &
Partners, LLP, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Peter B. Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of
Peter Fredman, Robert B. Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro
hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro
hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro
-- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.  

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro.

Nicholas Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker --
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice &
Charles S. Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice.

Brett Alters, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth J. Cabraser,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, David S. Stellings, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Tana Lin -- tlin@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback LLP & Todd A. Walburg, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann,
Bernstein.

Donald Ardine, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry --
awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Dean
Noburu Kawamoto -- dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
LLP, Derek William Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice,
Lynn L. Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP.

Annie Argento, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P., Dean Noburu Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback LLP, Derek
William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio,
Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn L. Sarko, Keller Rohrback
L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP.

Arkansas State Highway Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Jai K. Chandrasekhar -- jai@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, James A. Harrod --
jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP,
Matthew I. Henzi -- mhenzi@swappc.com -- Sullivan, War, Niki L.
Mendoza, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Ross M.
Shikowitz -- ross@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice & Susan Rebbeca Podolsky, The Law
Offices of Susan R. Podolsky.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amie
Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin &
White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- cbaker@wcsr.com --
Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker --
chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable,
Dana Woodrum Lang -- wlang@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and
Rice, David M. Eisenberg, Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC,
Elizabeth L. Deeley -- elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com - - Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr., Womble Carlyle Sandridge and
Rice, Howard Feller, McGuireWoods LLP, Hugh J. Bode, Reminger &
Reminger Co LPA, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr., Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey, Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey
L. Chase, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer Marino Thibodaux,
Gibbons PC, John W. Cowden, Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Ric, LLC-KCMO,
John W. Cowden, Baker Sterchi  Cowden and Rice LLC, John L. Hone,
Lipshultz and Hone Chtd, John H. Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones
Tucker & Gable, Kerry R. Lewis, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker &
Gable, Kurt E. Lindquist, II, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice,
PLLC, Larry Martin Roth, Rumberger,
Kirk & Caldwell, PA, Michael D. Begey, Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell,
PA, Michael R. McDonald, Gibbons PC, Natalie Marie Lefkowitz, Chase
Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin LLC, Ronald G. DeWald, Lipshultz and Hone
Chtd, Russ Ferguson, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP, Ryan
Nelson Clark, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., Sara
Anne Ford, Lightfoot Ffanklin & White LLC, Seth Abram Schaeffer,
McGuireWoods LLP, Thomas R. Valen, Gibbons PC, William L. Boesch,
Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, Adam K. Bult, Brownstein Hyatt
Farber Schreck, Allison Rachel McLaughlin, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell
LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R.
Levin, Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, PC, Andrew R. Levin,
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Anne Katherine Guillory,
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, April L. Watson, Sessions, Fishman & Nathan,
Benjamin K. Reitz, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Blake Adam
Gansborg, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Brett R. Leland, Verrill
Dana LLP, Brian C. Langs, Johnson & Bell LTD, C. Vernon Hartline,
Jr., Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, pro hac vice, Carine M.
Williams, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Caroline M.
Tinsley, BAKER AND STERCHI, LLC, Charles William McIntyre, Jr.,
McGuireWoods LLP, Charles Pendleton Mitchell, Rumberger Kirk &
Caldwell, Christine Kingston, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
LLP, Christopher Edward Tribe, McGuireWoods LLP Gateway Plaza, Dan
R. Larsen, Dorsey and Whitney LLP, Darrell L. Barger, Hartline
Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, David L. Ayers, Watkins and Eager PLLC,
David A. Barry, Esq., Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, David N.
May, Bradshaw Fowler Proctor & Fairgrove, David M.J. Rein, Sullivan
& Cromwell LLP, David T. Schaefer, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Edward W.
Hearn, JOHNSON & BELL, PC, Elena Lalli Coronado, Sullivan and
Cromwell, Elizabeth Righton Johnson, Balch & Bingham LLP, Emily
Anne Ellis, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck, Eric R. Burris,
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Erin Patricia Mead, Thorn,
Gershon, Tymann & Bonanni, LLP, Gail Ponder Gaines, Barber Law Firm
PLLC, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Johnson & Bell LTD, Harlan I. Prater,
IV, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, Hugh Brown McNatt, McNatt, Greene
& Peterson, J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
James L. Hollis, Balch & Bingham, Jeffrey L. Chase, Herzfeld &
Rubin PC, Jimmy B. Wilkins, WATKINS & EAGER, Jo E. Peifer, Lavin,
O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & DiSipio, John David Ayers, WATKINS &
EAGER, PLLC, John D. Donovan, Jr., Ropes and
Gray LLP, John Alan Knox, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, John Garrett
McCarthy, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, John Thomas
Prisbe, Venable LLP, Jonathan M. Hoffman, MB Law Group, LLP, Joy
Goldberg Braun, Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, Kenneth Abrams,
McGuire Woods LLP, Kevin P. Polansky, Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Mark
A. Weissman, Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., pro hac vice, Mary E. Bolkcom,
Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Matthew A. Schwartz, Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Nelson,
Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Meredith J. McKee, Womble
Carlyle Sandridge & RIice, PLLC, Meredith J. McKee, Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice, Michael Thad Allen, Day Pitney LLP-HTFD, Michael
B. Gallub, Herzfeld and Rubin, pro hac vice, Michael E. Hale,
Barber Law Firm PLLC, Michael L. O'Don ell, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell, LLP, Michael H. Steinberg, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Michael A. Yoshida, MB Law Group, LLP, Mickey W. Greene, Hanson
Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Miranda Hanley, Smith Welch Webb & White,
LLC, Ningur Akoglu, Herzfeld & Rubin PC, Patricia Rodriguez
Britton, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Patrick Demetrios
Grindlay, Paul T. Collins, Nelson Mullins Riley  & Scarborough LLP,
pro hac vice, Paul E.D. Darsow, Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd.,
Paul D. Williams, Day Pitney LLP-Htfd-CT, Richard White Crews, Jr.,
Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, Righton Johnson, Robert J.
Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Ryan P. McCarthy, Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Ryan A.
Morrison, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, S. Keith Hutto, Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough, Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice, PLLC, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L.
Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Shawn P. George,
George & Lorensen, Stanley Abbott Roberts, McGuireWoods LLP,
Stephen D. Bell, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Steve S. Tervooren, Hughes
Gorski Seedorf Odsen & Tervooren LLC, Stuart A. Drake, Kirkland and
Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP,
pro hac vice, Sverker K. Hogberg, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Thomas
R. Ferguson, III, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Thomas W.
Purcell, MB Law Group LLP, William B. Monahan, Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice & William Henry Wagener, Sullivan and
Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice.

Audi AG, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley --
elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com - Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Matthew Henry
Marmolejo -- mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Michael
Howard Steinberg -- steinbergm@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell,
LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok - andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin -- levin@sugarmanrogers.c0m  -
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland -
bleland@verrilldana.com -- Verrill Dana LLP, David Maxwell James
Rein --  reind@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, G. Stewart
Webb, Jr. -- gswebb@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Garrett L.  Boehm,
Jr. -- boehmg@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell LTD, J. Gordon Cooney,
Jr. -- gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP,
James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, John
Thomas Prisbe -- jtprisbe@venable.com -- Venable LLP, Laura Kabler
Oswell -- oswelll@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Robert
J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell
LLP, Ryan P. McCarthy -- ryan.mccarthy@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Sharon L. Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com --
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, Stephen D. Bell -- bell.steve@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney
LLP, Stuart A. Drake -- stuart.drake@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and
Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & William B. Monahan --
monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Volkswagen AG, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Matthew H. Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP,
Michael H. Steinberg, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Andrew Brian
Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman,
Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, David M.J. Rein,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Venable LLP, John D.
Donovan, Jr., Ropes and Gray LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell LLP,
Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Stuart A. Drake,
Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & William B. Monahan, Sullivan
and Cromwell LLP.

Audi of America LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew H.
Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP, Michael H. Steinberg, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice,
Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R.
Leland, David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, G. Stewart Webb,
Jr., Venable LLP, John D. Donovan, Jr., Ropes and Gray LLP, Laura
Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr.,
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, Stuart A. Drake, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice &
William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant,
represented by P. Arley Harrel, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC,
Gerard Cedrone, Lavin, O'Neil Ricci Cedrone & DiSipio, Kenneth
Abrams, McGuire Woods LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Audi of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew H.
Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP, Carine M. Williams, Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, pro hac vice, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush, Seyferth & Paige, PLLC,
Colin H. Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, David M.J.
Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, John H. Tucker, Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Nelson, Mullins, Riley &
Scarborough, LLP, Michael R. Williams, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC,
Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell LLP & William B.
Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP.

Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Defendant, represented by Abby L.
Parsons, King & Spalding LLP, Adam G. Sowatzka, King & Spalding
LLP, Alexander K. Haas, King & Spalding LLP, Andrew R. Levin,
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, David M.
Fine, King, Spaulding Law Firm, G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Venable LLP,
Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Johnson & Bell LTD, J. W. Codinha, Nixon
Peabody, LLP, James K. Toohey, Johns & Bell LTD, James K. Vines,
King & Spalding, John Thomas Prisbe, Venable LLP, Joseph Eisert,
King & Spalding LLP, Kenneth Yeatts Turnbull, King & Spalding LLP,
Matthew A. Goldberg, DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew A.
Holian, DLA Piper LLP, Nathan P. Heller, DLA Piper LLP, Sheldon T.
Bradshaw, KING & SPALDING, Sonya R. Braunschweig, DLA Piper LLP, W.
Scott O'Connell, Nixon Peabody LLP, pro hac vice & William F.
Kiniry, Jr., DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice.  

David Antellocy, Defendant, represented by Thomas Eric Loeser,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Moen,
Defendant, represented by Peter B. Fredman, Law Office of Peter
Fredman, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice.

Porsche AG, Defendant, represented by Alexander K. Haas, King &
Spalding LLP, Christina Courtney Sheehan, Modrall Sperling Roehl
Harris & Sisk PA, Joseph Eisert, King & Spalding LLP, Laura Kabler
Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Matthew A. Goldberg, DLA Piper
LLP, Nathan P. Heller, DLA Piper LLP, Susan Miller Bisong, Modrall
Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA & William F. Kiniry, Jr., DLA Piper
LLP.

Robert Bosch GmbH, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater,
Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Carmine D.
Boccuzzi, Jr., Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice &
David Lloyd Anderson, Sidley Austin LLP.  

Bay Ridge Volvo-American, Inc, Defendant, represented by Natalie
Marie Lefkowitz, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin LLC.

Audi USA, Defendant, represented by Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP.


MGT CAPITAL: Guyer Hits Share Drop Over Pump-and-Dump Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Kirt Guyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MGT Capital Investments, Inc., Robert B.
Ladd, John McAfee, Robert S. Lowrey, Barry C. Honig, John Stetson,
Michael Brauser, John O'Rourke III and Mark Groussman, Defendants,
Case No. 18-cv-09228, (S.D. N.Y., October 9, 2018), seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by violations of federal
securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

MGT Capital is engaged in the business of acquiring, developing and
monetizing assets in the online and mobile gaming space as well as
the social casino industry.

Defendants failed to disclose that they were engaged in an illegal
pump-and-dump scheme to artificially inflate MGT stock price and
had a history of engaging in illegal conduct in connection with the
purchase and sale of securities. The company's acquisition of
D-Vasive Inc., a provider of anti-spy software, was part of their
"pump-and-dump" scheme to artificially inflate MGT Capital's stock
price, and eventually resulted in governmental and regulatory
scrutiny, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


MICHAELS STORES: Armstrong Discovery Letter Briefs Deemed Untimely
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERESA ARMSTRONG, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-06540-LHK (VKD) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Virginia K. Demarchi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, deemed the two
unilateral discovery letter briefs filed by Ms. Armstrong in which
she seeks an order compelling Michaels Stores to produce documents
and supplement its discovery responses, as untimely and do not
properly brief the matters in dispute.

Plaintiff Armstrong sues, for herself and on behalf of a putative
class, for alleged wage and hour violations under various
provisions of the California Labor Code.  Michaels Stores, Inc.
removed the action from state court, asserting jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act,.

Before the Court are two unilateral discovery letter briefs filed
by Ms. Armstrong in which she seeks an order compelling Michaels
Stores to produce documents and supplement its discovery responses.


On Feb. 14, 2018, Judge Koh, who presides over the matter, issued a
scheduling order setting case management deadlines, including an
Oct. 8, 2018 deadline for Ms. Armstrong to file her motion for
class certification.  On Feb. 23, 2018, Ms. Armstrong served
interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for
production, to which Michaels Stores did not respond until June 5,
2018.  The docket indicates that in subsequently filed Joint Case
Management Statements, one or both sides sought extensions or stays
of the court-ordered class certification briefing deadlines, due in
part to disputes over Michaels Stores' discovery responses.  In
denying those requests, Judge Koh repeatedly reminded the parties
to be diligent in resolving their discovery disputes and in
bringing any unresolved matters to the Court.

On Oct. 4 and 5, 2018, Ms. Armstrong filed the present unilateral
discovery letter briefs concerning disputes over numerous items of
discovery that she says she needs to prepare her motion for class
certification is due in three days.  Both letters concern Ms.
Armstrong's Feb. 23, 2018 written discovery requests, and the
October 4 letter also makes a passing reference to Michaels Stores'
reported failure to provide dates for its Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)
deposition.

Magistrate Judge DeMarchi can only conclude that Ms. Armstrong has
not been diligent in conducting the discovery or in bringing
disputes to the Court's attention.  The Plaintiff has not timely or
properly presented the issues in a manner that would allow the
Court to reasonably rule on the merits of the dispute.  And given
her last minute filings, the Magistrate cannot accommodate Ms.
Armstrong's request for a hearing before her October 8 filing
deadline.  Nevertheless, to the extent Michaels Stores agreed to
produce certain documents referenced in Ms. Armstrong's letters, it
will complete that production by Oct. 8.  The Magistrate otherwise
declines to rule on all other issues referenced by Ms. Armstrong
that have not been clearly or properly raised or briefed in her
letters.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/7wVqMt from Leagle.com.

Teresa Armstrong, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal
-- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Michaels Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan Sage
Christie -- christiej@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld LLP, Stephanie Peri Priel -- spriel@akingump.com -- Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP & Gregory William Knopp --
gknopp@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Can't Arbitrate May Couple's Claims
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FREDDY MAY and AMBER MAY, Chapter 13, Debtors.
FREDDY MAY and AMBER MAY, Plaintiffs, V. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC and
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:17-bk-10970, AP No. 4:18-ap-01057 (E.D. Ark.), Judge Richard D.
Taylor of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, Little Rock Division, denied the Defendants' Motion to
Compel Arbitration.

Debtors, Freddy and Amber May, filed their Class Action Complaint
on May 4, 2018.  Freddy May opened a Lowe's credit card account
financed through Synchrony Bank on May 5, 2013.  According to the
debtors, Synchrony received notice of their bankruptcy filing and
then transferred data about those debts to Midland under a written
agreement.

Thereafter, Midland filed a proof of claim for an amount in excess
of the scheduled debt.  Despite representations that the proof of
claim amount did not include interest or other charges, the debtors
assert that Midland knows that interest and fees are in the claim
amount, but Midland directs its employees to file Proofs of Claim
that assert no interest or fees are in the claim amount.  The
debtors contend that this practice violates three provisions of
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001: (1) section (a) for
failing to file a Proof of Claim that conform[s] substantially to
the Official Form because it failed to accurately disclose that
interest, fees, expenses, or charges were included in the claim
amount; (2) section (c)(1) based on the alleged failure of Midland
to adequately provide the written document underlying its claim;
and (3) section (c)(2) for failure to file with its Proof of Claim
an itemized statement of the interest, fees, expenses or charges
that were incurred.  Further, the debtors assert that the aggregate
of these alleged transgressions violate the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA").

The debtors seek damages primarily in the context of statutory
damages and fees attendant to a class action.  The bankruptcy
specific prayer is in the nature of injunctive relief preventing
inaccurate proofs of claim being filed in the future, requiring an
amended proof of claim with supporting documentation in the instant
case, and disallowing the claim if not properly amended.

The Defendants filed their Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration
and to Strike Class Allegations and Memorandum in Support. on June
25, 2018, which drew the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to
the Defendants' Motion on July 25, 2018, each supplemented by
sur-replies.  Midland asks the Court to compel arbitration of all
issues raised in the Complaint.  During argument, the debtors
conceded that a valid arbitration clause exists between the debtors
and Synchrony and that the dispute in question would, absent any
bankruptcy implications, fall within its ambit as a collection
related controversy.  They also conceded during argument that they
knew of no statutory or legal authority that would restrain
alienability of an arbitration clause.

While conceding those points, the debtors interpose two hurdles to
arbitration: (1) that Midland did not succeed to Synchrony's right
to compel arbitration, and (2) if Midland does have the right to
request arbitration, the Court should decline to do so.  

Reserving all other matters, the Court heard the Motion and
Response solely as to the request for arbitration on Aug. 30, 2018,
and took the matter under advisement.

Judge Taylor finds that circumstances exist where a
Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon analysis would compel
arbitration that both complements and benefits the bankruptcy
process.  Conversely, unconstrained enforcement of arbitration
clauses would encourage and permit creditors to opt for a favorably
perceived and parallel proceeding that would fragment, moot, and
deprive all parties of the benefits of a single integrated forum
designed specifically to address the accommodation and
reorganization of debt.  

The Judge holds that arbitration is simply not appropriate in this
circumstance.  The central issue, claims litigation, is
specifically core.  The "related to" count under the FDCPA arises
solely as a result of the alleged improprieties in the course of
completing and filing a proof of claim.  No part of either count
would or could exist independent of or outside the bankruptcy case.
Whether there is a pervasive fraudulent policy and practice as the
debtors suggest is a matter of scrutiny and offense to a bankruptcy
court, not an arbitrator.

For these reasons, Judge Taylor denied the request for arbitration
contained in the Motion.  The request for dismissal will be set by
subsequent notice.  Thereafter, if appropriate, the Court will
consider the class action issues raised in the Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/3sAAeZ from Leagle.com.

Freddy May & Amber May, Plaintiffs, represented by William Thomas
Crowder -- crowdermcgaha.com -- CROWDER MCGAHA, LLP, Thomas J.
Diaz, Rainwater, Holt & Sexton, P.A. & John Michael Rainwater,
RAINWATER, HOLT & SEXTON, P.A.

Midland Funding LLC & Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Mary-Tipton Thalheimer -- mthalheimer@qgtlaw.com --
Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Jason B. Tompkins --
jtompkins@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP & Geoffrey B. Treece --
gtreece@qgtlaw.com -- QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC.


MILLER STARK KLEIN: Holmes Sues Over Auto-dialed Calls
------------------------------------------------------
Summer Holmes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Miller, Stark, Klein & Associates,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01193, (M.D. Fla., 2018), seeks statutory
damages, injunctive relief as well as reasonable attorney's fees
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Miller, Stark, Klein & Associates is a North Carolina corporation
with a principle place of business at 301 McCullough Drive, Suite
400, Charlotte, NC 28262-1336. It called Holmes' cellular telephone
using an automatic telephone dialing system and a prerecorded
message. Holmes says she never had any transaction with the
Defendant and did not give any express consent to be contacted in
such manner. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
      Andrew Obergfell, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
              jarisohn@bursor.com
              aobergfell@bursor.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Mabus Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
JULIE MABUS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01845 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb No. 51236
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Musso Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
DONNA W. MUSSO, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01856 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb No. 51236
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Newton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY D. NEWTON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01842 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of
the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

The Plaintiff says that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by
exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

Roundup refers to all formulations of the Defendant's Roundup
products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison
Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup
D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup
Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro
Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb No. 51236
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

N&A PRODUCTIONS INC: Shortchanges Workers on Wages, Rendon Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alvaro Rendon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. N&A Productions, Inc., John Bernard
Doherty, Peter Fitzgerald, Thomas Dwyer, Padraig Dwyer, Sean Dwyer
and Kenneth Keating, Case No. 520209/2018, (N.Y. Sup., October 9,
2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation and
other damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

N&A operates as "Playwright Irish Pub" located at 27 W. 35th
Street, New York, NY 10001 where Rendon worked as a line cook. The
Defendants allegedly failed to pay him at the applicable minimum
wage rate for all hours worked. Their timekeeping system also
incorrectly calculated employee's weekly hours worked, adds the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
     Arsenio D. Rodriguez, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
     28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 300-0375


NATIONAL BANKCARD: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL BANKCARD CORPORATION, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:18-cv-06592-DMR (N.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks to recover
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the National
Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a
cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for
incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1). The Defendant
did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive
calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial
or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47
U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in -5502 was added to the National
Do-Not-Call Registry on or about July 27, 2003, well over 30 days
prior to the Defendant's initial call to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff
also stated to one of the Defendant's employees that he was not
interested in buying or using the Defendant's products and did not
want to be contacted again. Despite this, the Defendant continued
to contact Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.

National Bankcard offers a complete line of payment processing
services to support your business.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 323 306-4234
          Facsimile: 866 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com
                  abacon@ toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com

NEW BALANCE: Prelim Approval of Dashnaw Suit Settlement Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHEILA DASHNAW, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEW BALANCE
ATHLETICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00159-L-JLB (S.D.
Cal.), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminarily approval of class action
settlement.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Defendant is to pay
$750,000 as "total Relief Amount."  From that amount, an estimated
$200,000 is deducted for settlement administration costs and
$15,000 for requested class representative service compensation.
After deductions, approximately $535,000 is available to pay the
class members.  The Defendant estimates that $1 million qualifying
pairs of New Balance shoes were sold to the putative class.

The Judge finds that the representation in the motion and the
proposed class notice that the class members will receive "up to
$10" in damages is problematic.  However, based on the
representations in the Plaintiff's motion, the class members will
not receive $10 unless the class participation rate is extremely
low or the factual representations in support of the proposed
settlement are inaccurate by a wide margin.  Assuming that the
estimate is accurate, and that every putative class member submits
a claim for one pair of shoes, each will receive $0.54.  The
estimate of class member recovery provided in the motion and
proposed notice appears inaccurate on its face, and lacks a
plausible explanation.

He also finds that the proposed cy pres award does not comply with
Dennis v. Kellogg Co. and the parties have provided no evidence of
compliance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1715.  The proposed class notice
must be amended to make clear that making an objection does not
preclude a class member from submitting a claim.  Accordingly, the
proposed notice must be amended consistent with the Order.

For the foregoing reasons, Jugde Lorenz denied the Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement without
prejudice to re-filing after curing the foregoing defects.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ztfTi8 from Leagle.com.

Sheila Dashnaw, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, William Meier, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Sherryl Jones, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason
Hoon Kim -- jkim@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers, Todd M. Schneider
-- tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Brayton Konecky LLP & Aubry Wand, The Wand Law Firm.

New Balance Athletics, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented
by Elizabeth E. Brenckman -- brenckman@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson
P.C., pro hac vice, Garrett K. Sakimae -- sakimae@fr.com -- Fish &
Richardson P.C., Laura B. Najemy -- najemy@fr.com -- Fish &
Richardson P.C., pro hac vice, Mark Puzella -- puzella@fr.com --
Fish & Richardson P.C., pro hac vice, Richard David Hosp --
hosp@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson P.C., pro hac vice & Sheryl K.
Garko -- garko@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson P.C., pro hac vice.

The Attorney General of the State of California, Miscellaneous
Party, represented by Timothy Dean Lundgren.


NEW ENTRY INC: Jerrell Seeks Overtime Pay for Supervisors
---------------------------------------------------------
ISSAC JERRELL, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. A NEW ENTRY, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00929 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 29, 2018), alleges that the
Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals overtime compensation for the hours in excess of 40
hours in a single week that they were/are made to work, under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other Supervisors
kept track of their time by either clocking in and out of a time
keeping application or, if the application was not working, by
writing their time down on a timecard. On days in which Plaintiff
and other Supervisors recorded their time manually on timecards,
the Defendant failed to add these hours to Plaintiff and other
Supervisors time sheets. As a result, Plaintiff and other
Supervisors were not paid for all hours worked over forty in a
week.

The Plaintiff and other Supervisors also did not receive all
overtime compensation during weeks in which they worked more than
40 hours because it was the Defendant's commonly applied policy to
pay Supervisors straight time for all hours worked. The Plaintiff
and other Supervisors were and are entitled to 1.5 times their
regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.
The Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, the
way it paid Plaintiff and its other Supervisors violated the FLSA,
the lawsuit says.

New Entry, Inc. provides affordable residential substance use
treatment services that is cheaper than most insurance
deductables.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


OVASCIENCE INC: Adlard Files Securities Suit Over Millendo Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Adlard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. OvaScience, Inc., Christopher Kroeger, Rich Aldrich,
Jeffrey D. Capello, John Howe, Mary Fisher, Marc Kozin, John
Sexton, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12332 (D. Mass., November 6,
2018) is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf
of himself and all other public stockholders of OvaScience, Inc.
against OvaScience and the members of its Board of Directors for
their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 9, 2018, says the complaint, OvaScience and Millendo
issued a press release announcing they had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated August 8, 2018 pursuant to which
OvaScience will merge with Millendo in an all-stock transaction.

On November 6, 2018, OvaScience filed a Definitive Proxy Statement
with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that OvaScience stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) the financial
projections for Millendo, relied upon by OvaScience's financial
advisor, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. in its financial analyses;
and (ii) the background process leading to the Proposed Transaction
and Company insiders' potential conflicts of interest. The failure
to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a
violation of the Exchange Act as OvaScience stockholders need such
information in order to make a fully informed decision whether to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured.

The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a
continuous stockholder of OvaScience.

OvaScience is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 9 Fourth Avenue, Waltham, Massachusetts, 02451.
OvaScience is a pharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and
development of new treatment options for women and families
struggling with infertility. The Company's common stock is traded
on the Nasdaq Global Market under the ticker symbol "OVAS".

Christopher Kroeger has been Chief Executive Officer and a director
of the Company since September 2017.

Rich Aldrich co-founded OvaScience in April 2011, has been Lead
Independent Director of the Board since March 2016 and a director
of the Company since July 2011.

Jeffrey D. Capello has been a director of the Company since March
2012. Mary Fisher has been a director of the Company since June
2013. John Howe, III has been a director of the Company since June
2015. Marc Kozin has been a director of the Company since January
2014. John Sexton has been a director of the Company since April
2015.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
     MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
     18 Grove Street, Suite 5
     Wellesley, MA 02482
     Phone: (781) 453-0100
     Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

          - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010

          - and -

     Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
     BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
     885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 308-5858
     Fax: (212) 486-0462
     Email: fortunato@bespc.com

OZARK WAFFLES: Butler Files Suit Over Tip Credit Deduction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Byron Butler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Ozark Waffles, LLC, WH Capital, LLC and Waffle House,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00746, (E.D. Ark., October 9,
2018) seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest, costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result
of failure to pay lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of forty hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Defendants own and operate restaurants in the United States under
the "Waffle House" brand. Butler spent more than twenty percent of
his time performing non-tipped duties yet Defendants took out a tip
credit, thus lowering his rate equal than the applicable minimum
wage per hour for their non-tipped work, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


SALSA AND BEER: Gets $369K Sanction in Velasquez for Non-compliance
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MOISES VELASQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SALSA AND BEER RESTAURANT, INC.,
SALSA AND BEER, INC., NOB PATINO, PATRICIA PATINO, DIONISIO PATINO,
and ISMAEL PATINO, Defendants, No. 5:16-CV-655-D (E.D. N.C.), Judge
James C. Denver, III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Western Division, granted the
Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendants' answer and entered
default judgment against the Defendants.

On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff moved to strike the Defendants
answer and for entry of default judgment, and filed a memorandum in
support.  The Defendants did not respond.

On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint against the Defendants claiming violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.  On
March 29, 2017, the Defendants moved to stay discovery and for
entry of anew scheduling order.  On April6, 2017, the Defendants
answered the amended complaint.

On April26, 2017, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to stay
discovery and directed the parties to submit a proposed revised
scheduling order not later than June 16, 2017.  On June 16, 2017,
the parties submitted a proposed revised scheduling order.  On July
12, 2017, the parties jointly moved to amend the scheduling order.
On July 17, 2017, the Court granted the joint motion and extended
the pre-certification discovery phase until July 31, 2017.

On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff moved to compel the Defendants to
(1) produce Salsa and Beer, Inc.'s Rule 30(b)(6) designee for a
deposition; (2) respond to his interrogatory number 13 and request
for production number 17, relating to the production of gross sales
and annual dollar volumes; (3) produce Defendant Noe Patino's
discovery responses; and (4) produce Defendant Patricia Patino's
verification concerning her discovery responses.  The Plaintiff
also moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.


On March 5, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to
compel and request for sanctions.  It ordered that the Defendants
respond to the Plaintiff's interrogatory number 13 and request for
production number 17 not later than April 6, 2018, Defendant Noe
Patino respond in full to the Plaintiff's discovery requests not
later than April 30, 2018, and Defendant Patricia Patino verify her
discovery responses not later than April 6, 2018.  The Court also
warned each Defendant that failure to comply with the Court's order
may result in additional sanctions, up to and including striking
the non-complying Defendant's answer.

On March 29, 2018, the Plaintiff requested attorney's fees incurred
in drafting his motion to compel, and filed a memorandum in
support.  The Defendants did not respond.  On April 6, 2018, the
Defendants' counsel moved to withdraw from the case.  On April 11,
2018, the Court granted the counsel's motion to withdraw and
directed that the individual Defendants file a notice of
self-representation or cause new counsel to file a notice of
appearance within 21 days and that entity parties cause the new
counsel to file a notice of appearance within 21 days.  The Court
warned each defendant that failure to comply with the its order may
result in sanctions up to and including a default judgment.  On May
29, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's
fees.

The Defendants have blatantly disregarded the Court's orders and
warnings.  They have not produced the required discovery, caused
the new counsel to file a notice of appearance or filed a notice of
self-representation, or paid the Plaintiff's attorney's fees.  The
Plaintiff asks the Court to strike the Defendants' answer, to enter
default judgement against the Defendants, and award damages in the
amount of $259,067.03 and attorney's fees and costs in the amount
of $107,280.98 and $2,635.12, for a total amount of $368,983.13.

Judge Denver finds that (i) the Defendants acted in bad faith by
refusing to participate in the case; (ii) the Plaintiff has been
prejudiced because the Defendants have blatantly disregarded and
ignored the Court's orders and refused to participate in the case;
(iii) the Defendants' "noncompliance, especially in ignoring the
direct orders of the Court with impunity is misconduct which must
obviously be deterred; and (iv) less drastic sanctions would not be
effective.

For these reasons, the judge granted the Plaintiff's motion for
sanctions and struck the Defendants' answer.  He awarded a judgment
against the Defendants jointly and severally in the amount of
$368,983.13.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/5DwueA from Leagle.com.

Javier Tello, Movant, represented by Grant S. Mitchell, The
Mitchell Law Group.

Moises Velasquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gilda A. Hernandez --
ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com -- The Law Offices of Gilda A.
Hernandez, PLLC.

Salsa and Beer Restaurant, Inc., Defendant, pro se.

Noe Patino, Defendant, pro se.

Patricia Patino, Defendant, pro se.

Ismael Patino, Defendant, pro se.

Dionisio Patino, Defendant, pro se.


SOUTHERN COPPER: Settlement Hearing in Lacey Suit Set for Nov. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a settlement
hearing is scheduled for November 27, 2018, in the case, Carla
Lacey, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of Southern Copper Corporation, and derivatively on
behalf of Southern Copper Corporation.

A purported class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery was served on the Company and its Directors in
February 2016 relating to the 2012 capitalization of 99.999% of MGE
by Controladora de Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S.A. de C.V.,
an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico (the "CIEM Capitalization"),
the Company's entry into a power purchase agreement with MGE in
2012 (the "MGE Power Purchase Agreement"), and the 2012
restructuring of a loan from the Company's Mexican Operations to
MGE for the construction of two power plants to supply power to the
Company's Mexican operations (the "MGE Loan Restructuring").

The action purports to be brought on behalf of the Company and its
common stockholders. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the CIEM Capitalization, the MGE Power Purchase Agreement and
the MGE Loan Restructuring were the result of breaches of fiduciary
duties and the Company's charter.

On March 20, 2018, as a result of post-mediation negotiations
conducted through the parties and a mediator, the parties reached
an agreement-in-principle to settle the action. On March 23, 2018,
the parties informed the Court of the settlement-in-principle to
resolve all claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants in the
action and requested that the Court stay the action in its entirety
pending filing by the parties of a stipulation of settlement.

The Parties filed the executed stipulation on August 22, 2018.
Under the proposed settlement, Grupo Mexico or Americas Mining
would pay to the Company $50 million in cash less any attorneys'
fees (including costs) awarded by the Court to Plaintiff's counsel
(the "Net Settlement Amount") in return for a release of all
derivative and direct claims. The Company will distribute the Net
Settlement Amount via a special dividend to the Company's public
stockholders (other than the director defendants, Grupo Mexico,
Americas Mining, or any entity in which Grupo Mexico or Americas
Mining has or had a direct or indirect controlling interest) who
hold shares of common stock of the Company as of the date that is
three days prior to the funding date, which funding date will be no
later than ten days after a judgment approving the settlement
becomes a final judgment.

A settlement hearing is scheduled for November 27, 2018. The
settlement is subject to the approval of the Court.

Southern Copper said, "The Company can offer no assurance that the
settlement will be approved or the timing or amount of any funding
or dividend."

Southern Copper Corporation engages in mining, exploring, smelting,
and refining copper and other minerals in Peru, Mexico, Argentina,
Chile, and Ecuador. The company was founded in 1952 and is based in
Phoenix, Arizona. Southern Copper Corporation is a subsidiary of
Americas Mining Corporation.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Action over $15-Per-Bag Fees Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a putative antitrust class action
lawsuit alleging monopolization of air travel by imposing
$15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage .

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta Air
Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary AirTran
Airways, Inc. (collectively with AirTran Holdings, Inc., "AirTran")
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009. The complaint alleged, among
other things, that AirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with Delta
in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage
in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf of a putative
class of persons or entities in the United States who directly paid
Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic flights beginning
December 5, 2008. After the filing of the May 2009 complaint,
various other nearly identical complaints also seeking
certification as class actions were filed in federal district
courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas,
Nevada.

All of the cases were consolidated before a single federal district
court judge in Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed
in the consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the
allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to
reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

In addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees
paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint
sought injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged
anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta opposed. On June 18,
2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that plaintiffs
abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta conspired to reduce
capacity.

On August 31, 2012, AirTran and Delta moved for summary judgment on
all of plaintiffs' remaining claims. On July 12, 2016, the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of all persons who
paid first bag fees to AirTran or Delta from December 8, 2008 to
November 1, 2014 (the date on which AirTran stopped charging first
bag fees). Defendants appealed that decision. On March 29, 2017,
the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and
dismissed all claims against AirTran. On April 13, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the district court's
judgment, and on April 24, 2017, AirTran filed a conditional notice
of cross-appeal to appeal the Court's order certifying a class.

On March 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district
court's order granting summary judgment to AirTran and Delta, and
on June 8, 2018, the court of appeals denied plaintiffs' petition
for rehearing and rehearing en banc.

Southwest Airlines said, "The time for plaintiffs to petition the
Supreme Court for certiorari has not yet expired. AirTran denies
all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and intends to defend vigorously any and all
such allegations."

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

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for March 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a hearing to
consider the fairness of a class action settlement is scheduled for
March 22, 2019.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company,
American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit
capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

Since then, a number of similar class action complaints were filed
in the United States District Courts for the Central District of
California, the Northern District of California, the District of
Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of
Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of
Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to
restrict capacity from 2009 to present.

The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the
defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble
damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this
motion. On December 20, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to
settle these cases with a proposed class of all persons who
purchased domestic airline transportation services from July 1,
2011, to the date of the settlement.

The Company agreed to pay $15 million and to provide certain
cooperation with the plaintiffs as set forth in the settlement
agreement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on January 3, 2018, and approved the notice program on August 22,
2018. The fairness hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
March 22, 2019. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Still Awaits Service of Saskatchewan Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a class action
complaint in Saskatchewan court has not been served on the
Company.

On July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in the Federal Court in Canada alleging that the
Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United
Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and maintain higher fares
for Canadian residents traveling in the United States and for
travel between the United States and Canada.

Similar lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia on July 15, 2015, Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
on August 4, 2015, Superior Court of the Province of Quebec on
September 21, 2015, and Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
October 6, 2015.

In December 2015, the Company entered into Tolling and
Discontinuance agreements with putative class counsel in the
Federal Court, British Columbia, and Ontario proceedings and a
discontinuance agreement with putative class counsel in the Quebec
proceeding. The other defendants entered into an agreement with the
same putative class counsel to stay the Federal Court, British
Columbia, and Quebec proceedings and to proceed in Ontario.

On June 10, 2016, the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
discontinue that action against the Company without prejudice and
stayed the action against the other defendants. On July 13, 2016,
the plaintiff unilaterally discontinued the action against the
Company in British Columbia.

On February 14, 2017, the Quebec Court granted the plaintiff's
motion to discontinue the Quebec proceeding against the Company and
to stay that proceeding against the other defendants. On March 10,
2017, the Ontario Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
discontinue that proceeding as to the Company. On September 29,
2017, the Company and the other defendants entered into a tolling
agreement suspending any limitations periods that may apply to
possible claims among them for contribution and indemnity arising
from the Canadian litigation.

The Saskatchewan claim has not been served on the Company, and the
time for the Company to respond to that complaint has not yet begun
to run. The plaintiff in that case generally seeks damages
(including punitive damages in certain cases), prejudgment
interest, disgorgement of any benefits accrued by the defendants as
a result of the allegations, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and other costs.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend this civil case in Canada. The Company does not
currently serve Canada.

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

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


ST. ELIZABETH: Court Denies Reconsideration Bid in Boden ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOLORES JANE BODEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ST.
ELIZABETH MEDICAL CENTER, INC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
16-49-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky.), Judge David L. Bunning of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern
Division, Covington, denied the Defendant's Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's April 4, 2018 Order denying
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count Five of the Amended Complaint
against Defendants and Former Committee Members Garren Colvin, John
Dubis, Randall Foltz, Nathan Van Laningham, Glenn Loomis, Daniel
Rutterer, and Sarah Giolando, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b).

On March 17, 2016, Plaintiffs Jane Boden, Jeanine Godsey, and
Patricia Schaefer, filed the putative class action suit alleging,
inter alia, violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 by St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Inc., St. Elizabeth
Medical Center Employees' Pension Plan Administrative Committee,
and several individuals involved in the administration of St.
Elizabeth's Pension Plan.  

The case was stayed, pending resolution of Advocate Health Care
Network v. Stapleton, a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding ERISA's
exemption for churches.  Upon resolution of the Stapleton case, the
Court allowed the Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint on Aug.
1, 2017.  The Amended Complaint included claims against St.
Elizabeth Medical Center, Inc., and the individual members of the
St. Elizabeth Medical Center Employees' Pension Plan Administrative
Committee concerning the St. Elizabeth Medical Center Employees'
Pension Plan.

On Aug. 11, 2017, the Former Committee Members filed a Motion to
Dismiss all claims against them.  The Plaintiffs filed a response
on Sept. 13, 2017, and the Former Committee Members replied on
Sept. 21, 2017.  The Court filed a Memorandum Opinion and Order on
April 4, 2018 granting the Motion to Dismiss with regards to Counts
Two, Three, Four, Six, and Seven, but denying the Motion to Dismiss
for Counts One and Five.

The Former Committee Members filed a Motion for Reconsideration on
April 17, 2018 asking the Court to reconsider its ruling on Count
Five.  They put forth two reasons for the Court to reconsider its
finding of standing.  First, the Movants suggest that the Court
clearly erred in its reading of Soehnlen v. Fleet Owners Insurance
Fund.  They also argue that reconsideration is required on the
basis of Duncan v. Muzyn -- a recently decided Sixth Circuit case.

Judge Bunning finds that while the Court previously
mischaracterized the relief sought as monetary damages, this
mischaracterization was inconsequential to the Court's analysis.
Given the type of relief sought by the Plaintiffs, the Court was
not incorrect in allowing Soehnlen to guide its standing analysis
and, therefore, reconsideration on that ground is improper.

Additionally, contrary to Movants' suggestion, the Judge finds that
their Motion cannot be granted on the basis of Duncan.  A
comparison of the approach to standing taken in Duncan and Soehnlen
highlights the necessity of the Court first determining the
applicability of ERISA to the Plan.  Briefing on whether ERISA
applies to the Plan at issue in the case is forthcoming, and,
therefore, a ruling on the applicability of Duncan is not yet
proper.

As with their previous Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the
Movants' Motion to Reconsider attempts to sidestep the crucial
issue in the case --  whether the plan is a church plan -- places
the Court in the untenable position of being asked to render an
advisory opinion on a hypothetical determination of critical facts.
The Court previously found standing for the Plaintiffs, and
declines to reconsider the applicability of Duncan until a
determination has been made regarding ERISA's application to the
Plan.  Accordingly, Judge finds that the Motion must be denied as
premature as the Court has yet to decide whether ERISA governs the
Plan.

The Judge wishes takes the opportunity to correct a typographical
error inadvertently included in its prior Opinion and Order.  In
the Court's previous Opinion and Order, Defendant Chris Carle was
mistakenly substituted for Defendant John Dubis.  As it was John
Dubis, not Chris Carle, who moved for dismissal, the Judge
clarifies that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to
Counts Two, Three, Four, Six, and Seven is granted as to Defendant
John Dubis, and vacated as to Defendant Chris Carle.

Therefore, for the reasons articulated in his Memorandum Opinion
and Order, Judge Bunning (i) denied the Defendant's Motion for
Reconsideration; (ii) granted the Motion to Dismiss Counts Two,
Three, Four, Six, and Seven as to Defendant Dubis; and (iii)
vacated the Motion to Dismiss Counts Two, Three, Four, Six, and
Seven as to Defendant Carle.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/XTnKkj from Leagle.com.

Dolores Jane Boden, on behalf of themselves and all others similary
situated, Jeanine Godsey, on behalf of themselves and all others
similary situated & Patricia Schaefer, on behalf of themselves and
all others similary situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Donna
Siegel Moffa -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas P. Needham -- dneedham@ikrlaw.com --
Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP, pro hac vice, Erik David Peterson --
edp@austinmehr.com -- Mehr Fairbanks & Peterson Trial Lawyers,
PLLC, Julie Siebert-Johnson -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Mark K. Gyandoh --
mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac
vice, Mark P. Kindall -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard Kindall &
Raabe LLP, pro hac vice &
Robert A. Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP,
pro hac vice.

St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Inc., The St. Elizabeth Medical
Center Employees' Pension Plan Administrative Committee & John
Does, 1-20, Defendants, represented by Christopher B. Markus --
cmarkus@dbllaw.com -- Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C., Mark D.
Guilfoyle -- mguilfoyle@dbllaw.com -- Dressman Benzinger LaVelle
P.S.C., Mark R. Hervey & Richard G. Meyer -- rmeyer@dbllaw.com --
Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C.

John Dubis, Martin Oscadal, Garren Colvin, Randall Foltz, Marianne
Tait, Nathan Van Laningham, Chris Carle, Daniel Rutterer, M.D.,
Robert Pritchard, M.D., Robert Tracy, M.D., Patrick Burns, M.D.,
Bruno Giacomuzzi, Sarah Giolando, Lori Baldwin-Ritchey, Gary Blank
& Glenn Loomis, M.D., Defendants, represented by Richard G. Meyer,
Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C. & Mark D. Guilfoyle, Dressman
Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C.

Marianne Tait, Chris Carle, Randall Foltz, Robert Pritchard, M.D.,
Robert Tracy, M.D., Lori Baldwin-Ritchey, Bruno Giacomuzzi, Garren
Colvin, Martin Oscadal, Daniel Rutterer, M.D., Gary Blank, Patrick
Burns, M.D., John Dubis, Sarah Giolando, Glenn Loomis, M.D. &
Nathan Van Laningham, Counter Claimants, represented by Mark D.
Guilfoyle, Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C.

The St. Elizabeth Medical Center Employees' Pension Plan
Administrative Committee, John Does, 1-20 & St. Elizabeth Medical
Center, Inc., Counter Claimants, represented by Christopher B.
Markus , Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C., Mark D. Guilfoyle ,
Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C., Mark R. Hervey & Richard G.
Meyer, Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C.

Dolores Jane Boden, on behalf of themselves and all others similary
situated, Jeanine Godsey, on behalf of themselves and all others
similary situated & Patricia Schaefer, on behalf of themselves and
all others similary situated, Counter Defendants, represented by
Donna Siegel Moffa, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Douglas P.
Needham, Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP, Erik David Peterson, Mehr
Fairbanks & Peterson Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Julie Siebert-Johnson,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Mark K. Gyandoh, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, Mark P. Kindall, Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP &
Robert A. Izard, Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP.


UNIVERSITY OF FASHION: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of
Fashion, Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
University of Fashion, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10245
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 5, 2018).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

University of Fashion (also known as UofF) is an online library of
fashion design video lessons. The website is owned and operated by
Francesca Sterlacci and Jeffrey Purvin and features how-to video
lesson tutorials, taught by fashion school professors and industry
professionals, teaching the key fashion design disciplines, e.g.
draping, patternmaking, sewing, fashion art, knits, childrenswear,
CAD, fashion business and fashion product development.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street
     2nd Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181
     Email: cklee@leelitigation.com



WABASH NATIONAL: Files Second Bid to Dismiss Indiana Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wabash National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has
filed a second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and
requested dismissal with prejudice.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Supreme, on November 4, 2016,
a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Supreme, Mark D.
Weber (Supreme's former Chief Executive Officer) and Matthew W.
Long (Supreme's former Chief Financial Officer) in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by making material,
misleading statements in July 2016 regarding projected backlog. The
plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages.

On February 14, 2017, the court transferred the venue of the case
to the Northern District of Indiana upon the joint stipulation of
the plaintiff and the defendants. An amended complaint was filed on
April 24, 2017 challenging statements made during a putative class
period of October 22, 2015 through October 21, 2016.

On May 24, 2018, the Court granted Supreme's motion to dismiss all
claims for failure to state a claim. On July 13, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On August 24, 2018,
the Company filed a second motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, and requested dismissal with prejudice. The case is stayed
as to discovery.

Wabash National said, "Due to the inherent risk of litigation, the
outcome of this case is uncertain and unpredictable; however, at
this time, management believes that the allegations are without
merit and is vigorously defending the matter. As a result,
management does not believe this matter will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of
operations."

Wabash National Corporation manufactures and sells semi-trailers,
truck bodies, specialized commercial vehicles, and liquid
transportation systems. The company offers its products under the
DuraPlate, DuraPlateHD, DuraPlate XD-35, DuraPlate AeroSkirt,
ArcticLite, Transcraft, Benson, Walker Transport, Brenner Tank,
Garsite, Progress Tank, Bulk Tank International, Extract
Technology, Supreme, Iner-City, Spartan, and Kold King brands
through independent dealer and company-owned retail networks to
common carriers, leasing companies, and private fleet and package
carriers. Wabash National Corporation was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Lafayette, Indiana.


WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Defending Against Suits over No-Poach Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that
the company is facing a total of at least 30 plaintiffs who have
filed class action claims relating to the alleged conspiracy
between the company and Knorr-Bremse AG

On April 3, 2018, the United States Department of Justice entered
into a proposed consent decree resolving allegations that the
Company and Knorr-Bremse AG had maintained unlawful agreements not
to compete for each other's employees. The allegations also related
to Faiveley Transport before it was acquired by the Company in
November 2016.  

The proposed consent decree is pending review and approval by the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. No monetary fines
or penalties have been imposed on the Company. The Company elected
to settle this matter with the Department of Justice to avoid the
cost and distraction of litigation.

As of July 16, 2018, putative class action lawsuits have been filed
in several different federal district courts naming the Company and
Knorr as defendants in connection with the allegations contained in
the proposed consent decree.  

The lawsuits seek unspecified damages on behalf of employees of the
Company (including Faiveley Transport) and Knorr allegedly caused
by the defendants’ actions. A federal Multi-District Litigation
(MDL) Panel decided that cases will be consolidated and heard in
the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As of October 15, 2018, a total of at least 30 plaintiffs have
filed class action claims relating to the alleged conspiracy.

Westinghouse Air Brake said, "The litigation is in its very early
stages and the Company does not believe that it has diminished
competition for talent in the marketplace and intends to contest
these claims vigorously."

Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp., doing business as Wabtec
Corp., provides technology-based equipment and services for the
rail industry worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Freight Group and Transit Group. Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in
Wilmerding, Pa.


WHOLE FOODS: Retirement System Suit Dismissal w/ Prejudice Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF HAWAII,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INCORPORATED; JOHN P.
MACKEY; GLENDA JANE FLANAGAN; WALTER E. ROBB; A. C. GALLO; DAVID
LANNON; KENNETH J. MEYER, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-50840
(5th Cir.), Judge Carolyn Dineen King of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal with
prejudice of the Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a
claim.

Whole Foods, an international grocery-store chain specializing in
organic products, recently ran into trouble with several state and
local consumer-protection agencies for weights-and-measures
violations.  On multiple occasions, Whole Foods admitted to
mislabeling prepackaged foods such that it charged consumers for
more food than the packages actually contained, in violation of
national standards and local laws.

Whole Foods subsequently faced lawsuits from or on behalf of
consumers who overpaid.  This is not such a case.  Rather, the
Plaintiffs in the putative class-action lawsuit allege that in
perpetuating this weights-and-measures fraud against customers,
Whole Foods and several of its executives also defrauded Whole
Foods shareholders in violation of federal securities law.

The putative class Plaintiffs purchased Whole Foods common stock
between July 31, 2013, and July 29, 2015.  They say that during
this period, Whole Foods made various fraudulent statements that
artificially inflated the price of its stock.  Then, they allege,
when the extent of Whole Foods' weights-and-measures issues came to
light, Whole Foods stock declined to reflect its true value,
harming those investors that purchased the stock at artificially
inflated prices.

Yochanan Markman, a Whole Foods stockholder, initially brought this
action in the district court against Whole Foods, Mackey, Robb, and
Flanagan.  Markman alleged that the Defendants each violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving
Markman and other investors into purchasing Whole Foods stock at
artificially inflated prices.  He further alleged that the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act by controlling Whole Foods' unlawful conduct.  And he
purported to represent a class of similarly situated Plaintiffs
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The district court later substituted the Employees' Retirement
System of the State of Hawaii as the lead Plaintiff.  The
Retirement System filed an amended complaint in which it added
corporate officers Gallo, Meyer, and Lannon as the Defendants.  On
the Defendants' motion, the district court dismissed the amended
complaint without prejudice.

The Retirement System filed a second amended complaint, which
included additional factual allegations.  Most notably, the
Retirement System attached an affidavit that a Whole Foods data
analyst prepared for a separate lawsuit, which detailed Whole
Foods' total sales on certain perishable products in New York State
between June 2012 and June 2015.

The Defendants again moved to dismiss and the district court again
granted the Defendants' motion -- this time with prejudice.  The
district court explained that the affidavit did not cure the
Plaintiffs' prior pleading deficiencies because its conclusion was
hypothetical and was based on aggregate sales and inventory records
not pertaining to the weight and pricing of prepackaged products.
It further concluded that the Plaintiffs' new allegations about the
Defendants' knowledge still failed to identify what each individual
Defendant knew about the falsity of his statements.  It accordingly
concluded that the Plaintiffs again failed to state a §Section
10(b) claim and therefore also failed to state a derivative Section
20(a) claim.

The Plaintiffs appeal.

Judge King agrees with the district court that the Plaintiffs fail
to allege that the Defendants' particular statements about Whole
Foods' prices are false.  Similarly, they fail to allege that Whole
Foods' true prices were not comparable to its competitors' prices
or were otherwise unattractive to consumers.  Therefore, she
concludes that the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege with
requisite particularity that the statements about Whole Foods'
price competitiveness were misleading.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs
cannot state a Section 10(b) claim based on the Defendants'
comments about Whole Foods' prices.

The Judge also agrees with the district court that the Defendants'
comments about Whole Foods' commitments to transparency and quality
-- even if false -- are immaterial.  She concludes that, as the
district court held, the Defendants' generalized statements about
Whole Foods' transparency, quality, and responsibility are the sort
of puffery that a reasonable investor would not rely on.
Accordingly, as the district court correctly held, the Plaintiffs
cannot state a Section 10(b) claim based on the Defendants'
generalized statements about Whole Foods' transparency, quality,
and integrity.

All that remains is the Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendants
consistently exaggerated Whole Foods' financial results by counting
towards its revenues receipts that Whole Foods fraudulently
collected by overcharging customers.  The Judge holds that even
assuming arguendo that the Plaintiffs allege falsity in reported
revenues with particularity, she will nonetheless affirm because
they do not allege that Whole Foods' inflated revenues caused the
Plaintiffs' loss.  Accordingly, they fail to identify a decline in
stock price that shortly followed a corrective disclosure.  They
therefore fail to plead a Section 10(b) violation.  Their Section
20(a) claims likewise fail because they are derivative of their
Section 10(b) claims.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge King affirmed the district court's
judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/a60soN from Leagle.com.

Jason Scott Lewis -- jason.lewis@dlapiper.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Susan Katina Alexander -- salexander@rgrdlaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gregory John Casas -- casasg@gtlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Jesse Wadell Wainwright, for Defendant-Appellee.

Andrew Love -- alove@rgrdlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.



                            *********

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 2018. 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 ***