CAR_Public/190412.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 12, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 74

                            Headlines

27 MADISON: Escobar Seeks Unpaid Overtime wages
AARON'S INC: Two Classes & 5 Subclasses Certified in Sevilla Suit
ACCOR MANAGEMENT: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ADDUS HEALTHCARE: Removes Labor Suit to N.D. California
ADELANTE DEVELOPMENT: Disabled Workers File Discrimination Case

AGWAY ENERGY: Court Won't Review Partial Dismissal of Gonzales Suit
ALPHA CORPORATE: Boone Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
AMERICAN RENAL: Shareholder Class Suit on SEC Disclosures Underway
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: 4 Class Suits on Colombia Projects Underway
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: High Court to Set Settlement Fairness Hearing

ARCIMOTO INC: Settlement of Consolidated Suit Awaits Court OK
AVCOA INC: National Trust Asserts No Duty to Defend
AXA EQUITABLE: O'Donnell Suit Underway in Stamford, Conn. Court
AXA EQUITABLE: Still Defends Suit by Brach Family Foundation
BANCO BILBAO: Defending Suit over Mexican Government Bonds

BED BATH: Migyanko Files ADA Class Action in Pa.
BEST BUY: Court Grants Summary Judgment in IBEW Local 98 Suit
BEST MEDICAL: Oliva Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Text Messages
BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: Court Narrows Doc Production in Baird
BLUE CROSS: Challenges UPMC's Bid to Intervene in Antitrust Case

BP PLC: 28 Actions with 113 Plaintiffs Pending in MDL 2185
BP PLC: Atlantic Richfield Still Defends Lead Paint Lawsuits
BP PLC: Faces 2,159 Pending Lawsuits over LMPC Claims at Feb. 22
BP PLC: Motions to Drop ACS Class Suit in Mexico Still Pending
BP PLC: Reaches Settlement Agreement in Scharfstein v. BPWCP

BP PLC: Still Defends Canadian Class Action over Shares, ADSs
BP PLC: Subsidiaries Still Defend Fishermen Class Suit in Mexico
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: May 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Settles Fiduciary Class Action for $3.5MM

CAN-FITE BIOPHARMA: Suit over Piclidenoson Drug Dismissed
CANADA: Settles Indian Day School Survivors' Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Monetary Damages Class Settlement Approved
CEDAR SHAKE: Fraser Sues Over Cedar Shake, Shingle Price-Fixing
CERAGON NETWORKS: Still Defends Class Action in Tel-Aviv Court

CHASE BANK USA: Still Defends Merchants' Interchange Pricing Suit
CHASE BANK USA: Still Defends Suits over Credit Card Practices
CHICAGO ATHLETIC: Suit Green Removed to N.D. Illinois
CITIBANK NA: Still Defends Suits over Private-Label RMBS Matters
CITIGROUP INC: July 12 ADR Settlement Approval Hearing Set

CLAIRE'S STORE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLIFTON JAMES: CCS' FDCPA Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
COLLIER COUNTY, FL: Court Narrows Claims in M. Antoine's Suit
COMMUNITY PROBATION: Giles County Appeals Judgment in McNeil Suit
CONAGRA BRANDS: Continues to Defend Briseno Class Action

CONAGRA BRANDS: Negrete Class Action Underway
CONCORDE HOTEL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONDUENT INC: May 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CORBUS PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
CORBUS PHARMA: May 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

CR ENGLAND: Martin Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
CREATIVE REALITIES: Rodgers, Korff Seek OT Pay for Technicians
CRIMSHIELD INC: Foley Suit Asserts FCRA Violation
DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Faces Royal Park Class Suits in S.D.N.Y.
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Court Sanctions for Ex-Parte Communications

ENDOLOGIX INC: Appeal from C.D. Cal. Ruling Still Ongoing
FERGUSON CONTRACTORS: Labor Investigation Prompts Class Action
FLYNN RESTAURANT: Parking Lots Inaccessible to PWDs, Murphy Says
FMR LLC: Stinson Leonard Discusses Andrew Wong ERISA Suit Filing
FORD MOTOR: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Throttle System Claims

GENUINE PARTS: Court Dismisses B. Hill's Wage & Hour Suit
GLEN MILLS: Miller Files Civil Rights Suit in E.D. Pa.
GOHEALTH, LLC: Newell et al. Sue over Robocalls
HIBU INC: Filing Deadline of Cooley TCPA Suit Response Extended
HONEYWELL INT'L: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cooper ERISA Suit

HUB INTERNATIONAL: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Chieftain Settlement Hearing Set for Oct. 7
ICONIX BRAND: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NY
IZEA WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Perez Class Action
JACKSON NURSE: Class & FLSA Collective Certified in Musgrove Suit

KRUSE-WESTERN INC: April 15 Filing Due of Zavala ERISA Suit Reply
LANCE CAMPER: Gonzales Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
LIFEENERGY LLC: Lechuga Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Illinois
LIVANOVA PLC: Reaches $225MM Settlement on 3T Device Defect Litig.
LNC TRANSPORTATION: Sued over Unwanted Telemarketing Text Messages

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: To Pay $33MM Penalty Following Settlement
MADISON REALTY: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MALEN & ASSOCIATES: Nappy Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MATTEL INC: May 6 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
MDL 2580: End-Payors Seek Class Cert. in Opana Antitrust Litigation

MDL 2580: Purchasers Move for Cert. in Opana Antitrust Litigation
MOHAMMAD AL-MOJIL: Class Action Approved Under New Regime
MONSANTO CO: Attorneys Deliver Closing Arguments in Roundup Case
MONSANTO CO: Must Pay $80MM+ Damages in Roundup Cancer Case
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Minnesota Home Seller Files Class Action

NAVIENT CORP: 2nd Amended Complaint in Consolidated Case Underway
NAVIENT CORP: Lord Abbett Consolidated Suit Underway in Delaware
NCAA: Curry Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
NCAA: Disregarded Student-Athletes' Health & Safety, Boose Says
NEWMONT MINING: Plaintiff Agrees to Drop Laidlaw Class Suit

NFL: Lawyer Fights to Advance Painkiller Class Action
NIO INC: Faces 4 Class Suits Over Misleading Financial Reports
NIO INC: May 13 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Still Defends Against Barney Securities Class Suit
NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Wu Class Action v. Tokai Ongoing

OAKWOOD WORLDWIDE: Young Suit Asserts ADA Breach
OHIO NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Trail Commissions
OLIN CORP.: Miami Products Alleges Price Fixing of Caustic Soda
OPTION CARE: Suit Cabrera Removed to C.D. California
OSIB 50TH: Violates Disabilities Act, Lopez Suit Alleges

PARAGONCOIN INC: In Talks to Settle Suit over PRG Tokens Sale
PARTNER COMMS: Accord in Suit over Content Service Charges Okayed
PARTNER COMMS: Data Speed-Related Suit Still Ongoing
PARTNER COMMS: Facing Suit over Anti-Virus Service Charge
PARTNER COMMS: Settlement in Ad Messages Suit Awaits Court OK

PARTNER COMMS: Still Defends Suit over Spam Messages
PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Technician Visits Ongoing
PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Telephony System Malfunction Underway
PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Unlawful Charges and Rates Underway
PARWELL INVESTMENTS: McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Court Ruling

PASSION FOOD: ADA Suit Transferred to District of Columbia
PHH MORTGAGE: Moore Files FDCPA Suit in Indiana
PHILADELPHIA, PA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Cash Bail System
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Faces Kornegay Class Action in North Carolina
PPDAI GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Serves as Class Action Lead Counsel

PRO CUSTOM: Breines Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
QUADRUM HOSPITALITY: Lopez Asserts Disabilities Act Violation
REVLON INC : Suit over Elizabeth Arden Merger Concluded
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Briefing on Dismissal Bid to be Completed in June
ROAN RESOURCES: Faces Hay Creek Class Suit in N.D. Oklahoma

SITO MOBILE: Roper Suit Stayed Pending April 30 Mediation
SPECTRUM BRANDS: May 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SSP AMERICA: Boyce Sues Over Unpaid Straight Time, Overtime Wages
STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Admissions Scandal
SUNRISE CREDIT: Maxan Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

SUNRUN INC: Faces Curtis Suit over Spam Text Messages
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Blevins Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
TEO BIA: Mendez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Restaurant Staff
TEVA PHARMA: Court Set to Decide on Tolling Statute Issue
THAYER HOTEL: Violates ADA, Lopez Suit Asserts

TICKETMASTER: Bid to Arbitrate Class Action Over Scalpers OK'd
TOP SHIPS: Opposition to Motions to Dismiss Due May 24
TRADER JOE'S: Directed to Produce Non-Confidential Docs in Moore
TRAVELODGE HOTEL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Gonzalez Suit Says
TRI-LAM ROOFING: Salazar Seeks Overtime Pay

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Lawyer "Pleased" with Settlement
VERINT SYSTEMS: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in Tel Aviv
VISA INC: November 7 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WAGEWORKS INC: Suit by Virgin Islands Retirement System Ongoing
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Bid to Dismiss Illinois Class Action Underway

WALLGREENS BOOTS: Bid to Dismiss Rite Aid Merger Suit Pending
WARRIOR MET: Angel Sues Over Denied Equity Interest Distribution
WATKINS AND SHEPARD: Doty Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
WELLS FARGO: Settlement of RMBS Suit Still Subject to Court's Okay
WORLD HOTELS: Violates ADA, Young Suit Asserts

[*] Judge Puts Limits on Class Action Settlement Objector
[*] Shearman & Sterling Discusses ILR's Class Action Reform Report
[] Bandas Held Up Big Money in Big Company Class Settlements

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 239 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Claims Life of Renowned Researcher
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos of Concern in Boxwood Plant Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Suit v. Aqua-Chem Remains Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 56,000 Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 251 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $630MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Insurance Had $9.8MM Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Corp. Units Had 200 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Defends Multiple Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Defends Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $38.9MM A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Had $1.1BB Reserve at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hitchin Man's Family Seeks Justice After Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Contractor Pleads Guilty to Mishandling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Wins Trial Over Calif. Man's Talc-Cancer Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: KCIC Releases Asbestos Litigation Report for 2018
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Has 62,522 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Man's Case vs AO Moves Forward to Jury Trial

ASBESTOS UPDATE: RLI Has $67.4MM for Tort Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SCOTUS Upholds Companies' Duty to Warn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmanian Unions Worried About Workers' Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Defends Less Than 200 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Has 109 Pending PI Cases at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Had 300 Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31


                            *********

27 MADISON: Escobar Seeks Unpaid Overtime wages
-----------------------------------------------
FRANKLIN MOISES OSORTO ESCOBAR, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 27 MADISON AVENUE
CORP. (D/B/A ESSEN), ESSEN22, LLC (D/B/A ESSEN), KYEONG HWANG,
JOSEPHINE KIM, JOHN BYUN, CHONG BYUN, WILLIAM BYUN, and MYONG BYUN,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02608 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate or control two restaurants, located at
60 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010 and at 699 Sixth
Avenue, New York, New York 10010. The Plaintiff was employed as a
deli man and a caterer at the restaurants. The Plaintiff worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that he worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Osorto appropriately
for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff
Osorto to all other similarly situated employees.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com

AARON'S INC: Two Classes & 5 Subclasses Certified in Sevilla Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Dolly M. Gee grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit entitled
ARMINDA SEVILLA v. AARON'S, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-04053-DMG-E
(C.D. Cal.).

The Court certifies these classes and subclasses, as defined and
redefined:

   a. The Hourly Class:

       i. All current and former employees employed by Defendant
          in the State of California who were compensated by the
          hour from April 28, 2013 through the date of final
          disposition of this action;

   b. The Overtime Subclasses:

       i. All Hourly Class members whom Defendant paid overtime
          premiums on flat-sum incentives;

      ii. All Hourly Class members whose premium overtime payment
          Defendant calculated by using its Premium Overtime
          Formula;

   c. The Vacation Wage Subclass:

       i. All Hourly Class members who, upon effective date of
          termination, received vested vacation wages calculated
          using the member's straight time rate of pay, rather
          than the member's regular rate of pay during the
          member's final pay period;

   d. The Business Expense Reimbursement Subclass:

       i. All Hourly Class members who purchased logoed Aaron's
          apparel to wear to work and did not receive
          reimbursement for their purchase from Defendant;

   e. The Itemized Wage Statement Subclass:

       i. All Hourly Class members who received an itemized wage
          statement;

   f. The Waiting Time Class:

       i. All former employees of Defendant in California who did
          not receive the timely payment of wages due and owing
          upon the effective date of termination of their
          employment from April 28, 2013 through the date of
          final disposition of this action;

   g. The Waiting Time Penalties Subclass:

       i. All Hourly Class members who were not provided with
          final wages at the time of separation from employment;

The Court appoints Arminda Sevilla as representative of the classes
and subclasses.  The Court appoints Shadie L. Berenji, Esq., and
Brittanee A. Marksbury, Esq., of Berenji Law Firm, APC, as Class
Counsel.[CC]


ACCOR MANAGEMENT: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accor Management US
Inc. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of Himself And
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Accor Management
US Inc., Accor Hotels & Resorts (Maryland) LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02759 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 27, 2019).

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

Accor S.A., using the brand name AccorHotels, is a French
multinational hospitality company that owns, manages and franchises
hotels, resorts, and vacation properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


ADDUS HEALTHCARE: Removes Labor Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
Addus Healthcare, Inc. and Addus HomeCare Corporation removed  the
case styled MARY MOORE, ALEXANDRIA ENCINIAS, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. ADDUS HEALTHCARE, INC., an unknown business
entity; ADDUS HOMECARE, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES
2 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG17867226
(Filed July 11, 2017), from the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 22, 2019. The Northern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01519 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are former non-exempt employees of Defendants in
California.  They allege that Defendants failed to pay them all of
their minimum and overtime wages owed, failed to provide proper
meal and rest breaks, failed to provide accurate wage statements,
failed to pay all wages owed upon termination, failed to adequately
maintain payroll records, and failed to reimburse for all business
expenses. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as "All
current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt individuals employed
by any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time
during the period from July 11, 2013 to final judgment".

Addus HomeCare has been providing professional and reliable in-home
care services for over 35 years.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
          Gary M. Mclaughlin, Esq.
          Victor A. Salcedo, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6022
          Telephone: 310 229 1000
          Facsimile: 310 229 1001
          E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com
                  gmclaughlin@akingump.com
                  vsalcedo@akingump.com

ADELANTE DEVELOPMENT: Disabled Workers File Discrimination Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg Law reports that a New Mexico non-profit that's assembled
gift bags for the Oscars and Grammys is facing a class action
lawsuit brought by disabled employees who say it pays as little as
18 cents an hour.

The suit is the latest to challenge a little-known—but often
legal—practice of segregating disabled workers and paying them
less than the federal minimum wage. In it, current and former
employees accuse the Adelante Development Center of underpaying its
developmentally disabled employees. [GN]


AGWAY ENERGY: Court Won't Review Partial Dismissal of Gonzales Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Decision and Order denying Defendant's
Motion for Reconsideration in the case captioned NAOMI GONZALES,
Plaintiff, v. AGWAY ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant. No.
5:18-cv-235 (MAD/ATB). (N.D. N.Y.).

Agway moves for reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum-Decision
and Order granting in part and denying in part Agway's motion to
dismiss.

Plaintiff Naomi Gonzales brought this putative class action against
Defendant Agway Energy Services, LLC (Agway), in the District of
Delaware.

A motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving party
seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided. Relief under
Rule 60 is considered extraordinary judicial relief. For that
reason, the motion will generally be denied unless the moving party
can show that the court overlooked facts or controlling law that
might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the
court.

Agway argues that this Court was in error because it did not
address the arguments (1) that the U.C.C.'s notice requirements for
the sale of goods applies (2) that the voluntary payment doctrine
warrants dismissal (3) that another action in the Western District
of Pennsylvania precluded the litigation of this case and (4) that
the CAFA exceptions mandate dismissal.

Plaintiff is correct that the Court, in deciding the motion to
dismiss, found the unaddressed remainder of Agway's arguments to be
so obviously lacking in merit as to not warrant explicit treatment.


The Second Circuit has explicitly held that the UCC does not apply
to sale of electricity which is a service and thus not a good under
New York law. It is beyond question that the notice requirements of
the UCC have no place here.

Likewise, the voluntary payment doctrine only bars recovery of
payments voluntary made with full knowledge of the facts, and in
the absence of fraud or mistake of material fact or law.
Plaintiff's GBL claims are rooted very obviously in fraud.

Finally, the Court finds that it also properly denied Agway's
request for transfer of the purported class of Pennsylvania
customers to a case pending in Pennsylvania. While transfer may
ultimately be the appropriate course of action, Agway's request for
transfer of only the Pennsylvania class members was made for the
first time in its reply brief. The law in the Second Circuit is
clear that arguments or requests for relief raised for the first
time in reply briefs need not be considered.

A district court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction under CAFA
if (1) greater than two-thirds of the members of all proposed
plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State in
which the action was originally filed or (2) two-thirds or more of
the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and
the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the
action was originally filed. It is incumbent upon the party
contesting jurisdiction under CAFA to make a showing that an
exception applies.  Agway has offered no admissible evidence that
the Pennsylvania class does not make up at least one-third of the
proposed class.

Decisions in putative class actions are not binding upon unnamed
putative class members before those classes are certified.

Further, the reasoning there is not applicable to the case here.
The court in that action reasoned that the alleged rate discrepancy
rose only to 46%, and further noted that in cases where the ESCO's
rates were multiple times higher, the rate structure would
naturally be more suspect, which is why many of those cases also
included a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. Brown v. Agway, 328 F.Supp.3d 464 (W.D. Pa. 2018). This
Court held that the much larger disparity here is properly
litigated as a breach of contract claim. And although
well-reasoned, the Brown action is not binding upon this Court.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019
Memorandum Decision and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/yyjp955hfrom Leagle.com.

Naomi Gonzales, Plaintiff, represented by Todd S. Garber --
tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson &
Garber LLP, Chantal Khalil -- ckhalil@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP & Douglas G. Blankinship --
gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson
& Garber LLP.

Agway Energy Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brendan M.
Sheehan -- bsheehan@bsk.com -- Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC, John D.
Coyle -- jcoyle@bmg.law -- Bevan, Mosca & Giuditta, Sharon M.
Porcellio -- sporcellio@bsk.com -- Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC &
William K. Mosca, Jr., Bevan, Mosca & Giuditta, P.C.


ALPHA CORPORATE: Boone Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ZABRINA BOONE and CHRISTOPHER CLARKE, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ALPHA CORPORATE TRANSPORTATION AND TAXI SERVICE INC.
d/b/a ALPHA TAXI, and EDWARD SAMRALDI, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 7:19-cv-02808 (S.D. N.Y., March 28, 2019) is a civil
action for damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants'
collective violations of Plaintiff Boone's rights guaranteed to her
by the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the minimum and overtime wage provisions of the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR").

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
overtime wages for their hours worked in a week over forty, failed
to compensate Plaintiffs at least at the statutorily-required
minimum wage rate for all hours that they worked each week, and
failed to provide Plaintiffs with any wage statements on each
payday, let alone accurate ones, throughout their respective
employments, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Boone worked for Defendants as an assistant dispatcher
from January 26, 2013 until December 18, 2017.

Plaintiff Clarke worked for Defendants first as a taxicab driver in
2012 and early-January 2013, and then as a dispatcher from January
21, 2013 until February 11, 2018.

Defendant Alpha provides taxi and limousine services to customers
in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
     Michael J. Borrelly, Esq.
     BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
     910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 248-5550
     Fax: (516) 248-6027


AMERICAN RENAL: Shareholder Class Suit on SEC Disclosures Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. is facing a putative
shareholder class action related to the matters disclosed in a
March 27 Form 8-K and certain prior filings, according to the
Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 29, 2019.

In October 2018, the Staff of the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") requested that American Renal Associates
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") voluntarily provide documents and
information relating to certain revenue recognition, collections
and related matters.  Following receipt of the SEC request, the
Company responded by producing documents and information to the
Staff.

On March 27, 2019, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K
(the "March 27 Form 8-K") that described, among other things,
certain preliminary findings arising from the review being
conducted by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (the
"Board") of the Company, which commenced following receipt of the
SEC request.

On March 28, 2019, the Company received a subpoena from the Staff
of the SEC, which reiterates the SEC's prior request and requires
the production of additional documents and information relating to
the matters disclosed in the March 27 Form 8-K and related matters.
The Company intends to continue to cooperate fully with this
investigation.

On March 28, 2019, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers alleging violations of Sections 10(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder related to the matters disclosed in the March 27 Form
8-K and certain prior filings.

American Renal said, "The Company, its Board and its current and
former executive officers could become subject to additional
litigation relating to these matters."

American Renal Associates is a dialysis services provider in the
United States focused exclusively on joint venture partnerships
with physicians.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: 4 Class Suits on Colombia Projects Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
AngloGold Ashanti Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the financial year
ended December 31, 2018, that four class action lawsuits are
pending in relation to AngloGold Ashanti Colombia S.A.'s (AGAC)
Santa Maria-Montecristo and La Colosa projects.

Each lawsuit aims to stop exploration and mining in certain
restricted areas affected by the projects due to environmental
concerns or alleged breaches of environmental laws.  In one of
these lawsuits, the Administrative Court of Tolima granted the
plaintiff a preliminary injunction in September 2011, suspending
the mining concession contracts of the Santa Maria-Montecristo
project.  The injunction remains in place and has been challenged
by AGAC; however, it is not a critical path item for the project.
In another lawsuit, on 10 October 2016, Tolima's Administrative
Court ordered that a technical study be prepared by April 2017 by a
panel of seven experts (selected by the plaintiff, AGAC,
universities, the Colombian government and an NGO) to determine
whether the La Colosa project presents a "threat" to the
environment during its exploration phase.  AGAC successfully
appealed the order to prepare the technical study and the order has
been temporarily suspended, pending resolution by the Council of
State (appellate court).  In another of the lawsuits, on 4 December
2017, Ibague's Third Administrative Court ordered that a technical
study similar to the one described in the October 2016 order be
prepared for the La Colosa project.  AGAC also successfully
appealed this order on the ground that the identical issue (La
Colosa) is already pending before the Council of State.  If the
studies were to conclude that a "threat" exists, certain activities
at La Colosa may be suspended.

While plaintiffs in all four cases have petitioned the courts to
cancel concession contracts for the mining projects, the company
believes that courts and judges in Colombia do not have the
authority to order such cancellations.  Such power, by law, vests
solely in the mining authority, which has the discretion to declare
concessions void if a contractor breaches applicable environmental
laws or regulations.  To date, the company is not aware of the
Colombian government having ever declared a concession void for
these reasons.  AGAC continues to oppose, through a variety of
integrated legal and political strategies, the class action
lawsuits that have been filed against it.  If plaintiffs prevail
and AGAC's core concession contracts are cancelled, the company
would be required to abandon the La Colosa project and all of
AGAC's other existing mining concession contracts, and pending
proposals for new mining concession contracts would also be
cancelled.  Given the inherent legal and factual uncertainties with
respect to the pending claims, no reliable estimate can be made for
the obligation.

AngloGold Ashanti, a gold mining company with a globally diverse,
world-class portfolio of operations and projects, is headquartered
in Johannesburg, South Africa. AngloGold Ashanti is the third
largest gold mining company in the world, measured by production.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: High Court to Set Settlement Fairness Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The South Gauteng High Court of South Africa is set to hold a
second hearing to determine the fairness and reasonableness of the
settlement of the consolidated silicosis class action litigation,
according to AngloGold Ashanti Limited's Form 20-F filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the financial year
ended December 31, 2018.

On March 3, 2011, in Mankayi vs. AngloGold Ashanti, the
Constitutional Court of South Africa held that section 35(1) of the
Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, 1993 does
not cover an "employee" who qualifies for compensation in respect
of "compensable diseases" under the Occupational Diseases in Mines
and Works Act, 1973 (ODMWA).  This judgment allows such qualifying
employee to pursue a civil claim for damages against the employer.
Following the Constitutional Court decision, AngloGold Ashanti has
become subject to numerous claims relating to silicosis and other
Occupational Lung Diseases (OLD), including class actions and
individual claims.

In November 2014, Anglo American South Africa, AngloGold Ashanti,
Gold Fields Limited, Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and
Sibanye Gold Limited formed an industry working group on OLD (OLD
Working Group) to address issues relating to compensation and
medical care for occupational lung disease in the gold mining
industry in South Africa.  The working group now also includes
African Rainbow Minerals (ARM).

AngloGold Ashanti, along with other mining companies including
Anglo American South Africa, ARM, Gold Fields Limited, Harmony Gold
Mining Company Limited, DRDGold Limited, Randgold and Exploration
Company Limited, and Sibanye Gold Limited, were served with a
consolidated class action application on 21 August 2013.  On 13 May
2016, the South Gauteng High Court of South Africa ruled in favor
of the applicants and found that there were sufficient common
issues to certify two industry-wide classes: a Silicosis Class and
a Tuberculosis Class.

On 3 June 2016, AngloGold Ashanti, together with certain of the
other mining companies, filed an application with the High Court
for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).  On 13
September 2016, the SCA granted the mining companies leave to
appeal the entire High Court ruling to the SCA.  On 10 January
2018, in response to a postponement request from all parties
involved in the appeal due to the advanced stage of settlement
negotiations, the Registrar of the SCA postponed the hearing date
until further notice.

Settlement of the consolidated class action litigation was reached
on 3 May 2018, after three years of extensive negotiations between
the OLD Working Group companies and the lawyers of the claimants.
On 13 December 2018, the High Court issued a Court order setting
out the process of how members of the settling classes and any
interested parties can object to the proposed settlement.

In the coming months, the High Court is scheduled to hold a hearing
during which the Court will consider arguments by the parties to
the settlement as well as arguments by other interested parties who
are granted leave by the Court to participate, including parties
filing objections to the proposed settlement.  The purpose of this
second hearing is to determine the fairness and reasonableness of
the settlement.

If the settlement is approved by the Court and all its other
conditions are met, a trust (Tshiamiso Trust) will be established
and will exist for a minimum of 13 years.  Eligible claimants will
be able to seek specified payment from the Tshiamiso Trust and the
amount of monetary compensation will vary depending on the nature
and degree of the disease.  As of 31 December 2018, AngloGold
Ashanti has recorded a provision of US$63 million to cover the
estimated settlement costs and related expenditure of the silicosis
litigation.

It is possible that additional class actions and/or individual
claims relating to silicosis and/or other OLD will be filed against
AngloGold Ashanti in the future.  AngloGold Ashanti will defend all
current and subsequently filed claims on their merits.  Should
AngloGold Ashanti be unsuccessful in defending any such claims, or
in otherwise favorably resolving perceived deficiencies in the
national occupational disease compensation framework that were
identified in the earlier decision by the Constitutional Court,
such matters would have an adverse effect on its financial
position, which could be material.

AngloGold Ashanti, a gold mining company with a globally diverse,
world-class portfolio of operations and projects, is headquartered
in Johannesburg, South Africa. AngloGold Ashanti is the third
largest gold mining company in the world, measured by production.


ARCIMOTO INC: Settlement of Consolidated Suit Awaits Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the consolidated Switzer and Mendelson lawsuit on
January 25, 2019, reached a settlement agreement, which is subject
to court approval, according to Arcimoto, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018.  By its terms, the settlement
agreement resolves the litigation in its entirety.

On March 11, 2018, the Company was served with a lawsuit entitled
John R Switzer vs W.R.  Hambrecht & Co.  LLC et al., Case Number:
CGC-18-564904, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court in the
State of California.  In this action, the Company was named as a
defendant along with five individuals who were directors and/or
executive officers at the time of the completion of the Company's
Regulation A offering on September 21, 2017.  The action was styled
as a putative class action, alleged on behalf of all those who
purchased the Company's common stock in its Regulation A offering.

The plaintiff alleged violations of Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and is seeking damages
in an unspecified amount to be proven at trial.

In addition, on March 28, 2018, the Company was served with another
lawsuit entitled Jay Mendelson v. Arcimoto, Inc. et al., Case
Number CGC-18-565324, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court
in the State of California.  In that action, which was styled as a
putative class action, the Company was also named as a defendant
along with the same individuals who were directors and/or executive
officers at the time of the completion of our Regulation A offering
on September 21, 2017.

The allegations and claims made in the Mendelson action were
substantially similar to those of the Switzer action and the
plaintiff was also seeking damages in an unspecified amount to be
proven at trial.

The two actions were consolidated into a single lawsuit on May 28,
2018.

Arcimoto said, "The Company believes that the consolidated lawsuit
was without merit and vigorously defended itself against these
claims in court."

On July 30, 2018, counsel for the Company filed a demurrer to the
consolidated complaint, seeking its dismissal.  By Order dated
September 19, 2018, the San Francisco Court sustained in part and
denied in part the demurrer.

On September 28, 2018, plaintiffs in that case filed a First
Amended Consolidated Complaint.  The Company denied the substantive
claims and allegations made in that amended pleading and continued
to assert a vigorous defense.

On January 25, 2019, the parties reached a settlement agreement in
the consolidated cases, subject to court approval.  By its terms,
the settlement agreement resolves this litigation in its entirety.

Arcimoto, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
three-wheeled electric vehicles. The company was formerly known as
WTP Inc and changed its name to Arcimoto, Inc. in December 2011.
Arcimoto, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Eugene,
Oregon.


AVCOA INC: National Trust Asserts No Duty to Defend
---------------------------------------------------
The case, NATIONAL TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, the Plaintiff, vs.
AVCOA, INC. and JOSHUA MOYER, the Defendants, Case No. 2019CH03739
(Ill. Cir., March 22, 2019), seeks declaratory judgment, pursuant
to Section 2-701 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS
5/2-701, asking the Court to find and declare that National Trust
does not have a duty to:

     -- defend Avcoa, Inc. in connection with the Moyer Lawsuit,
pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, as Case No.
18 CH 14539; and

     -- indemnify Avcoa, Inc. in connection with the Moyer
Lawsuit.

On or about November 21, 2018, Moyer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against
A vcoa in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, as Case No.
18 CH 14539.  The Moyer Lawsuit alleges that Avcoa owns and/or
operates vending machines, some of which allow the customer to
purchase products with credit or debit cards. Moyer also alleges
that when purchasing item(s) from Avoca's vending machines via
credit or debit card, the transactions include additional hidden
charges or fees which were not disclosed or displayed on the
vending machine or at any time during the transaction.

In the Moyer Lawsuit, Moyer also alleges that he made purchases
with his debit card at Avcoa vending machines on October 24, 2017
and November 20, 2017.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          John D. Hackett, Esq.
          William H. Schramm, III
          CASSIDAY SCHADE LLP
          222 W. Adams, Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 641-3100
          Facsimile: (312) 444-1669
          E-mail: jhackett@cassiday.com
                  wschramm@cassiday.com

AXA EQUITABLE: O'Donnell Suit Underway in Stamford, Conn. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the case
entitled, Richard T. O'Donnell, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, is now
pending in the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of
Stamford.

In August 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior Court,
Judicial Division of New Haven entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company.

This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable, which were
subsequently subjected to the volatility management strategy and
who suffered injury as a result thereof.   Plaintiff asserts a
claim for breach of contract alleging that AXA Equitable Life
implemented the volatility management strategy in violation of
applicable law.

In November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court
transferred this action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  In March 2017, the Southern
District of New York granted AXA Equitable Life's motion to dismiss
the complaint. In April 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal.

In April 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed the trial court's decision with instructions to
remand the case to Connecticut state court. In September 2018, the
Second Circuit issued its mandate, following AXA Equitable Life's
notification to the court that it would not file a petition for
writ of certiorari.

The case was transferred in December 2018 and is pending in
Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford.

AXA Equitable said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, financial advisory, and
investment management products and services in the United States
and internationally. The company was founded in 1859 and is
headquartered in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company operates as a subsidiary of AXA Equitable Financial
Services, LLC.


AXA EQUITABLE: Still Defends Suit by Brach Family Foundation
------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action suit
entitled, Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company.

In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family
Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This
lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all owners
of universal life ("UL") policies subject to AXA Equitable Life's
cost of insurance rate increase.

In early 2016, AXA Equitable Life raised COI rates for certain UL
policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both issue ages 70
and above and a current face value amount of $1 million and above.


A second putative class action was filed in Arizona in 2017 and
consolidated with the Brach matter.

The current consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the
following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations by AXA
Equitable Life in violation of Section 4226 of the New York
Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section
349; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and
the California Elder Abuse Statute.

Plaintiffs seek; (a) compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and
post-judgment interest; (b) with respect to their claim concerning
Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the
plaintiffs and the putative class; and (c) injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees in connection with their statutory claims.

Five other federal actions challenging the COI rate increase are
also pending against AXA Equitable and have been coordinated with
the Brach action for the purposes of pre-trial activities.

They contain allegations similar to those in the Brach action as
well as additional allegations for violations of various states'
consumer protection statutes and common law fraud. Two actions are
also pending against AXA Equitable in New York state court.

AXA Equitable is vigorously defending each of these matters.

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides insurance, financial advisory, and
investment management products and services in the United States
and internationally. The company was founded in 1859 and is
headquartered in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company operates as a subsidiary of AXA Equitable Financial
Services, LLC.


BANCO BILBAO: Defending Suit over Mexican Government Bonds
----------------------------------------------------------
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that BBVA
Bancomer continues to defend a putative class action suit pending
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

In March 2018, BBVA Bancomer and certain other affiliates of the
Group were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, alleging that the defendant banks and their named
subsidiaries engaged in collusion with respect to the purchase and
sale of Mexican government bonds.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief.

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A., together with its
subsidiaries, provides retail and wholesale banking, asset
management, and private banking services. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya
Argentaria, S.A. was founded in 1857 and is headquartered in
Bilbao, Spain.


BED BATH: Migyanko Files ADA Class Action in Pa.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bed Bath & Beyond
Inc. The case is styled as Ronald J. Migyanko individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bed Bath &
Beyond Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00345-MRH (W.D. Pa., Mar.
29, 2019).

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

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is an American chain of domestic merchandise
retail stores in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, and
Mexico. Founded in 1971, the stores sell home goods primarily for
the bedroom and bathroom, as well as kitchen and dining room.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
     Carlson Lynch, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue
     5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


BEST BUY: Court Grants Summary Judgment in IBEW Local 98 Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended February 2, 2019, that the District Court Judge
in the case, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et
al., has granted the company's motion for summary judgment
dismissing the remaining claims with prejudice.

In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed against
the company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

This federal court action alleges, among other things, that we and
the officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in
connection with press releases and other statements relating to our
fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to the
public.

Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against the company
and certain of its executive officers in the same court. In July
2011, after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and
Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and
served.

Following discovery and motion practice Plaintiffs moved to certify
the purported class. By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court
certified a class of persons or entities who acquired Best Buy
common stock between 10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and
December 13, 2010, and who were damaged by the alleged violations
of law.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the company's request for
interlocutory appeal. On April 12, 2016, the 8th Circuit held the
trial court misapplied the law and reversed the class certification
order. IBEW petitioned the 8th Circuit for a rehearing en banc,
which was denied on June 1, 2016. On June 23, 2017, the trial court
denied plaintiff's request to file a new Motion for Class
Certification.

On October 30, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended class action complaint which the Magistrate Judge
denied on July 11, 2018. On August 24, 2018, the District Court
Judge overruled plaintiff's objections to that ruling, affirming
the Magistrate Judge's denial of leave to amend.

On March 8, 2019, the District Court Judge granted Best Buy's
motion for summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims with
prejudice.

Best Buy said, "We continue to believe that the remaining
individual plaintiff's allegations are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend our company in this matter."

Best Buy Co., Inc. operates as a retailer of technology products,
services, and solutions in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
The company operates in two segments, Domestic and International.
The company was formerly known as Sound of Music, Inc. Best Buy
Co., Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Richfield,
Minnesota.


BEST MEDICAL: Oliva Sues over Unwanted Telemarketing Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANA OLIVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BEST MEDICAL CENTER, INC. D/B/A
JUVENTUS COSMETIC SURGERY, a Florida Profit Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21112-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 22, 2019),
seeks redress for the Defendant's violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and injunctive relief to halt the
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals.

On or about February 14, 2019, the Defendant sent telemarketing
text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending
in 8683. The Defendant's text messages were transmitted to the
Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.

The Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they
encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or
services, i.e., selling the Plaintiff  cosmetic treatments.

The information contained in the text message advertises the
Defendant's "20% discount" for certain treatments, which the
Defendant sends to promote its business. At no point in time did
the Plaintiff provide the Defendant with his express written
consent to be contacted using an ATDS, the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's unsolicited text
messages caused the Plaintiff  actual harm, including invasion of
his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,
trespass, and conversion.  The Defendant's text messages also
inconvenienced the Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily
life.

The Defendant is a plastic surgery center that sells surgical and
non-surgical cosmetic treatments to individuals. To promote its
services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming
thousands of consumers in the process.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: Court Narrows Doc Production in Baird
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in parties
Joint Motion for Production in the case captioned CHARLES BAIRD, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL TRUST COMPANY, N.A., et
al., Defendants. Case No. 17-cv-01892-HSG (KAW). (N.D. Cal.).

The parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding BlackRock's
production in response to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production (RFP)
Nos. 34 and 35.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant putative class action against
Defendants, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act's (ERISA) fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions
provisions.

The Plaintiffs' RFP No. 34 seeks: All Documents and Communications
concerning the gross and net profits that BlackRock and affiliates,
earns as a result of providing Securities Lending Services to the
BlackRock CTIs, including but not limited to Documents and
Communications concerning the costs of providing such services, if
any RFP No. 35 concerns profits earned related to managing cash
collateral involved in securities lending transactions.

The parties now dispute whether Defendant BlackRock's existing
production of cost and profitability information satisfies the
Court's Order. The Plaintiffs point to four types of documents that
they assert have not been produced.

Quarterly Business Reviews (QBRs)

First, the Plaintiffs state that they received three pages of
Quarterly Business Reviews (QBRs), and that each of the three pages
was extracted from three separate, electronic, multi-page PDF
files.

The Plaintiff argues that this is improper because extracting a
single page from a larger document removes the important context of
the document as a whole and makes the information more difficult to
understand.

BlackRock responds that the PDF files were compilations of QBRs for
all BlackRock business lines, and that each QBR was a discrete,
integrated, and separately created document.

BlackRock's statement below that the 3 pages produced constitute
'discrete, integrated, and separately created' documents.
BlackRock, however, has so stated in the discovery letter, and the
Court will not presume that BlackRock would knowingly make a false
representation to the Court.

Thus, to the extent the three QBR pages are stand-alone documents
that are part of a larger compilation of QBRs for all BlackRock
business lines, the Court will not require production of the
remaining QBRs.  BlackRock, however, must produce all QBRs for the
relevant business line if it has not already done so.

Native Files for the QBRs

The Plaintiffs also seek the native, unaltered versions of the
three QBRs. The Plaintiffs assert that BlackRock refused to search
for and produce the native files, and instead generated
spreadsheets with some but not all of the information included.  

BlackRock states that they were unable to find the native Excel
files for the three QBRs.  As to the spreadsheet metadata,
BlackRock asserts that the discrepancies were due to how the files
were collected. After the Plaintiffs raised these issues, BlackRock
re-collected and re-produced the files with the correct metadata,
which show that the produced files predate the Court's prior order
and were not altered.  

With respect to the native files, it does not appear that BlackRock
refused to search for the native files; instead, BlackRock states
that they were unable to find them. At the hearing, BlackRock
agreed to again check for the native files. If they cannot be
found, however, the Court cannot require BlackRock to produce
native files that they cannot find. As to the other spreadsheets
that were provided, it appears BlackRock has now produced the
correct documents, and that the metadata was a technical error that
has been rectified. While these spreadsheets do not match the QBRs,
the parties seem to agree that they are not the native files of the
QBRs because BlackRock cannot locate the native files; thus, the
fact that they are different does not necessarily mean they were
improperly altered prior to production.

Database

Next, the Plaintiffs assert that BlackRock has not produced all of
the responsive cost and profitability information.  The Plaintiffs
point to notes used by Mr. Jason Strofs during his deposition,
which referred to cost data for securities lending and cash
management that has not been produced in BlackRock's document
production.  The Plaintiffs believe this information is contained
in a single electronic database, from which BlackRock exports
relevant responsive cost information.

BlackRock does not deny that there is a database that contains its
financial information. Instead, BlackRock states that it uses the
enterprise planning platform Cognos TM1 to maintain its financial
planning data. The TM1 database contains a massive amount of data
that requires specialized software to access; there is no discrete
'entire database file' that could be produced.

At this point, it is not clear what information is available from
what sources, and what can be produced. Accordingly, the Court
orders the parties to meet and confer as to further production.
BlackRock shall confirm the scope of the data available in the TM1
database, including responsive information from years prior to
BlackRock starting to use the TM1 database.  

E-Mail Communications

The Plaintiffs seek an order requiring BlackRock to perform a
narrowly-tailored search for custodial ESI responsive to RFPs 34
and 35.

BlackRock responds that this demand for e-mail communications is a
new demand above and beyond the request already resolved by the
Court. In support, BlackRock contends that the prior joint letter
regarding RFP No. 34 focused exclusively on cost data and did not
mention e-mails.

The fact that the prior discovery letter did not mention e-mails
did not reflect a narrowing of the request. The prior discovery
letter focused on whether the cost of securities lending services
was relevant to the case; thus, there was no need to discuss
e-mails separately when BlackRock contended that no information
about the cost of security lending needed to be produced.
BlackRock did not challenge the request for communications in its
prior letter; it is not permitted to challenge the request now,
after the Court has already ordered production of all responsive
documents. The Court therefore ORDERS the BlackRock to conduct a
search for communications responsive to RFP Nos. 34 and 35; the
parties shall meet and confer on search strings and custodians to
narrow the search as appropriate.

The Court orders BlackRock to:

   (1) Meet and confer with the Plaintiffs as to what responsive
information exists in the TM1 database, and what responsive
information exists from other sources and

   (2) Produce communications responsive to RFP Nos. 34 and 35,
after meeting and conferring with Plaintiffs regarding a narrowed
search.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y5nocr7ffrom Leagle.com.

Charles Baird, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan,
Plaintiff, represented by Nina Rachel Wasow --
nina@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow
LLP, Daniel Ryan Sutter -dsutter@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers and Toll, PLLC, pro hac vice, Julia Horwitz --
jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll, Julie S.
Selesnick -- jselesnick@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll, PLLC, Karen L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Mary Joanne
Bortscheller -- mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers Toll PLLC, Michelle C. Yau -- myau@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Scott M. Lempert
-- slempert@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll, pro
hac vice & Todd F. Jackson -- todd@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg,
Jackson, Worthman and Wasow LLP.

Lauren Slayton, Plaintiff, represented by Michelle C. Yau, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,Nina Rachel Wasow, Feinberg, Jackson,
Worthman & Wasow LLP, Daniel Ryan Sutter, Cohen Milstein Sellers
and Toll, PLLC, pro hac vice, Julia Horwitz, Cohen Milstein Sellers
Toll & Mary Joanne Bortscheller, Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC.

BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., Blackrock, Inc., The
BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee & The Investment Committee of
the Retirement Committee, Defendants, represented by Brian David
Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan
-- akaplan@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow
-- mvergow@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP, Michael John McCarthy
-- mmccarthy@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards
-- redwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


BLUE CROSS: Challenges UPMC's Bid to Intervene in Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kris B. Mamula, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that a
big insurance trade group said that UPMC was years late in trying
to intervene in a lawsuit that seeks to overturn the way Blue Cross
Blue Shield plans have done business nationwide for decades.

In a filing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, the Chicago-based Blue Cross Blue Shield Association urged
the court to deny Pittsburgh-based health care giant UPMC's
petition to intervene in a civil antitrust case filed against 36
Blue plans nationwide by a group of subscribers.

The lawsuit is among nine cases with similar claims that have been
consolidated in multidistrict litigation. The first case, from
2012, was filed by retired chiropractor Jerry Conway, who is
seeking treble damages under the Clayton Antitrust Act.

Blue Cross Blue Shield controls 93 percent of subscribers in
Alabama. The plaintiffs in the case that UPMC is seeking to join --
who include individuals and businesses -- claim the Blues dominance
stifles competition, drives up premiums and lowers reimbursement to
hospitals and other providers.

UPMC is also seeking a preliminary injunction that would freeze a
Blues prohibition against plans contracting with hospitals outside
their service areas.

In filing for the injunction, UPMC said it treats 30,000 people a
year from outside the Pittsburgh area.

But the Blues prohibition means that the expiration of Pennsylvania
consent decrees on June 30 will not only ban patients with
insurance from Pittsburgh-based Highmark from using UPMC hospitals
and doctors, but also close the door on virtually all of the Blue
Cross Blue Shield network -- 1.3 million Blue members nationwide.

The only option for UPMC is such a situation would be a
case-by-case billing negotiation for services for Blue members.

Blue Cross Blue Shield licensees comprise the biggest health
insurer nationwide by number of subscribers in 44 states, according
to the lawsuit filed in Alabama in 2012. Attracting patients from
outside Western Pennsylvania would help UPMC fill beds in
Pittsburgh at three planned hospitals costing $2 billion, which
were unveiled in November.

Plaintiffs in the Alabama lawsuit have until March 14 to file
objections or express support for UPMC's involvement in the case.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action certification, alleges that
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association plans have throttled competition
in the health insurance market nationwide through membership
restrictions and walling off territorial boundaries for each plan.
The result, the lawsuit claims, has been excessive premiums for
consumers, stifled competition for health insurers and inadequate
reimbursement for doctors and hospitals.

"UPMC seeks to intervene in this lawsuit because of a purported
urgency that it created by its conduct," the Blues Association
wrote. "UPMC's motion to intervene is a non-starter because it
fails the threshold requirement: that the motion is timely. UPMC's
motion comes seven years after UPMC chose not to renew its contract
with Highmark."

Moreover, allowing UPMC a role in the Alabama case, even on the
limited basis it proposed, would be an unfair distraction to the
people who have been involved in the case for seven years, the
Blues response said.

"UPMC's motion to intervene at this stage after the close of
discovery and despite UPMC's years-long knowledge of the
litigation, would significantly delay the adjudication of the
existing parties' rights," the filing stated.

The Highmark-UPMC break occurred with Highmark's announcement in
2011 that it would buy the West Penn Allegheny Health System,
competing directly with UPMC for patients and health insurance
members. UPMC then said it would not extend its provider agreements
with Highmark, most of which expired in 2012.

Consent decrees extended the relationship until June 30, 2019, when
relations are expected to be severed. A petition to intervene,
modify and extend the consent decrees by Pennsylvania Attorney
General Joshua Shapiro is pending in Commonwealth Court in
Harrisburg.

In 1992, the Blues developed the BlueCard, which allows Blue Cross
Blue Shield members to be treated by Blue-certified providers
virtually anywhere in the country at in-network rates. UPMC is a
Blue network provider, but only until June 30 when it loses network
status.

To tap the larger market of consumers, UPMC began reaching out to
Blues plans around the country in 2014, seeking individual provider
contracts and making UPMC an in-network provider.

But Blues licensing agreements prevent individual plans from
contracting with health care providers outside their service area,
prompting UPMC to challenge the practice as anticompetitive and an
"illegal market allocation."

U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor is presiding over the Alabama
case. He has not indicated when he will rule on UPMC's petition.

Correction posted March 13, 2019: An incorrect figure was used for
the U.S. population. [GN]


BP PLC: 28 Actions with 113 Plaintiffs Pending in MDL 2185
----------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that 28 actions on behalf of 113 plaintiffs
remained pending in MDL 2185 as at December 31, 2018.

Following court approval of the settlement of a securities class
action brought on behalf of a class of post-explosion American
depository share (ADS) holders in 2017, there remained individual
cases filed in state and federal courts by pension funds,
investment funds and advisers.  These were against BP entities and
several current and former officers and directors seeking damages
for alleged losses those funds suffered because of their purchases
and/or holdings of BP ordinary shares and, in certain cases, ADSs.
The funds assert claims under English law and, for plaintiffs
purchasing ADSs, federal securities law.  All of the cases, with
the exception of one case that has been stayed, were transferred to
MDL 2185.

BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide.  It operates
through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft.  BP
p.l.c. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in London, the
United Kingdom.


BP PLC: Atlantic Richfield Still Defends Lead Paint Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that subsidiary Atlantic Richfield Company is
still facing lawsuits, several of which purport to be class
actions, related to lead paint matters.

Since 1987, Atlantic Richfield has been named as a co-defendant in
numerous lawsuits brought in the US alleging injury to persons and
property caused by lead pigment in paint.  The majority of the
lawsuits have been abandoned or dismissed against Atlantic
Richfield.  Atlantic Richfield is named in these lawsuits as
alleged successor to International Smelting and Refining and
another company that manufactured lead pigment during the period
1920-1946.  The plaintiffs include individuals and governmental
entities.  Several of the lawsuits purport to be class actions.

The lawsuits seek various remedies including compensation to
lead-poisoned children, cost to find and remove lead paint from
buildings, medical monitoring and screening programs, public
warning and education of lead hazards, reimbursement of government
healthcare costs and special education for lead-poisoned citizens
and punitive damages.  No lawsuit against Atlantic Richfield has
been settled nor has Atlantic Richfield been subject to a final
adverse judgment in any proceeding.

BP p.l.c. said, "The amounts claimed and, if such suits were
successful, the costs of implementing the remedies sought in the
various cases could be substantial.  While it is not possible to
predict the outcome of these legal actions, Atlantic Richfield
believes that it has valid defenses.  It intends to defend such
actions vigorously and believes that the incurrence of liability is
remote.  Consequently, BP believes that the impact of these
lawsuits on the group's results, financial position or liquidity
will not be material."

BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide.  It operates
through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft.  BP
p.l.c. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in London, the
United Kingdom.


BP PLC: Faces 2,159 Pending Lawsuits over LMPC Claims at Feb. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018,
that as of February 22, 2019, there are 2,159 pending lawsuits
brought by class members asserting claims for later-manifested
physical conditions (LMPCs).

In 2012, the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement (Medical
Settlement) was entered into with the Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee (PSC).  It involves payments to qualifying class members
based on a matrix for certain Specified Physical Conditions (SPCs),
as well as a 21-year Periodic Medical Consultation Program (PMCP)
for qualifying class members, and also includes provisions
regarding class members pursuing claims for later-manifested
physical conditions (LMPCs).

The deadline for submitting SPC and PMCP claims was 12 February
2015.  The Medical Claims Administrator has reported the total
number of claims submitted is 37,226.  As of 25 January 2019,
27,607 claims (comprising 22,833 SPC and 4,774 PMCP only) have been
approved for compensation totaling approximately US$67 million;
9,615 claims have been denied; and 4 claims are pending
determination.

In order to seek compensation from BP for an LMPC, class members
must file a notice with the Medical Claims Administrator within 4
years after either (i) the date of first diagnosis of the LMPC or
(ii) the effective date of the MSA (12 February 2014), whichever is
later.  As of 22 February 2019, there are 2,159 pending lawsuits
brought by class members claiming LMPCs.

BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide.  It operates
through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft.  BP
p.l.c. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in London, the
United Kingdom.


BP PLC: Motions to Drop ACS Class Suit in Mexico Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss the consolidated class action by Acciones
Colectivas de Sinaloa (ACS) against BP p.l.c.'s subsidiaries remain
pending in Mexican Federal District Court, according to BP p.l.c.'s
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

On 3 December 2015 and 29 March 2016, Acciones Colectivas de
Sinaloa (ACS) filed two class actions (which have since been
consolidated) in a Mexican Federal District Court on behalf of
several Mexican states against BP Exploration & Production Inc.
(BPXP), BP America Production Company (BPAPC), and other purported
BP subsidiaries. In these class actions, plaintiffs seek an order
requiring the BP defendants to repair the damage to the Gulf of
Mexico, to pay penalties, and to compensate plaintiffs for damage
to property, to health and for economic loss.

BPXP was formally served with the action on 8 December 2017. BPXP
opposed class certification and sought dismissal on 1 February
2018, principally on the basis that that no oil reached Mexican
waters or land and there was no economic or environmental harm in
Mexico.

BPAPC was formally served with the action in October 2018 and filed
an opposition to class certification and requested dismissal on 28
December 2018.

BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide.  It operates
through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft.  BP
p.l.c. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in London, the
United Kingdom.


BP PLC: Reaches Settlement Agreement in Scharfstein v. BPWCP
------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018,
that the company in March 2019 entered a settlement agreement for
the class action styled Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products,
LLC.

A class action lawsuit was filed against BP West Coast Products,
LLC (BPWCP) in Oregon State Court under the Oregon Unlawful Trade
Practices Act on behalf of customers who used a debit card at ARCO
gasoline stations in Oregon during the period 1 January 2011 to 30
August 2013, alleging that ARCO sites in Oregon failed to provide
sufficient notice of the 35 cents per transaction debit card fee.

In January 2014, the jury rendered a verdict against BPWCP and
awarded statutory damages of US$200 per class member.  On 25 August
2015, the trial court determined the size of the class to be
slightly in excess of two million members.  On 31 May 2016 the
trial court entered a judgment against BPWCP for the amount of
US$417.3 million.  On 31 May 2018 the Oregon Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's ruling.

BP filed a Petition for Review to the Oregon Supreme Court which
was denied on 8 November 2018.

In March 2019, BP and the Plaintiffs agreed to a settlement of the
class action lawsuit, subject to final court approval.

BP intends to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the US
Supreme Court in order to preserve BP's appeal rights pending final
court approval of the settlement.  BP's provisions for litigation
and claims include a provision for this lawsuit.

BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide.  It operates
through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft.  BP
p.l.c. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in London, the
United Kingdom.


BP PLC: Still Defends Canadian Class Action over Shares, ADSs
-------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c. continues to face a securities class action pending in
Ontario, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

Following various legal proceedings, on 26 February 2016, a
plaintiff seeking to assert claims under Canadian law against BP on
behalf of a class of Canadian residents who allegedly suffered
losses because of their purchase of BP ordinary shares and ADSs
filed a motion in the Court of Appeal for Ontario to lift a stay on
the action.  The plaintiff's motion was granted on 29 July 2016.

On 1 September 2017 the court granted in part and denied in part
BP's motion for summary judgment, limiting the case to three
alleged misstatements and narrowing the class period.  On 3 April
2018, the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed that decision.

BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide.  It operates
through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft.  BP
p.l.c. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in London, the
United Kingdom.


BP PLC: Subsidiaries Still Defend Fishermen Class Suit in Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c.'s subsidiaries continue to face a class action litigation
in Mexico City, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2018.

On 18 October 2012, before a Mexican Federal District Court located
in Mexico City, a class action complaint was filed against BP
America Production Company (BPAPC) and other BP subsidiaries.  The
plaintiffs, who allegedly are fishermen, are seeking, among other
things, compensatory damages for the class members who allegedly
suffered economic losses, as well as an order requiring BP to
remediate environmental damage resulting from the Incident, to
provide funding for the preservation of the environment and to
conduct environmental impact studies in the Gulf of Mexico for the
next 10 years.

On 15 May 2018, BP was formally served with the post-class
certification complaint.  On 27 June 2018, BP answered the
complaint by seeking dismissal on various grounds including that no
oil reached Mexican waters or land and there was no economic or
environmental harm in Mexico.

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

BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide.  It operates
through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft.  BP
p.l.c. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in London, the
United Kingdom.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on March 13 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
("Bridgepoint" or the "Company") (NYSE: BPI) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired the securities of Bridgepoint
between March 8, 2016 through March 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Bridgepoint's
processes for recording revenue for its Corporate Full Tuition
Grant program were inaccurate; (2) Bridgepoint maintained deficient
internal controls; (3) due to the foregoing deficiencies,
Bridgepoint was prone to and did commit material accounting errors
related to revenue, provision for bad debts, accounts receivable
and deferred revenue, which resulted in the overstatement of
revenue and expenses; and (4) as a result, Bridgepoint's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.  When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May 10, 2019 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212)
983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or
gegleston@gme-law.com.

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


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: May 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP ( www.blockesq.com ), a securities litigation
firm representing investors nationwide, informs investors that
there has been a class action lawsuit filed against Bridgepoint
Education, Inc. ("Bridgepoint" or the "Company") (NYSE: BPI) and
certain of its officers alleging violations of the federal
securities laws. Shareholders are encouraged to contact Block &
Leviton LLP to learn more.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court, Southern
District of California, alleges that: (i) Bridgepoint's processes
for recording revenue for its FTG program were inaccurate; (ii)
Bridgepoint maintained deficient internal controls; (iii) due to
the foregoing deficiencies, Bridgepoint was prone to and did commit
material accounting errors related to revenue, provision for bad
debts, accounts receivable and deferred revenue, which resulted in
the overstatement of revenue and expenses; and (iv) as a result,
Bridgepoint's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

The lawsuit stems from Bridgepoint's March 7th, 2019 disclosure
that the Company's previously issued financial statements for the
three and nine months ended September 30, 2018, should no longer be
relied upon. Bridgepoint also disclosed two material weaknesses in
internal control over financial reporting.

Following this disclosure, Bridgepoint's stock price plummeted by
$3.21 per share, or over 34%, to close at $6.22 per share on March
7, 2019.

If you have purchased or otherwise acquired Bridgepoint securities
between March 8, 2016, and March 7, 2019, and have questions about
your legal rights, or possess information relevant to this
investigation, you are encouraged to contact Attorney Dan DeMaria
at (888) 868-2385, by email at dan@blockesq.com, or by visiting
http://shareholder.law/cases/?case=bridgepoint.Additionally, those
interested in serving as lead Plaintiff must apply do so before the
May 10, 2019, lead plaintiff deadline.

Block & Leviton LLP was recently ranked 4th among securities
litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in 2017. The firm represents
many of the nation's largest institutional investors and numerous
individual investors in securities litigation throughout the
country. Indeed, its lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for
its clients. [GN]


BROWN UNIVERSITY: Settles Fiduciary Class Action for $3.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rob Kozlowski, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
Brown University, Providence, R.I., settled a class-action lawsuit
alleging the university's 403(b) plans' managers breached their
fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering too many similar
investment options and paying excessive fees for investments.

According to the settlement agreement on March 11 in the U.S.
District Court in Providence, the $3.5 million deal will settle all
claims from the July 2017 lawsuit, Short et al. vs. Brown
University.

That lawsuit, originally filed by four participants in the plans,
alleged the university "consistently selected and retained
investment options for the plans that historically and consistently
underperformed their benchmarks and charged excessive management
fees" in the Brown University Legacy Retirement Plan and the Brown
University Deferred Vesting Retirement Plan, according to the
original filing.

The legacy plan had more than $1 billion in assets and the deferred
vesting plan had assets of $244 million as of Dec. 31, 2015,
according to the lawsuit.

"We are fully confident that our retirement plans are in compliance
with all applicable laws, including the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act. In considering the prospect of years of costly
litigation to vigorously defend this case, the university
determined that the most prudent course of action was settlement,"
university spokesman Brian Clark said in an email. [GN]


CAN-FITE BIOPHARMA: Suit over Piclidenoson Drug Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd. said in its Form 20-F/A report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that suit related to
Piclidenoson drug has been dismissed.

On June 29, 2015, the company received a lawsuit, filed with the
District Court of Tel-Aviv, requesting recognition of this lawsuit
as a class action.

The lawsuit named the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleges, among other things,
that the company misled the public with regard to disclosures
concerning the efficacy of the company's drug candidate,
Piclidenoson.

The claimant alleges that he suffered personal damages of over NIS
73,000, while also claiming that our shareholders suffered damages
of approximately NIS 125 million.

On March 31, 2016, the company filed a response to the lawsuit. On
March 1, 2017, a hearing was held in the District Court on whether
to certify the lawsuit as a class action. A final hearing on the
certification was held on May 17, 2017.

On July 18, 2017, the District Court of Tel-Aviv issued a ruling in
which it denied the request to recognize the lawsuit as a class
action and awarded the company an amount of NIS 50,000 to pay its
expenses in relation to such law suit. The claimant filed a
petition with the Supreme Court appealing the District Court
decision.

On January 28, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a notice of
procedures to be complied with by the relevant parties leading up
to a formal hearing scheduled for December 5, 2018. On December 5,
2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and as part of a
compromise by the claimant not to pursue the appeal, the Supreme
Court ordered the company to return the aforementioned expenses to
the claimant.

Accordingly, the lawsuit has been finally dismissed and is no
longer pending against the company.

Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, develops small molecule therapeutic products for the
treatment of autoimmune-inflammatory, oncological, and liver
diseases. The company was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in
Petah-Tikva, Israel.


CANADA: Settles Indian Day School Survivors' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
National Post reports that brilliant late-winter sunshine lifted
the spirits of Garry McLean's family members on March 12 as they
celebrated the former Indian Day School survivor -- and a proposed
settlement of his class-action lawsuit against the federal
government that he never lived to see.

Indigenous drumming and song filled the air and loved ones clutched
a photo of McLean, the lead plaintiff in a 2009 suit seeking
compensation for the harms he and his fellow students suffered,
after Crown-Indigenous Minister Carolyn Bennett announced the
details of the long-sought settlement.

"The sun is shining," said Roger Augustine, a regional chief for
the Assembly of First Nations, as well as a fellow plaintiff and
day school survivor who attended a facility near Miramichi, N.B.,
beginning at the age of six.

"It kind of reminds of me of the way Garry was . . .  Garry gave
his life to his work and gave his life to what we are experiencing
today. With that, I want to say thank God -- and thank Garry."

Former students who are part of the class action would receive
basic personal compensation of $10,000 each under the terms of the
settlement, while those who experienced physical and sexual abuse
at the schools would also be eligible for additional compensation
of between $50,000 and $200,000, Bennett said.

Claudette Commanda, 62, attended a day school in her Quebec
community of Kitigan Zibi First Nation more than half a century
ago. She described imagining how her six-year-old self might have
reacted to the news.

"That six-year-old would say 'Finally," she said. "'Finally, the
abuse, the violence, the physical violence and the name-calling is
going to stop."'

Canada is committed to righting historical wrongs in the spirit of
reconciliation, said Bennett, who called the proposed agreement a
major step forward.

"This agreement will bring us one step closer to a lasting and
meaningful resolution for survivors … of this dark and tragic
chapter in Canada's history," she said.

The proposed settlement follows discussions between the government
and parties to the suit, which was originally filed in 2009 on
behalf of Indigenous people and their families who attended Indian
Day Schools, which began operating across Canada in the 1920s.
McLean died of cancer in February.

"We are all so sad that he didn't live to see this day," said
Bennett, noting that his courage and advocacy paved the way for the
settlement.

Nearly 200,000 Indigenous children attended more than 700 federally
operated Indian Day Schools, where many endured trauma, including
physical and sexual abuse. The government estimates that between
120,000 and 140,000 former students may end up taking part in the
class action.

The schools operated separately from the more infamous residential
school system, and were not included in the Indian Residential
Schools Settlement Agreement approved in 2006.

Many Canadians are aware of the tragic legacy of residential
schools, but not of the day schools, Bennett said.

"Although children who attended Indian Day Schools did leave school
at the end of the day, many students experienced trauma and were
subject to physical and sexual abuse at the hands of individuals
who had been entrusted with their care," Bennett said.

"Due to government policies, children were denied the opportunity
to speak their language and were forced to abandon their culture."

Before approving the settlement, the court will consider comments
made by the members of the class action, submissions made by their
legal counsel and the government to determine whether the
settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interest of the
class members.

Harms continue to be passed down through generations of Indigenous
families and communities, Bennett said.

"It is my sincere hope that this will be the start of a successful
healing process for all of those involved." [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Monetary Damages Class Settlement Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Funding, LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the monetary damages
class settlement in the Interchange Litigation has been
preliminarily approved.

In 2005, a putative class of retail merchants filed antitrust
lawsuits against Mastercard International ("Mastercard") and Visa
U.S.A., Inc. ("Visa") and several issuing banks, including Capital
One Financial Corporation (the "Corporation") and its subsidiaries,
including Capital One Bank (USA), National Association (the
"Bank"), seeking both injunctive relief and monetary damages for an
alleged conspiracy by defendants to fix the level of interchange
fees.

Other merchants have asserted similar claims in separate lawsuits,
and while these separate cases did not name any issuing banks,
Visa, Mastercard and issuing banks, including the Corporation and
its subsidiaries, including the Bank, have entered settlement and
judgment sharing agreements allocating the liabilities of any
judgment or settlement arising from all interchange-related cases.

The lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes and were
settled in 2012. The class settlement, however, was invalidated by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in June
2016, and the suit was separated into separate class actions
seeking injunctive and monetary relief, respectively.

In addition, numerous merchant groups opted out of the 2012
settlement and have pursued their own claims. The claims by the
injunctive relief class have not been resolved, but the parties
reached a new settlement agreement with the monetary damages class
in August 2018, whereby the class would receive up to approximately
$6.2 billion collectively from the defendants in exchange for a
release of the class's claims, depending on the percentage of class
plaintiffs who opt out.

That settlement has been preliminarily approved by the district
court, and court proceedings are underway for final approval of
that settlement.

Visa and Mastercard have also settled several of the opt-out cases,
which required non-material payments from issuing banks, including
the Corporation and its subsidiaries, including the Bank.

Visa created a litigation escrow account following its IPO of stock
in 2008 that funds settlements for its member banks, and any
settlements related to Mastercard-allocated losses have either
already been paid or are reflected in the Corporation and its
subsidiaries’ reserves.

Capital One Funding, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Capital One
Bank (USA), National Association.


CEDAR SHAKE: Fraser Sues Over Cedar Shake, Shingle Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fraser Construction Company, Inc., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE
BUREAU, a Washington nonprofit corporation; WALDUN FOREST PRODUCTS,
LTD, a British Columbia corporation; ANBROOK INDUSTRIES LTD, a
British Columbia corporation; and G&R CEDAR LTD., a British
Columbia corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00451 (W.D.
Wash., March 27, 2019) arises out of a conspiracy orchestrated by
Defendants to fix, increase, maintain, or stabilize the price of
cedar shakes and shingles and reduce price competition among cedar
shake and shingle manufacturers in violation of federal antitrust
law as well as the antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment laws of numerous states. The Defendants' conspiracy
began at least as early as January 1, 2011 and continues through
today.

Although Plaintiff has not yet had the opportunity to obtain any
discovery from Defendants, Plaintiff already can allege numerous
highly-detailed facts that demonstrate the existence, let alone
plausibility, of the alleged conspiracy, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased cedar shakes and shingles bearing the CSSB
Certi Label trademark indirectly from one or more of the
Manufacturer Defendants or co-conspirator manufacturers for resale
during the Class Period.

Cedar Shake & Shingle Bureau ("CSSB"), is the main trade
association serving the cedar shake and shingle industry in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Greg J. Hollon, Esq.
     MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC
     One Union Square
     600 University Street, Suite 2700
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 467-1816
     Email: ghollon@mcnaul.com

          - and -

     Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
     BURNS CHAREST LLP
     5290 Denver Tech Center Pkwy., Suite 150
     Greenwood Village, CO 80111
     Phone: (720) 630-2092
     Email: ccormier@burnscharest.com

          - and -

     Warren T. Burns, Esq.
     Will Thompson, Esq.
     Spencer Cox, Esq.
     BURNS CHAREST LLP
     900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: (469) 904-4550
     Email: wburns@burnscharest.com
            wthompson@burnscharest.com
            scox@burnscharest.com

          - and -

     Lydia Wright, Esq.
     BURNS CHAREST LLP
     65 Canal Street, Suite 1170
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 799-2845
     Email: lwright@burnscharest.com

          - and -

     George Farah, Esq.
     HANDLEY FARAH ANDERSON
     81 Prospect Street
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (212) 477-8090
     Email: gfarah@hfajustice.com

          - and -

     Keith Dubanevich, Esq.
     STOLL BERNE
     209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
     Portland, OR 97204
     Phone: (503) 227-1600
     Email: tdejong@stollberne.com
            kdubanevich@stollberne.com


CERAGON NETWORKS: Still Defends Class Action in Tel-Aviv Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ceragon Networks, Inc. said in its Form 20-F/A report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action filed in the District Court of
Tel-Aviv (Economic Department).

On January 5, 2015, a motion to approve a purported class action,
naming the Company, its CEO and its directors as defendants, was
filed with the District Court of Tel-Aviv (Economic Department), on
behalf of holders of ordinary shares, including those who purchased
shares during the period following the Company's follow on public
offering in July 2014 (the "Motion").

The purported class action is based on Israeli law and alleges
breaches of duties by the Company and its management on account of
false and misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and
public statements, during the period between July and October 2014.


The plaintiff's principal claim is that immediately prior to the
follow on public offering, the defendants presented misleading
guidance concerning the expected financial results for the third
quarter of 2014, indicating an anticipated improvement in the rate
of gross profit based on orders which were already received by the
Company at the time of such presentation. Although the plaintiff
admits that, in accordance with the actual results for the third
quarter, the Company did meet the guidance as far as revenues were
concerned, the actual rate of gross profit turned out to be much
lower than the one anticipated.

Plaintiff argues that at the time such guidance was presented by
the defendants, they already knew, or should have known, that it
was incorrect. The plaintiff seeks specified compensatory damages
in a sum of up to $75 million, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Motion was served to the Company on January 6, 2015 and the
Company filed its response on June 21, 2015. On October 22, 2015,
the plaintiff filed a request for discovery of specific documents.
The Company filed its response to the plaintiffs' request for
discovery on January 25, 2016, and the plaintiffs submitted their
response on February 24, 2016.

On June 8, 2016, the District Court partially accepted the
plaintiff's request for discovery, and ordered the Company to
disclose some of the requested documents. The Company's request to
appeal this decision was denied by the Supreme Court on October 25,
2016, and the Company disclosed the required documents to the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed their reply to the Company's
response to the motion on April 2, 2017.

In May 2017 the Company filed two requests: the first, requesting
to dismiss the Plaintiff's response to the Company's defense, or,
alternatively, to allow the Company to respond to it; the second,
to precede discussion with regards to the legal question of the
governing law. A preliminary hearing was held on May 22, 2017,
where the court set dates for response to the Company's
above-mentioned requests and for evidence hearings.

On July 17, 2017, the court allowed the Company to respond to the
plaintiff's response and on July 29, 2017 the Court denied the
Company's second request. The Company filed its response to the
plaintiff's response on September 18, 2017.

On October 2, 2017, the plaintiff filed a request to summon its
Chairman of the Board, Mr. Zisapel, and its CEO, Mr. Palti, to the
upcoming evidence hearing. The Company filed its response to this
request on October 26, 2017; and the Plaintiff filed its reply to
Company's response.

The first evidence hearing took place on November 2, 2017. During
this hearing the Company agreed to consider summoning to the second
evidence hearing one of the above-mentioned Company's officers, and
on November 8, 2017, the Company advised the court that it agrees
that Mr. Palti will be summoned to the next evidence hearing. The
second and final evidence hearing took place on January 8, 2018,
and the court set dates for submitting summaries, which were
submitted to the court as follows:

The Plaintiff submitted his summaries on March 21, 2018;

The Defendants submitted their summaries on June 12, 2018;

The Plaintiff submitted his reply summaries on September 5, 2018.

On October 4, 2018, an interim decision regarding dual listed
companies, which corresponds with the Company's arguments in this
case, was rendered by the Supreme Court of Israel. In light of
this, on October 15, 2018, the plaintiff asked from the court to
add a plea to his summaries.  The court has approved and gave to
the defendants the right to reply. In accordance, the Company's
response was submitted on December 4, 2018. Plaintiff's reply to
Company's response was submitted on December 26, 2018.

After submission of the summaries and the responses to plaintiff's
plea, the court is expected to issue its decision whether to
approve the Motion or deny it.

The Company believes that it has a strong defense against the
allegations referred to in the Motion and that the District Court
should deny it. The Company is not a party to any other material
legal proceedings.

Ceragon Networks, Inc. provides WIMAX and LTE-ready wireless
communication backhaul services. It serves fixed line and mobile
operators, state and local government agencies, utilities, and
private-network service providers. The company was incorporated in
1999 and is based in Paramus, New Jersey. Ceragon Networks, Inc.
operates as a subsidiary of Ceragon Networks Ltd.


CHASE BANK USA: Still Defends Merchants' Interchange Pricing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Bank USA, National Association, still faces a merchants'
class suit in New York as it relates to the class action seeking
primarily injunctive relief, according to Chase Issuance Trust's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

Chase also disclosed that on January 24, 2019, the District Court
for the Eastern District of New York granted preliminary approval
of an amended settlement agreement with the parties to the class
action seeking monetary relief. This settlement provides for the
defendants to contribute an additional US$900 million to the
approximately US$5.3 billion currently held in escrow from the
original settlement.

On June 22, 2005, merchants filed a putative class action complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The
complaint alleged that VISA, MasterCard and certain member banks
including Bank of America, Chase USA, Capital One, Citibank and
others, conspired to set the price of interchange in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The complaint further alleged
tying/bundling and exclusive dealing.  Since the filing of the
Connecticut complaint, other complaints were filed in different
U.S. District Courts challenging the setting of interchange, as
well as the associations' respective rules.  The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the cases in the Eastern
District of New York for pretrial proceedings.  An amended
consolidated complaint was filed on April 24, 2006 which added
claims relating to off-line debit transactions.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss all claims that pre-date January 1, 2004.  The
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted that
motion and those claims were dismissed.

Plaintiffs filed a first supplemental complaint in May 2006
alleging that the MasterCard offering violated Section 7 of the
Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that the offering
was a fraudulent conveyance.

In January 2009, the plaintiffs filed and served a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint against all defendants and an
amended supplemental complaint challenging the MasterCard initial
public offering ("IPO") making antitrust claims similar to those
that were dismissed previously.  With respect to the Visa IPO, the
plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint challenging the Visa IPO
on antitrust theories parallel to those articulated in the
MasterCard IPO pleading.

On March 31, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  Separate motions to
dismiss each of the supplemental complaints challenging the
MasterCard and Visa IPOs were also filed.  Plaintiffs and
defendants also fully briefed and argued their motions for summary
judgment.  None of these motions have been decided.

In October 2012, Visa, Inc., its wholly owned subsidiaries Visa
U.S.A.  Inc. and Visa International Service Association, MasterCard
Incorporated, MasterCard International Incorporated and various
United States financial institution defendants, including Chase USA
and several of its affiliates and certain predecessor institutions,
entered into a settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") to
resolve the United States merchant and retail industry association
plaintiffs' (the "Class Plaintiffs") claims in the multi-district
litigation.  On November 27, 2012, the District Court for the
Eastern District of New York entered an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement Agreement, which provided, among other
things, for a US$6.05 billion cash payment to the Class Plaintiffs
and an amount equal to ten basis points of interchange for a period
of eight months to be measured from a date within sixty days of the
end of the opt-out period.  The Settlement Agreement also provided
for modifications to each of the network's no-surcharge rules,
which were effective as of January 27, 2013.

On April 11, 2013, Class Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the
settlement.  On September 12, 2013, the District Court for the
Eastern District of New York held the final approval hearing.  On
January 14, 2014, the District Court for the Eastern District of
New York rendered its final order and judgment approving the
settlement.  A number of entities including retailers and objecting
trade associations appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, which, in June 2016, vacated the District Court for
the Eastern District of New York's certification of the class
action and reversed the approval of the class settlement.  In March
2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined petitions seeking review of
the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The case has been remanded to the District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for further proceedings consistent with the
appellate decision.  The District Court for the Eastern District of
New York has since appointed separate counsel for Class Plaintiffs
and divided the class action into two separate actions, with one
seeking damages and one seeking injunctive relief.  Class
Plaintiffs, as well as other merchants, recently filed motions
seeking to amend their complaints, which motions the defendants
opposed.  In September 2018, the parties to the class action
seeking monetary relief finalized an agreement which amends and
supersedes the prior settlement agreement.

On January 24, 2019, the District Court for the Eastern District of
New York granted preliminary approval of the amended settlement
agreement.  This settlement provides for the defendants to
contribute an additional US$900 million to the approximately US$5.3
billion currently held in escrow from the original settlement.  The
class action seeking primarily injunctive relief continues
separately.


CHASE BANK USA: Still Defends Suits over Credit Card Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Bank USA, National Association, continues to defend itself
against class actions related to its credit card policies and
practices, according to Chase Issuance Trust's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018.

A number of lawsuits seeking class action certification have been
filed in both state and federal courts against Chase Bank USA,
National Association ("Chase USA").  These lawsuits challenge
certain policies and practices of Chase USA's credit card business.
A few of these lawsuits have been conditionally certified as class
actions.  Chase USA has defended itself against claims in the past
and intends to continue to do so in the future.  While it is
impossible to predict the outcome of any of these lawsuits, Chase
USA believes that any liability that might result from any of these
lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the credit card
receivables.

In July 2015, Chase USA and Chase BankCard Services, Inc. entered
into a consent order with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
("CFPB") regarding practices involving credit card collections
litigation, including with respect to sworn documents, and the sale
of consumer credit card debt.  Chase USA and Chase BankCard
Services, Inc. have implemented the requirements of the CFPB
consent order.  Chase USA does not expect that the CFPB consent
order has adversely affected the payment of principal or interest
by the issuing entity on the offered notes.


CHICAGO ATHLETIC: Suit Green Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Steven Green, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHICAGO ATHLETIC CLUBS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2019 CH 01768 was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
March 27, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-02129.

In the State Action, Plaintiff alleges two claims for alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
Plaintiff commenced the State Action against CAC by service of
process upon CAC's registered agent. Plaintiff served CAC on
February 25, 2019. CAC has not yet filed a responsive pleading to
Plaintiff's Complaint, says the complaint.

The Defendant is represented by:

     J.H. Jennifer Lee, Esq.
     ARENT FOX LLP
     1717 K Street, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20006-5344
     Phone: (202) 857-6000
     Facsimile: (202) 857-6395
     Email: jenny.lee@arentfox.com


CITIBANK NA: Still Defends Suits over Private-Label RMBS Matters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citibank, N.A. continues to face a number of legal proceedings in
connection with its role as trustee of certain residential
mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) transactions, according to
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-GC8's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018.

On June 18, 2014, a civil action was filed against Citibank in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York by a group of investors in
48 private-label RMBS trusts for which Citibank allegedly serves or
did serve as trustee, asserting claims for purported violations of
the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the "Trust Indenture Act"), breach
of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on
Citibank's alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee for the
48 RMBS trusts.  On November 24, 2014, plaintiffs sought leave to
withdraw this action.  On the same day, a smaller subset of similar
plaintiff investors in 27 private-label RMBS trusts for which
Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee, filed a new
civil action against Citibank in the United States District

Court for the Southern District of New York asserting similar
claims as the prior action filed in state court.  In January 2015,
the court closed plaintiffs' original state court action.  On
September 8, 2015, the federal court dismissed all claims as to 24
of the 27 trusts and allowed certain of the claims to proceed as to
the other three trusts.  Subsequently, plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed all claims with respect to two of the three trusts.  On
April 7, 2017, Citibank filed a motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs filed its consolidated opposition brief and cross motion
for partial summary judgment on May 22, 2017.  Briefing on those
motions was completed on August 4, 2017.  On March 22, 2018, the
court granted Citibank's motion for summary judgment in its
entirety, denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and
ordered the clerk to close the case.  On April 20, 2018, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal.  Plaintiffs' opening brief was filed on
August 3, 2018.  Citibank filed its opposition on November 2, 2018.
Plaintiffs' filed their reply on November 16, 2018.

On November 24, 2015, the same investors that brought the federal
case brought a new civil action in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York related to 25 private-label RMBS trusts for which
Citibank allegedly serves or did serve as trustee.  This case
includes the 24 trusts previously dismissed in the federal action,
and one additional trust.  The investors assert claims for breach
of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid
conflicts of interest, and violation of New York's Streit Act (the
"Streit Act").  Following oral argument on Citibank's motion to
dismiss, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 5, 2016.
On June 27, 2017, the state court issued a decision, dismissing the
event of default claims, mortgage-file-related claims, the
fiduciary duty claims, and the conflict of interest claims.  The
decision sustained certain breach of contract claims including the
claim alleging discovery of breaches of representations and
warranties, a claim related to robo-signing, and the implied
covenant of good faith claim.  Citibank appealed the lower court's
decision, and on January 16, 2018, the Appellate Division, First
Department, dismissed the claims related to robo-signing and the
implied covenant of good faith, but allowed plaintiffs' claim
alleging discovery of breaches of representations and warranties to
proceed.

On August 19, 2015, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
("FDIC") as receiver for a failed financial institution filed a
civil action against Citibank in the Southern District of New York.
This action relates to one private-label RMBS trust for which
Citibank formerly served as trustee.  FDIC asserts claims for
breach of contract, violation of the Streit Act, and violation of
the Trust Indenture Act.  Citibank jointly briefed a motion to
dismiss with The Bank of New York Mellon and U.S. Bank, N.A.,
entities that have also been sued by FDIC in their capacity as
trustee, and these cases have all been consolidated in front of
Judge Carter.  On September 30, 2016, the court granted the motion
to dismiss without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  On October 14, 2016, FDIC filed a motion for
reargument or relief from judgment from the court's dismissal
order.  On July 11, 2017, Judge Carter ruled on the motion for
reconsideration regarding his dismissal of the action.  He denied
reconsideration of his decision on standing, but granted leave to
amend the complaint by October 9, 2017.  The FDIC subsequently
requested an extension of time to file its amended complaint, which
was granted.  The FDIC filed its amended complaint on December 8,
2017.  Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on March 13, 2018.  On April 18, 2018, plaintiff filed
its opposition.  Defendants filed their joint reply on May 3,
2018.



CITIGROUP INC: July 12 ADR Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
If You Received A Cash Distribution In Connection With Certain
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") For Which Citibank N.A.
Served As Depositary Or If You Currently Own Such ADRs, Your Rights
May Be Affected
     
The following statement is being issued by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP regarding the Citibank ADR Litigation.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Court Order,
Merryman et al. v. Citigroup, Inc. et al., No. 1:15-cv-09185-CM-KNF
(S.D.N.Y.) has been provisionally certified as a class action for
settlement purposes and a settlement for $14,750,000 in cash and
certain additional non-monetary relief has been proposed, which, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the litigation. This notice
provides basic information. It is important that you review the
detailed notice ("Notice") found at the website below.

What is this lawsuit about:

Plaintiffs allege that, during the relevant time period, Citibank
N.A. (the "Depositary") systematically deducted impermissible fees
for conducting foreign exchange from dividends and/or cash
distributions issued by foreign companies, and owed to ADR holders.
The Depositary has denied, and continues to deny, any wrongdoing or
liability whatsoever.

Who is a Class Member:

Persons or entities (1) who received cash distributions from the
ADRs listed in Appendix 1 to the Notice from January 1, 2006 to
September 4, 2018, inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the
"Damages Class"); and/or (2) who currently own the ADRs listed in
Appendix 1 to the Notice (the "Current Holder Class" and, together
with the Damages Class, the "Class").

What are the benefits:

If the Court approves the settlement, the proceeds, after deduction
of Court-approved notice and administration costs, attorneys' fees
and expenses, will be distributed pursuant to the Plan of
Allocation in the Notice, or other plan approved by the Court.

If you are a Current Holder Class Member, the Settlement also
provides additional non-monetary relief related to the conversion
of foreign currency of cash distributions paid by eligible ADR
issuers pursuant to a deposit agreement.

What are my rights:

If you are a Damages Class Member and you hold (or held) your ADRs
directly and are listed on the Depositary's transfer agent records,
you are a Registered Holder Damages Class Member and do not have to
take any action to be eligible for a settlement payment. However,
if you hold (or held) your ADRs through a bank, broker or nominee
and are not listed on the Depositary's transfer agent records, you
are a Non-Registered Holder Damages Class Member and you must
submit a Claim Form, postmarked by August 12, 2019, to be eligible
for a settlement payment. Non-Registered Holder Damages Class
Members who do nothing will not receive a payment, and will be
bound by all Court decisions.

If you are a Class Member and do not want to remain in the Class,
you may exclude yourself by request, received by June 7, 2019, in
accordance with the Notice. If you exclude yourself, you will not
be bound by any Court decisions in this litigation and you will not
receive a payment, but you will retain any right you may have to
pursue your own litigation at your own expense concerning the
settled claims. Objections to the settlement, Plan of Allocation,
or request for attorneys' fees and expenses must be received by
June 7, 2019, in accordance with the Notice.

A hearing will be held on July 12, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Colleen McMahon, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to
determine if the settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or request for
fees and expenses should be approved. Supporting papers will be
posted on the website once filed.

For more information visit www.CitibankADRSettlement.com, email
info@CitibankADRSettlement.com or call 1.866.680.6138.


CLAIRE'S STORE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Claires Stores Inc.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Claires Stores
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02809 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 28,
2019).

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

Claire's, formerly known as Claire's Accessories, is an American
retailer of accessories, jewelry, and toys primarily aimed toward
girls, tweens and teens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


CLIFTON JAMES: CCS' FDCPA Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Remand,
arguing that a counterclaim based on federal law cannot serve as a
basis for removal, in the case captioned CREDIT CONSULTING
SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. CLIFTON JAMES SCOTT, Defendant. Case
No. 19-cv-00332-WHO. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff and cross-defendant Credit Consulting Services, Inc.
(CCS) filed a collection action against defendant and
cross-claimant Clifton James Scott (Scott) in state court. Scott
filed a cross-complaint against CCS and two of CCS' officers,
alleging violations of one state cause of action and the federal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). On the basis of Scott's
FDCPA counterclaim, CCS and the officer defendants removed the
action to this court.

CCS and Meeks counter that removal is proper under Section 1441(c)
because the Meeks are third-party defendants and Scott's federal
counterclaims under the FDCPA are separate and independent from
CCS's underlying contract claim.

Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, federal courts have original
jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal law. Removal
based on Section 1331 is governed by the well-pleaded complaint
rule. Under this rule, federal jurisdiction exists only when a
federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff's properly
pleaded complaint.Removal, therefore cannot be based on a
counterclaim or cross-claim raising a federal question.

CCS asserts nonetheless that the Meeks are entitled to remove this
action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(c), which states: "Whenever a
separate and independent claim or cause of action, which would be
removable if sued upon alone, is joined with one or more otherwise
non-removable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be
removed and the district court may determine all issues therein,
or, in its discretion, may remand all matters not otherwise within
its original jurisdiction."

Federal circuit courts that have squarely decided the issue are
split on whether third-party defendants may remove an action under
Section 1441(c).  Although the Ninth Circuit has not squarely ruled
on this question, several district courts within the Ninth Circuit,
including in this District, have followed the majority view of the
Seventh and Eighth Circuits.  The Court finds no reason to depart
from the majority view that a third-party defendant is not entitled
to remove an action.

CCS and Meeks have failed to establish a basis for subject matter
jurisdiction or their right to remove this action. Accordingly, the
Court remands this action to Superior Court of California, County
of San Benito.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019
Memorandum Decision and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y3xjy59cfrom Leagle.com.

Credit Consulting Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Lawrence Keith Iglesias -- LIglesias@EllisLawGrp.com -- Ellis Law
Group, LLP & Mark Ewell Ellis -- mellis@ellislawgrp.com -- Ellis
Law Group, LLP.

Clifton James Scott, Defendant, represented by Fred W. Schwinn --
fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com -- Consumer Law Center, Inc.,
Matthew C. Salmonsen -- matthew.salmonsen@sjconsumerlaw.com --
Consumer Law Center, Inc. & Raeon Rodrigo Roulston --
roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com -- Consumer Law Center, Inc.

Clifton James Scott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Cross-claimant, represented by Fred W. Schwinn, Consumer
Law Center, Inc., Matthew C. Salmonsen, Consumer Law Center, Inc. &
Raeon Rodrigo Roulston, Consumer Law Center, Inc.

Credit Consulting Services, Inc., a California corporation, Rodney
Lynn Meeks, individually and in his offiical capacity & Christine
Louise Meeks, individually and in her official capacity,
Cross-defendants, represented by Mark Ewell Ellis, Ellis Law Group,
LLP & Lawrence Keith Iglesias, Ellis Law Group, LLP.


COLLIER COUNTY, FL: Court Narrows Claims in M. Antoine's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Middle District of Florida,
Fort Myers Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting in part
and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned NEHEMY ANTOINE and INGRID ALONZO, Plaintiffs, v. THE
SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA and KAMELA PATTON,
Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-379-FtM-38MRM. (M.D. Fla.).

Plaintiffs are foreign-born, English Language Learner children who
were denied access to free public education in Collier County,
Florida, through the Defendants' policy and practice of excluding
such children from public school.

The Court finds that, first the Third Amended Complaint is a
proverbial shotgun pleading, as it incorporates all preceding
paragraphs into each subsequent count and thus does not comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. As a result, the Court dismisses
the Third Amended Complaint, but grants Plaintiffs leave to file a
fourth and final amended complaint.

The Court adds that, second, the Third Amended Complaint contains
improper citations to legal authority and legal argument.  Although
Defendants do not state with specificity the violating paragraphs,
the Court expects Plaintiffs' next pleading to eliminate legal
authority and arguments.

Further, the operative pleading continues to include class action
allegations the Court rejected in denying class certification on
the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, Title VI, Equal
Protection, and Florida Educational Equity Act claims. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(d)(1)(D) provides, in pertinent part, the court may issue
orders that require that the pleadings be amended to eliminate
allegations about representation of absent persons and that the
action proceed accordingly.

Fourth, the Defendants' attempt to re-hash their standing argument
this Court previously rejected is denied.  

Fifth, although not the model of clarity, the Third Amended
Complaint does not re-allege the previously dismissed Title IV and
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claims against Superintendent Patton. To
that extent, the Defendants' motion is denied.

Finally, the Defendants' motion to strike three allegations as
impertinent or immaterial is granted in part and denied in part.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the court may strike
from a pleading any immaterial or impertinent matter. An allegation
is immaterial if it has no value in developing the issues of the
case.

Here, the Court strikes paragraphs 37 and 38 on the history of
foreign-born unaccompanied minors and a Cuban student who was
denied enrollment in 2012 because the paragraphs either confuse the
issues or are immaterial and thus have no value in developing the
issues of this case The Court, however, denies the Defendants'
motion to strike paragraph 45, which states, School officials make
the discriminatory assumption that such children are likely to fail
academically when they deny them enrollment. This assumption is not
based on any testing or assessment of the individual student;
rather, the denial of enrollment occurs without any individualized
assessment. At most, this determination is based solely on the
student's transcript from a prior school.

The Court finds paragraph 45 is relevant and has value to the
issues in this case.

Accordingly, Defendants School Board of Collier County, Florida and
Kamela Patton's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in
part.  The Third Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y62p7bm8from
Leagle.com.

Nehemy Antoine, Plaintiff, represented by Gillian B. Gillers --
Gillian.Gillers@splcenter.org -- Southern Poverty Law Center,
Michelle R. Lapointe, Southern Poverty Law & Viviana Bonilla Lopez,
Southern Poverty Law Center.

Ingrid Alonzo, Plaintiff, represented by Gillian B. Gillers ,
Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice, Michelle R. Lapointe,
Southern Poverty Law, pro hac vice & Viviana Bonilla Lopez,
Southern Poverty Law Center.

The School Board Of Collier County, Florida & Kamela Patton,
Superintendent of Collier County Public Schools, in her official
capacity, Defendants, represented by James Donald Fox --
jfox@ralaw.com -- Roetzel & Andress, LPA & Jonathan D. Fishbane,
Collier County School District.

United States, Interested Party, represented by Anna Marie Medina,
US Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division & Yohance Asim
Pettis, US Attorney's Office.


COMMUNITY PROBATION: Giles County Appeals Judgment in McNeil Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Giles County, Tennessee, and Kyle Helton filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Karen McNeil, et al. v.
Community Probation Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00033,
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at
Columbia.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 29, 2019, the
Hon. William L. Campbell, Jr., denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

In his Order of February 21, 2019, Magistrate Judge Chip Frensley
granted the Plaintiffs' request to extend the deadline for moving
to amend or add parties to April 1, 2019, in order to allow them to
substitute a class representative for Sandra Beard, who they
represent is now unavailable for medical reasons.

Given the possibility that the individuals, who seek to proceed as
class representatives may change if the Plaintiffs are permitted to
replace Ms. Beard, the Court concludes the pending Motion for Class
Certification should be denied, without prejudice to refiling after
the identity of class representatives has been finalized.

The appellate case is captioned as Karen McNeil, et al. v.
Community Probation Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-5262, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees KAREN MCNEIL, TANYA MITCHELL, INDYA HILFORT
and SONYA BEARD, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Scott P. Tift, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: stift@barrettjohnston.com

Defendants-Appellants GILES COUNTY, TENNESSEE, and SHERIFF KYLE
HELTON are represented by:

          Cassandra Crane, Esq.
          FARRAR & BATES LLP
          211 Seventh Avenue, N., Suite 500
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 254-3060
          Facsimile: (615) 254-9835
          E-mail: casey.crane@farrar-bates.com


CONAGRA BRANDS: Continues to Defend Briseno Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended February 24, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Briseno v.
ConAgra Foods, Inc.

The company is party to a number of putative class action lawsuits
challenging various product claims made in the Company's product
labeling.

These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., in which it
is alleged that the labeling for Wesson(R) oils as 100% natural is
false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified
plants and organisms.

In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to
pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class
certification in January 2017.

The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the
decision and the case has been remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings.

Conagra Brands said, "While we cannot predict with certainty the
results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect
this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations, or business."

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

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Negrete Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------
Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended February 24, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled,
Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al.

The company is a party to matters challenging the Company's wage
and hour practices. These matters include a number of class actions
consolidated under the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et
al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, in which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations
of California and/or federal law at several current and former
Company manufacturing facilities across the State of California.

Conagra Brands said, "While we cannot predict with certainty the
results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect
this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial
condition, results of operations, or business."

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

Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery
& Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice
segments.


CONCORDE HOTEL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concorde Hotel New
York Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On
Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
Concorde Hotel New York Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02865
(S.D. N.Y., Mar. 29, 2019).

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

The Concorde Hotel is a New York boutique style hotel located in
the heart of Manhattan and within close proximity to Central Park
and other major New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


CONDUENT INC: May 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on March 12 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Conduent Incorporated (NYSE: CNDT)
Class Period: February 21, 2018 - November 6, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/conduent-incorporated-loss-form?wire=3

The complaint alleges that by February 2018, defendants began to
represent to investors that Conduent had exited the transformation
phase and had cured inefficiencies caused by operating on multiple
information resource platforms. However, as demonstrated by
defendants' admissions on November 7, 2018, those representations
were false, and Conduent remained mired in inadequate technology
and third-party agreements that it had been saddled with upon its
divestiture from Xerox.

During a November 7, 2018 conference call, CEO Ashok Vemuri stated
"we have had continued suboptimal performance from an inherited
legacy technology vendor. The performance issues stem from the
vendors inability to deliver on service level agreements, lack of
responsiveness to Conduent's needs, and poorly structured contracts
which we inherited." Vemuri also noted that an "outdated and
historically under-invested legacy IT infrastructure has caused
major disruptions to our operations and impacted client and
delivery performance."

To learn more about the Conduent Incorporated class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

CONTACT:

         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Web: www.zlk.com [GN]


CORBUS PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on March 12 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings,
Inc. (NADAQ: CRBP) securities between November 14, 2016 and
February 28, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until May
11, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Corbus improperly changed the primary efficacy endpoint
for the clinical study of its drug candidate, Lenabasum, after the
results were unblinded to Corbus; (2) Corbus reported a one-sided p
value, not the traditional two-sided p value normally reported in
clinical trials, in an effort to conceal the fact that the study
results did not have statistical significance; and (3) as a result,
Corbus' public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

If you purchased Corbus securities during the Class Period or
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a New
York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities
litigation. For additional information concerning the Corbus
lawsuit, please go to https://bespc.com/crbp/. [GN]


CORBUS PHARMA: May 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a Boston based securities
litigation firm representing investors nationwide, on March 12
disclosed that it has filed a securities fraud class action against
Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRBP) and certain of
its officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court, District
of Massachusetts (Boston), located at 1 Courthouse Way, Boston,
Massachusetts, 02210, and captioned Kempf v. Corbus Pharmaceutical
Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-10457, alleges that between
November 14, 2016 and February 28, 2019 (the "Class Period"),
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about its drug candidate
Lenabasum. A judge has not yet been assigned to the case.

If you purchased Corbus Pharmaceuticals shares during the Class
Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than May 13, 2019. As a member of the class, you may
seek to file a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no
action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to become
involved in the litigation or have questions about your legal
rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Dan DeMaria at (617)
398-5660, by email at dan@blockesq.com, or by visiting
http://shareholder.law/corbus.

Block & Leviton LLP was recently ranked 4th among securities
litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in 2017. The firm represents
many of the nation's largest institutional investors and numerous
individual investors in securities litigation throughout the
country. Indeed, its lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for
its clients. [GN]


CR ENGLAND: Martin Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C.R. England, Inc.
The case is styled as Nicholas F. Martin on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.R. England, Inc.,
Eagle Atlantic Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00033 (N.D. Ind., Mar. 29, 2019).

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

C.R. England, Inc. is an American family-owned trucking company
founded in 1920. The company provides temperature-controlled
transportation services throughout North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq.
     Nathan C Volheim, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group Ltd
     2500 S Highland Ave Ste 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181 X 110
     Fax: (630) 575-8188
     Email: thatz@sulaimanlaw.com
            nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com



CREATIVE REALITIES: Rodgers, Korff Seek OT Pay for Technicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Creative Realities,
Inc. and ConeXus World Global, LLC. over alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned BRANDON KYLE
RODGERS and ELAINE KORFF, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CREATIVE REALITIES, INC., and
CONEXUS WORLD GLOBAL, LLC., Defendants, Case No.
3:19-CV-244-JHM-RSE (W.D. Ky., April 2, 2019). Plaintiffs Rodgers
and Korff seek to recover overtime wages which the Defendants
failed to pay.

Rodgers and Korff were employed by the Defendants as network
operations center (NOC) technicians and were required to be engaged
to work from home outside of normal business hours on rotating
seven-week schedules. However, the Defendants do not pay Plaintiffs
and other NOC technicians for all time worked outside of business
hours. Instead, the Defendants only pay Plaintiffs and other NOC
technicians for time spent actively handling their clients'
customer service and support needs.

Creative Realities, Inc is a Minnesota corporation. ConeXus is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Creative Realities, Inc. Headquartered
at 13100 Magisterial Drive, Suite 100, Louisville, Kentucky 40223,
the Defendants provide digital marketing technology and solutions
to retail companies, brands, enterprises, and organizations in the
United States and internationally. As part of providing these
products and services, these companies offer their clients
maintenance and support services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David W. Garrison, Esq.
     Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
     BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
     Bank of America Plaza
     414 Union Street, Suite 900
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Telephone: (615) 244-2202
     Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
     E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
             jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

          - and -
   
     J. Chris Sanders
     CHRIS SANDERS LAW PLLC
     517 West Ormsby Avenue
     Louisville, KY 40203
     Telephone: (502) 814-0094
     E-mail: csanders@chrissanderslaw.com


CRIMSHIELD INC: Foley Suit Asserts FCRA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Travis Foley, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CrimShield, Inc., a domestic
for-profit corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-3020 (D. Ariz.,
March 27, 2019) is an action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of
1970 ("FCRA").

CrimShield, Inc. is a consumer reporting agency ("CRA"), providing
employers with consumer reports, commonly referred to as
"background checks," for employment purposes.

Plaintiff is a consumer/applicant who was the subject of a consumer
report that was issued and used for employment purposes by
Defendant.

CrimShield violated the FCRA by providing consumer reports used for
employment purposes without certification from Jaguar Technologies,
Inc., and other users to whom it provided consumer reports that
such users would abide by the FCRA's disclosure, authorization and
notice requirements, says the complaint.

Travis Foley lives in Florida, applied for employment with Jaguar,
but was denied employment based upon his consumer report, which
CrimShield provided to Jaguar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone 813-223-5505
     Fax: 813-257-0572
     Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Faces Royal Park Class Suits in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a lawsuit filed by Royal Park Investments
SA/NV against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") while
a separate, related case remains stayed, according to Navient
Student Loan Trust 2014-1's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

On June 18, 2014, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a class and
derivative action complaint on behalf of investors in ten RMBS
trusts against DBNTC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting claims for alleged violations of the
U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 ("TIA"), breach of contract and
breach of trust based on DBNTC's alleged failure to perform its
duties as trustee for the trusts.  Royal Park's complaint alleges
that the total realized losses of the ten trusts amount to over
U.S. US$3.1 billion, but does not allege damages in a sum certain.

On February 3, 2016, the court granted in part and dismissed in
part plaintiffs' claims: the court dismissed plaintiff's TIA claim
and its derivative theory and denied DBNTC's motion to dismiss the
breach of contract and breach of trust claims.  On March 18, 2016
DBNTC filed an answer to the complaint.

On May 26, 2016, Royal Park filed a motion for class certification.
On March 21, 2017, the court denied Royal Park's motion for class
certification, but granted Royal Park leave to renew its motion to
propose a redefined class.  On May 1, 2017, Royal Park filed a
renewed motion for class certification.  On March 29, 2018, the
court denied Royal Park's motion for class certification with
prejudice.

On April 13, 2018, Royal Park filed a petition to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals seeking appellate review of the district
court's denial of Royal Park's motion for class certification.  On
August 7, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied Royal
Park's petition for appellate review.  Discovery is ongoing.

On August 4, 2017, Royal Park filed a separate, additional class
action complaint against DBNTC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York asserting claims for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of trust, equitable
accounting and declaratory and injunctive relief arising out of the
payment from trust funds of DBNTC's legal fees and expenses in the
other, ongoing Royal Park litigation.  On October 10, 2017, DBNTC
filed a motion to dismiss Royal Park's separate, additional
complaint.  On August 13, 2018, the court issued an order:  (i)
staying Royal Park's separate, additional case until the resolution
of Royal Park's underlying case; and (ii) denying DBNTC's motion to
dismiss Royal Park's separate, additional complaint without
prejudice to the motion's refiling once the stay is lifted.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Court Sanctions for Ex-Parte Communications
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Calo, Esq. -- dena.calo@saul.com -- and Michael Cianfichi,
Esq. -- michael.cianfichi@saul.com -- of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on March 4, 2019, a
federal court sanctioned a company for interviewing warehouse
workers to obtain declarations in support of its opposition to an
FLSA opt-in collective and PA Minimum Wage Act class action
certification where there were no plaintiff's attorneys present for
the meetings. Because Pennsylvania law treats potential class
action members as represented parties until the court decides
whether to certify the class, the communications between the
defense attorneys and workers violated the state Rules of
Professional Conduct.

The Facts

The underlying lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in May 2017. The plaintiff filed a putative class and
collective action against Dollar General and its subsidiary
Dolgencorp alleging that the company violated federal and state
wage payment laws through policies that undercut regular and
overtime pay for him and other warehouse workers (who comprised the
potential class).

After the completion of discovery, the plaintiff moved for
conditional certification of his proposed FLSA collective action
and certification of his proposed class for his state law claims.
After that motion was filed, attorneys for the defense visited one
of the distribution centers to interview various hourly employees.
At those meetings, the company ultimately obtained declarations
from 16 workers in support of its opposition to class
certification. Significantly, there were no plaintiff's attorneys
present for these interviews and the plaintiff's lawyers had no
knowledge of these meetings until the defense filed the
declarations opposing the class certification.

The Law

Whether a proposed class of workers is certified is an issue not
decided until later in the life of a lawsuit. Until that point,
Pennsylvania law considers all putative class members as
represented parties until the Motion for Class Certification is
determined. In other words, all of the workers who could
potentially be class action members are considered part of the
class until the court rules otherwise. This fact is significant
because Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 prevents an
attorney from ex parte communications with a party known to be
represented by another lawyer without the consent or presence of
that party's lawyer.

In class action lawsuits, this rule is particularly important
because the workers interviewed (who were potential class members)
could be confused by the communications, could be coerced by their
employers, and could be encouraged by their employer/employee
relationship to sign the declarations supporting the company's
position.

As a result of the violation, the judge imposed sanctions against
the company. In determining the nature of the sanctions, it
considered the prejudice to the plaintiff, the ability to cure the
prejudice, the disruption of an orderly trial, and the defendant's
bad faith. The court found that there was prejudice to the
plaintiff because the sixteen employees could have been biased by
the ex parte discussions. Therefore, the court permitted the
plaintiff to depose the sixteen workers at issue and required the
company to pay all legal fees and costs associated with those
depositions. Because the court found that the company did not act
in bad faith, it declined to impose any of the more drastic
sanctions requested by the plaintiff, which included compelling the
production of the attorneys' notes from the meetings with the
workers at issue.

Takeaways

State court class actions have different rules and requirements
than opt-in FLSA collective actions. This complicates the employer
investigation process. Although defense counsel may be used to
interviewing company employees in order to support the company's
position in litigation, the nature of state class action
certification complicates this process. Putative class members are
considered represented, and thus , any information from them must
be obtained through tradition discovery (like depositions) so to
not run afoul of state ethics rules. Be sure to understand each
state's rules of professional responsibility before undertaking
such an investigation.

The case is entitled Weller v. Dollar General Corp, Civil Action
No. 17-2292 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. [GN]


ENDOLOGIX INC: Appeal from C.D. Cal. Ruling Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Endologix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that an appeal from a securities class action
ruling remains pending.

On January 3, 2017 and January 9, 2017, two stockholders purporting
to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's
securities between August 2, 2016 and November 16, 2016, filed
lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
(the "District Court").  The lawsuits allege that the Company made
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about its business, operational and
financial performance, in violation of federal securities laws,
relating to the United States Food and Drug Administration (the
"FDA") pre-market approval for the Company's Nellix EVAS System.

On May 26, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
extending the class period to include persons who purchased the
Company's securities between May 5, 2016 and May 18, 2017 and
adding certain factual assertions and allegations regarding the
Nellix EVAS System.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the alleged class, interest, and attorney's
fees and costs of litigation.

The first lawsuit, Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-0017 AB (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), was consolidated with the
second lawsuit, Ahmed v. Endologix, Inc. et al, Case No.
8:17-cv-00061 AB (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), and lead Nguyen plaintiff
filed a consolidated First Amended Complaint.

On December 5, 2017, the District Court granted Endologix's motion
to dismiss lead plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, with leave to
amend.  On January 9, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint and on March 12, 2018, the Company filed its Motion to
Dismiss lead plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
On September 6, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Second
Amended Complaint with prejudice.

On October 5, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and on
March 15, 2019, lead plaintiff filed its opening brief with the
appellate court.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and continues
to defend itself vigorously.

Endologix, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and sells medical
devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the
United States and internationally.  Endologix, Inc. was founded in
1992 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


FERGUSON CONTRACTORS: Labor Investigation Prompts Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marc E. Fitch, writing for Yankee Institute, reports that Ferguson
Contractors is a large construction firm that has worked on major
public works projects including the Buley Library at Southern
Connecticut State University and the UConn Health Center Research
Tower.

But Ferguson now faces a court battle against former employees who
claim they were underpaid for their benefits while working on
public works projects for various towns in Connecticut.

The 2018 class action lawsuit initiated after an investigation into
the company by the Connecticut Department of Labor's Wage and
Workplace Standards Division determined the company had
short-changed their employees' benefit payments under Connecticut's
prevailing wage laws -- an allegation, Ferguson disputes.

At issue is a third-party administrator fee Ferguson deducted from
benefit payments -- a deduction the Department of Labor allowed in
2011 and 2012 but then restricted in 2016.

But there's a twist to the story: the CT DOL never updated its
prevailing wage guidebook to reflect its policy change regarding
third party administrator fees. Even the wage enforcement agent who
investigated Ferguson testified she was unaware of any prevailing
wage policy changes.

According to DOL attorney Stephen Lattanzio, who is involved in the
case, a contractor following the state prevailing wage guidebook
provided online by DOL would have had no way of knowing there were
any changes to Connecticut's prevailing wage policy.

"There was no affirmative language on the website that stated
language in the guidebook was no longer in effect," Lattanzio said.
"To the extent somebody was relying on the guidebook, this would
have been news to them."

The 2016 investigation was not the first time DOL's Wage and
Workplace Standards Division had investigated Ferguson.

Wage Enforcement Agent Mary Toner investigated Ferguson in 2011 and
2012 and found the company in compliance with the state's
prevailing wage laws, including Ferguson's practice of deducting a
third-party administrator fee.

However, when she investigated Ferguson again in 2016, DOL reversed
its previous conclusions and said the company was violating
prevailing wage practices.

According to Lattanzio, DOL changed its policy in 2015 when Resa
Spaziani took over as director of the Wage & Workplace Standards
Division. The change of policy reversed years of prevailing wage
practice in Connecticut in order to fall more in line with U.S.
Department of Labor policies.

"Policy was to permit -- on a case by case basis -- credit toward
administrative costs for benefits. That policy changed to fall in
line with U.S. DOL which doesn't allow administrative cost credit,"
Lattanzio said.

But because the online prevailing wage guidebook was not updated,
Ferguson had no way of knowing that their previously-approved
practice could now leave them open to fines and legal action.

In fact, no one seemed to know about it -- including DOL's own wage
enforcement agent assigned to the case.

The 2016 investigation was launched in response to a complaint by
Richard Spencer, a former employee of Ferguson who had been let go
from employment.

Toner -- the wage enforcement agent assigned to investigate the
complaint against Ferguson -- testified that she was unaware of any
relevant legislative or policy changes to prevailing wage law
between the time she investigated Ferguson in 2012 and when she
investigated them in 2016.

However, according to Toner's work notes from her 2016
investigation, she labeled the size of the fee "absolutely
unacceptable," contradicting her 2011 and 2012 findings that the
company was in compliance with state law.

Lattanzio said the prevailing wage guidebook allowed a deduction
for "reasonable" third-party costs, which is open to
interpretation.

According to court documents, Ferguson was deducting a per-hour
credit from employees' total benefits package to pay a 9 percent
administrative fee. Lattanzio spit-balled a "reasonable" fee at .5
percent.

However, Ferguson had applied the 9 percent administrative fee in
2011 and 2012 when it was found in compliance by DOL, according to
the evidence submitted to the court and emails from Toner, whose
name at the time was Mary Brousseau.

After finding Ferguson Mechanical Co. in violation of the state's
prevailing wage laws in 2016 under its new policy change, CT DOL
essentially washed their hands of the matter.

The Wage and Workplace Standards Division of the Department of
Labor can, and does, recoup wages for employees who were bilked by
employers and the DOL can levy hefty fines. This time, however, DOL
chose not to pursue the case.

Lattanzio said DOL has referred the matter to federal authorities
but could not say which agencies. Instead, DOL's finding were used
as the basis for a class-action lawsuit against Ferguson.

Understandably, Ferguson was taken aback by policy change and
questioned why DOL did not try to settle the matter with them
directly.

According to the court documents filed by Ferguson, "Defendants,
understandably feeling completely blindsided by DOL's reversal on
its views of Defendants' pay practices without any change in
Connecticut law, contested the DOL's 2016 conclusions. DOL did not
institute suit against Defendants to collect any wages reportedly
due. Instead, Plaintiffs brought this putative class action."

Prevailing wage law in Connecticut mandates the pay and benefits
for employees engaged in public works projects. The rates and
conditions of prevailing wage are set by statute under enormous
political pressure from labor unions who vie for large public
construction jobs.

Ferguson claims the lawsuit is the result of the company being
targeted by a union -- the Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 777 --
which had been attempting to unionize Ferguson's employees for
years.

Under Connecticut law even non-union shops like Ferguson must
adhere to prevailing wage practices when working on public
projects.

But those projects can become hot-beds of strife when the job isn't
awarded to union contractors.

According to Ferguson's defense, the United Association of Plumbers
& Pipefitters Local 777 had frequently targeted the company,
mailing flyers to Ferguson's employees and unsuccessfully trying to
organize.

But wasn't until Ferguson terminated Richard Spencer, a long-time
foreman, that they had a problem. Spencer joined with two other
former Ferguson employees to file a complaint with DOL against the
contractor.

While the unionization attempts continually failed, the results of
DOL's investigation left the company vulnerable to litigation for
two years' worth of benefit payments previously approved by DOL.

Spencer testified that he is friends with Local 777 organizer Jay
Moore and that he had received mailers from Local 777 regarding pay
and benefits at Ferguson.

Plaintiff Shawn Milano also testified that he heard about the
pending lawsuit through a friend at Local 777 before signing on to
the lawsuit.

The Connecticut Labor Management Cooperation Committee sent a mass
mailing looking for anyone who worked for the company between 2014
and 2016, gaining 64 signatories for the class-action suit.

Ferguson's attorneys claim the Labor Management Cooperation
Committee is associated with the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers Local 90 out of New Haven.

While there is little information about the Connecticut chapter of
the Labor Management Cooperation Committee, the National Labor
Management Cooperation Committee is tied to the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Ferguson's attorneys point to these facts -- and testimony from the
lead plaintiffs which indicate they had no first-hand knowledge of
some of the allegations made in the lawsuit -- as evidence the suit
is simply an attempt by the labor unions strike a blow against a
non-union competitor.

To be sure, Ferguson Mechanical may not be squeaky clean on all the
merits of the lawsuit against it. The third-party administrator fee
is a large component of the suit, but the plaintiffs also allege
similar prevailing wage credits toward vehicle usage by foremen and
underpaid overtime.

However, the lead plaintiffs were apparently unaware of these
transgressions until it was presented by their attorneys which
could kill the class action lawsuit if a court determines the suit
is, in reality, being brought by the labor unions rather than the
plaintiffs.

That will all play out in court eventually. If it were cut and dry,
the CT DOL would likely have imposed its own penalties on Ferguson
as it has with other companies in the past. Instead, it has become
a court case.

Whether or not this matter should have become a court case in the
first place is ultimately the more troubling question.

Connecticut businesses have to navigate a complex state landscape
of taxes, regulations and competing interests, but that can become
increasingly difficult if regulatory and enforcement policy changes
without notice.

Calls and emails to Ferguson Mechanical, Plumbers & Pipefitters
Local 777 and the Connecticut Labor Management Cooperation
Committee were not returned. [GN]


FLYNN RESTAURANT: Parking Lots Inaccessible to PWDs, Murphy Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL G. MURPHY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FLYNN RESTAURANT
GROUP, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, RB AMERICAN GROUP, LLC,
d/b/a Arby's, a Tennessee limited liability company, and DOES 1
through 5, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00883-STV (D. Colo.,
March 22, 2019), asserts violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act in connection with accessibility barriers in
the parking lots and paths of travel at various public
accommodations owned, operated, controlled, and/or leased by
Defendants.

The Plaintiff has a mobility disability and is limited in the major
life activity of walking, which has caused him to use a wheelchair
for mobility. The Plaintiff has visited Defendants' facilities and
was denied full and equal access as a result of Defendants'
inaccessible parking lots and paths of travel.

THe Plaintiff's experiences are not isolated -- Defendants have
systematically discriminated against individuals with mobility
disabilities by implementing policies and practices that
consistently violate the ADA's accessibility guidelines and
routinely result in access barriers at Defendants' facilities.

In fact, numerous facilities owned, controlled, and/or operated by
Defendants have parking lots and paths of travel that are
inaccessible to individuals who rely on wheelchairs for mobility,
demonstrating that the centralized decision-making Defendants
employ with regard to the design, construction, alteration,
maintenance, and operation of its facilities causes access barriers
and/or allows them to develop and persist at Defendants'
facilities.

Unless Defendants are required to remove the access barriers and
required to change their policies and practices so that access
barriers do not reoccur at Defendants' facilities, Plaintiff and
the proposed Class will continue to be denied full and equal access
to those facilities as described and will be deterred from fully
using Defendants' facilities, the lawsuit says.

Defendant is the largest restaurant franchisee in the United
States. Defendant owns and operates four primary restaurant brands:
Taco Bell, Panera, Applebee's, and Arby's. As is relevant to this
lawsuit, involving Arby's, Flynn Restaurant Group recently
purchased 368 Arby's locations from US Beef Corporation.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:

          Benjamin J. Sweet., Esq.
          THE SWEET LAW FIRM, PC
          186 Mohawk Drive
          Pittsburgh, PA 15228
          Telephone: 412-742-0631
          E-mail: ben@sweetlawpc.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBER LAW LLC
          201 Milwaukee St., Ste 200
          Denver, CO 80206
          Telephone: 212 920-3072
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

FMR LLC: Stinson Leonard Discusses Andrew Wong ERISA Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey P. Cairns, Esq. -- jeff.cairns@stinson.com -- of Stinson
Leonard Street, in an article for Lexology, reported that on
February 21, 2019 attorneys for Andrew Wong, a participant in the
T-Mobile USA Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan & Trust, filed a
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts
against FMR LLC, Fidelity Management Research Company, Fidelity
Management Trust Company and several other affiliates. The basis
for the lawsuit relates to certain payments charged by Fidelity to
non-Fidelity mutual fund managers and other advisors as a charge to
allow the outside funds to be offered to Fidelity retirement plan
customers on the "Fidelity Funds Network". The complaint alleges
that the fees commenced in or about 2017 when a number of major
mutual funds reduced the internal management fees on their
institutional funds, reducing the amount of fund revenue sharing
available to be shared with platform providers like Fidelity.

The complaint alleges that these negotiated fees, which the outside
fund managers or advisors were contractually prohibited from
disclosing to the retirement plans investing in the mutual funds,
violate ERISA’s prohibited transaction rules, fiduciary
obligations and self-dealing prohibitions.

In 2012, the Department of Labor issued regulations under ERISA
Section 408(b)(2), 29 CFR Section 2550.408b-2, which requires
certain covered entities (including fiduciaries) serving
ERISA-regulated retirement plans to provide full disclosure to plan
fiduciaries of both direct and indirect compensation paid from the
assets in the plan. The plaintiffs, which purport to be not only
the T-Mobile plan, but all similarly situated plans (potentially
over 25,000 plans), allege that these kickback platform fees should
have been separately disclosed to the fiduciaries as part of total
plan costs. The theory presented by the plaintiffs is that Fidelity
is receiving additional undisclosed revenue from the management of
customer retirement plans related to the amount of assets held in
custody on its platform.

Even if the payments were properly disclosed, the plaintiffs allege
that arrangement for the payments amounts to self-dealing by
Fidelity and the receipt of compensation that the plaintiffs argue
is unrelated to the cost or value of the services provided.

These claims are at this time only part of a complaint filed in the
US District Court. If the plaintiff is successful in having his
case certified as a class action, fiduciaries of tens of thousands
of other plans serviced by Fidelity’s recordkeeping and
investment custody services will be asked whether to join as class
plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The Wall Street Journal reported at the
end of February that the Employee Benefits Security Administration
(EBSA) of the U.S. Department of Labor is investigating
Fidelity’s "infrastructure fees" and contracts with outside fund
managers and advisors.

ERISA has strict requirements for parties in interest (service
providers) and fiduciaries (persons and entities with discretion
over the use of plan assets). These rules require disclosure,
reasonableness in the case of fees, the avoidance of conflicts of
interest and self-dealing. The complaint alleges that all of these
were violated by the existence of these confidential agreements and
the millions of dollars received by Fidelity for undisclosed
services.

This case will be of interest to trustees and members of fiduciary
committees of 401(k) plans, particularly those utilizing
Fidelity’s services. Fidelity denies that no disclosure was made
and denies that the fees are in violation of ERISA. Fidelity
intends to fight these allegations vigorously. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Throttle System Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Fourth Circuit affirmed
dismissal of claims against Ford Motors for an allegedly faulty
electronic throttle control system in 2002-10 models.

A copy of the Ruling is available at:

         https://is.gd/tlHLB6


GENUINE PARTS: Court Dismisses B. Hill's Wage & Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
NAPA's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the seventh cause of action
for violation of California Labor Code Section 2698 et seq, in the
case captioned BRANDON HILL, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY dba
Napa Auto Parts, and DOES 1-100, Defendants. Case No. 1:18-CV-1550
AWI SAB. (E.D. Cal.).

This is a putative class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff
Brandon Hill against his former employer. Hill worked eight to ten
hour shifts and did not receive timely or lawfully compliant meal
and rest breaks.  

The Plaintiff alleges six claims under the California Labor Code
and one claim under the California Business & Professions Code.  

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim may be
dismissed because of the plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be
based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or on the absence of
sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.  

NAPA argues that the longest possible limitations period for a PAGA
claim is 430 days. However, the time between Hill's last day of
employment and the filing of this lawsuit exceeds 430 days. Because
the PAGA claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations,
it should be dismissed with prejudice.

The Plaintiff filed no opposition or response of any kind to NAPA's
motion.

The statute of limitations period for a PAGA claim is one year.
However, before a PAGA claim may be pursued in court, a plaintiff
must exhaust administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the
employer and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA).
Because the LWDA has up to 65 days to decide whether to prosecute,
PAGA's one-year statute of limitations may be tolled for up to 65
days.  

Here, Hill's employment ended on June 16, 2017. Giving him the
benefit of the 65 days of tolling, Hill had until August 20, 2018,
in which to bring a PAGA claim. From the face of the Complaint,
Hill's PAGA claim violates the one-year statute of limitations. In
the absence of an opposition, the Court can only conclude that Hill
agrees that his claim is untimely and that amendment would be
futile. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Hill's PAGA claim with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y6bd5xlpfrom Leagle.com.

Brandon Hill, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Evan Matthew Selik --
eselik@mccathernlaw.com -- McCathern LLP.

Genuine Parts Company, Doing business as NAPA AUTO PARTS,
Defendant, represented by Alexander Walter Simon --
asimon@martensonlaw.com -- Martenson Hasbrouck & Simon LLP, Jeremy
Taylor Naftel -- jnaftel@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers, DiSante &
Freudenberger LLP, Lisa M. Szafranic --
lmszafranic@martensonlaw.com -- Martenson, Hasbrouck & Simon LLP,
pro hac vice & Patricia Elizabeth Simon -- pesimon@martensonlaw.com
-- Martenson Hasbrouck and Simon LLP, pro hac vice.


GLEN MILLS: Miller Files Civil Rights Suit in E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Glen Mills
Schools. The case is styled as Mother Miller as parent and natural
giardian of Billy Miller and Charlie Jones, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Glen
Mills Schools, John Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01292-HB (E.D. Pa., Mar. 27, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

The Glen Mills Schools is a residential educational facility for
juvenile delinquents located near Glen Mills in Thornbury Township,
Delaware County, Pennsylvania for boys between 12 and 21 years of
age.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC
     1818 Market St., Suite 3600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-4656
     Fax: (215) 875-4674
     Email: scarson@bm.net


GOHEALTH, LLC: Newell et al. Sue over Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------
JOUREY NEWELL and JAMES EVERETT SHELTON, individually and on behalf
of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. GOHEALTH, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01983
(N.D. Ill., March 22, 2019), alleges that the Defendant made
pre-recorded and automated telemarketing calls to their cellular
telephones to promote health insurance products and services in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The calls to
the Plaintiffs were transmitted using technology capable of
generating thousands of similar calls per day.

Gohealth markets and sells health insurance products and services
to consumers. Gohealth uses telemarketing to promote its products
and services and solicit new customers. Gohealth's telemarketing
efforts include the use of automated dialing equipment and
pre-recorded messages to send automated calls.

On February 1, 2019, Mr. Newell received a pre-recorded
telemarketing call on his cellular telephone number, (484)
213-XXXX. When Mr. Newell picked up the phone, a pre-recorded
message promoting health insurance was played. To investigate the
calling party, who was not fully identified in the pre-recorded
message, Mr. Newell responded to the pre-recorded message.

When Mr. Newell was finally connected with a live representative,
the representative informed Mr. Newell that the call was made on
behalf of "Gohealth" and was for purposes of selling health
insurance products and services.

Confirming that the call came from Gohealth, Mr. Newell received an
e-mail from VBetancourt@gohealth.com on February 1, 2019. Mr.
Newell had no prior relationship with Gohealth and did not consent
to be called by Gohealth, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com

               - and -

          Lauren E. Urban, Esq.
          2425 N. Spaulding Ave., Floor 2
          Chicago, IL 60647
          Telephone: (419) 344-1146
          E-mail: lauren.elizabeth.urban@gmail.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

HIBU INC: Filing Deadline of Cooley TCPA Suit Response Extended
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BLAKE COOLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HIBU INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00269-MMD-VCF (D. Nev.),
Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada moved the Defendant's deadline to resond to the
Plaintiff's class action complaint to April 10, 2019.

Hibu respectfully filed its motion for leave for an extension of
time to respond to the Plaintiff's class action complaint.  The
deadline for Hibu to respond is March 20, 2019.  Due to the nature
of the allegations in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act class
action, Hibu requested the Court extends the time to file its
response by 21 days to April 10, 2019.

The Plaintiff's counsel consented to the filing of the motion on
March 18, 2019 via email.  If granted, the new deadline for Hibu to
file its response to the Plaintiff's class action complaint would
be no later than April 10, 2019.  Magistrate Judge Ferenbach
granted the Defendant's request.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 20, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/8idV90 from Leagle.com.

Blake Cooley, Individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony I. Paronich, Broderick
& Paronich, PC, pro hac vice & Craig B. Friedberg, Law Offices of
Craig B. Friedberg.

Hibu Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Harold McCrea --
chm@hmlawlv.com -- Hejmanowski & McCrea LLC, Kellie Mitchell Bubeck
-- KBubeck@clrkc.com -- COPILEVITZ & CANTER, LLC, pro hac vice &
William E. Raney -- braney@clrkc.com -- COPILEVITZ & CANTER, LLC,
pro hac vice.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cooper ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rebecca Cooper, Robert Kolinske and Morris McKenney
filed an appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit titled Rebecca
Cooper, et al. v. Honeywell International, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-00471, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Rebecca Cooper
and some 50 other retirees at Honeywell International's Boyne City,
Michigan, plant say that Honeywell must provide them healthcare
benefits until they reach age 65.  Honeywell responds that its
obligation to pay those benefits ended when its CBA with the Boyne
City employees expired in March 2016.

The appellate case is captioned as Rebecca Cooper, et al. v.
Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 19-1305, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that a Telephone
Mediation conference has been scheduled for April 18, 2019, at 9:30
a.m. (ET) with Bob Kaiser.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants REBECCA COOPER, for herself and others
similarly-situated; ROBERT KOLINSKE, for himself and others
similarly-situated; and MORRIS MCKENNEY, for himself and others
similarly-situated, are represented by:

          John G. Adam, Esq.
          LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C.
          306 S. Washington, Suite 600
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-5900
          E-mail: jga@legghioisrael.com

Defendant-Appellee HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., is represented
by:

          Mark John Magyar, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          300 Ottawa Avenue, N.W., Suite 700
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 776-7500
          E-mail: mmagyar@dykema.com

               - and -

          Cody D. Rockey, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          2723 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 214-7660
          E-mail: crockey@dykema.com


HUB INTERNATIONAL: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Fabian Gonzalez, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. HUB International Limited, Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1900463 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, on March 28, 2019, and assigned
Case No. 5:19-cv-00557.

On February 26, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel mailed to defense counsel
a Notice of Acknowledgement and Receipt, including the Summons,
Complaint, Civil Case Cover Sheet, Certificate of Assignment,
Alternative Dispute Resolution document, Notice of Case Assignment
for All Purposes and Notice of Case Management Conference, Initial
Case Management Conference Order, and Guidelines for the Complex
Litigation Program.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     KARA L. JASSY, Esq.
     MICHELLE RAPOPORT, Esq.
     DERRICK LAM, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: 213.443.4300
     Fax: 213.443.4299


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Chieftain Settlement Hearing Set for Oct. 7
------------------------------------------------------------
Hugoton Royalty Trust disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that the hearing on the claims related to the
Chieftain settlement has been scheduled for October 7, 2019.  

In December 2010, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed against
XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in
Coal County District Court, Oklahoma.  XTO Energy removed the case
to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.  The
plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from
royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts
to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and its
constituents, and demanded an accounting to determine whether they
have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests.  The case
was certified as a class action in April 2012, then decertified in
July 2013.

XTO Energy advised the Trustee that in December 2017, it reached a
tentative settlement with the plaintiffs for US$80 million and up
to an additional US$750,000  for costs to administer the settlement
following final approval.  In March 2018, XTO Energy advised the
Trustee that it believed the portion of the settlement that relates
to the Trust could be as much as US$20 million, but the settlement
allocable to the Trust could not be finally determined until after
the judge approved the plaintiffs' final plan of allocation.

On July 27, 2018, plaintiffs submitted their final plan of
allocation which was approved by the court on the same date.  Based
on the final plan of allocation XTO Energy has advised the Trustee
that it believes approximately US$24.3 million in additional
production costs should be allocated to the Trust.  On May 2, 2018,
the Trustee submitted a demand for arbitration styled Simmons Bank
(successor to Southwest Bank and Bank of America, N.A.) vs.  XTO
Energy Inc. (the "Arbitration") through the American Arbitration
Association seeking a declaratory judgment that the Chieftain
settlement is not a production cost and that XTO Energy is
prohibited from charging the settlement as a production cost under
the conveyance or otherwise reducing the Trust's payments now or in
the future as a result of the Chieftain litigation.

In the Arbitration, the Trustee also made claims for disputed
amounts on the computation of the Trust's net proceeds for 2014
through 2016 in excess of US$5 million.  XTO Energy filed its
answer denying the Trustee's claims.  The Arbitration panel has
been selected.  The hearing on the claims related to the Chieftain
settlement has been scheduled for October 7, 2019.  The remaining
claims related to the computation of the Trust's net proceeds were
bifurcated and will be heard at a later date, which is still to be
determined.

Hugoton Royalty said, "If the approximately US$24.3 million
allocated portion of the Chieftain settlement results in an
adjustment to the Trust's share of net proceeds, it would result in
additional excess costs under the Oklahoma conveyance that would
likely result in no distributions under the Oklahoma conveyance for
several years, or more depending on the results of operations of
the underlying properties, while these additional excess costs are
recovered."

Certain of the underlying properties are involved in various other
lawsuits and governmental proceedings arising in the ordinary
course of business.  XTO Energy has advised the Trustee that it
does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these claims will
have a material effect on the financial position or liquidity of
the Trust, but may have an effect on annual distributable income.

Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the laws of
Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into
on December 1, 1998 between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known as
Cross Timbers Oil Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as
trustee.  Southwest Bank is now the trustee of the Trust.


ICONIX BRAND: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself from a consolidated class action suit entitled, In
re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-4860.

Three securities class actions have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
the caption In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al., Docket No.
1:15-cv-4860, against the Company and certain former officers and
one current officer (the "Class Action").

The plaintiffs in the Class Action purport to represent a class of
purchasers of the Company's securities from February 22, 2012 to
November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and
individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, by making allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding certain aspects of the Company's business operations and
prospects.

On October 25, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint filed by the Company and the
individual defendants with leave to amend.  On November 14, 2017,
the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint.

On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint. The Company and the individual
defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims.

At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate
outcome of these matters.

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

Iconix Brand Group, Inc., a brand management company, owns,
licenses, and markets a portfolio of consumer brands across the
women's, men's, and home industries in the United States and
internationally. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. was founded in 1978 and
is based in New York, New York.


IZEA WORLDWIDE: Continues to Defend Perez Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
IZEA Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Julian Perez.

A securities class action lawsuit, Julian Perez, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IZEA, Inc., et al.,
case number 2:18-cv-02784-SVW-GJS was instituted April 4, 2018 in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the company and certain of its executive officers on behalf
of certain purchasers of our common stock.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages for investors under federal
securities laws.

IZEA Worldwide said, "We believe that the plaintiffs' allegations
are without merit and we intend to continue to vigorously defend
against the claims. Based upon currently available information and
review with outside counsel, the Company has estimated and accrued
a potential loss of $500,000 representing its deductible on
associated insurance coverage."

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

IZEA Worldwide, Inc. creates and operates online marketplaces that
connect marketers and content creators. The company was formerly
known as IZEA, Inc. and changed its name to IZEA Worldwide, Inc. in
August 2018. IZEA Worldwide, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is
headquartered in Winter Park, Florida.


JACKSON NURSE: Class & FLSA Collective Certified in Musgrove Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Fernando M. Olguin grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for (1)
Rule 23 Class Certification and (2) Conditional Certification of an
FLSA Collective Action in the lawsuit styled E. HOWARD MUSGROVE v.
JACKSON NURSE PROFESSIONALS, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-06565-FMO-JPR (C.D. Cal.).

The Court certifies this Rule 23 class:

     All non-exempt hourly health care professionals employed by
     Jackson in California from September 6, 2013, through the
     date of class certification who worked pursuant to an
     Assignment Contract, worked overtime, and had the value of
     per diem benefits and/or monetary bonuses (other than a
     referral bonus) excluded from their regular rate for
     purposes of calculating overtime.

The Court conditionally certifies this FLSA collective:

     All non-exempt hourly health care professionals employed by
     Jackson in the United States within three years prior to the
     date of certification who worked pursuant to an Assignment
     Contract, worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more
     workweeks, and had the value of per diem benefits and/or
     monetary bonuses (other than a referral bonus) excluded from
     their regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime.

Judge Olguin appoints E. Howard Musgrove as the representative of
the certified class.  Judge Olguin appoints Hayes Pawlenko LLP,
Matthew B. Hayes, Esq., and Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq., as class
counsel.

No later than April 8, 2019, the Plaintiff shall propose a Class
Action Administrator, and submit finalized versions of the class
and collective action notices.  The Plaintiff shall also lodge a
proposed order regarding same.[CC]


KRUSE-WESTERN INC: April 15 Filing Due of Zavala ERISA Suit Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARMANDO ZAVALA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KRUSE-WESTERN, INC., KEVIN
KRUSE, GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY, and John and Jane DOES 1-30,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00239-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California extended the Defendants' deadline to file an
Answer or other responsive pleading in the matter until April 15,
2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/BS83Xe from Leagle.com.

Armando Zavala, Plaintiff, represented by Mary J. Bortscheller --
mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll,
pro hac vice, Michelle C. Yau -- myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Nina R. Wasow --
nina@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and Wasow
LLP & Daniel Mark Feinberg -- dan@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg
Jackson Worthman and Wason LLP.

Kruse-Western, Inc., Kevin Kruse & GreatBanc Trust Company,
Defendants, represented by Chelsea Ashbrook McCarthy --
chelsea.mccarthy@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP, pro hac vice,
Ian Blade Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland,
PC & Lynn E. Calkins -- lynn.calkins@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight
LLP, pro hac vice.


LANCE CAMPER: Gonzales Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
NAKOMA GONZALES, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LANCE CAMPER MFG. CORP., a California
corporation; AEROTEK, INC., a Maryland corporation; ALLEGIS GLOBAL
SOLUTIONS, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 19STCV09956 (Cal. Super., March 22, 2019),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime,
and provide meal and rest break as required under the California
Labor Code.

The Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay
employees for all hours worked, failing to pay all wages due to its
California Employees during the course of employment and timely
upon separation from employment, failing to provide employees with
meal and rest periods, and failing to issue accurately itemized
wage statements to its California employees.  The Defendants
further failed to accurately record time worked by Plaintiff and
the Employees by rounding hours worked to the nearest quarter hour
to their detriment.

Lance Camper manufactures and sells recreational vehicles.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  roman@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd, Suite 130
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 875-2008
          Facsimile: (818) 722-3974
          E-mail: Support@davtyanlaw.com

LIFEENERGY LLC: Lechuga Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LifeEnergy, LLC. The
case is styled as Michelle Lechuga individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LifeEnergy, LLC a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02180 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 29, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

LifeEnergy, LLC, an energy company, provides electricity, natural
gas, solar energy, mobile LNG, distributed generation, and other
energy products and services to residential and business customers
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
     Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181
     Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
            jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com


LIVANOVA PLC: Reaches $225MM Settlement on 3T Device Defect Litig.
------------------------------------------------------------------
LivaNova PLC has entered into an agreement to settle "approximately
75 percent" of the litigation related to its 3T Heater-Cooler
device, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated March 29, 2019.

Under the terms of the agreement and subject to certain conditions,
including acceptance of the settlement by individual claimants, the
Company has agreed to a settlement framework that provides for a
comprehensive resolution of the personal injury cases pending in
the multi-district litigation in U.S. federal court, a related
class action case pending in U.S. federal court, as well as certain
cases in state courts across the United States.  The agreement
provides for a total payment of up to US$225 million to resolve the
claims covered by this settlement, with up to US$135 million to be
paid no earlier than July 2019 and the remainder in January 2020.
LivaNova established a reserve of US$294 million in the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2018 in connection with the 3T Heater-Cooler
litigation generally.

"We believe entering into the settlement is in the best interest of
the Company, its shareholders and patients, because it will remove
ongoing costs and uncertainty as we focus on executing our strategy
to deliver quality care to patients around the world," said Damien
McDonald, Chief Executive Officer of LivaNova, in a news
statement.

"We are pleased with the manner in which LivaNova has responded to
these claims," said Sol Weiss, Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee, which had been directing the federal
litigation for the claimants. "These were complicated cases and the
patients involved with this litigation have difficult medical
histories. Protracted litigation was in no one's interest, as the
plaintiffs could benefit from settlement proceeds today. We
especially appreciate the guidance from U.S. District Judge John E.
Jones III, who oversaw the federal litigation."

LivaNova makes no admission of liability under the agreement and
can void the agreement if certain conditions, including
participation rates by 95% of each of the categories of plaintiffs,
are not met. The Company continues to stand behind the 3T
Heater-Cooler device, and will vigorously defend the product and
company actions in the remaining cases.

LivaNova PLC is a global medical technology company.  Headquartered
in London, LivaNova has a presence in more than 100 countries
worldwide. The Company currently employs approximately 4,000
employees. LivaNova operates as two businesses: Cardiovascular and
Neuromodulation, with operating headquarters in Mirandola (Italy)
and Houston (U.S.), respectively.


LNC TRANSPORTATION: Sued over Unwanted Telemarketing Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA MONTANARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LNC TRANSPORTATION, LLC D/B/A LATE
NIGHT CHAUFFEURS, a New York Limited Liability Company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-21118-DPG (S.D. Fla., March 22, 2019),
seeks to secure redress for Defendants's violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in
the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of
the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also
seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the
class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a late-night
transportation service. To promote its services, the Defendant
engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in
the process.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
          19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305 975-3320

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: To Pay $33MM Penalty Following Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brit McCandless Farmer, writing for 60 Minutes, reports that the
Department of Justice announced on March 12 that Lumber Liquidators
has agreed to pay a $33 million penalty for lying to investors
regarding the sale of its laminate flooring from China. The
nation's largest hardwood retailer, the company on March 12 also
entered into corporate resolution for securities fraud.

The penalty comes after a seven-month 60 Minutes undercover
investigation in 2015, which found Lumber Liquidators falsely
claimed its flooring complied with California Air Resource Board's
maximum acceptable limits for formaldehyde emissions. After the
investigation, the company halted the sale of Chinese made laminate
flooring in the U.S., and a number of top company executives,
including its founder, Tom Sullivan, left the company.

Last October, a settlement was approved in district court for the
company to pay $36 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed
on behalf of 760,000 customers who bought its Chinese-made laminate
flooring between 2009 and 2015.

The company has also paid millions of dollars in regulatory fines
and destroyed millions of dollars in nonconforming inventory.
Lumber Liquidators paid $2.5 million in fines to California's Air
Regulation Board and agreed to destroy 22 million board feet of
flooring it pulled from shelves in May 2015, following the 60
Minutes report. [GN]


MADISON REALTY: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Madison Realty
Capital, L.P. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Madison Realty Capital, L.P., doing business as: The Whale,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02761 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 27, 2019).

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

Madison Realty Capital LP is a real estate investment firm
specializing in flexible debt and equity financing solutions for
middle-market transactions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


MALEN & ASSOCIATES: Nappy Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Malen & Associates,
P.C. The case is styled as John Nappy on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Malen & Associates, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01767 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 27, 2019).

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

Malen & Associates, p.c. is a law firm with its practice limited to
Creditor's Rights.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
     775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Phone: (631) 335-1107
     Email: mpash@verizon.net


MATTEL INC: May 6 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Mattel, Inc. ("Mattel" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: MAT) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Mattel securities
during the period between February 7, 2019 and February 15, 2019,
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site:  www.bgandg.com/mat.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:  (1) demand for the Company's products, including
Barbie and Hot Wheels, was declining; (2) Mattel had an excess of
product supply; and (3) consequently, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On February 15, 2019, Mattel revealed a disappointing outlook for
2019, mentioning a decrease in sales of Barbie and Hot Wheels.
Following this news, Mattel stock dropped $3.09 per share, or over
18%, to close at $13.82 on February 15, 2019.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/mat or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Mattel you
have until May 6, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. [GN]


MDL 2580: End-Payors Seek Class Cert. in Opana Antitrust Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The End-Payor Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation titled IN
RE OPANA ER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2580 and Lead Case No.
1:14-cv-10150 (N.D. Ill.), ask the Court for an order granting
class certification in this matter.

The End-Payor Plaintiffs are Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund; Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity
Company, d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Fraternal
Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Wisconsin
Masons' Health Care Fund; Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund; and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138
Welfare Fund.

The Antitrust/Consumer Class is defined as:

     All persons or entities who indirectly purchased, paid for,
     and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the
     purchase price for brand or generic Opana ER 5 mg, 10 mg,
     20 mg, 30 mg, and/or 40 mg, other than for resale, in the
     states and commonwealths of Arizona, California, Florida,
     Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
     Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North
     Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee,
     Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of
     Columbia from April 2011 through and including the date that
     the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct
     ceased.

The Unjust Enrichment Classes are defined as:

     All persons or entities who from April 2011 through and
     including the date that the anticompetitive effects of
     Defendants' unlawful conduct ceased indirectly purchased,
     paid for, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of
     the purchase price for brand or generic Opana ER 5 mg,
     10 mg, 20 mg, 30 mg, and/or 40 mg, other than for resale, as
     set forth in the following groups:

     Subclass 1: Iowa, Michigan, Oregon, West Virginia;

     Subclass 2: Maine, New Mexico, Wisconsin;

     Subclass 3: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska,
     Vermont;

     Subclass 4: Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada,
     Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah; and

     Subclass 5: Arizona, North Dakota.

The End-Payor Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter an order (1)
appointing End-Payor Plaintiffs as representatives of the Classes,
and (2) appointing Labaton Sucharow LLP and Freed Kanner London &
Millen LLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel.[CC]

The End-Payor Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
          Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
                  kgarvey@labaton.com
                  mperez@labaton.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Freed, Esq.
          Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
                  rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com


MDL 2580: Purchasers Move for Cert. in Opana Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Value Drug Company, Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc.,
Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation
titled IN RE OPANA ER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 2580 and Lead
Case No. 1:14-cv-10150 (N.D. Ill.), move the Court for an order
certifying this class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure:

     All persons or entities in the U.S. and its territories,
     including Puerto Rico, who purchased brand or generic Opana
     ER 5, 10, 20, 30, and/or 40 mg tablets directly from any
     manufacturer at any time during the period from April 1,
     2011 through August 31, 2017 (the "Class").  Excluded from
     the Class are the defendants and their officers, directors,
     management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, and all
     federal governmental entities.

The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs also move for the Court to
appoint them as representatives of the Class.  The also move for
the Court to confirm Berger Montague PC and Garwin Gerstein &
Fisher LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class.[CC]

The Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          Andrew C. Curley, Esq.
          Richard D. Schwartz, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
                  acurley@bm.net
                  rschwartz@bm.net

               - and -

          Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Gerstein, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN &FISHER, LLP
          Wall Street Plaza
          88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 398-0055
          Facsimile: (212) 764-6620
          E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
                  jgerstein@garwingerstein.com

               - and -

          Gary L. Specks, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          423 Sumac Road
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 831-1585
          Facsimile: (847) 931-1580
          E-mail: gspecks@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                  mmcahill@kaplanfox.com


MOHAMMAD AL-MOJIL: Class Action Approved Under New Regime
---------------------------------------------------------
Saud Alsaab, Esq., and Sara Al-Hudaithy, Esq., of Clyde & Co, in an
article for Mondaq, report that in December 2017, in a first for
the region, the Capital Market Authority in Saudi Arabia introduced
a new class action regime for claims by shareholders of listed
companies in KSA.

The CMA introduced detailed Regulations for the new class action
regime, granting the Committee for the Resolution of Securities
Disputes ("CRSD"), which is a specialist tribunal for securities
disputes, a range of new powers to accept and administer
shareholder class actions in the Kingdom.

The first class action to be approved under this new regime became
clear when the General Secretariat of the Committees for Resolution
of Securities Disputes (CRSD) published an announcement on its
website on 19 February 2018 linking to a decision by the CRSD dated
4 February 2019 under which the CRSD had used its power under
Article 52 of the Regulations to approve the first shareholder
class action. The CRSD accepted the request by a shareholder to
register a class action lawsuit against the former Board of
Directors of Mohammad Al-Mojil Group (MMG), its senior management
and its auditor for alleged violations committed during the
subscription in the company's shares as part of its 2008 IPO.

The CMA has previously taken regulatory action on related issues.
On 8 February 2017 the Appeal Committee for Resolution of Security
Disputes, issued a final and conclusive decision convicting seven
former members of MMG's board and their auditor for breach of
Article 49/a of the Capital Market Law and Article 7 of the Market
Conduct Regulations. The Appeal decision concluded that those
former board members conducted practices that created a false and
misleading impression regarding the value of the company's share,
during the subscription stage. The class action therefore seeks to
consolidate shareholder claims that have already been brought
against the MMG Board before the CRSD to order the defendants (MMG
board members) to pay a compensation for damages sustained,
resulting from these offences.

The CRSD invited concerned investors who had subscribed to MMG's
shares prior to its IPO on the Capital Market on 12/07/2008, to
submit a request via the Capital Market Authority (CMA) website in
order to join the class action within 90 days of the announcement.


It should be noted that the class action related to the investors
before the IPO stage described above. Violations allegedly
committed after the IPO stage for misleading and manipulating their
financial statements relating to MMG's shares are still under the
CRSD and the CMA's investigation. [GN]


MONSANTO CO: Attorneys Deliver Closing Arguments in Roundup Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that arguing that agrochemical company Monsanto has spent decades
deceiving consumers about the dangers of its popular Roundup weed
killer, attorneys for a California man living with cancer asked a
federal jury on March 26 to award their client $18 million for his
pain and suffering and enough in punitive damages to ensure the
company acts ethically in the future.

"Nothing has stopped this company," plaintiff's attorney Jennifer
Moore told jurors, adding that Monsanto cares only about profits.
"You've got to warn -- no more business as usual at Monsanto. Send
that message loud and clear."

The comment came during closing arguments in the second half of the
high-stakes trial over the apparent carcinogenicity of Roundup --
the most widely used herbicide in the world. After deciding in an
initial trial phase that Roundup partly caused plaintiff Edwin
Hardeman's non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the six-person jury must now
decide whether Monsanto is liable for his illness and how much it
must pay in damages if it is.

Monsanto, which German pharmaceutical company Bayer AG acquired
last June, insists Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate are
safe, citing hundreds of studies finding no link between them and
non-Hodgkin lymphoma and determinations by regulators around the
world that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.

But Hardeman, who was diagnosed with aggressive Stage 3 non-Hodgkin
lymphoma in early 2015 and is now in remission, claims his 26 years
using Roundup to kill weeds and poison oak on his large Sonoma
County property caused the disease.

At trial, Hardeman testified he never would have used Roundup had
it come with a cancer warning on the label. Moore reiterated this
testimony to the jury on March 26, and asserted that Monsanto "knew
or should have known the entire time Mr. Hardeman was spraying that
Roundup causes" non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

To support this argument, Moore ran through a litany of Monsanto's
alleged sins purportedly proving the company knew Roundup causes
cancer. According to Moore, Monsanto manipulated the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency into classifying glyphosate as
non-carcinogenic by faking an extra cancer finding in a mouse study
in the mid-1980s; refused to conduct a mouse carcinogenicity study
after learning the contract lab that conducted the only existing
mouse study on which Roundup's EPA approval was based had been
deemed invalid based on shoddy lab practices; buried findings by a
prominent toxicologist concluding glyphosate is genotoxic; and
skewed the scientific literature on glyphosate in its favor by
ghostwriting key studies that found no link between the chemical
and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

"And what did they do? They didn't take it off the shelf, they
didn't warn that it causes cancer," Moore said. "They just kept
selling Roundup, they kept making money off of it."

She continued: "[I]t is the exact opposite of what a responsible
company should be doing. A responsible company would test its
product. A responsible company would tell its customers if they
knew Roundup caused cancer," she said. "If Monsanto had done the
right thing and put a warning label on the product, we wouldn't be
here today."

Moore next addressed punitive damages by giving the jury a snapshot
of Monsanto's financial condition. Bayer bought Monsanto this past
June for $63 billion and Monsanto's 2018 net worth was $7.8
billion, with $2.4 billion in cash on hand. The company spends $1.5
billion annually on research and development.

"They couldn't take a little bit of that $1.5 billion and test it?"
Moore said, echoing earlier arguments that Monsanto never conducted
a long-term animal carcinogenicity test of formulated Roundup,
which Moore said is more carcinogenic than glyphosate alone.

"They gave him cancer," she said. "Nothing can be more cruel and
unjust."

In his own closing argument, Monsanto attorney Brian Stekloff
emphasized no regulator or health agency in the world deemed
glyphosate or Roundup carcinogenic before 2012 -- the final year
Hardeman used Roundup and thus the cutoff date for evidence
admitted into the trial -- or required a cancer warning on the
product.

A "key" legal question the jury must answer, added Stekloff, of the
law firm Wilkinson Walsh Eskovitz, is whether Monsanto acted
"reasonably."

"No one in the outside world said glyphosate caused cancer, not a
single regulatory body anywhere in the world," he said. "That goes
directly to Monsanto's state of mind and whether it acted
reasonably based on the science."

Stekloff also assailed plaintiff's expert Christopher Portier, a
cancer-risk expert who has worked for various U.S. regulatory
agencies and who testified that glyphosate and Roundup can cause
cancer.

"He never said glyphosate or Roundup causes cancer" when he worked
for those agencies or before the 2012 cutoff date, Stekloff said.
He added Portier did not say glyphosate or Roundup cause cancer
until he signed on as a paid consultant in the Roundup litigation,
which comprises more than 11,000 lawsuits across the country.

"This is their expert admitting that no agency in the world thought
Roundup was carcinogenic," Stekloff said of a portion of Portier's
testimony played in court on March 26. "And yet the allegation here
is that Monsanto was basically involved in criminal behavior that
it is not admitting."

But Monsanto's strongest moment on March 26 came when the company
rebutted Hardeman's assertion that he would not have used Roundup
had it come with a cancer warning.

During trial, Hardeman testified he read the Roundup label three or
four times during the nearly three decades he used the herbicide.
But Stekloff countered this on cross-examination by reading to the
jury Hardeman's prior deposition testimony in which he said he had
read the label at most twice during that time, only raising the
figure after conferring with his attorneys.

Even if the jury concludes Roundup should have had a cancer
warning, "[t]here is no evidence he would have read the warning,"
Stekloff said of Hardeman. "They can't get around this."

Before ending his remarks, Stekloff asked jurors not to bow to
pressure to change their minds as they deliberate. The comment
apparently referenced Phase One deliberations, when it seemed as
though the jury had reached an impasse and the proceedings would
end in a mistrial.

A mistrial would mean retrying Hardeman's case, and is Bayer's best
chance for beating back pressure to settle the remaining lawsuits.

"Do not change your belief simply to reach a verdict," Stekloff
told the jury.

Jury deliberations was to resume on March 27.


MONSANTO CO: Must Pay $80MM+ Damages in Roundup Cancer Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that agrochemical giant Monsanto failed to warn a California man
that its Roundup weed killer causes cancer even though it knew the
widely used herbicide is unsafe, and must pay over $80 million in
damages, a unanimous jury found on March 27.

Concluding Monsanto acted with "malice or oppression" by not
putting a cancer warning on Roundup's product label despite
multiple studies conducted over four decades showing the herbicide
is carcinogenic, the six-person jury awarded plaintiff Ed Hardeman
$75 million in punitive damages as punishment for the company's
deceitful conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future.

Jurors also awarded Hardeman about $5 million in compensatory
damages -- almost $3.1 million for past pain and suffering and $2
million for future pain and suffering -- as well as $200,967 in
past medical expenses stemming from four years of treatment for
Stage 3 non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which Hardeman said was caused by his
heavy Roundup use over 26 years on his large property in Sonoma
County.

Hardeman, 70, and his attorneys cried and embraced as U.S. District
Judge Vince Chhabria announced the verdict in San Francisco federal
court on March 27. At a news conference after the verdict was read,
Hardeman and his wife Mary expressed gratitude to the jurors and
their legal team at Andrus Wagstaff in Colorado and Moore Law Group
in Kentucky.

I'm so appreciative of the job that they've done," said Hardeman.

The March 27 verdict increases pressure on German pharmaceutical
company Bayer, which acquired Monsanto for $63 million this past
June, to settle thousands of other lawsuits filed against Monsanto
after the World Health Organization's cancer research agency
classified Roundup's active ingredient glyphosate as a probable
human carcinogen in 2015.

Hardeman's trial was the first of three bellwether, or test, trials
scheduled this year before Judge Chhabria. The trials are meant to
see how claims like Hardeman's would fair before a jury and to
determine future litigation strategy, including whether to settle
the other cases.

Chhabria has twice indicated he thinks the focus of the federal
litigation should now shift to mediation in order to discuss
settlement issues, instead of proceeding to the second bellwether
trial which is slated to begin in May.

This past August, a state court jury awarded San Francisco Bay Area
groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson $289 million in damages after finding
Roundup caused his terminal non-Hodgkin lymphoma. While a judge
later reduced the award to $78 million, the historic verdict could
still play into any settlement discussion.

Bayer vowed to appeal the Hardeman verdict in an emailed statement
on March 27.

"We have great sympathy for Mr. Hardeman and his family," Bayer
said. But "Bayer stands behind these products and will vigorously
defend them."

The company added, "This verdict does not change the weight of over
four decades of extensive science and the conclusions of regulators
worldwide that support the safety of our glyphosate-based
herbicides and that they are not carcinogenic. The verdict in this
trial has no impact on future cases and trials, as each one has its
own factual and legal circumstances."

But Hardeman's attorneys, Aimee Wagstaff and Jennifer Moore, said
at the news conference on March 27 that a second unanimous verdict
against Monsanto means Bayer has little choice but to change its
business practices by putting a cancer warning on its flagship
herbicide.

"We are prepared to continue to fight and continue to take these
cases to trial across the country" if it doesn't, Moore said.

In January, Chhabria granted Monsanto's motion to split the federal
bellwethers into an initial causation phase, in which jurors only
hear evidence about the science of glyphosate and non-Hodgkin
lymphoma, and a potential second phase to decide Monsanto's
liability and damages.

Bayer had argued for bifurcation on the theory that it was the only
way it could get a fair trial, insisting the jury in the Johnson
case -- which was not bifurcated -- had been "inflamed" by evidence
of Monsanto's deceitful conduct.

Chhabria was roundly criticized for bifurcating Hardeman's trial,
but Wagstaff said on March 27 that bifurcation "supports and will
help keep the verdict" on appeal.

Moore agreed.

"We were able to have the jury look at evidence as just Roundup as
the cause without seeing all the bad acts of Monsanto, so any
argument that the jury was swayed one way or the other is out the
window, because they didn't have that in Phase One" of the trial,
she said.

Whether Bayer will consider settling the remaining cases is still
an open question. The company doesn't consider the San Francisco
federal bellwether cases sufficient for determining settlement
strategy because they were chosen based on plaintiff residency
requirements and not on traditional bellwether criteria like
similar plaintiff profiles.

And it insists that glyphosate and Roundup are safe, citing
hundreds of studies finding no link between the products and
non-Hodgkin lymphoma and determinations by U.S. and foreign
regulators that glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.

Wagstaff, however, was confident about future outcomes.

"Judge Chhabria bifurcated this trial and Phase One was just the
science, and the fact that a unanimous jury came back and
held…that Roundup caused this man's cancer is all you need to
know, it's all Bayer needs to know," she said.


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Minnesota Home Seller Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Guerin, writing for Housing Wire, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed by a Minnesota home seller is taking aim
at the big four multiple listing services that have transformed the
real estate business.

The suit alleges that the National Association of Realtors has
driven up costs to sellers and has stifled competition by requiring
brokers to offer buyer broker compensation when listing a property
on an MLS site.

Filed against the NAR, Realogy, HomeServices of America, RE/MAX and
Keller Williams, the suit alleges that the MLS providers conspired
with NAR to require sellers to pay buyer's broker's fees at
inflated rates in violation of anti-trust laws.

"The conspiracy has saddled home sellers with a cost that would be
borne by the buyer in a competitive market," the complaint states.
"Moreover, because most buyer brokers will not show homes to their
clients where the seller is offering a lower buyer broker
commission, or will show homes with higher commission offers first,
sellers are incentivized when making the required blanket,
non-negotiable offer to procure the buyer brokers' cooperation by
offering a high commission."

The suit goes on to allege that the conspiracy has kept buyer
brokers' commissions in the 2.5-3% range despite their diminishing
role in the transaction, as "a majority of homebuyers no longer
locate prospective homes with the assistance of a broker, but
rather independently through online services."

The suit states that it will represent any sellers who paid a
broker commission during the sale of their property in the last
four years in areas covered by regional MLS sites, which includes
sellers in Texas, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado,
Michigan, Florida, Nevada, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania,
Arizona, Virginia, Utah and Washington, D.C.

A spokesperson for NAR told HousingWire that suit was unfounded.

"The complaint is baseless and contains an abundance of false
claims. The U.S. Courts have routinely found that multiple listing
services are pro-competitive and benefit consumers by creating
great efficiencies in the home-buying and selling process," The
spokesperson said. "NAR looks forward to obtaining a similar
precedent regarding this filing." [GN]


NAVIENT CORP: 2nd Amended Complaint in Consolidated Case Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated "Pope" and
"Gross" putative class action filed a second amended complaint
against Navient Corporation, among other defendants, according to
Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-1's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient
Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown,
and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak
Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations
of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  These cases were
consolidated by the Court in February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint in April 2018 and Navient
Corporation filed a motion to dismiss in June 2018.

In March 2019, and before a ruling on Navient Corporation's motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, the plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint.

Navient Corporation intends to file a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  Navient has otherwise denied the allegations
and intends to vigorously defend itself.


NAVIENT CORP: Lord Abbett Consolidated Suit Underway in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation, together with other defendants, intends to
"vigorously defend" against the allegations in the consolidated
lawsuit with consolidated Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc.
lawsuit, according to Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-1's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.  

In January 2019, the Court granted, in part, and denied, in part,
the Navient defendants' motion to dismiss.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings (including certain of the initial
purchasers) were sued in three putative securities class action
lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock or
Navient unsecured debt.

These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court,
with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff.  The caption of
the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al.
v. Navient Corporation, et al.  The plaintiffs filed their amended
and consolidated complaint in September 2016.

In September 2017, the Court granted the Navient defendants' motion
and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend.
The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court in
November 2017 and the Navient defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in January 2018.

In January 2019, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the
Navient defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Navient defendants deny
the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the
allegations in this lawsuit.


NCAA: Curry Sues Over Disregard for Student-Athletes' Safety
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Curry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
and Hampton University, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02054 (S.D.
Ind., March 27, 2019) seeks redress for injuries sustained as a
result of Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety
of generations of Hampton student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) like those
Plaintiff experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Hampton football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them. Defendant did so
knowingly and for profit.

As a direct result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former Hampton football players suffered and continue to
suffer brain and other neurocognitive injuries. As such, Plaintiff
brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those
players' rights and hold the NCAA and Hampton accountable, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Jamie Curry is a natural person and citizen of the State
of Nevada.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Hampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Disregarded Student-Athletes' Health & Safety, Boose Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Boose, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Dorian
Boose, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01234-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind.,
March 27, 2019) seeks redress for Dorian Boose, who was injured and
died as a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health
and safety of generations of Washington State University ("WSU")
student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) like those
Dorian Boose experienced, the Defendant failed to implement
adequate procedures to protect Dorian Boose and other WSU football
players from the long-term dangers associated with them, asserts
the complaint.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Dorian Boose
and countless former WSU football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football, and became
incapacitated and/or died. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class
Action Complaint in order to vindicate Dorian Boose's and those
players' rights, and hold the NCAA accountable, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Brenda Boose was appointed as personal representative of
the estate of Dorian Boose.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana
46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

NEWMONT MINING: Plaintiff Agrees to Drop Laidlaw Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newmont Mining Corporation has reached a memorandum of
understanding to resolve the class-action lawsuit styled Laidlaw v.
Boyce, et al., according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2019.

On March 29, 2019, Newmont Mining Corporation entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiff to resolve a
class-action lawsuit captioned Laidlaw v. Boyce, et al., Case No.
2019CV30569 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Arapahoe Cty.) (the "Matter").  The
Matter was filed in the District Court of the State of Colorado,
Arapahoe County, concerning the business combination transaction
whereby Newmont Mining Corporation ("Newmont" or the "Company")
will acquire all of the issued and outstanding common shares of
Goldcorp Inc. ("Goldcorp") and Goldcorp will become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Newmont (the "proposed Newmont Goldcorp
transaction").  The Matter was filed on behalf of a purported
stockholder of Newmont (the "plaintiff").  The complaint names
Newmont and the individual members of Newmont's board of directors
as defendants (collectively, the "defendants").  The Matter
alleges, among other things, that the defendants failed to make
adequate disclosures in Newmont's preliminary proxy statement filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on
February 22, 2019, relating to the proposed Newmont Goldcorp
transaction.  The defendants believe that the allegations in the
complaint are without merit.

In connection with the resolution of the Matter, Newmont will make
the amended and supplemental disclosures (the "Amended and
Supplemental Disclosures") to Newmont's definitive proxy statement
filed with the SEC on March 11, 2019, relating to the proposed
Newmont Goldcorp transaction (the "Proxy Statement").  The
plaintiff has agreed to voluntarily discontinue with prejudice his
individual claims in the Matter, and discontinue without prejudice
the claims asserted on behalf of a purported class of Newmont's
stockholders.

A full-text copy of the amended and supplemental disclosures on
Form 8-K is available at https://bit.ly/2WZqyn6

While the defendants believe that the disclosures set forth in the
Proxy Statement comply fully with applicable law, to avoid the risk
that the Matter may delay or otherwise adversely affect the
consummation of the proposed Newmont Goldcorp transaction, to
minimize the expense of defending such action and to provide
additional information to Newmont's stockholders, Newmont will make
these Amended and Supplemental Disclosures.  Nothing in the Amended
and Supplemental Disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable law of any of the
disclosures set forth herein or in the Proxy Statement.  To the
contrary, the defendants deny all allegations in the Matter that
any additional disclosure was or is required.

Newmont Mining Corporation, based in Greenwood Village, Colorado,
USA, is one of the world's largest producers of gold, with active
mines in Nevada, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Ghana and
Peru.


NFL: Lawyer Fights to Advance Painkiller Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
portraying the National Football League as an underworld crime
boss, a lawyer on March 21 fought to advance a revived class action
claiming the NFL pushed painkillers on hurt athletes to get them
back on the field regardless of the long-term consequences.

"They don't convict drug kingpins because they find them selling
nickel bags on the Embarcadero," attorney Phil Closius --
pclosius@mdattorney.com -- representing a proposed class of retired
NFL players, argued in court.

Closius, of Silverman Thompson Slutkin White in Baltimore, was
responding to U.S. District Judge William Alsup's demand that he
explain how the NFL could be found to have violated drug control
laws without evidence that it physically handled or distributed
painkillers.

"You have to show that the NFL directly provided medical care and
supplied drugs to players," Alsup said.

The March 21 hearing was the first time both sides have appeared
back in district court since the Ninth Circuit revived the lawsuit
this past September.

Lead plaintiff Richard Dent, a former Chicago Bear and NFL Hall of
Famer, sued the league in May 2014. He claims the NFL instructed
team doctors from at least 1969 to 2012 to dole out unprescribed
drugs without warning players of harmful side effects. Dent says he
ended his career with an enlarged heart, permanent nerve damage in
his foot and an addiction to painkillers because of the league's
conduct.

On March 21, Alsup and the plaintiffs' lawyer spent much of the
two-hour hearing debating why the Ninth Circuit reversed Alsup's
prior ruling. Alsup suggested the Ninth Circuit overturned his
decision because the plaintiffs gave a false impression that drugs
were handled or controlled by a security office at the NFL's New
York headquarters.

"I think you're trying to slide off what you told the Ninth
Circuit," Alsup said. "I want you to explain how the NFL was
supplying these drugs from a New York locker."

The NFL retirees' third amended complaint states the NFL "exerts
control over the storage and administration of controlled
substances and prescription drugs through their agent, the NFL
Security Office."

Closius vehemently disagreed with the judge's characterization. He
said the Ninth Circuit reversed Alsup's decision because it found
claims of negligence did not hinge on the interpretation of
collective bargaining agreements as Alsup found in 2014, but rather
on whether the league had violated the Controlled Substances Act.

The lawyer insisted the league was involved "in every level" of the
distribution, and that the law doesn't require that a perpetrator
personally touch or handle drugs to be in violation.

When asked to identify specific ways in which the NFL controlled
the drugs, Closius cited a 1999 document creating guidelines for
the league's "prescription drug program and protocol," along with
other documents created by NFL associates.

"They're telling them how to distribute it. They're providing the
guidelines," Closius argued.

"It's not the same as the NFL itself handling the drugs," Alsup
replied.   

Closius then referred Alsup to allegations about a New York Jets
team doctor, Elliott Pellman, who allegedly also worked as an NFL
employee.

"This is new," Alsup said. "I did not know you had an NFL person
distributing drugs directly to someone."

But NFL attorney Daniel Nash -- dnash@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer in Washington, denied that Pellman worked directly
for the NFL. Even if the plaintiffs could show Pellman worked for
the league, Nash argued they still failed to allege that the doctor
personally handed painkillers to athletes.

Playing devil's advocate, Alsup grilled the NFL lawyer on how drug
laws could be enforced against kingpin-like characters who profit
from drugs they never touch that are distributed by underlings.

"Under your argument, the government could never put the kingpin in
jail because he never touches the drug," Alsup said.

In response, Nash insisted that not a single statement appears in
the plaintiffs' third amended complaint alleging that the NFL
directed a doctor or club to give out drugs without regard to a
player's health.

"Counsel has still never identified anything that would be remotely
considered any basis to say the NFL violated these statues," Nash
said.

Before ending the hearing, Alsup asked both lawyers to send him a
transcript of their arguments before the Ninth Circuit and to
highlight any statements they want him to focus on as he considers
the NFL's renewed motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

In February, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Alsup's dismissal of a
separate class action seeking to hold individual NFL teams liable
for pushing painkillers on hurt athletes, finding the players
waited too long to file suit.


NIO INC: Faces 4 Class Suits Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nio Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been named as a
defendant in four class action suits over alleged misleading
financial reports.

On March 12, 2019, two putative securities class action lawsuits
were filed against the company and certain of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York: Tan v.
NIO Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01424, and in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California: Sidoli v. NIO Inc.
et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-1320.

On March 14, 2019, a putative securities class action was filed
against the company, certain of its directors and officers, and
underwriters in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of Kings: Sumit Agarwal v. NIO Inc. et al., Index No. 505647/2019.


On March 29, 2019, another putative securities class action was
filed against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California: Jeon v. NIO
Inc. et al., Case NO. 5:19-cv-01644.

The plaintiffs in these cases allege, in sum and substance, that
our statements in the Registration Statement and/or other public
statements were false or misleading and in violation of the U.S.
federal securities laws.

These actions remain in their preliminary stages.

Nio said, "We are currently unable to estimate the potential loss,
if any, associated with the resolution of such lawsuits, if they
proceed. Additional complaints related to these claims may be filed
in the coming months. These actions remain in their preliminary
stages. We believe these cases are without merit and intend to
defend the actions vigorously."

As of May 22, 2015, Nio Inc. was acquired by Gaming Innovation
Group Limited, in a reverse merger transaction. The company is
headquartered in Oslo, Norway.


NIO INC: May 13 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against NIO Inc. ("NIO" or the
"Company") (NYSE: NIO) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired NIO securities
during the period between September 12, 2018 through March 5, 2019,
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/nio.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) NIO would not be building its own manufacturing
plant and would instead continue to rely on a little-known Chinese
state-owned auto manufacturer, JAC Auto, to manufacture its
electric vehicles; (2) reductions in government subsidies for
electric cars would materially impact NIO's sales; and (3) as a
result, defendants' statements about NIO's business, operations,
and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/nio or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in NIO you
have until May 13, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

Contact:

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


NOVA LIFESTYLE: Still Defends Against Barney Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nova Lifestyle, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that it will "vigorously defend" against the
lawsuit by George Barney.

On December 28, 2018, a Federal class action complaint was filed by
George Barney against the Company and its former and current CEOs
and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang and Yuen Ching
Ho) in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, claiming the Company violated federal securities laws
and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Security Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (the "Complaint").

The Complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages caused by the
Company's alleged violations of Federal security laws during the
period from December 3, 2015 through December 20, 2018.  In
reliance solely on a self-styled research report regarding the
Company (the "Andri Report") published by Seeking Alpha on December
21, 2018, the Complaint states that the Company made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company overstated its purported strategic alliance with a customer
in China to operate as lead designer and manufacturer for all
furnishings in such customer's planned US$460 million senior care
center in China; (2) the Company inflated its reported sales in
2016 and 2017 with the Company's two major customers; and (3) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

The Audit Committee has acted promptly to address the concerns
raised in the Andri Report,  has engaged independent counsel in
addressing such matters, to advise it, and has engaged the
Company's auditor to perform special procedures to confirm the
reported sales.  The special procedures included the examination
and testing of relevant documentation relating to the sales made by
the Company to the four customers targeted in the Andri Report for
the years of 2015-2018, and 100% sampling of all transactions
between the Company and the subject customers.  The special
procedures have been performed, and the results have been
communicated to the Audit Committee.

The Company's independent auditor has reported to the Audit
Committee that with respect to the four subject customers, the
special procedures resulted in no evidence of fictitious sales or
of fictitious customers.

The Company will vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

Nova LifeStyle, Inc., a NASDAQ Global Market listed company
headquartered in California -- http://www.NovaLifeStyle.com-- is a
fast growing, innovative designer and distributor of modern
LifeStyle furniture; primarily sofas, dining rooms, cabinets,
office furniture and related components, bedrooms, and various
accessories in matching collections. Nova's products are made in
the US, Europe, and Asia that include LifeStyle brands such as
Diamond Sofa, Nova QwiK, and Bright Swallow International. Nova's
products feature urban contemporary styles that integrate comfort
and functionality, incorporating upscale luxury designs appeals to
middle and upper middle-income consumers in the USA, China, Europe,
and elsewhere in the world.


NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Wu Class Action v. Tokai Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Novus Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend a putative securities class action suit entitled, Wu v.
Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-3725 BLS.

The Wu action was filed December 5, 2016, in the Massachusetts
State Court.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
purchasers of Tokai common stock in or traceable to Tokai's initial
public offering (IPO).

On December 19, 2016, defendants removed the Wu Action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where it was
captioned Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-cv-12550.
On January 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the Wu
Action to Massachusetts State Court. On September 28, 2017, the
court stayed the case pending a decision by the United States
Supreme Court in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement
Fund, S. Ct. Case No. 15-1439.

On March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Cyan
that state courts have subject matter jurisdiction over covered
class actions alleging only Securities Act claims and that such
actions are not removable to federal court. On March 22, 2018,
plaintiff moved for leave to submit the Cyan decision in support of
plaintiff’s remand motion. On March 27, 2018 the Wu Action was
remanded to the Massachusetts State Court.

On May 3, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint.
Following the refiling of the Jackie888 Action in Massachusetts
State Court, on June 28, 2018, plaintiff Wu moved to consolidate
the Jackie888 Action with the Wu Action. On June 29, 2018,
plaintiffs Jackie888 and Wu filed a consolidated complaint. On July
6, 2018, the Jackie888 Action was consolidated with the Wu Action.


Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on August
15, 2018, plaintiffs filed their opposition thereto on September
28, 2018, and defendants filed their reply in support of their
motion on October 19, 2018.

In addition, Defendants moved to strike the class allegations in
the consolidated complaint on August 15, 2018, plaintiffs filed
their opposition thereto on September 11, 2018, and defendants
filed their reply in support of their motion on September 21, 2018.


The court held a hearing on November 15, 2018 on defendants' motion
to strike. On December 20, 2018, the court denied defendants'
motion to strike. The court held a hearing on December 20, 2018 on
defendants' motion to dismiss.  On January 8, 2019, the court
denied defendants' motion to dismiss.  

On February 6, 2019, the court entered a scheduling order, pursuant
to which discovery on merits issues was stayed pending the court's
resolution of class certification.  

Discovery on class certification and standing issues must be
completed by July 12, 2019.  Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and defendants; motion to dismiss for lack of
standing shall be filed on or by August 22, 2019, oppositions
thereto shall be filed on or by September 19, 2019, and replies in
support shall be filed on or by October 10, 2019. The court
scheduled a hearing for October 23, 2019 on the motions.

Novus Therapeutics, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, focuses on
developing products for patients with disorders of ear, nose, and
throat. Novus Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Irvine,
California.


OAKWOOD WORLDWIDE: Young Suit Asserts ADA Breach
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oakwood Worldwide
(US) LP. The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And On
Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
Oakwood Worldwide (US) LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02844 (S.D.
N.Y., Mar. 29, 2019).

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

Oakwood Worldwide operates as a real estate services company. The
Company's main line of busienss include temporary housing and
providing furnished corporate apartments and residences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


OHIO NATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Trail Commissions
--------------------------------------------------------
John Hilton, writing for InsuranceNewsNet, reports that annuities
are attractive for advisors and clients because they offer income
retirees cannot outlive.

A new lawsuit was filed on March 11 challenging Ohio National's
decision to stop paying trail commissions on certain variable
annuity contracts.

Stephen K. Cook, an investment advisor representative with Triad
Advisors, a Dallas, Texas broker-dealer, filed the class-action
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Ohio National faces several lawsuits over its September decision to
stop paying trails.

The insurer informed broker-dealers in a Sept. 28 letter that it
would terminate "any and all servicing agreements" on Dec. 12,
2018. That means all compensation, specifically trail commissions,
stopped on that date.

The decision is believed to be the first of its kind in the
industry and affects variable annuity contracts purchased with a
guaranteed minimum income benefit rider. The GMIB is appealing to
clients looking for guaranteed income in retirement.

Cook filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of "thousands of
members" that his complaint concedes must be found and identified.

"Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
Class and has no interests that are adverse to, or which materially
and irreconcilably conflict with, the interests of the other
members of the Class," reads the lawsuit filed by Helmer, Martins,
Rice & Popham, a Cincinnati law firm.

The class-action process is the fairest way to resolve the claims
against Ohio National, the lawsuit claims.

Can 'Take Years'
Another plaintiff suing Ohio National initially filed a
class-action claim. But attorneys for LPL Financial broker Lance
Browning refiled it as an individual lawsuit in January, with an
attorney telling InsuranceNewsNet that class-action claims can
"take years" to resolve.

Otherwise, the Cook lawsuit makes the same claims as the others,
all relating to the loss of commission compensation.

"Defendants have breached the Selling Agreement and are unlawfully
retaining millions of dollars that rightfully belong to Plaintiff
and the Class in the form of unpaid commissions," the lawsuit
reads.

Ohio National does not comment on legal matters, a spokeswoman has
said.

But the insurer's attorneys have asked the Southern District of
Ohio court to dismiss Browning's lawsuit. The insurer accused
Browning of making "a grab bag of claims" to which he "is neither a
party nor a third-party beneficiary."

A third lawsuit is pending in the Southern District, filed by
Veritas Independent Partners, an independent broker-dealer based in
Conway, Ark. In a response to Veritas, Ohio National either denied
allegations or cited a lack of "sufficient information" to most of
the claims.

Ohio National also faces a lawsuit filed in New Jersey challenging
the decision to cut trail commissions.

Ohio National distributes life and annuities through an independent
producing general agent channel with about 11,000 agents, and
through a career agency channel with about 4,000 agents, the
company said. Career agents are apparently unaffected by the
decision to stop paying trails on VAs with a GMIB. [GN]


OLIN CORP.: Miami Products Alleges Price Fixing of Caustic Soda
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIAMI PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL CO., On Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OLIN CORPORATION; K.A. STEEL
CHEMICALS, INC.; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL
CHEMICAL CORPORATION (D/B/A OXYCHEM); WESTLAKE CHEMICAL
CORPORATION; SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO. LTD.; SHINTECH INCORPORATED;
FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION; FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION, U.S.A.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00385 (W.D.N.Y., March 22, 2019),
seeks damages and injunctive relief arising out of the collusive
and concerted restraint of trade in sodium hydroxide, commonly
known as Caustic Soda, by the Defendants -- all of whom are direct
competitors and leading manufacturers of Caustic Soda in the United
States -- during a period spanning from at least October 1, 2015,
to the present, under the antitrust laws.

Caustic Soda is a commodity chemical sold in solid and liquid forms
that is produced as a co-product of chlorine production from the
electrolysis of brine or salt water. Caustic Soda is consumed by
customers in a variety of industries, including paper, pulp and
cellulose; chemical production; soaps and detergents; aluminum;
food processing; water treatment; textiles; mineral oils;
recycling; and pharmaceuticals. Defendants are estimated to control
at least 90% of the domestic supply of Caustic Soda.

From approximately 2012 until the fourth quarter of 2015, Caustic
Soda prices were either declining or flat, and industry margins
were poor, given industry overcapacity and flat demand. These
conditions motivated the Defendants to conspire and combine to
restrict domestic supply; to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
the price at which Caustic Soda was and continues to be sold; and
to allocate customers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.

Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, the Defendants announced
Caustic Soda price increases in a coordinated fashion and began
increasing Caustic Soda prices despite sluggish demand, stable or
declining costs, and excess capacity. They also at times refused to
supply customers, put them on allocation, or refused to bid on
contracts while falsely claiming supply was tight or scarce.
Defendants' market shares have been relatively stable since 2015,
with customer turnover lower in the years since the fourth quarter
of 2015 than before that quarter. In sum, Defendants entered into
an agreement or understanding to increase prices of Caustic Soda
and not to compete on price for the business of each other's
customers.

The alleged conspiracy was facilitated by secret co-producer supply
agreements; by exchanges of nonpublic, commercially sensitive
information (including future strategy, supply, capacity, and price
information) between and among Defendants and their agents, both
directly with each other, and indirectly through third parties; by
manipulation of a price index; and by the characteristics of the
industry: high market concentration, high barriers to entry,
interchangeability of Defendants' products, inelastic demand, weak
demand, a larger number of purchasers with limited buying power,
and relatively easy information exchanges among the Defendants.

The Defendants, as alleged, have formed a cartel and are
cooperating as an industry, having reached an agreement or
understanding to limit and manage production and supply, maintain
and increase already artificially-inflated prices, and maximize
revenues to improve industry profits, which have soared since the
beginning of the Class Period, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Miami Products & Chemical Co. On Behalf of Itself and
All Others Similarly Situated:

          Marco Cercone, Esq.
          R. Anthony Rupp III, Esq.
          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
          1600 Liberty Building
          424 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 854-3400
          Facsimile: (716) 332-0336
          E-mail: cercone@ruppbaase.com
                  rupp@ruppbaase.com
                  bailey@ruppbaase.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 1350
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
          E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                  cdirksen@cerallp.com

OPTION CARE: Suit Cabrera Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Somahyra Cabrera, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Option Care
Enterprises, Inc.; Option Care, Inc.; Option Care Home Care, Inc.;
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
30-2019-01051005-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
March 27, 2019, and assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00589.

Plaintiff alleges that "during the relevant time period, Plaintiff
and Class Members did not receive compliant meal periods for
working more than 5 and/or 10 hours per day because their meal
periods were either missed, late, and/or short." Plaintiff also
alleges that "at all relevant times, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff and Class Members period premiums for missed, late,
and/or short meal periods", says the complaint.

The Defendant is represented by:

     Thomas H. Petrides, Esq.
     Christopher A. Braham, Esq.
     VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: +1 424 204 7700
     Fax: +1 424 204 7702
     Email: tpetrides@vedderprice.com
            cbraham@vedderprice.com


OSIB 50TH: Violates Disabilities Act, Lopez Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OSIB 50th Street
Operator LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez On Behalf of
Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OSIB
50th Street Operator LLC, OSIB Bowery Street Operator LLC,
OSIB-BCRE 50th Street Holdings LLC, OSIB-BCRE Bowery Street
Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02859 (S.D. N.Y., Mar.
29, 2019).

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

OSIB 50TH STREET OPERATOR LLC is a Foreign Limited Liability
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com



PARAGONCOIN INC: In Talks to Settle Suit over PRG Tokens Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
ParagonCoin Limited disclosed in its Form 10-12G filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2019, that its
affiliate ParagonCoin, Inc., a Delaware company, is negotiating to
resolve a class action complaint related to the affiliate's Paragon
Token digital tokens (PRG).

In January 2018, a class action complaint was brought in the
Northern District of California alleging that Paragon's sale of PRG
Tokens constituted the sale of an unregistered security.  Paragon
and other named defendants have moved to dismiss the class action
on the grounds that the class action complaint failed to state a
claim, or, in the alternative, have asked that the Court compel
arbitration as required by the terms and conditions agreed to by
all public purchasers of PRG Tokens.  Paragon is negotiating to
resolve this matter.

ParagonCoin Ltd. said, "In the event that such a resolution cannot
be reached, will continue to contest the matter vigorously."


PARTNER COMMS: Accord in Suit over Content Service Charges Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that an Israeli
court has granted approval to the settlement reached in a class
action related to the company's charges on its content services.

On April 12, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleged that
the Company charged its customers for certain content services
without their consent.

The total amount claimed from the Company was estimated by the
plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 343 million.

In June 2018, the parties filed a request to approve a revised
settlement agreement which the Court approved in February 2019.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two segments,
Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel.


PARTNER COMMS: Data Speed-Related Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a lawsuit alleging that the company's plan does
not support data speeds that the company publishes to its
customers.

On September 24, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company and Partner
Land-Line.

The claim alleges that the infrastructure included in the Company's
plan does not support data speeds that the Company publishes to its
customers.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two segments,
Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel.


PARTNER COMMS: Facing Suit over Anti-Virus Service Charge
---------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company
has been named as defendant in a lawsuit that alleges unlawful
charges on anti-virus services.

On March 3, 2019, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and Partner Land-Line.
The claim alleges that the Company unlawfully charges its customers
for anti-virus services that are not part of an internet or
cellular service plan.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two segments,
Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel.


PARTNER COMMS: Settlement in Ad Messages Suit Awaits Court OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the parties
to the lawsuit over unwanted advertising messages are awaiting an
Israeli court's approval of their settlement agreement.

On February 24, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that the Company harasses recipients by sending advertising
messages without receiving their prior approval.

In addition, the content of the advertisements does not comply with
the legal provisions, among others, with respect to the fact that
the Company does not enable the advertisement recipients an option
to easily remove themselves from the mailing list or send a refusal
notice.

The total amount claimed against the Company if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff.

In January 2019, the parties filed a settlement agreement and are
waiting for the Court's decision.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two segments,
Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel.


PARTNER COMMS: Still Defends Suit over Spam Messages
----------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a suit related to the company's collection
notices, which constitute spam messages.

On September 5, 2018, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that the collection notices that the Company
sends to its customers through its computerized system, constitute
unlawful "spam" messages. The total amount claimed from the Company
was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 125 million.


The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two segments,
Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel.


PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Technician Visits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a lawsuit that alleges the company's breach of
its license with respect to coordination of technician visits for
internet malfunction repairs.

On September 19, 2017, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company.

The claim alleges that Partner breaches its license with respect to
coordination of technician visits for internet malfunction repairs.


The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two segments,
Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel.


PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Telephony System Malfunction Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company
and 012 Smile continues to defend a suit that alleges malfunction
in the telephony system of the Company and 012 Smile.

On March 28, 2018, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and 012 Smile. The
claim alleges that there is a malfunction in the telephony system
of the Company and 012 Smile, according to which when a call
recipient activates a follow-me service to a number abroad
(directly or via intermediate destination, from which a follow-me
service is also diverted to a number overseas) and the call is
diverted abroad via 012 Smile, the call segment charge from Israel
to overseas applies to the caller, as if he placed an international
call, rather than to the recipient of the call that activated the
follow-me service, thereby violating the provisions of the law and
the agreements with their customers.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two segments,
Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel.


PARTNER COMMS: Suit over Unlawful Charges and Rates Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company
and 012 Smile continues to defend a suit related to allege unlawful
charges and higher rates for international calls that are not
included in their tariff plans.

On August 6, 2018, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and 012 Smile.

The claim alleges that the Company and 012 Smile unlawfully charges
its customers different and higher rates for international calls
that are not included in their tariff plans, than those set forth
in its customer tariff chart on the 012 Smile website.

The plaintiff noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit, should the lawsuit be certified as a class
action.

The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion to be
certified as a class action.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. provides various
telecommunication services in Israel. It operates in two segments,
Cellular and Fixed-Line. The company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Rosh HaAyin, Israel.


PARWELL INVESTMENTS: McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in
Chu v. Parwell Investments Inc. et al, 2019 ONSC 700, released on
February 15, 2019, Belobaba J. places front and center the growing
importance of class counsel fees in carriage motions. The cases
before the court on that motion were effectively equal on most
factors, such as experience and resources of counsel, the proposed
plaintiffs and defendants, the framing of the causes of action, and
the state of preparation. The fee arrangement emerged as the one
and only determinative factor in awarding carriage. The outcome
here perhaps points to where the law of carriage may be headed.

The Nature of Carriage Motions
When different representative plaintiffs bring different class
actions against the same defendant(s) about the same alleged
wrongdoing, and the plaintiffs or their counsel cannot agree to
work together, a "carriage motion" will typically be heard to
determine which proposed plaintiff's case and counsel will be
permitted to proceed, and which will be stayed. Carriage is a
notoriously murky area of class actions in common law Canada.1 The
courts have attempted to develop a test of various factors to
consider when awarding carriage, but to date, no one factor is held
out to be determinative, and the list remains non-exhaustive.2

From a defendant's perspective, carriage offers a prime opportunity
to enjoy a front row seat as proposed class counsel pick at
weaknesses in each other's cases in open court. While defendants
have standing on carriage motions, the general custom to date has
been to not make submissions, but rather to listen, watch, and
wait.

Class Counsel Fees as the Critical Factor
So far, courts have been called to employ a holistic analysis and
"resist a 'tick the boxes' approach to carriage motions" – "the
issue is not which law firm 'wins' on the most factors. Rather, it
is the best interests of the class and fairness to the defendants,
having regard to access to justice, judicial economy and behaviour
modification."3 However, as class action jurisprudence has matured,
experienced class counsel has typically come to know what cases can
be certified, and what it takes to mount a reasonable carriage
offensive. Their skills have generally become equal in framing and
progressing their proposed class actions. This makes the
traditional comparative analysis on carriage difficult -- and
perhaps artificial.

It is therefore worth questioning whether the only meaningful
factor that can and should differentiate between the competing
cases helmed by experienced class counsel is the fee arrangement
between class counsel and the respective representative plaintiffs.
This is typically divulged in the carriage records before the
court. In other words, in a mature class actions bar, courts may
perhaps simply inquire into who can do the best job for the
cheapest price, since lower legal and administrative costs
typically means higher recovery for the class.

Chu is a step in this direction. Assuming a reasonable hypothetical
settlement amount, Belobaba J. compared what each consortium would
charge the class in fees and other costs if they were to prevail as
carriage counsel, with reference to their retainer agreements and
any related funding agreements. In the end, a "fair-minded
comparison of the fees and funding factor" resulted in only one
"objectively measurable differentiation" -- one consortium would
charge a higher contingency percentage than the other -- and "this
difference will have a significant multi-million-dollar impact on
the actual damages that will be paid out to the class members."4
This outcome was all that mattered for Belobaba J. in Chu.

Revisiting a "Reverse Auction"
Realistically, if fees are indeed going to be the deciding issue on
carriage motions going forward, then perhaps it is time to revisit
the notion of "reverse auctions" on fees by class counsel on
carriage motions. While not employing it, Belobaba J. raised this
idea in a Canadian context in 2014 in Mancinelli v. Barrick Gold,
where he queried whether the competing consortiums would lower
their contingency percentage if granted carriage, declaring "as is
often the case with product purchase decisions, when the goods or
services being compared are otherwise indistinguishable, price can
be the determinative factor".5

The Ontario Court of Appeal did not dismiss this hypothetical
approach when upholding Belobaba J.'s decision in Mancinelli in
2016, where it referred to the possibility of a "reverse auction"
and noted that some U.S. courts have indeed instituted competitive
bidding procedures in carriage cases.6 But the Court of Appeal did
issue a caution:

There is room for debate about whether auctioning the right to
represent the class will be in the best interests of the class. Is
it in the best interests of the class to be represented by counsel
who is prepared to take on the onerous professional and financial
challenges of serving as class counsel at the lowest price? Will
such counsel have a strong incentive to settle the case to recover
their discounted fee at the earliest moment? Will such counsel be
vulnerable to being ground down by the defence? On the other hand,
is an auction a legitimate proxy for market realities? The issue
does not call for a decision in this case and I would leave it, if
necessary, for another day.

A fee-driven approach by Belobaba J. in Chu may have benefits. It
removes the need to spend time, costs, and judicial resources on
assessing an open-ended list of factors that very often lead to
confusion and a lack of predictability for all parties involved.
Whether Chu signals the future for carriage disputes in a field of
otherwise evenly matched class counsel and capabilities, remains to
be seen.8  So too does the issue of whether any fee-driven approach
to carriage will lead to adoption of the "reverse auction". Until
that time, defence counsel can continue to listen, watch, and wait
-- and take good notes -- as proposed class counsel battle it out
on the traditional carriage factors, for all to see. [GN]


PASSION FOOD: ADA Suit Transferred to District of Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------
A case, RICARDO WALKER on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PASSION FOOD FOUR, LLC,
doing business as: ACADIANA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04609,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia (Washington, DC) on Mar., 22, 2019. The District of
Columbia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00798-RC to the
proceeding. The suit alleges violation of Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Rudolph
Contreras.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP
          30 E 39th St., Second Floor
          Telephone: (212) 661 1008
          New York, NY 10016

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Ryan T. Benson
          OHAGAN MEYER, Esq.
          One East Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
          Telephone: 312 422 6100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312 422-6138
          Facsimile: 312 422-6110
          E-mail: rbenson@ohaganmeyer.com

PHH MORTGAGE: Moore Files FDCPA Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PHH Mortgage Services
Corporation. The case is styled as Robert M. Moore individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHH
Mortgage Services Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00129
(N.D. Ind., Mar. 29, 2019).

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

PHH Mortgage Services Corporation provides private label mortgage
services in the United States. It focuses on originating retail
residential mortgages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
     Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181
     Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
            jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com


PHILADELPHIA, PA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Cash Bail System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cherri Gregg, writing for KYW Newsradio, reports that the ACLU of
Pennsylvania filed a class action on March 12 challenging
Philadelphia's system of cash bail. The plaintiffs claim the city's
magistrates fail to follow proper bail procedure.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of more than a half-dozen
individuals who have been jailed on bails they could not afford.

"They're setting bail based on the charge, and sometimes based on
someone's criminal history, but that is not what they are supposed
to do," said Mary Catherine Roper, deputy legal director of ACLU of
Pennsylvania.

Roper says their volunteers sat in on 2,000 arraignments over the
past year. The suit names all six bail magistrates, claiming they
hold hearings that are on average less than two minutes, with
minimal discussion about a defendant's ability to pay.

"It's not about how how bad the accusations are, it's about whether
you're going to come back to court and about whether you are a
danger," Roper said.

Joshua Glenn, who runs the Youth Art and Self-Empowerment Project,
one of the non-profit plaintiffs in the case, said, "At the age of
16, I was locked up, charged as an adult and held in prison for 18
months."

His charges were dismissed, but he believes the current bail system
keeps poor defendants in jail -- so they lose jobs, homes and
families.

"That's not what bail is supposed to be used for," Glenn said, "and
so we just want them to do their job and follow the rules."

A spokesman for the First Judicial District declined to comment.
[GN]


PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Faces Kornegay Class Action in North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phoenix Financial
Services LLC. The case is styled as Lashunda R. Kornegay
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Phoenix Financial Services LLC, Pendrick Capital
Partners, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00154 (W.D. N.C., Mar.
28, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act.

Phoenix Financial Services, LLC offers investment banking and
financial advisory services to public and private growth companies
and middle market corporations.

Pendrick is a market leader in medical debt purchasing with a long
and respectable reputation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Arthur H. Piervincenti, Esq.
     Arthur H. Piervincenti, P.A.
     631-200B Brawley School Road, Box 225
     Mooresville, NC 28117
     Phone: (704) 997-9529
     Fax: (704) 230-0413
     Email: arthur@lawahp.com



PPDAI GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Serves as Class Action Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, the court-appointed Lead Counsel in a class action
lawsuit against PPDAI Group Inc. (NYSE: PPDF), is seeking investors
who purchased PPDF shares directly from Citigroup Global Markets
Inc. ("Citigroup") or Keefe Bruyette & Woods Inc. ("Keefe") in the
November 14, 2017 initial public offering ("IPO").

The Rosen Law Firm is serving as the court-appointed lead counsel
in a putative class action against PPDAI and the investment banks,
including Citigroup and Keefe, who underwrote PPDAI's November 14,
2017 IPO. The lawsuit alleges that PPDAI, Citigroup, and Keefe,
among others, made false and misleading statements in connection
with PPDAI's IPO. If you purchased PPDAI shares in the IPO directly
from Citigroup or Keefe, we are interested in speaking with you
about protecting your legal rights.

Please contact Phillip Kim or Yu Shi of The Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
yshi@rosenlegal.com for more information. You may also join the
class action at
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1419.html.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN]


PRO CUSTOM: Breines Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Breines and Andrew Perrong, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pro Custom Solar, LLC
d/b/a Momentum Solar, a New Jersey company, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00353-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla., March 27, 2019) is an action
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), a federal
statute enacted in response to widespread public outrage about the
proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.

Plaintiffs never consented to receive Momentum Solar's calls, which
were placed to them for telemarketing purposes. Plaintiff now bring
this Class Action Complaint against the Defendant to stop Momentum
Solar from violating the TCPA by making unsolicited, autodialed and
pre-recorded calls to consumers without their consent, including
calls to consumers registered on the National Do Not Call registry,
and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all
persons injured by Momentum Solar's conduct, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Breines is a Florida resident and a resident of this
District.

Plaintiff Perrong is a Pennsylvania resident.

Pro Custom Solar LLC d/b/a Momentum Solar is a limited liability
company organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
     Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
     KAUFMAN P.A.
     400 NW 26th Street
     Miami, FL 33127
     Phone: (305) 469-5881
     Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
            rachel@kaufmanpa.com


QUADRUM HOSPITALITY: Lopez Asserts Disabilities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quadrum Hospitality
Group LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez On Behalf of Himself
and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Quadrum
Hospitality Group LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02864 (S.D.
N.Y., Mar. 29, 2019).

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

Quadrum Global is a global private equity investment and advisory
group focused on real estate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


REVLON INC : Suit over Elizabeth Arden Merger Concluded
-------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the litigation related to
the company's merger agreement with Elizabeth Arden has been
concluded.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Elizabeth Arden
Merger Agreement, several putative shareholder class action
lawsuits and a derivative lawsuit were filed challenging the
Merger.

In addition to the complaints filed on behalf of plaintiffs Parker,
Christiansen, Ross and Stein on July 25, 2016, a lawsuit (Hutson v.
Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-16-013566) (referred
to as the "Hutson complaint") was filed in the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (the "Court") against
Elizabeth Arden, the members of the board of directors of Elizabeth
Arden, Revlon, Products Corporation and Acquisition Sub. In
general, the Hutson complaint alleges that: (i) the members of
Elizabeth Arden's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Elizabeth Arden's shareholders with respect to the
Merger, by, among other things, approving the Merger pursuant to an
unfair process and at an inadequate and unfair price; and (ii)
Revlon, Products Corporation and Acquisition Sub aided and abetted
the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of Elizabeth Arden's
board of directors.

The plaintiff seeks relief similar to that sought in the Parker
case.

By Order dated August 4, 2016, all five cases were consolidated by
the Court into a Consolidated Amended Class Action. Thereafter, on
August 11, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was
filed, seeking to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger
and/or from soliciting shareholder votes.

To the extent that the Merger was consummated, the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint seeks to rescind the Merger or
recover rescissory or other compensatory damages, along with costs
and fees.

The grounds for relief set forth in the Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint in large part track those grounds as asserted in
the five individual complaints, as previously disclosed. After
several rounds of amended complaints and corresponding motions to
dismiss granted by the Court, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
appeal with prejudice on November 15, 2018.

The matter is now concluded.

Revlon, Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures,
markets, distributes, and sells beauty and personal care products
worldwide. Revlon, Inc. was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in
New York, New York.


RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Briefing on Dismissal Bid to be Completed in June
------------------------------------------------------------------
Riot Blockchain, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the briefing on the
motions to dismiss in the Takata and Klapper consolidated suit is
expected to be completed in June 2019.  

On February 17, 2018, Creighton Takata filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
shareholders in the United District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-02293.

The complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws under
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of a putative class of shareholders that purchased
stock from November 13, 2017 through February 15, 2018. The
complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false
and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings
regarding its business plan in connection with its cryptocurrency
business.

The complaint requests damages in unspecified amounts, costs and
fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief.

Two additional, nearly identical complaints were subsequently filed
by Richard Roys and Bruce Greenawalt in the United District States
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Roys v. Riot Blockchain
Inc., et al., Case No. 9:18-cv-80225) and the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (Greenawalt v. Riot
Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00440), respectively.

On March 27, 2018, the court closed the Roys case for
administrative purposes. On April 2, 2018, Mr. Greenawalt filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal of his action, which the court
entered on the same date.

On April 18, 2018, Joseph J. Klapper, Jr., filed a complaint
against Riot Blockchain, Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors in the United District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Klapper v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3:
18-cv-8031). The complaint contained substantially similar
allegations and the same claims as those filed by Mr. Takata, and
requests damages in unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing
the action, and other unspecified relief.

On November 6, 2018, the court in the Takata action issued an order
consolidating Takata with Klapper into a single putative class
action. The court also appointed Dr. Golovac as Lead Plaintiff and
Motely Rice as Lead Counsel of the consolidated class action.

Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on January 15, 2019.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 18, 2019. The briefing
on the motions to dismiss will be completed in June 2019.  

Riot Blockchain said, "Subject to the outcome of the pending
motions, defendants intend to continue to vigorously contest Lead
Plaintiff's allegations. Because this litigation is still at this
early stage, we cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or the magnitude of such an outcome, if any."

Riot Blockchain, Inc. focuses on building, supporting, and
operating blockchain technologies, primarily through its
cryptocurrency mining operations and other developed businesses, as
well as joint ventures, acquisitions, and targeted investments in
the sector. Its primary focus is on Bitcoin and general blockchain
technology. The company was formerly known as Bioptix, Inc. and
changed its name to Riot Blockchain, Inc. in October 2017. Riot
Blockchain, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Castle Rock,
Colorado.


ROAN RESOURCES: Faces Hay Creek Class Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roan Resources LLC.
The case is styled as Hay Creek Royalties, LLC on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Roan Resources LLC
including affiliated predecessors and affiliated successors,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00177-CVE-JFJ (N.D. Okla., Mar. 29,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Roan Resources, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and sale of oil and natural gas
reserves.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Margaret E Robertson, Esq.
     Reagan Edward Bradford, Esq.
     Lanier Law Firm (OKC)
     431 W MAIN ST STE D
     OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
     Phone: (405) 698-2700
     Fax: (405) 234-5506
     Email: maggie.robertson@lanierlawfirm.com
            reagan.bradford@lanierlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Ryan Keith Wilson, Esq.
     Lanier Law Firm (OKC)
     431 W MAIN ST STE D
     OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
     Phone: (405) 698-2770
     Fax: (405) 234-5506
     Email: ryan.wilson@aya.yale.edu


SITO MOBILE: Roper Suit Stayed Pending April 30 Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------
SITO Mobile, Ltd. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018, that on March 6, 2019, on consent of the
parties, the court stayed the Roper class action pending mediation
which is currently scheduled for April 30, 2019.  Discovery has not
commenced, and no trial date has been set for this action.

On February 17, 2017, plaintiff Sandi Roper commenced a purported
securities class action against us and certain of our current and
former officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey captioned Roper v. SITO Mobile,
Ltd., Case No. 17-cv-1106-ES-MAH (D.N.J. filed Feb. 17, 2017).

On May 8, 2017, Red Oak Fund, LP, Red Oak Long Fund LP, Red Oak
Institutional Founders Long Fund, and Pinnacle Opportunities Fund,
LP (collectively, "Red Oak") were appointed lead plaintiffs in this
action.  On June 22, 2017, Red Oak filed an amended complaint,
purporting to represent a class of stockholders who purchased our
common stock between August 15, 2016 and January 2, 2017 ("Class
Period").  The amended complaint names as defendants our directors
and certain of our officers during the Class Period.  It alleges
that the defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities Act in
connection with the September 16, 2016 offering of stock, by
allegedly omitting material information from the registration
statement and prospectus, and that the individual defendants are
liable as controlling persons under Section 15 of the Securities
Act.

The amended complaint also alleges that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by allegedly making materially false or
misleading statements regarding our media placement revenues, and
that the individual defendants are liable as controlling persons
under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  The amended
complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On January 30, 2019, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the claim brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act
without prejudice, and granted in part the motion to dismiss the
claims brought under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, also without prejudice.

SITO Mobile, Ltd. provides advertisement delivery, measurement and
attribution, and consumer insights using its proprietary
location-based marketing intelligence platform in the United States
and Canada. The company was formerly known as Single Touch Systems,
Inc. and changed its name to SITO Mobile, Ltd. in September 2014.
SITO Mobile, Ltd. was incorporated in 2000 and is based in Jersey
City, New Jersey.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: May 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on March 12 disclosed that on March 7, 2019, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin against Spectrum Brands
Legacy, Inc. (f/k/a Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.) (NYSE: SPB).
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is June 14, 2016 through April 25, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Spectrum Brands
Legacy, Inc. (f/k/a Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.) shareholders
who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are
therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move
the Court no later than Monday, May 6, 2019 to serve as a lead
plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you
must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

          Robin Hester
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com

Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]


SSP AMERICA: Boyce Sues Over Unpaid Straight Time, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NATHANIEL BOYCE, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SSP AMERICA MDW, LLC; and SSP
AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02157 (N.D. Ill., March
27, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid straight time and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties,
attorneys' fees, and costs from Defendants, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law,
("IMWL"), and the City of Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance, for
failure to pay them required overtime wages and minimum wages.

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs, and all other non-exempt
hourly employees, for all of the time Plaintiffs spent working for
Defendants, even though such time was required and/or permitted by
Defendants.

Specifically, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs for time worked
prior to the start time of the scheduled shift of each employee for
up to a half hour of time (and some-times more), each day they were
assigned to work. In addition, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs for time worked following their scheduled shift, says
the complaint.

Plaintiffs worked as kitchen staff and in related positions at
Defendants' locations in Chicago, Illinois, during the prior three
years.

SSP AMERICA, INC. provides food & beverage services through
restaurants for travelers at airports and rail stations in more
than 30 countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
     Jeffrey Grant Brown, P.C.
     221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: 312.789.9700

          - and -

     Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
     Glen J. Dunn & Associates, Ltd.
     221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: 312.880.1010


STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Admissions Scandal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Parton, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
students filed a federal class action in California on March 13
against several universities and entities allegedly involved in the
massive college admissions scandal that led to the arrest of 50
people, including actresses, business executives and coaches.

Federal prosecutors said on March 12 that a nationwide college
admissions bribery scheme carried out by Rick Singer and the Edge
College & Career Network offered parents the option of faking
learning disabilities to give their children more time to take the
SAT and ACT college-entrance exams and another option that bribed
college coaches to designate the students as athletes to lower the
academic threshold for admission.

Two Stanford students said in the lawsuit that qualified students
paid college admission fees without realizing that "unqualified
students were slipping in through the back door of the admissions
process by committing fraud, bribery, cheating, and dishonesty."

The lawsuit names Stanford University, the University of Southern
California, UCLA, the University of San Diego, the University of
Texas at Austin, Wake Forest University, Yale University and
Georgetown University as defendants.

Plaintiff Erica Olsen said in the complaint that she had "stellar"
standardized test scores and athletic talent. She applied to Yale
and paid an application fee of approximately $80, only to be
rejected by the university.

"Had she known that the system at Yale University was warped and
rigged by fraud, she would not have spent the money to apply to the
school," the lawsuit states. "She also did not receive what she
paid for -- a fair admissions consideration process."

Olsen also claims that since Stanford is linked to the scandal, her
degree might not go as far.

"Her degree is now not worth as much as it was before, because
prospective employers may now question whether she was admitted to
the university on her own merits, versus having parents who were
willing to bribe school officials," the lawsuit states.

The students claim that the schools failed to properly oversee
their admissions process and ensure that it was fair to all
students.

In addition to the seven universities, the class action also sues
Rick Singer and his associated companies, claiming that the alleged
bribery activities cost students application fees.

"Students do not have unlimited funds to pay for application fees,"
the complaint states. "They must pick and choose which university
or universities to apply to based upon their available funding, the
cost of the application fee, and the likelihood that they will be
accepted. Each of these students had a right to know that their
application was going to be part of a review process corrupted by
rampant fraud and back-door bribery."   

The lawsuit defines the class members as anyone who applied to the
scandal-linked universities between 2012 and 2018. The students are
represented by John Medler Jr., based in Irvine. [GN]


SUNRISE CREDIT: Maxan Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrise Credit
Services Inc. The case is styled as Lesly Maxan on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sunrise
Credit Services Inc., US Asset Management, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01765 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 27, 2019).

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

Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. provides credit and accounts
receivables management services for credit grantors in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
     775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Phone: (631) 335-1107
     Email: mpash@verizon.net


SUNRUN INC: Faces Curtis Suit over Spam Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Sunrun, Inc. for
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The case is captioned Curtis Saunders, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. SUNRUN,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH04252 (Ill.
Cir., Cook County, April 2, 2019).

Saunders brings this complaint against Sunrun, Inc. to stop the
company's practice of sending unauthorized text message
advertisements to consumers' cellular telephones, and to obtain
redress for those harmed by the Defendant's misconduct. In a
misguided attempt to promote solar power products and services, the
Defendant engaged in such invasive and unlawful form of marketing.
Accordingly, by making these automated text message calls without
consumers' prior written consent, the Defendant has violated the
TCPA as well as consumers' privacy rights.

Sunrun, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
place of business located in California. It is a national retailer
and servicer of residential solar power systems. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Myles McGuire, Esq.
     Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
     Timothy P. Kingsbury
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
     Telephone: (312) 893-7002
     Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
     E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
             eturin@mcgpc.com
             tkingsbury@mcgpc.com


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Blevins Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Ray Blevins, individually and on Behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc. d/b/a
TTEC, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-03121-DPR (W.D. Mo., March 27,
2019) alleges that the Defendant sent automated text messages to
him numerous times in stark violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").

On July 2, 2016, Plaintiff received an automated text message to
his cellular telephone from the Defendant. On April 9, 2018, at
approximately 10:32 AM, Plaintiff received another text message
from the Defendant. In response to the April 9, 2018 message,
Plaintiff sent a "STOP" message, to "opt out" from receiving
further text messages. By texting "STOP", Plaintiff withdrew any
consent Defendant may have believed it had to send automated text
messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number.

Despite revoking his consent, should consent have existed in the
first instance, Plaintiff continued to receive unwanted automated
text messages from Defendant. Plaintiff received another automated
text message from the Defendant on September 27, 2018. To date,
Plaintiff continues to receive text messages from the Defendant,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person and citizen of the State of Missouri,
residing in Springfield, Missouri.

TTEC is a business process outsourcing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D Todd Matthews, Esq.
     GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     156 North Main Street
     Edwardsville, IL 62025
     Phone: (618) 659-9833
     Email: todd@gorijulianlaw.com

          - and -

     Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
     William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
     THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
     4030 Henderson Boulevard
     Tampa, FL 33629
     Phone: (813) 500-1500
     Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
     Email: Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
            Shenia@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
            Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

          - and -

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
     Costs Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     Email: ak@kazlg.com


TEO BIA: Mendez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Restaurant Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SANDRA ORTIZ MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TEO BIA CORP. (D/B/A BIA
RESTAURANT & BAR), D & D BIA CORP. (D/B/A BIA), DDT WILLIAMSBURG
CORP. (D/B/A BIA BAR & GRILL), HOAN D QUAN, DUKE QUAN, AMY DOE, and
DAVID CHUNG, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01667 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed as a food preparer/cook (and ostensibly
as a waitress) at Defendants' restaurant. The Plaintiff Ortiz
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that she worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which she had to work over 10
hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay
the Plaintiff wages on a timely basis.

However, under both the FLSA and NYLL, Defendants were not entitled
to take a tip credit because the Plaintiff's non-tipped duties
exceeded 20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less
in each day. The Defendants employed the policy and practice of
disguising the Plaintiff's actual duties in payroll records by
designating her as a waitress instead of as a non-tipped employee.
This allowed Defendants to avoid paying the Ortiz at the minimum
wage rate and enabled them to pay her above the tip-credit rate,
but below the minimum wage, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants own, operate, or control three Vietnamese
restaurants in New York.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

TEVA PHARMA: Court Set to Decide on Tolling Statute Issue
---------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Shapiro, Esq. -- EShapiro@mintz.com -- of Mintz, Levin, Cohn,
Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article for The National Law
Review, reports that the United States District Court of the
District of Connecticut will soon decide whether a putative class
member may intervene "for the limited purpose of tolling the
statute of repose." Statutes of repose place an outer limit on when
a claim can be brought. For example, claims brought under Sections
11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 are subject to a 3-year
statute of repose, and claims brought under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are subject to a
5-year statute of repose. Less than two years ago, the U.S. Supreme
Court held that unlike statutes of limitations, which may be tolled
by the pendency of a class action, statutes of repose cannot be so
equitably tolled.  Should the District Court deny the motion, the
putative class member, who purchased millions of Teva shares during
the proposed class period will be time-barred from opting-out of
the securities class action at-issue or asserting its own claims
should the action be dismissed.

On February 5, 2019, the day before the running of the Exchange
Act's five-year statute of repose, California State Teachers'
Retirement System (CalSTRS) moved to intervene in Ontario Teachers'
Pension Plan Board v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries LTD, a
federal securities class action, in which investors claim
defendants concealed an alleged price-fixing scheme to inflate its
stock price, "for the sole purpose of protecting its claims as
alleged in the amended complaint from expiration of a statute of
repose." Unaccompanied by a pleading, the six-page motion relies on
the Second Circuit's 2013 IndyMac decision to support its
proposition that passive class members may preserve their claims
from expiration of the repose period by moving to intervene.
CalSTRS makes clear that it does not seek to bring additional
claims against any additional parties, nor does it wish to become a
lead plaintiff. CalSTRS simply wishes "to avoid the risk of a
time-bar against its claims if the case is dismissed on procedural
grounds and to preserve meaningful opt-out rights if a class is
certified."

While acknowledging that Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent
suggest that plaintiffs who wish to pursue individual claims may
either move to intervene in an existing action or file a separate
lawsuit, defendants provide three reasons why the Court should deny
CalSTRS's motion.

First, defendants argue that the motion is "unprecedented,
unwarranted and contrary to the . . . framework" of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLSRA), because an
intervenor must become a full participant in the lawsuit.
Defendants contend that "[a]llowing CalSTRS to assume the rights of
a plaintiff now would undercut the PSLRA's prescribed mechanism"
for appointing a lead plaintiff. Defendants also distinguish this
situation from IndyMac, where putative class members sought
intervention to assert claims for which lead plaintiffs lacked
standing. Defendants surmise that granting such a motion could lead
to a slippery slope of "an unlimited number of plaintiffs to
intervene in the class action, on their own initiative, to pursue
individual ‘opt-out' claims [that] would create a chaotic hybrid
action and inappropriately undermine the statute's goal of
consolidating authority over the litigation in a lead plaintiff
specifically appointed by the court."

Second, defendants argue that CalSTRS's motion is improper because
it fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c),
which requires motions to intervene be accompanied by "a pleading
that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is
sought."  Defendants contend that CalSTRS cannot circumvent Rule
24(c) by vaguely purporting to pursue claims that are already in
the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

Third, defendants argue that even if the motion is allowed, it
would not toll the statute of repose. Defendants explain that
"statutes of repose may not be tolled absent statutory
authorization" and a complaint attached to a motion to intervene is
only a "proposed complaint," and thus non-operative for tolling
purposes unless and until the court grants the motion to intervene.
In this case, not only was no proposed complaint attached to the
motion to intervene, but the repose period would have already run.
Defendants remind the court that such analysis is ultimately
unnecessary because CalSTRS failed to attach a proposed complaint
to its motion.

How the Court rules on the motion will not only affect putative
members in the Teva class action, but also putative members in
other federal securities class actions. A decision granting
CalSTRS's motion will benefit purported class members who face the
expiration of a statute of repose -- saving the time and money
associated with filing individual actions or proposed complaints
attached to motions to intervene. Such a decision may, however,
burden courts with a potential influx of last-minute intervenors.
Should CalSTRS's motion be denied, the Court's reasoning will be
important for large shareholders to understand how to best protect
potential claims. How the Court rules will have significant
implications for both the plaintiffs' bar and the defense bar. In
light of this, we will continue to monitor the Teva docket, and
provide an update upon the court's decision. [GN]


THAYER HOTEL: Violates ADA, Lopez Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thayer Hotel GP,
Incorporated. The case is styled as Victor Lopez On Behalf of
Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
Thayer Hotel GP, Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02866
(S.D. N.Y., Mar. 29, 2019).

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

The Thayer Hotel is a 151-room "Historic Hotel of America" property
located 50 miles north of New York City on the banks of the Hudson
River at 674 Thayer Road in West Point, New York on the campus of
the United States Military Academy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


TICKETMASTER: Bid to Arbitrate Class Action Over Scalpers OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley King, writing for Digital Music News, reports that a
California federal judge has tentatively granted Ticketmaster's
request to arbitrate the class-action suit.  The suit alleged that
Ticketmaster violated antitrust and consumer protection laws by
helping scalpers re-sell tickets online.

The Toronto Star published an expose on Ticketmaster's involvement
in re-selling scalper tickets online.  An undercover reporter met
with representatives of Ticketmaster's TradeDesk platform, filming
the representatives fielding questions about scalping.

The video showed just how easy it is for scalpers to re-sell
tickets using the platform, allowing Ticketmaster to double-dip on
fees.

The reporter specifically asks questions about what happens when
Ticketmaster finds out, but the TradeDesk rep waves the questions
away. He said Ticketmaster turns a blind eye to resellers who use
bots and fake IDs to purchase tickets en masse.

TradeDesk allows scalpers to sync their Ticketmaster accounts to
resale sites on StubHub, Vivid Seats, and TradeDesk.  Reseller fees
through these platforms allow Ticketmaster to double dip in fees
generated from ticket sales.  The practice clearly violates
Ticketmaster's own policy against using fake information for ticket
sales.

Once the report gained wider attention, several United States law
firms started working on class-action lawsuits.

Merchant Law Group threatened a suit worth more than $100 million
in damages, with the Toronto Star video evidence integral to
proving these cases.

Ticketmaster president Jared Smith attempted some damage control in
an interview with Billboard, saying his company doesn't turn a
blind eye to misuse of their products. Smith maintains that
Ticketmaster blocks resellers, but admitted TradeDesk is a weak
point.

"We probably don't do enough to look into TradeDesk even though
it's hard and it's not as obvious as people are suggesting it is."

Smith says the Toronto Star's expose has been a headache and
frustrating to deal with. He tried to spin Scalpergate as a
generally accepted practice, rather than a lifting of the curtain
on shady practices.

The move to arbitration means that the suit could be resolved in
confidential proceedings, meaning the public won't learn the
outcome.  Ticketmaster also argues that they can't be sued by their
customers, due to binding arbitration agreements in the terms of
service accepted at the sale of a ticket. [GN]


TOP SHIPS: Opposition to Motions to Dismiss Due May 24
------------------------------------------------------
Top Ships Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that plaintiffs' oppositions
to the motions seeking dismissal of the consolidated class action
suit under docket no. 2:17-cv-04987 (Christopher Brady suit) are
due on May 24, 2019.

On August 23, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (No. 2:17-cv-04987(JFB)(SIL)) by Christopher
Brady on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
against (among other defendants) the company and two of its
executive officers.

The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who
purchased our common stock between January 17, 2017 and August 22,
2017, and alleges that the company and two of its executive
officers violated Sections 9, 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On August 24, 2017, a second purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the same court against the same defendants
(No. 2:17-cv-05016 (JFB)(SIL)) which makes similar allegations and
purports to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

By order dated July 20, 2018, the court consolidated the two
actions under docket no. 2:17-cv-04987 and appointed lead
plaintiffs for the consolidated action. On September 18, 2018 the
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between
November 23, 2016 and April 3, 2018, makes allegations similar to
those made in the original complaints, seeks similar reliefs as the
original actions, and alleges that some or all the defendants
violated sections 9, 10(b), 20(a), and/or 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

All defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 25, 2019.  Plaintiffs' oppositions to the motions to dismiss
are due on May 24, 2019, and Defendants' replies in further support
of the motions to dismiss are due on June 28, 2019.

By letter dated January 2, 2019, certain co-defendants in the class
action litigation (Kalani Investments Ltd. ("Kalani"), Murchinson
Ltd. and Marc Bistricer) requested that the company indemnifies and
hold them harmless against all losses, including reasonable costs
of defense, arising from the litigation, pursuant to the provisions
of the Common Stock Purchase Agreement between the company and
Kalani. The company acknowledged receipt of the indemnification
request by letter dated February 20, 2019, and reserved all of its
rights.

Top Ships said, "We and our management believe that the allegations
in the complaints are without merit and plan to vigorously defend
against the allegations."

Top Ships Inc. owns and operates tanker vessels worldwide. The
company's medium range tanker vessels transport crude oil,
petroleum products, and bulk liquid chemicals. The company was
formerly known as Top Tankers Inc. and changed its name to Top
Ships Inc. in December 2007. Top Ships Inc. was founded in 2000 and
is based in Maroussi, Greece.


TRADER JOE'S: Directed to Produce Non-Confidential Docs in Moore
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order regarding Joint Discovery Letter in the
case captioned LYNN MOORE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRADER JOE'S
COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 18-cv-04418-KAW. (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs bring the instant putative class action, alleging
that Defendant Trader Joe's Company engaged in misleading practices
in its marketing, advertising, labeling and promotion of its 8.8 oz
Trader Joe's Manuka Honey product.

The Defendant seeks to add provisions from the Northern District of
California's Model Protective Order for Litigation involving
Patents, Highly Sensitive Confidential Information, and/or Trade
Secrets (Model Order for Highly Confidential Information) due to
the potential of third-party discovery from Defendant's
competitors.  

Section 2.6: Experts

The Model Order for Highly Confidential Information defines an
expert as: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a
matter pertinent to the litigation who (1) has been retained by a
Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a
consultant in this action (2) is not a past or current employee of
a Party of or a Party's competitor and (3) at the time of
retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party or
of a Party's competitor.

The Defendant seeks to further expand the prohibited individuals to
include business consultants or advisors.  

The Plaintiffs argue that this will cripple the Plaintiffs' ability
to retain certain experts. The Defendant states that it would be
amenable to a process by which potential experts are disclosed to
the Defendant before being given access to highly confidential
information, with the Defendant having a right to object and the
parties having the ability to seek resolution by the Court.

The Court finds the Defendant's position to be reasonable
compromise, and orders the parties to meet and confer on a process
by which the Defendant may object to the Plaintiffs' experts who
would be given access to highly confidential information, and which
allows the parties to seek relief from the Court if necessary.

Section 2.7: Highly Confidential Information

The Model Order for Highly Confidential Information defines highly
confidential information as extremely sensitive Confidential
Information or Items, disclosure of which to another Party or
Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that
could not be avoided by less restrictive means.

The Plaintiffs complain that this term is redundant and
unnecessary, and it leaves uncertain what information would be
extremely sensitive. This language, however, was approved by all
judges of the Northern District of California. As the Defendant
points out, the Plaintiffs will still be able to challenge
confidentiality designations, and additionally, any disputes
brought to the Court can be filed under seal. The Court finds this
term to be appropriate.

Section 5.2(b): Designating Deposition Testimony

The Model Order for Highly Confidential Information permits a
designating party to designate the entirety of a deposition
transcript as confidential or highly confidential for twenty-one
days, in order to allow the designating party to identify the
specific portions of the testimony as to which protection is sought
and the level of protection asserted.

The Plaintiffs argue this is an extraordinarily onerous process
that is clearly an attempt to limit usage of any information in the
lawsuit. The Court disagrees. Again, this is a process that was
approved by the Northern District of California. Further, Section
5.2(b) does not forever limit the use of the transcript; rather, it
affords a designating party twenty-one days to specifically
identify the confidential portions, in order to ensure that the
confidentiality designations are narrowly tailored. The Court finds
this term appropriate.

Section 7.3: Limits of Disclosure

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant unfairly limits House
Counsel to one attorney, and disallows the use of mock jurors or
witnesses in the action.

The Plaintiffs fail to explain how this term affects them. The
Plaintiffs are individuals, and House Counsel is defined as
attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House
Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other
outside counsel. The Plaintiffs do not suggest that they have any
House Counsel, and it appears that the Plaintiffs' counsel are
outside counsel who were retained to represent or advise a party to
this action. The Court finds this limitation appropriate.

Section 12.5: Exclusion of Individuals from Depositions

The Defendant seeks to add the following language: Exclusion of
Individuals from Depositions. Counsel for any Designating Party
shall have the right to exclude from depositions any person who is
not authorized by this Order to receive documents or information
designated as Protected Material.

This language is not from either Model Order. The Plaintiffs
contend that this will give the Defendant the unilateral right to
exclude anyone from attending a deposition.  

The Defendant responds that this provision is only intended to
allow a designating party to protect its confidential materials by
excluding persons not authorized under the Protective Order from
attending portions of the deposition during which such materials
are discussed. The Defendant states that it is willing to modify
the language as follows: Exclusion of Individuals from Depositions:
Counsel for any Designating Party shall have the right to exclude
from the portions of depositions discussing Confidential or Highly
Confidential information any person who is not authorized by this
Order to receive documents or information designated as
Confidential or Highly Confidential, respectively.

The Court finds the Defendant's modified proposed language
reasonable; if an individual is not authorized to receive the
confidential or highly confidential information, they would not be
permitted to attend portions of a deposition that discuss that
confidential or highly confidential information.

The Court therefore finds this provision appropriate.

Defendant's Production

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant has refused to produce any
discovery in light of the current dispute over the protective
order, including production that is not confidential such as
marketing materials, advertisements, and product labels. The
Defendant responds that it has not identified any marketing
materials or advertising, while the Plaintiffs have the product
labels already. The Plaintiffs, however, do not appear to only
request marketing materials, advertisements, and product labels;
these are only examples of documents that would not be
confidential, but that the Defendant has failed to produce. The
Court is not convinced that Defendant has no non-confidential
documents that can be produced.

The Court therefore orders the Defendant to produce all
non-confidential, responsive documents.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 25, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yyjmcdnnfrom Leagle.com.

LYNN MOORE, Jeffrey Akwei & SHANQUA KING, Plaintiffs, represented
by C.K. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, pro hac vice & David Alan
Makman -- david@makmanlaw.com -- The Law Offices of David A.
Makman.

Trader Joe's Company, Defendant, represented by Dawn Sestito --
dsestito@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP & Raymond Collins
Kilgore -- ckilgore@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP.


TRAVELODGE HOTEL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Gonzalez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lance Lipscomb, an individual dba
Travelodge Hotel LAX, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV10352 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 27,
2019) is an action against the Defendant for California Labor Code
violations and unfair business practices stemming from Defendants'
failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate
records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all
wages to terminated employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage
statements.

The Defendants are subject to the California Labor Code, Wage
Orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC"), and the
California Business & Professions Code. Despite these requirements,
the Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and
practice of failing to pay employees for all hours worked,
including all minimum wages, straight time wages, and
overtime/double-time wages in compliance with the California Labor
Code and IWC Wage Orders; willfully failing to pay employees all
minimum wages, straight time wages, overtime/double-time wages,
meal period premium wages, and rest period premium wages due within
the time period specified by California law when employment
terminates; and failing to provide employees with accurate,
itemized wage statements containing all the information required by
the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a California resident who worked for Defendants in Los
Angeles County, California as a housekeeper from approximately 2014
to April 15, 2018.

Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry, business,
and establishment within the State of California, including Los
Angeles County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kane Moon, Esq.
     Allen Feghali, Esq.
     MOON & YANG, APC
     1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 232-3128
     Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
     Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
            allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com


TRI-LAM ROOFING: Salazar Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Tri-Lam Roofing & Waterproofing, Inc., and Mark Rusch over alleged
violations of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case is
captioned RAUL SALAZAR, individually  and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, TRI-LAM ROOFING & WATERPROOFING,
INC., and MARK RUSCH, Defendants Case No. 3:19-cv-00823 (N.D. Tex.,
April 2, 2019).  Plantiff Salazar brings this suit against Tri-Lam
to recover unpaid overtime pay pursuant to the federal FLSA.

Defendant Tri-Lam Roofing & Waterproofing, Inc. is a domestic
corporation formed and existing under the laws of the State of
Texas and whose principal place of business is 965 W Enon Ave.,
Everman, TX 76140. Defendant Mark Rusch, the sole owner of Tri-Lam,
had operational control over the terms and conditions of employees'
work; possessed and exercised the power to act on behalf of Tri-Lam
vis-a-vis its employees; had and exercised the power to establish
the wages and working conditions of Tri-Lam. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Reema Ali, Esq.
EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
1250 W. Mockingbird Lane, Ste. 455
Dallas, TX 75247
Telephone: (469) 228-4226
Facsimile: (469) 941-0861
E-mail: rali@equaljusticecenter.org

     - and -

Aaron Johnson, Esq.
EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
510 Congress Ave., Ste. 206
Austin, TX 78704
Telephone: (512) 474-0007, ext. 104
Facsimile: (512) 474-0008


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Lawyer "Pleased" with Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J. Hawkins, writing for The Verge, reports that the fight
over the classification of ride-sharing drivers as independent
contractors appears to be over after Uber announced that it settled
a pair of long-gestating lawsuits for $20 million. The resolution
is a boon to Uber, which is preparing its initial public offering
for later this year.

The initial case, O'Connor v. Uber, was first brought by a group of
Uber drivers in 2013 who argued they should be categorized as
employees rather than freelancers. By classifying drivers as
contractors, Uber avoids providing benefits of traditional
employment such as health insurance, paid sick time, and workers'
compensation, the drivers argued.

THE LAWSUIT WAS ALMOST SETTLED IN 2016
O'Connor v. Uber has been winding its way through the courts for
over six years. It was almost settled in 2016, when Uber agreed to
pay as much as $100 million to the roughly 385,000 drivers
represented in the class action lawsuit and one other case, so long
as it could continue to classify them as freelancers. But the
settlement was later rejected by a federal judge, who argued that
the amount was insufficient.

Since then, the tide has shifted in Uber's favor. The US Supreme
Court issued a ruling bolstering the power of employers to force
workers to use individual arbitration instead of class action
lawsuits.

Last year, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed O'Connor
v. Uber's class certification status, nullifying the decision on
the ground that Uber's arbitration clause prohibits class actions.
The appeals court ruling ultimately reduced the size of the class
to about 13,600 drivers who will participate in the settlement.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, an attorney representing Uber drivers in the
case, said she was "pleased" with the settlement. Under the
agreement, drivers will receive approximately 37 cents per mile for
the miles they have driven for Uber, she said. Also, Uber agrees to
better explain its deactivation policy to drivers, create a
deactivation appeals process, and help drivers who were deactivated
get back on the platform. Drivers who were removed from the lawsuit
by the appeals court ruling would need to pursue their claims in
individual arbitration if they want any relief.

"THIS IS NOT THE END OF THE ISSUE OF DRIVER CLASSIFICATION."
"This is not the end of the issue of driver classification,"
Liss-Riordan said in an email. "We are continuing to pursue many
cases against gig economy companies that are misclassifying their
workers as independent contractors, in order to save on labor costs
and shift the risks and expenses of operating a business to their
low wage workers." She cited pending cases against Amazon, GrubHub,
Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates, Handy, among others.

The settlement still requires a judge's approval, but Uber is ready
to put the past behind it. "Uber has changed a lot since 2013," a
spokesperson said in a statement. "We have made the driver
experience even better through improvements like in-app tipping, a
redesigned driver app, and new rewards programs like Uber Pro.
We're pleased to reach a settlement on this matter and we'll
continue working hard to improve the quality, security and dignity
of independent work." [GN]


VERINT SYSTEMS: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in Tel Aviv
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2019, 2018, that the company's
primary Israeli subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited, continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit pending in the Tel Aviv
District Court.

In March 2009, one of the company's former employees, Ms. Orit
Deutsch, commenced legal actions in Israel against the company's
primary Israeli subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL"), (Case
Number 4186/09) and against the company's affiliate CTI (Case
Number 1335/09).

Also in March 2009, a former employee of Comverse Limited (CTI's
primary Israeli subsidiary at the time), Ms. Roni Katriel,
commenced similar legal actions in Israel against Comverse Limited
(Case Number 3444/09), and against CTI (Case Number 1334/09).

In these actions, the plaintiffs generally sought to certify class
action suits against the defendants on behalf of current and former
employees of VSL and Comverse Limited who had been granted stock
options in Verint and/or CTI and who were allegedly damaged as a
result of a suspension on option exercises during an extended
filing delay period that is discussed in our and CTI's historical
public filings. On June 7, 2012, the Tel Aviv District Court, where
the cases had been filed or transferred, allowed the plaintiffs to
consolidate and amend their complaints against the three
defendants: VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited.

On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse Share Distribution,
in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Comverse, Inc., its principal operating subsidiary and
parent company of Comverse Limited, to CTI's shareholders. In the
period leading up to the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI either
sold or transferred substantially all of its business operations
and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in Verint and
in its then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse, Inc. or to
unaffiliated third parties.

As a result of these transactions, Comverse Inc. became an
independent company and ceased to be affiliated with CTI, and CTI
ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interests
in Verint. Prior to the completion of the Comverse Share
Distribution, the plaintiffs sought to compel CTI to set aside up
to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment, but the
District Court did not rule on this motion. In February 2017,
Mavenir Inc. became successor-in-interest to Comverse, Inc.

On February 4, 2013, Verint acquired the remaining CTI shell
company in the CTI Merger. As a result of the CTI Merger, Verint
assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI, including any
liability of CTI arising out of the foregoing legal actions.
However, under the terms of a Distribution Agreement entered into
in connection with the Comverse Share Distribution, the company, as
successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse,
Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses the company may suffer in its
capacity as successor to CTI related to the foregoing legal
actions.

Following an unsuccessful mediation process, on August 28, 2016,
the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to
Verint stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the suit as a class action with respect to claims of
current or former employees of Comverse Limited (now part of
Mavenir) or of VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the
time CTI suspended option exercises. The court also ruled that the
merits of the case would be evaluated under New York law.

As a result of this ruling (which excluded claims related to Verint
stock options from the case), one of the original plaintiffs in the
case, Ms. Deutsch, was replaced by a new representative plaintiff,
Mr. David Vaaknin. CTI appealed portions of the District Court's
ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. On August 8, 2017, the Israeli
Supreme Court partially allowed CTI's appeal and ordered the case
to be returned to the District Court to determine whether a cause
of action exists under New York law based on the parties' expert
opinions.

Following a second unsuccessful round of mediation in mid to late
2018, the proceedings resumed. The plaintiffs have filed a motion
to amend the class certification motion and CTI has filed a
corresponding motion to dismiss and a response. The next court
hearing is scheduled for April 2019.

Verint Systems Inc. provides actionable intelligence solutions
worldwide. Verint Systems Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Melville, New York.


VISA INC: November 7 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement of as much as $6.24 Billion and not less than $5.54
Billion will provide payments to merchants that accepted Visa and
Mastercard since 2004.

The Court has preliminarily approved a proposed settlement of a
maximum of approximately $6.24 billion and a minimum of at least
$5.54 billion in a class action lawsuit, called In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL
1720 (MKB) (JO). The lawsuit is about claims that merchants paid
excessive fees to accept Visa and Mastercard cards because Visa and
Mastercard, individually, and together with their respective member
banks, violated the antitrust laws.

The settlement creates the following Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement
Class: All persons, businesses, and other entities that have
accepted any Visa-Branded Cards and/or Mastercard-Branded Cards in
the United States at any time from January 1, 2004 to January 25,
2019, except that the Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class shall not
include (a) the Dismissed Plaintiffs, (b) the United States
government, (c) the named Defendants in this Action or their
directors, officers, or members of their families, or (d) financial
institutions that have issued Visa-Branded Cards or
Mastercard-Branded Cards or acquired Visa-Branded Card transactions
or MastercardBranded Card transactions at any time from January 1,
2004 to January 25, 2019. The Dismissed Plaintiffs are plaintiffs
that previously settled and dismissed their own lawsuit against a
Defendant, and entities related to those plaintiffs. If you are
uncertain about whether you may be a Dismissed Plaintiff, you
should call 1-800-625-6440 or visit www.PaymentCardSettlement.com
for more information.

Please check www.PaymentCardSettlement.com for any updates relating
to the settlement or the settlement approval process.

LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS
Your legal rights and options are described in this section. You
may:

File a Claim: This is the only way to get money from the
settlement.

Exclude Yourself: This is the only way you can be part of another
lawsuit that asks for money for claims in this case. If you exclude
yourself, you will not get a payment from this settlement.

This is also the only way you can sue individually for injunctive
relief based on the claims in this lawsuit; however, if you do not
exclude yourself, you may still get injunctive relief through the
proposed Rule 23(b)(2) equitable relief class action which is
pending in this Court captioned Barry's Cut Rate Stores, Inc., et.
al. v. Visa, Inc., et al., MDL No. 1720, Docket No. 05-md-01720-
MKB-JO ("Barry's"). The proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class is represented
by other class representatives and other class counsel.

Object: If you do not agree with any part of this settlement,
including the plan to distribute money to class members, or you do
not agree with the requested award of attorneys' fees and expenses,
or service awards for the named Rule 23(b)(3) Class Plaintiffs, you
may:

   -- Write to the court to say why, and
   -- Ask to speak at the Court hearing about either the fairness
of this settlement or about the requested attorneys' fees or
service awards.

Do Nothing: If you do not file a claim, you will not get money. You
will give up your rights to sue for damages about the claims in
this case and to sue individually for injunctive relief about the
claims in this case. You can get injunctive relief only as a member
of the proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class action pending in this Court.

Deadlines: If you wish to exclude yourself from the settlement, or
if you wish to be included in the settlement but want to object to
the settlement, you must do so by July 23, 2019.

For the full terms of the settlement, you should look at the
Superseding and Amended Definitive Class Settlement Agreement of
the Rule 23(b)(3) Class Plaintiffs and the Defendants and its
Appendices (the "Class Settlement Agreement"), available at
www.PaymentCardSettlement.com or by calling 1-800-625-6440. In the
event of any conflict between the terms of this Notice and the
Class Settlement Agreement, the terms of the Class Settlement
Agreement shall control.

THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING

There will be a Fairness Hearing at 10:00 a.m. on November 7, 2019.
The hearing will take place at: United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza Brooklyn, NY
11201

Why is there a hearing?
The hearing is about whether or not the settlement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable. The Court will consider any objections
and listen to class members who have asked to speak at the hearing.
The Court will also decide whether it should give its final
approval of the Plaintiffs' requests for attorneys' fees and
expenses, service awards, and other costs.

There are several ways to get more information about the
settlement.

You will find the following information at:
www.PaymentCardSettlement.com:

The complete Superseding and Amended Class Settlement Agreement,
including all attachments, and

Other documents related to this lawsuit.

To receive a copy of the Rule 23(b)(3) Class Settlement Agreement
or other documents related to this lawsuit, you may:

Visit: www.PaymentCardSettlement.com,
Write to: Payment Card Interchange Fee Settlement, P.O. Box 2530,
Portland, OR 97208-2530,
Email: info@PaymentCardSettlement.com, or
Call : 1-800-625-6440 – toll-free

If you do not get a claim form in the mail or by email, you may
download one at: www.PaymentCardSettlement.com, or call:
1-800-625-6440.

Please Do Not Attempt to Contact Judge Brodie or the Clerk of Court
With Any Questions.


WAGEWORKS INC: Suit by Virgin Islands Retirement System Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
WageWorks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled,
Government Employees' Retirement System of the Virgin Islands v.
WageWorks, Inc., et al.

On March 9, 2018, a putative class action captioned Government
Employees' Retirement System of the Virgin Islands v. WageWorks,
Inc., et al., No. 4:18-cv-01523-JSW, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California (the
"Securities Class Action") against the Company, its former Chief
Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
on behalf of persons and entities that acquired WageWorks
securities between May 6, 2016 and March 1, 2018, and alleges,
among other things, that the defendants issued false and misleading
financial statements.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit.

On August 7, 2018, the Court entered an order granting the motion
of the Public Pension Group, consisting of Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi, the Government Employees'
Retirement System of the Virgin Islands, and the New Mexico Public
Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico, to be lead
plaintiff. Under the schedule stipulated by the parties, and
approved by the Court, lead plaintiff will file its consolidated
amended complaint no later than forty-five (45) days following
issuance of the Company's Restatement.

WageWorks, Inc. engages in administering consumer-directed benefits
(CDBs), which empower employees to save money on taxes, as well as
provides corporate tax advantages for employers in the United
States. WageWorks, Inc. was incorporated in 2000 and is
headquartered in San Mateo, California.


WALLGREENS BOOTS: Bid to Dismiss Illinois Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended February 28, 2019, that defendants are
seeking dismissal of a new class action complaint pending before
the Northern District of Illinois

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.

The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June 16, 2015, the Court
entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff.

Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint on October 16, 2015. On September 30, 2016,
the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed their answer to the
complaint on November 4, 2016 and filed an amended answer on
January 16, 2017.

Plaintiff filed its motion for class certification on April 21,
2017. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion on March 29, 2018 and
merits discovery is proceeding.

On December 19, 2018, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
and defendants moved to dismiss the new complaint on February 19,
2019.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


WALLGREENS BOOTS: Bid to Dismiss Rite Aid Merger Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended February 28, 2019, that the company is
awaiting the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania's decision on the company's motion to dismiss.

Walgreens said, "As of the date of this report, the Company was
aware of two previously disclosed putative class action lawsuits
filed by purported Rite Aid stockholders against Walgreens Boots
Alliance and certain of its officers regarding the transactions
contemplated by the original merger agreement between the Company
and Rite Aid (prior to its amendment on January 29, 2017) (such
transactions, the "Rite Aid Transactions")."

One of the Rite Aid actions was filed in the State of Pennsylvania
in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (the
"Pennsylvania action") and primarily alleged that Walgreens Boots
Alliance and one of its subsidiaries aided and abetted certain
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the board of directors of
Rite Aid in connection with the Rite Aid Transactions. This action
was terminated by the court for lack of prosecution in December
2018.

The other action was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "federal action") and
alleges, among other things, that the Company and certain of its
officers made false or misleading statements regarding the Rite Aid
Transactions.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the federal action, which
motion is fully briefed and awaits ruling.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.


WARRIOR MET: Angel Sues Over Denied Equity Interest Distribution
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua J. Angel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Warrior Met Coal Inc., f/k/a Warrior Met
Coal, LLC, f/k/a Coal Acquisition, LLC, APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT
LLC, ARES MANAGEMENT LLC, CASPIAN CAPITAL LP, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS,
FRANKLIN MUTUAL ADVISORS LLC, GSO CAPITAL PARTNERS LP, KKR CREDIT
ADVISORS (US) LLC, SPCP GROUP LLC, WALTER J. SCHELLER, III, STEPHEN
D. WILLIAMS, KEITH LUH, BLAINE MACDOUGALD, MATTHEW MICHELINI,
DARREN RICHMAN, and GARETH TURNER, Defendants, Case No. 2019-0235-
(Chancery Ct., Del., March 27, 2019) is a class action brought by
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
former owners of Walter Senior Debt who were denied (a) their pro
rata distribution of equity interests in Warrior in exchange for
their first lien claims against Walter and/or (b) the opportunity
to participate in a rights offering by Warrior of equity units in
or about March 2016.

On July 15, 2015, Walter filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Alabama. Although Defendants had utilized, among other
consideration, the Minority Owners' claims as creditors, to acquire
the assets of Walter Energy it had committed to provide equity in
the form of Class A Units to such creditors, Defendants
unilaterally imposed a requirement that Plaintiff and the Class
Members submit an accredited investor form as a condition precedent
to the physical issuance of Class A Unit certificates to Minority
Owners.

On March 31, 2016, Warrior completed its acquisition of the Walter
Assets. Notwithstanding its completion of this transaction, the
Defendants failed to distribute the Class A Units owed to Plaintiff
and the other Class members and also deprived Plaintiff and the
other Class Members of a legitimate opportunity to participate
equally with Defendants in the Rights Offering. The marked increase
of the Steering Committee Defendants' interest in the Class A Units
(through the Forfeiture Scheme) and Class B Units (through the
Rights Offering Dilution Scheme) evidences the extent of
Defendants' Schemes and the impact on Class Members, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff purchased on the open market an aggregate of $1 million
face amount of Walter Energy's 9.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2019
in July and August 2015.

Defendant Warrior Met Coal, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its
principal place of business in Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
     ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
     919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
     P. O. Box 1070
     Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
     Phone: (302) 656-4433

          - and -

     Peter S. Linden, Esq.
     Emily C. Finestone, Esq.
     KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
     825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 371-6600


WATKINS AND SHEPARD: Doty Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Tom Doty, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Watkins and Shepard
Trucking, Inc., a Montana Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19-2-05602-4 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of Washington in and for Pierce County to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
on March 28, 2019, and assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-05236.

Plaintiff filed this complaint over unpaid and wrongfully withheld
wages.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Kasey D. Huebner, Esq.
     MILLS MEYERS SWARTLING
     1000 2nd Avenue, 30th Floor
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Phone: 206.382.1000
     Fax: 206.386.7343
     Email: khuebner@millsmeyers.com

          - and -

     Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
     Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
     MCGUIREWOODS LLP
     1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: 310.315.8200
     Fax: 310.315.8210
     Email: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
            abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com


WELLS FARGO: Settlement of RMBS Suit Still Subject to Court's Okay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s settlement agreement for 271 RMBS trusts
is subject to court approval, according to Morgan Stanley Bank of
America Merrill Lynch Trust 2012-C5's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

Separate lawsuits against Wells Fargo Bank making similar
allegations filed by certain other institutional investors
concerning 57 RMBS trusts in New York federal and state court are
not covered by the agreement.  

Since June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors have filed
civil complaints in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New
York County, and later the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., ("Wells Fargo
Bank") in its capacity as trustee for certain residential mortgage
backed securities ("RMBS") trusts.  The complaints against Wells
Fargo Bank alleged that the trustee caused losses to investors and
asserted causes of action based upon, among other things, the
trustee's alleged failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase
obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of
representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged
events of default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care
following alleged events of default.  Relief sought included money
damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and
equitable relief.  Wells Fargo Bank has reached an agreement, in
which it denies any wrongdoing, to resolve these claims on a
classwide basis for the 271 RMBS trusts currently at issue.  The
settlement agreement is subject to court approval.

Separate lawsuits against Wells Fargo Bank making similar
allegations filed by certain other institutional investors
concerning 57 RMBS trusts in New York federal and state court are
not covered by the agreement.  With respect to the foregoing
litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs' claims are
without merit and intends to contest the claims vigorously, but
there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations or
the possible impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the
RMBS trusts.


WORLD HOTELS: Violates ADA, Young Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against World Hotels North
America, Inc. The case is styled as Lawrence Young Individually And
On Behalf Of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
World Hotels North America, Inc., ADR Provider, Case No.
1:19-cv-02806 (S.D. N.Y., Mar. 28, 2019).

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

World Hotels North America, Inc. offers marketing, sales and
reservation services for 250 luxury international hotels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com

[*] Judge Puts Limits on Class Action Settlement Objector
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Bologna and Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law,
report that Texas attorney Christopher Bandas has made a name for
himself in the legal community, and not in a good way. Regarded as
the most prolific "serial objector" in the country, Bandas
routinely objects to class action settlements, hoping to leverage a
payment from the settling attorneys to simply "go away."

The business model, seen as a form of legal "extortion" among
critics, has paid Bandas handsomely over the years. But two recent
court rulings and revisions to the rules of civil procedure may
signal an end to this much-maligned practice.

The first whiff of trouble for Bandas came on Nov. 20 last year,
when an Illinois appeals court found Bandas had engaged in an
unethical pattern of "rent-seeking behavior." The appeals court
judges also found Bandas had "engaged in a fraud on the court"
worthy of discipline by the state.

The ruling responded to Bandas' efforts to object to a class
settlement involving the media company Gannett Co., which was
accused of placing millions of robocalls to consumers in violation
of federal telephone marketing statutes.

The news for Bandas got worse Dec. 1, when new class action
requirements became effective under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23. The new rules require side payments to class settlement
objectors -- transactions characterized as "greenmail" -- to be
approved by a district court. The new requirements seek to deter
boilerplate and frivolous petitions, potentially extinguishing
Bandas' business model.

And on Jan. 17 U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer issued
an attention-getting order finding that Bandas had engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law. The order responded to Bandas' own
admission of responsibility in a lawsuit in federal court in
Chicago that alleged professional misconduct. The lawsuit followed
the fact pattern in the Gannett case, but portrayed it as a single
chapter in an illegal racketeering scheme being replicated in
jurisdictions across the country.

Pallmeyer also issued a permanent injunction that placed new limits
on Bandas' ability to object in any state or federal jurisdiction
in the country.

To be fair, the opportunity to object is viewed by legal scholars
as a critical feature of the class settlement process. Earnest
objectors, including injured parties and consumer advocates, serve
as important checks against exorbitant attorneys' fees and
collusion between the settling attorneys.

But scholars have a less generous view of a small number of
attorneys who routinely appear in court at the eleventh hour of a
settlement to object with no meaningful justification.

And it's no surprise such objections come in major cases. An
analysis by Bloomberg Law of class actions filed in California
federal courts revealed objections by Bandas in cases against
Facebook, Apple, Bank of America, and Netflix, with settlement
values reaching up to $100 million.

Major Blow for Objectors
Several class action players see this series of events as the last
gasps of a crooked business model -- a model that has likely earned
Bandas tens of millions of dollars over the last decade.

"We think this is the biggest blow to the objectors bar ever," said
Jay Edelson, founder of the Chicago class action firm Edelson PC
and the plaintiff in the racketeering and misconduct suit that
culminated in Judge Pallmeyer's order.

"This was the first ever injunction prohibiting an objector from a
lot of behavior we believe is unethical -- ghost writing
complaints, not seeking to be admitted pro hac vice but still
having a major role in objecting -- so there is a whole host of
things he's not allowed to do," Edelson told Bloomberg Law in an
interview.

Class action attorney Ross Good, who has documented Bandas'
objections in dozens of cases in federal courts for the website
www.serialobjector.com, expressed similar optimism.

"We are encouraged by the order from Judge Pallmeyer," said Good,
who is affiliated with Anderson + Wanca in Rolling Meadows, Ill.
"We hope it sends a strong message to anyone considering filing an
objection in bad faith. They should be wary."

But other Bandas watchers aren't so sure the greenmail rules and
Judge Pallmeyer's order will send this serial objector on a
soul-searching hiatus to consider another line of work.

"It's a serious move against Bandas, but it seemed limited in scope
and it seemed much too late in the ball game to scare anybody,"
said Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School in
Nashville, Tenn. "This has a lot of bark, but not much bite."

A Personal Epiphany?
Bandas declined to be interviewed for this story, but he
acknowledged "unethical, improper, and misleading conduct in filing
or causing to be filed objections to proposed class action
settlements" in the brief triggering Judge Pallmeyer's order. He
further acknowledged his reputation in courts across the country
had been "gravely but justifiably tarnished."

Robert Cummins, who represented Bandas in the professional
misconduct case and drafted the "mea culpa brief," insisted his
client has experienced a personal epiphany equivalent to "St.
Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus."

"Everything in that motion is 100 percent solid. Chris' issuance of
a mea culpa was sincere and remains sincere," said Cummins, who is
affiliated with Norman, Hanson & DeTroy LLC in Portland, Maine.
"Mr. Bandas' posture now is to put all this stuff behind him."

Slip-and-Fall Accidents
At first glance, Bandas seems an unlikely professional objector.

A quick review of the website for Bandas Law Firm P.C. in Corpus
Christi, Texas portrays Bandas as a personal injury attorney
trolling for business from victims of slip-and-fall accidents,
animal bites, and nursing home neglect. Online advertisements tout
Bandas' ability to win big judgments for people injured in truck
smashups and maritime mishaps.

In one commercial segment, Bandas stands atop an 18 wheeler parked
in the middle of a freeway and screams into the camera, "Big trucks
rule the road. They're dangerous and they can cause big, bad
injuries. Let me fight for you!"

But a review of court dockets reveals Bandas has been jetting
across the country for at least a decade objecting to class action
settlements. Rulings from various courts further reveal Bandas
engages in a particular brand of objection that offers few benefits
to the class, but millions of dollars to the slip-and-fall attorney
from Corpus Christi.

'The Business Is Extortion'
"The business of professional objectors is to make insubstantial
objections to class settlements on behalf of non-named class
members, then threaten to appeal the judgment approving the
settlement unless paid to desist," said John E. Lopatka, a law
professor at Pennsylvania State University. "The business is
extortion, and it is profitable because class counsel have a
powerful incentive to avoid the costs that an appeal would
impose."

The Illinois appeals court outlined the Bandas strategy in its
November 2018 ruling, pointing to 15 lawsuits since 2009 in which
he had "repeated this same basic pattern—frivolously object,
appeal its denial, settle out of court, and withdraw."

Attorney Ross Good's Serial Objector Index places Bandas at the top
of the class, pointing to objections in 76 cases in federal courts
-- well ahead of any of the more than 500 attorneys listed. The
index, however, vastly understates the scope of Bandas' objections
because it does not examine appearances in state courts, Good
said.

It's difficult to tally Bandas' earnings from this scheme because
greenmail payments are rarely disclosed in court, Lopatka said.
Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests per-case payments of between
$200,000 and $500,000 are not uncommon.

Bandas' recent conduct in Clark v. Gannett in Cook County Circuit
Court is a strong example of this business model. The Gannett case
served as the foundation for both the November Illinois appeals
court's referral for sanctions and Pallmeyer's order.

In 2016 Edelson filed a class action against Gannett under the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The suit alleged Gannett
placed automated calls to 2.6 million consumers without their
consent, hoping to sell newspaper subscriptions. The parties
settled later that year, with Gannett agreeing to pay the class
$13.8 million. The court later granted Edelson attorney's fees of
39 percent of the settlement pool, $5.3 million.

According to court Iocuments filed by Edelson, Bandas filed a
"frivolous" objection together with disbarred California attorney
Darrell Palmer, the number two objector on the serial objector
index, and Illinois attorney C. Jeffrey Thut, who served as local
counsel.

After the objection was overruled in circuit court, Bandas
contacted Edelson and threatened to appeal, possibly delaying the
settlement for months if not years. At a mediation conference,
Bandas sought no modifications to the settlement, but demanded a
side payment of between $225,000 and $445,000 to withdraw. Edelson
ultimately agreed to pay Bandas $225,000 to "go away."

Practice Common, Judges Losing Patience
This conduct has been repeated in courtrooms across the country for
years, but the game is getting wearisome in some jurisdictions.

On Feb. 27, 2017, a federal judge in the Southern District of New
York declined to impose sanctions on Bandas in a case against Major
League Baseball, but found his conduct "at best, unprofessional,
and at worst, an unseemly effort to extract fees from class counsel
in exchange for the withdrawal of a meritless objection to the
proposed class settlement."

This pattern might have continued undisturbed in the Gannett case,
but for one condition Edelson placed on Bandas' payment. Edelson
stipulated that the greenmail payment be disclosed for the circuit
court's approval, causing Bandas to back away. Edelson then sought
sanctions against Bandas and Thut. And, in an extraordinary assault
on Bandas and the objectors bar, Edelson filed a civil action
alleging professional misconduct and violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in federal court.

A federal judge declined to issue sanctions against Bandas after he
objected to a class action settlement in a lawsuit against Major
League Baseball. The lawsuit challenged baseball's system for
granting exclusive broadcast rights to regional networks and
barring teams from broadcasting or streaming games outside their
home territories.

Both legal strategies have yielded outcomes in the last three
months that could impact Bandas' ability to continue.

Edelson's petition for sanctions bore fruit in the November 2018
Illinois appeals court ruling that found Bandas and Thut had
"engaged in a fraud on the court." The court then took the unusual
step of referring both attorneys to the Illinois Attorney
Registration & Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) for potential
sanctions.

The lawsuit in federal court yielded a more interesting result.
Judge Pallmeyer dismissed the RICO charge but permitted the
misconduct lawsuit to continue. Edelson pursued discovery,
demanding Bandas release extensive financial records. Bandas
returned fire last December, countersuing Edelson for fraud and
conspiracy.

Mea Culpa Petition
One month later, however, Bandas stunned lawyers watching the case
by filing his mea culpa petition. Bandas not only withdrew his
counterclaim, he admitted to the unauthorized practice of law in
Illinois and conceded to Edelson's demand for injunctive relief.

Bandas acknowledged his reputation before the court had been
"tarnished." On behalf of Bandas, Cummins wrote "should Defendants
continue to practice class litigation, they will carry the tattoo
of these orders with them and they greatly regret the circumstances
that bring them before this Court."

The mea culpa was followed by Judge Pallmeyer's injunction, which
permanently bars Bandas from appearing in any state or federal
court in Illinois unless he gains admission to the state bar or
receives permission to appear pro hac vice, a special designation
granted when attorneys seek to appear in a jurisdiction where they
are not licensed.

Bandas was further barred from soliciting Illinois attorneys to
represent his interests without disclosure of his misconduct to the
court. He also agreed to withdraw any active objections in cases in
Illinois, including the Gannett case. The Gannett case has since
settled, without a side payment for Bandas and without sanctions.

Finally, Bandas agreed to refrain from future objections in class
settlements in any court without complying with the new civil
procedure requirements. The court specified Bandas can't object
unless he states viable grounds for his objection, and he must seek
court approval for any side payments.

Cummins said the requirements mark a new beginning for Bandas and a
sincere commitment to good faith objections going forward, "whether
in Illinois or on the moon."

"If he files an objection, he will do so in good faith," Cummins
said. "Nothing will be done without court approval. No objection
will be dismissed or withdrawn without court approval. There won't
be any side deals. There won't be any fees."

'This Guy's Got Such Chutzpah'
Several legal scholars, however, expressed doubts about Bandas'
resemblance to St. Paul on the back of a horse on the road to
Damascus.

"Does this order deter Chris Bandas? Probably not," said Robert
Klonoff, a professor at the Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland,
Ore., and an authority on class action law. "There are so many
orders either sanctioning Bandas or condemning him, going back many
years. As long as he can make money, he will just move around to
every court that hasn't sanctioned him or barred him from
appearing. It's truly an extraordinary thing. This guy's got such
chutzpah."

Klonoff said Bandas' future conduct -- and the conduct of other
objectors -- would likely depend on the degree to which judges and
the class action bar actively enforce the modifications to Rule 23.
In particular, he pointed to the requirement for court approval of
objector side payments.

"The idea is that having to be public about the payment and the
nature of the objection will deter Christopher Bandas types from
doing this because judges aren't going to go along," said Klonoff,
who served on the advisory committee that drafted the new
requirements.

Vanderbilt's Fitzpatrick expressed the same doubts about Judge
Pallmeyer's order. And while the revisions to Rule 23 addressing
greenmail are a well-intended, Fitzpatrick said they don't go far
enough.

"The only way to stop this is to prohibit all side deals – all
side deals," Fitzpatrick said. "If the objectors know they can't
get a side deal, they won't try to blackmail class counsel. This
way the only people objecting are people who have a real beef with
the settlement."

A Showdown With Regulators?
Potential sanctions by attorney discipline bodies in Illinois,
where Bandas is not licensed, and Texas, where Bandas is licensed,
might prove a more potent curb on the nation's top serial
objector.

"That would be an extraordinary thing, but it's possible,"
Fitzpatrick said. "That could put him out of business almost
entirely."

Neither the Illinois ARDC nor the State Bar of Texas would confirm
Bandas is under investigation. A spokesperson for the Texas bar's
Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel said Bandas remains a
member in good standing and there has been no past discipline by
the state bar.

Bloomberg Law filed freedom of information requests with the ARDC
and the Texas bar seeking disciplinary records pertaining to
Bandas. Both bar regulators declined, stating investigative records
are confidential.

However, the former chief of the ARDC told Bloomberg Law Bandas is
undoubtedly under investigation by her former agency.

Two Devastating Strikes
Mary Robinson, who served as ARDC's chief administrator between
1992 and 2007, pointed to two potentially devastating strikes
against Bandas: The appeals court's finding of fraud and its
referral to the ARDC are extremely rare and would be taken very
seriously by the agency; and, Bandas' admissions before Judge
Pallmeyer leave him with no wiggle room for mercy.

"The Illinois authorities are paying close attention to both Judge
Pallmeyer's order and the order of the appellate court," said
Robinson, of Robinson Law Group LLC in Chicago. "It's my best guess
that the Illinois authorities would be able to use the admissions
made in the pleading before Judge Pallmeyer as definitive proof of
misconduct."

While Bandas is not licensed in Illinois, Robinson said the ARDC
nonetheless holds jurisdiction, particularly because he admitted to
the unauthorized practice of law. Any potential recommendations for
suspension or sanctions would surely be referred to the Texas bar
for investigation and reciprocal discipline.

Claire Reynolds, a spokesperson for the Texas bar's Office of the
Chief Disciplinary Counsel, declined comment on Bandas. At the same
time, she said any order from Illinois sanctioning a Texas attorney
would be taken very seriously.

"If Illinois has the ability under their rules to impose discipline
on a non-Illinois attorney practicing in federal court in Illinois
and also imposes that discipline, we could seek reciprocal
discipline," Reynolds said. [GN]


[*] Shearman & Sterling Discusses ILR's Class Action Reform Report
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
February 25, 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute of
Legal Reform (the "ILR") published a report entitled "Containing
the Contagion:  Proposals to Reform the Broken Securities Class
Action System" (the "Report").  The Report describes various trends
and problems affecting the securities class action system, which
have led to the filing of securities cases "reaching levels not
seen since before the enactment of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) in 1995."  According to the Report,
the three main drivers of the steep increase in securities
litigation filings are: (1) cases alleging misstatements in
connection with M&A activity; (2) so-called "event-driven
litigation," whereby securities class actions are triggered by
unexpected adverse events, such as fires, explosions, data
breaches, and the like; and (3) the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund (138 S. Ct.
1061 (2018)), which confirmed that state courts retain
non-removable (with limited exceptions) concurrent jurisdiction
over Securities Act of 1933 class actions.  The Report also
describes perceived abuses and the need to curb such practices.
Finally, the Report urges action from different parts of the
federal government including the SEC, federal courts, and Congress,
calling on each to do its part in curbing non-meritorious lawsuits
that can ultimately harm investors and the U.S. capital markets
system.  

M&A Litigation:  According to the Report, M&A litigation comprised
approximately half of the federal securities action filings in 2017
and 2018.  M&A litigation complaints, of course, usually allege,
among other things, that disclosures to shareholders regarding the
proposed transaction were false and deceptive, and historically
parties frequently settled by the defendant company agreeing to
supplement the disclosures and paying a fee to plaintiffs' lawyers.
In 2016, the Delaware courts, most notably in Trulia (129 A.3d 884
(Del. Ch. 2016)), curtailed this type of litigation and settlement
practice, stating that it "far too often . . . serves no useful
purpose for stockholders [and instead] serves only to generate fees
for a certain group of lawyers," and giving notice that
disclosure-only settlements would no longer be approved absent "a
plainly material misrepresentation or omission."  Since then, M&A
litigation has migrated from state courts to federal courts in the
form of disclosure claims under Section 14 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, which often can be settled (or dismissed with
the payment of a "mootness" fee to plaintiffs' counsel) on the
basis of supplemental disclosures only.  

Event-Driven Litigation:  Another cause of the dramatic increase in
securities lawsuits is what is referred to as "event-driven
litigation," or securities class actions triggered almost by
default when a company experiences an adverse public trauma and a
subsequent stock drop.  These types of lawsuits are based on the
theory that the unexpected adverse event is tied to the company's
business or operational risks and that "the occurrence or the event
upon which the case is based was the materialization of an
under-disclosed or downplayed risk."  According to one of the
studies cited by the Report, excluding M&A litigation, "the
likelihood of an S&P 500 company being sued [in 2018] was the
highest since 2002," with "one in every eleven companies [being]
sued, amounting to 9.4% of such companies."

The Cyan Effect:  When the United States Supreme Court ruled in
March 2018 that class actions under the federal Securities
Act—including Section 11 claims alleging misrepresentations or
omissions in connection with initial public offerings
(IPOs)—still could be brought (and were generally immune from
removal from state court, notwithstanding the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA")), the number of such claims
brought in state court increased dramatically.  (We previously
covered the Supreme Court's ruling in Cyan here.)  According to the
Report, only a few such claims were filed prior to 2015, but that
number has been growing, and in 2018, 33 such cases were filed in
state courts, and approximately half of them had parallel federal
actions.  The Report notes that the advent of parallel track of
securities class actions in federal and state courts creates a
number of significant problems, including (a) the likelihood a
defendant company has to fight a "multi-front war"; (b) the state
court actions being less likely to be dismissed; and (c) IPO
companies facing more significant risk of being named in a
securities lawsuit.  Because of these increased pressure points,
defendants may be forced to settle without due regard for the
merits of the claims.  

Perceived Abusive Conduct:  The Report also describes the need to
curb what it referred to as "plaintiffs' bar's abusive litigation
practices."  Among those practices are: (a) individual plaintiffs
increasingly being appointed as lead plaintiffs, rather than
institutional plaintiffs, which are less likely to endorse less
meritorious claims and contrary to the PSLRA's intent to encourage
plaintiffs with the largest claims to take charge of such
litigation and class counsel; (b) concentration of extensive
litigation activity in a few firms (for example, one study found
that three plaintiffs' law firms appeared as counsel of record on
more than half of the initially-filed complaints in non-M&A
securities cases); and (c) arguably excessive fees awarded to
plaintiffs' lawyers in settlements.  

The ILR proposes various reforms to address these problems, urging
the SEC, federal courts, and the U.S. Congress to lead these
efforts.  First, the Report proposes that the SEC undertake a
project to evaluate the current state of securities litigation,
with a focus on identifying abuses, and (largely by filing amicus
briefs in federal court) suggest practical ways to address these
abuses.  Second, the Report proposes that federal courts follow the
approach adopted by the Delaware Chancery Court and seek to
identify and sanction abusive litigation challenging mergers and
acquisitions.  And third, the Report proposes a host of federal
statutory changes to eliminate abuses in securities class actions,
including (1) overturning Cyan to ensure that federal securities
class actions are heard only in federal court; (2) centralizing M&A
litigation so that a limited number of federal courts can establish
standards to deter abusive claims; (3) enacting an "investors' bill
of rights" to require disclosure of relationships between
plaintiffs' lawyers and plaintiffs, bar individuals and entities
from serving as plaintiff in more than five cases in 36 months, and
require federal courts to more closely scrutinize fee requests; (4)
eliminating certain tactics employed by plaintiffs' attorneys by
staying opt-out claims until the resolution of any related class
action, providing for interlocutory appeal of denials of motions to
dismiss, and strengthening the PSLRA's pleading standard and stay
of discovery pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss; and
(5) adopting a cap on damages for non-IPO cases that gives priority
to small investors.  

The ILR Report has already received significant publicity, and --
with its mix of new ideas and reiteration of longer-standing
proposals -- hopefully may spur further dialogue with respect to
beneficial reform.  Whether or not securities class actions will be
a legislative priority in the current political environment, of
course, is a separate question.

On February 25, 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute of
Legal Reform (the "ILR") published a report entitled "Containing
the Contagion:  Proposals to Reform the Broken Securities Class
Action System" (the "Report").  The Report describes various trends
and problems affecting the securities class action system, which
have led to the filing of securities cases "reaching levels not
seen since before the enactment of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) in 1995."  According to the Report,
the three main drivers of the steep increase in securities
litigation filings are: (1) cases alleging misstatements in
connection with M&A activity; (2) so-called "event-driven
litigation," whereby securities class actions are triggered by
unexpected adverse events, such as fires, explosions, data
breaches, and the like; and (3) the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund (138 S. Ct.
1061 (2018)), which confirmed that state courts retain
non-removable (with limited exceptions) concurrent jurisdiction
over Securities Act of 1933 class actions.  The Report also
describes perceived abuses and the need to curb such practices.
Finally, the Report urges action from different parts of the
federal government including the SEC, federal courts, and Congress,
calling on each to do its part in curbing non-meritorious lawsuits
that can ultimately harm investors and the U.S. capital markets
system.

M&A Litigation:  According to the Report, M&A litigation comprised
approximately half of the federal securities action filings in 2017
and 2018.  M&A litigation complaints, of course, usually allege,
among other things, that disclosures to shareholders regarding the
proposed transaction were false and deceptive, and historically
parties frequently settled by the defendant company agreeing to
supplement the disclosures and paying a fee to plaintiffs' lawyers.
In 2016, the Delaware courts, most notably in Trulia (129 A.3d 884
(Del. Ch. 2016)) curtailed this type of litigation and settlement
practice, stating that it "far too often . . . serves no useful
purpose for stockholders [and instead] serves only to generate fees
for a certain group of lawyers," and giving notice that
disclosure-only settlements would no longer be approved absent "a
plainly material misrepresentation or omission."  Since then, M&A
litigation has migrated from state courts to federal courts in the
form of disclosure claims under Section 14 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, which often can be settled (or dismissed with
the payment of a "mootness" fee to plaintiffs' counsel) on the
basis of supplemental disclosures only.

Event-Driven Litigation:  Another cause of the dramatic increase in
securities lawsuits is what is referred to as "event-driven
litigation," or securities class actions triggered almost by
default when a company experiences an adverse public trauma and a
subsequent stock drop.  These types of lawsuits are based on the
theory that the unexpected adverse event is tied to the company's
business or operational risks and that "the occurrence or the event
upon which the case is based was the materialization of an
under-disclosed or downplayed risk."  According to one of the
studies cited by the Report, excluding M&A litigation, "the
likelihood of an S&P 500 company being sued [in 2018] was the
highest since 2002," with "one in every eleven companies [being]
sued, amounting to 9.4% of such companies."

The Cyan Effect:  When the United States Supreme Court ruled in
March 2018 that class actions under the federal Securities
Act—including Section 11 claims alleging misrepresentations or
omissions in connection with initial public offerings
(IPOs)—still could be brought (and were generally immune from
removal from state court, notwithstanding the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA")), the number of such claims
brought in state court increased dramatically.  (We previously
covered the Supreme Court's ruling in Cyan here.)  According to the
Report, only a few such claims were filed prior to 2015, but that
number has been growing, and in 2018, 33 such cases were filed in
state courts, and approximately half of them had parallel federal
actions.  The Report notes that the advent of parallel track of
securities class actions in federal and state courts creates a
number of significant problems, including (a) the likelihood a
defendant company has to fight a "multi-front war"; (b) the state
court actions being less likely to be dismissed; and (c) IPO
companies facing more significant risk of being named in a
securities lawsuit.  Because of these increased pressure points,
defendants may be forced to settle without due regard for the
merits of the claims.

Perceived Abusive Conduct:  The Report also describes the need to
curb what it referred to as "plaintiffs' bar's abusive litigation
practices."  Among those practices are: (a) individual plaintiffs
increasingly being appointed as lead plaintiffs, rather than
institutional plaintiffs, which are less likely to endorse less
meritorious claims and contrary to the PSLRA's intent to encourage
plaintiffs with the largest claims to take charge of such
litigation and class counsel; (b) concentration of extensive
litigation activity in a few firms (for example, one study found
that three plaintiffs' law firms appeared as counsel of record on
more than half of the initially-filed complaints in non-M&A
securities cases); and (c) arguably excessive fees awarded to
plaintiffs' lawyers in settlements.  

The ILR proposes various reforms to address these problems, urging
the SEC, federal courts, and the U.S. Congress to lead these
efforts.  First, the Report proposes that the SEC undertake a
project to evaluate the current state of securities litigation,
with a focus on identifying abuses, and (largely by filing amicus
briefs in federal court) suggest practical ways to address these
abuses.  Second, the Report proposes that federal courts follow the
approach adopted by the Delaware Chancery Court and seek to
identify and sanction abusive litigation challenging mergers and
acquisitions.  And third, the Report proposes a host of federal
statutory changes to eliminate abuses in securities class actions,
including (1) overturning Cyan to ensure that federal securities
class actions are heard only in federal court; (2) centralizing M&A
litigation so that a limited number of federal courts can establish
standards to deter abusive claims; (3) enacting an "investors' bill
of rights" to require disclosure of relationships between
plaintiffs' lawyers and plaintiffs, bar individuals and entities
from serving as plaintiff in more than five cases in 36 months, and
require federal courts to more closely scrutinize fee requests; (4)
eliminating certain tactics employed by plaintiffs' attorneys' by
staying opt-out claims until the resolution of any related class
action, providing for interlocutory appeal of denials of motions to
dismiss, and strengthening the PSLRA's pleading standard and stay
of discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss; and (5)
adopting a cap on damages for non-IPO cases that gives priority to
small investors.

The ILR Report has already received significant publicity, and --
with its mix of new ideas and reiteration of longer-standing
proposals -- hopefully may spur further dialogue with respect to
beneficial reform.  Whether or not securities class actions will be
a legislative priority in the current political environment, of
course, is a separate question. [GN]


[] Bandas Held Up Big Money in Big Company Class Settlements
------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Christopher
Bandas, a lawyer who files objections to class settlements to try
to extract payment, has held up a dozen big-money, big-company
lawsuits in federal courts in California over an eight-year period,
according to data collected by Bloomberg Law.

Bandas has objected in cases against Facebook, Apple, Netflix, Bank
of America, Groupon, Toyota, and Whirlpool that involved settlement
funds worth millions of dollars.

A look at the numbers provides a glimpse into the business model
that has put Bandas in hot water: objecting to large settlements to
extract a greenmail payment. This is just a small slice of the
cases he has been involved in nationally.

Bloomberg Law analyzed every class action filed in federal courts
in California -- where about one-third of all class litigation is
filed—between Jan. 1, 2010, and the end of March 2018.

Objectors show up in about 12 percent of the 1,120 settlements
finalized during the study period. Many are one-time objectors --
filing on their own behalf or with the assistance of counsel -- who
felt compelled by the settlement notice to voice their opposition.

But a group of five objectors accounts for 76 of the 135 objections
in the data set. Bandas is fourth most prolific.

These numbers may understate Bandas's influence. He is accused of
ghostwriting objections, so his involvement never shows up on the
docket in those cases.

One of his known associates is Darrell Palmer, the top objector in
the data set, with 25 objections.

Bandas usually doesn't object to settlements at the district court
level, but instead represents objectors on appeal.

In eight out of the 12 cases in the data set, he voluntarily
dismissed the appeal. There is no evidence in the record, but class
action watchers agree that these dismissals likely signal that the
parties paid him to go away. Until recently, objectors didn't have
to disclose the details of side-payments they received to drop an
appeal with the court.

There's no way to know how much money Bandas was paid to drop
appeals in these cases, but anecdotal evidence suggests payments
between $200,000 and $500,000 aren't unusual. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 239 Talcum Suits vs. Colgate-Palmolive Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company is still facing 239 individual cases
pending in state and federal courts throughout the United States as
of December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018.

Colgate-Palmolive states, "The Company has been named as a
defendant in civil actions alleging that certain talcum powder
products that were sold prior to 1996 were contaminated with
asbestos.  Most of these actions involve a number of co-defendants
from a variety of different industries, including suppliers of
asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company's
products, were designed to contain asbestos.

"As of December 31, 2018, there were 239 individual cases pending
against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the
United States, as compared to 193 cases as of December 31, 2017.
During the year ended December 31, 2018, 132 new cases were filed
and 86 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, judgment in the
Company's favor or settlement.  The value of settlements in the
years presented was not material, either individually or in the
aggregate, to each such period's results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2TzPrbD


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Claims Life of Renowned Researcher
------------------------------------------------------------
Mesothelioma.net Blog reported that mesothelioma has claimed the
life of renowned HIV researcher and sexual health consultant Dr.
Mags Portman at the age of 44. Portman, a London resident who has
worked in NHS hospitals for over twenty years, has been credited
with breakthroughs in the prevention of HIV through her pioneering
work on the HIV PrEP program. It is believed that her mesothelioma
was result of her many years of working in asbestos-contaminated
hospital and research buildings throughout London and the UK.

United Kingdom Hospitals Contaminated with Asbestos

Dr. Portman was first diagnosed with mesothelioma in January of
2017. She spent two years in treatment, but died in a hospice in
Leeds. She had worked at the Mortimer Market Centre in London after
having spent more than two decades working at Law Hospital in south
Lanarkshire, Scotland. Upon learning of her diagnosis and its
likely cause, she was quoted as having said, 'There is a cruel
irony thinking that asbestos is still present in hospitals when
people go there to be made better and they may well be exposed to
something which they’re not aware of.' Even as a physician, she
had acknowledged her own lack of familiarity with asbestos or the
hazard that she'd unknowingly faced while working towards the
betterment of others. A recent Freedom of Information request
submitted in the United Kingdom determined that nine out of ten NHS
hospital buildings are contaminated with asbestos. As a result, a
growing number of people have filed claims against the health
service, holding them responsible for a wide range of
asbestos-related diseases, and Jo Stevens, the chair of the All
Party Parliamentary Group for Occupational Health and Safety, has
instigated an investigation to determine exactly how big a health
hazard the asbestos contamination of hospital buildings
represents.

High Risk of Asbestos Exposure Throughout the UK

Mesothelioma occurs when asbestos fibers are inhaled or ingested,
and this generally happens when the toxic material is disturbed. An
alarming number of buildings in the United Kingdom were constructed
using asbestos up until 1999, when the material was banned. Though
authorities claim that the material is safe as long as it is not
disturbed, a growing number of people who have worked in the UK's
hospitals, like Dr. Portman, have been diagnosed with mesothelioma
and other asbestos-related diseases, and a similar problem exists
in the nation's school buildings, which have been referred to by
the National Education Union as a 'ticking time bomb,' with a study
showing that up to 86 percent of the nation’s schools are
contaminated with asbestos and over 350 teachers in the UK having
died from mesothelioma in the last 20 years.

Asbestos and mesothelioma are a global problem, and if you have
been exposed to asbestos then you need support and answers. The
Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us
today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn about the services we provide.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos of Concern in Boxwood Plant Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Rush, writing for Delmarva Public Radio, reported that asbestos
has become an issue as workers tear down the old General Motors
plant on Boxwood Road.

The plant was shut down in 2009 and will be replaced by a
distribution center.

But union officials have thrown up picket line charging that when
the structure’s skeleton is finally torn down dust will drift
beyond the property itself.

And the union says it has video taken by a member who went
undercover to show what is being done.  

The site has been the focus of the union and local activists
concerned about the asbestos.

Meanwhile, the Wilmington News Journal reports that officials at
Harvey Hanna which owns the property declined to be interview but
did issue a statement saying that the company and its subcontractor
was committed to safe practices.

They also noted the company has not been site for any violation
involving the improper asbestos waste management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Suit v. Aqua-Chem Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company's lawsuit against its former subsidiary,
Aqua-Chem, Inc., relating to liabilities in connection with
asbestos lawsuits remains stayed, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "On December 20, 2002, the Company filed a
lawsuit (The Coca-Cola Company v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., Civil Action No.
2002CV631-50) in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia
("Georgia Case"), seeking a declaratory judgment that the Company
has no obligation to its former subsidiary, Aqua-Chem, Inc., now
known as Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. ("Aqua-Chem"), for any past, present
or future liabilities or expenses in connection with any claims or
lawsuits against Aqua-Chem.  Subsequent to the Company's filing but
on the same day, Aqua-Chem filed a lawsuit (Aqua-Chem, Inc. v. The
Coca-Cola Company, Civil Action No. 02CV012179) in the Circuit
Court, Civil Division of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin ("Wisconsin
Case").  In the Wisconsin Case, Aqua-Chem sought a declaratory
judgment that the Company is responsible for all liabilities and
expenses not covered by insurance in connection with certain of
Aqua-Chem's general and product liability claims arising from
occurrences prior to the Company's sale of Aqua-Chem in 1981, and a
judgment for breach of contract in an amount exceeding US$9 million
for costs incurred by Aqua-Chem to date in connection with such
claims.  The Wisconsin Case initially was stayed, pending final
resolution of the Georgia Case, and later was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice by Aqua-Chem.

"The Company owned Aqua-Chem from 1970 to 1981.  During that time,
the Company purchased over US$400 million of insurance coverage,
which also insures Aqua-Chem for some of its prior and future costs
for certain product liability and other claims.  The Company sold
Aqua-Chem to Lyonnaise American Holding, Inc., in 1981 under the
terms of a stock sale agreement.  The 1981 agreement, and a
subsequent 1983 settlement agreement, outlined the parties' rights
and obligations concerning past and future claims and lawsuits
involving Aqua-Chem.  Cleaver-Brooks, a division of Aqua-Chem,
manufactured boilers, some of which contained asbestos gaskets.
Aqua-Chem was first named as a defendant in asbestos lawsuits in or
around 1985 and currently has approximately 40,000 active claims
pending against it.

"The parties agreed in 2004 to stay the Georgia Case pending the
outcome of insurance coverage litigation filed by certain Aqua-Chem
insurers on March 26, 2004.  In the coverage action, five plaintiff
insurance companies filed suit (Century Indemnity Company, et al.
v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, et al., Case No.
04CV002852) in the Circuit Court, Civil Division of Milwaukee
County, Wisconsin, against the Company, Aqua-Chem and 16 insurance
companies.  Several of the policies that were the subject of the
coverage action had been issued to the Company during the period
(1970 to 1981) when the Company owned Aqua-Chem.  The complaint
sought a determination of the respective rights and obligations
under the insurance policies issued with regard to asbestos-related
claims against Aqua-Chem.  The action also sought a monetary
judgment reimbursing any amounts paid by the plaintiffs in excess
of their obligations.  Two of the insurers, one with a US$15
million policy limit and one with a US$25 million policy limit,
asserted cross-claims against the Company, alleging that the
Company and/or its insurers are responsible for Aqua-Chem's
asbestos liabilities before any obligation is triggered on the part
of the cross-claimant insurers to pay for such costs under their
policies.

"Aqua-Chem and the Company filed and obtained a partial summary
judgment determination in the coverage action that the insurers for
Aqua-Chem and the Company were jointly and severally liable for
coverage amounts, but reserving judgment on other defenses that
might apply.  During the course of the Wisconsin insurance coverage
litigation, Aqua-Chem and the Company reached settlements with
several of the insurers, including plaintiffs, who paid funds into
escrow accounts for payment of costs arising from the asbestos
claims against Aqua-Chem.  On July 24, 2007, the Wisconsin trial
court entered a final declaratory judgment regarding the rights and
obligations of the parties under the insurance policies issued by
the remaining defendant insurers, which judgment was not appealed.
The judgment directs, among other things, that each insurer whose
policy is triggered is jointly and severally liable for 100 percent
of Aqua-Chem's losses up to policy limits.  The court's judgment
concluded the Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation.

"The Company and Aqua-Chem continued to pursue and obtain coverage
agreements for the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem with
those insurance companies that did not settle in the Wisconsin
insurance coverage litigation.  The Company anticipated that a
final settlement with three of those insurers ("Chartis insurers")
would be finalized in May 2011, but the Chartis insurers repudiated
their settlement commitments and, as a result, Aqua-Chem and the
Company filed suit against them in Wisconsin state court to enforce
the coverage-in-place settlement or, in the alternative, to obtain
a declaratory judgment validating Aqua-Chem and the Company's
interpretation of the court's judgment in the Wisconsin insurance
coverage litigation.

"In February 2012, the parties filed and argued a number of
cross-motions for summary judgment related to the issues of the
enforceability of the settlement agreement and the exhaustion of
policies underlying those of the Chartis insurers.  The court
granted defendants' motions for summary judgment that the 2011
Settlement Agreement and 2010 Term Sheet were not binding
contracts, but denied their similar motions related to plaintiffs'
claims for promissory and/or equitable estoppel.  On or about May
15, 2012, the parties entered into a mutually agreeable
settlement/stipulation resolving two major issues: exhaustion of
underlying coverage and control of defense.  On or about January
10, 2013, the parties reached a settlement of the estoppel claims
and all of the remaining coverage issues, with the exception of one
disputed issue relating to the scope of the Chartis insurers'
defense obligations in two policy years.  The trial court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Company and Aqua-Chem on that one
open issue and entered a final appealable judgment to that effect
following the parties' settlement.  On January 23, 2013, the
Chartis insurers filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's
summary judgment ruling.  On October 29, 2013, the Wisconsin Court
of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the
Company and Aqua-Chem.  On November 27, 2013, the Chartis insurers
filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and
on December 11, 2013, the Company filed its opposition to that
petition.  On April 16, 2014, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied
the Chartis insurers' petition for review.

"The Georgia Case remains subject to the stay agreed to in 2004."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2FbnDkV


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 56,000 Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc. (fka Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc.) had 56,000
outstanding claims related to asbestos matters as of December 31,
2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. ("Crown Cork")
is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed
throughout the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos.  These claims arose from the
insulation operations of a U.S. company, the majority of whose
stock Crown Cork purchased in 1963.  Approximately ninety days
after the stock purchase, this U.S. company sold its insulation
assets and was later merged into Crown Cork.

"Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured.  The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

"The states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming
enacted legislation that limits asbestos-related liabilities under
state law of companies such as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred
these liabilities because they are successors by corporate merger
to companies that had been involved with asbestos.  The
legislation, which applies to future and, with the exception of
Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and
Wyoming, pending claims at the time of enactment, caps
asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market value of the
predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for inflation.  Crown
Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than
the total value of its predecessor's assets adjusted for inflation.
Crown Cork has integrated the legislation into its claims defense
strategy.  The Company cautions, however, that the legislation may
be challenged and there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate
effect of the legislation on Crown Cork.

"In June 2003, the State of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos.  The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities
at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

"In October 2010, the Texas Supreme Court reversed a lower court
decision, Barbara Robinson v.  Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., No.
14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Texas, which had
upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-related case against Crown
Cork.  The Texas Supreme Court held that the Texas legislation was
unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution when applied to
asbestos-related claims pending against Crown Cork when the
legislation was enacted in June of 2003.  The Company believes that
the decision of the Texas Supreme Court is limited to retroactive
application of the Texas legislation to asbestos-related cases that
were pending against Crown Cork in Texas on June 11, 2003 and
therefore, in its accrual, continues to assign no value to claims
filed after June 11, 2003.

"In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos.  The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value.  In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application.  The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld.

"The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-related
liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have a
material impact on the Company."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2Fr5aB6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 251 Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC faces a total of 251 asserted claims
related to asbestos exposure, according to Duke Energy
Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous
claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related
to asbestos exposure.  These claims relate to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos
in connection with construction and maintenance activities
conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985.  As of
December 31, 2018, there were 164 asserted claims for non-malignant
cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to US$42 million and
87 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief
sought of up to US$21 million.  Based on Duke Energy Carolinas'
experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of
these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2WepFXf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $630MM Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, has recognized asbestos-related
reserves of US$630 million at December 31, 2018, according to Duke
Energy Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized
asbestos-related reserves of US$630 million and US$489 million at
December 31, 2018, and 2017, respectively.  These reserves are
classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other
within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
These reserves are based upon Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate
for current and future asbestos claims through 2038 and are
recorded on an undiscounted basis.  In light of the uncertainties
inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe
they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that
might be incurred after 2038 related to such potential claims.  It
is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in
excess of the recorded reserves.

"Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain
losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an
aggregate self-insured retention.  Duke Energy Carolinas'
cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention in
2008.  Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by
the third-party insurance carrier.  The insurance policy limit for
potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical
cost claim payments is US$764 million in excess of the self-insured
retention.  Receivables for insurance recoveries were US$739
million and US$585 million at December 31, 2018, and 2017,
respectively.  These amounts are classified in Other within Other
Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the
Consolidated Balance Sheets.  Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of
any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance
claims.  Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery
asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to
have a strong financial strength rating."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2WepFXf


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EMC Insurance Had $9.8MM Reserves at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
EMC Insurance Group Inc. had US$9,839,000 reserves for loss and
settlement expenses on asbestos-related matters at December 31,
2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018. The Company also disclosed that US$1,274,000
were incurred for asbestos-related losses and settlement expenses
in the same period.

EMC Insurance states, "The Company has exposure to asbestos and
environmental related claims associated with the insurance business
written by the parties to the pooling agreement and the reinsurance
business assumed from Employers Mutual by the reinsurance
subsidiary.  With regard to the assumed reinsurance business,
however, all asbestos and environmental exposures related to 1980
and prior accident years are retained by Employers Mutual.

"Estimating loss and settlement expense reserves for asbestos and
environmental claims is very difficult due to the many
uncertainties surrounding these types of claims.  These
uncertainties exist because the assignment of responsibility varies
widely by state and claims often emerge long after a policy has
expired, which makes assignment of damages to the appropriate party
and to the time period covered by a particular policy difficult.
In establishing reserves for these types of claims, management
monitors the relevant facts concerning each claim, the current
status of the legal environment, social and political conditions,
and the claim history and trends within the Company and the
industry.

"The property and casualty insurance subsidiaries have exposure to
asbestos and environmental claims arising primarily from the other
liability line of business.  These exposures are closely monitored
by management, and IBNR loss reserves have been established to
cover estimated ultimate losses.  The loss and settlement expense
reserves associated with asbestos claims have been increased each
year for the last several years due to continued reporting of new
claims at a rate not previously anticipated, as well as updated
internal ultimate loss and settlement expense evaluations.  In
2018, the settlement expense reserves for asbestos claims were
strengthened by US$1.5 million.  During 2017, a settlement was
reached with a former insured, resulting in the Company recognizing
US$4.5 million (its share) of losses and settlement expenses to
remove all past and future asbestos liability exposure related to
that policyholder.

"Reserves for environmental claims are established in consideration
of the implied three-year survival ratio.  Estimation of ultimate
liabilities for these exposures is unusually difficult due to
unresolved issues such as whether coverage exists, the definition
of an occurrence, the determination of ultimate damages and the
allocation of such damages to financially responsible parties.
Therefore, any estimation of these liabilities is subject to
greater than normal variation and uncertainty, and ultimate
payments for losses and settlement expenses for these exposures may
differ significantly from the carried reserves.

"Based upon current facts, management believes the reserves carried
for asbestos and environmental-related claims at December 31, 2018
are adequate.  Although future changes in the legal and political
environment may result in adjustment to these reserves, management
believes any adjustment will not have a material impact on the
Company's financial condition or results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2TPf6NF


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Corp. Units Had 200 Lawsuits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation's utility operating companies are facing
approximately 200 asbestos-related lawsuits involving approximately
400 claimants, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal
and state courts, primarily by contractor employees who worked in
the 1940-1980s timeframe, primarily against Entergy Texas, and to a
lesser extent the other Utility operating companies, as premises
owners of power plants, for damages caused by alleged exposure to
asbestos.  Many other defendants are named in these lawsuits as
well.  Currently, there are approximately 200 lawsuits involving
approximately 400 claimants.  Management believes that adequate
provisions have been established to cover any exposure.
Additionally, negotiations continue with insurers to recover
reimbursements.  Management believes that loss exposure has been
and will continue to be handled so that the ultimate resolution of
these matters will not be material, in the aggregate, to the
financial position, results of operation, or cash flows of the
Utility operating companies."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2OkFGIF


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Defends Multiple Suits at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company continues to face asbestos-related lawsuits
related to automotive components from the early 1900s, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Asbestos was used in some brakes, clutches,
and other automotive components from the early 1900s.  Along with
other vehicle manufacturers, we have been the target of asbestos
litigation and, as a result, are a defendant in various actions for
injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged exposure to Ford
parts and other products containing asbestos.  Plaintiffs in these
personal injury cases allege various health problems as a result of
asbestos exposure, either from component parts found in older
vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products in our facilities,
or asbestos aboard our former maritime fleet.  We believe that we
are targeted more aggressively in asbestos suits because many
previously-targeted companies have filed for bankruptcy, or emerged
from bankruptcy relieved of liability for such claims.

"Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who
claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles.  We are
prepared to defend these cases and believe that the scientific
evidence confirms our long-standing position that there is no
increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure
to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our
vehicles.  The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos
litigation remains very difficult to estimate and could include
both compensatory and punitive damage awards.  The majority of our
asbestos cases do not specify a dollar amount for damages; in many
of the other cases the dollar amount specified is the
jurisdictional minimum, and the vast majority of these cases
involve multiple defendants, sometimes more than one hundred.  Many
of these cases also involve multiple plaintiffs, and often we are
unable to tell from the pleadings which plaintiffs are making
claims against us (as opposed to other defendants).  Annual payout
and defense costs may become significant in the future.  Our
accrual for asbestos matters includes probable losses for both
asserted and unasserted claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2T2P8kp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Defends Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2018, 3,321 individual cases and 67
multiple-plaintiff cases are pending that allege actual or
potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or
exposure to products allegedly sold by Graybar Electric Company,
Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Additional claims will likely be filed against
us in the future.  Our insurance carriers have historically borne
virtually all costs and liability with respect to this litigation
and are continuing to do so.  Accordingly, our future liability
with respect to pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the
continued solvency of our insurance carriers.  Other factors that
could impact this liability are: the number of future claims filed
against us; the defense and settlement costs associated with these
claims; changes in the litigation environment, including changes in
federal or state law governing the compensation of asbestos
claimants; adverse jury verdicts in excess of historic settlement
amounts; and bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants.  Because
any of these factors may change, our future exposure is
unpredictable, and it is possible that we may incur costs that
would have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial
position, or results of operations in future periods."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2FEOaHR


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $38.9MM A&E Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. has US$38.9 million of net
asbestos and environmental reserves as of December 31, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "As of December 31, 2018, we have US$38.9
million of net asbestos and environmental reserves, comprised of
US$8.9 million of direct reserves and US$30.0 million of assumed
reinsurance pool reserves.  This compares to net reserves of
US$39.8 million and US$41.1 million as of December 31, 2017 and
2016, respectively.  Ending loss and LAE reserves for all direct
business written by our property and casualty companies related to
asbestos and environmental damage liability were US$8.9 million,
US$9.5 million, and US$9.9 million, net of reinsurance of US$18.7
million, US$20.2 million, and US$19.9 million for the years ended
December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively.  Activity for our
direct asbestos and environmental reserves was not significant to
our 2018, 2017 or 2016 financial results.  As a result of our
historical direct underwriting mix of Commercial Lines policies
toward smaller and middle market risks, past asbestos and
environmental damage liability loss experience has remained minimal
in relation to our total loss and LAE incurred experience.
Although we attempt to limit our exposures to asbestos and
environmental damage liability through specific policy exclusions,
we have been and may continue to be subject to claims related to
these exposures.

"In addition to reserves we carry to cover exposure in our direct
business, we have established gross and net loss and LAE reserves
for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and
environmental damage liability of US$30.0 million, US$30.3 million
and US$31.2 million at December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016,
respectively.  These reserves relate to pools in which we have
terminated our participation; however, we continue to be subject to
claims related to years in which we were a participant.  Results of
operations from these pools are included in our Other segment.  A
significant part of our pool reserves relates to our participation
in the ECRA voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982.  In 1982, the pool
was dissolved and since that time, the business has been in
run-off.  Our percentage of the total pool liabilities varied from
1% to 6% during these years.  Our participation in this pool has
resulted in average paid losses of approximately US$2 million
annually over the past ten years.

"We estimate our ultimate liability for asbestos, environmental and
toxic tort liability claims, whether resulting from direct
business, assumed reinsurance or pool business, based upon
currently known facts, reasonable assumptions where the facts are
not known, current law and methodologies currently available.
Although these outstanding claims are not significant, their
existence gives rise to uncertainty and are discussed because of
the possibility that they may become significant.  We believe that,
notwithstanding the evolution of case law expanding liability in
asbestos and environmental claims, recorded reserves related to
these claims are adequate."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2W0rsiI


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Had $1.1BB Reserve at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. had net asbestos
reserves of US$1,051 million as of December 31, 2018, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Reserves for asbestos and environmental are
primarily within P&C Other Operations with less significant amounts
of asbestos and environmental reserves included within Commercial
Lines and Personal Lines."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2HjKdKH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hitchin Man's Family Seeks Justice After Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Mountney, writing for The Comet, reported that John Ransome
died on May 5 last year, aged 81, just over a week after being
diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a form of terminal cancer linked to
asbestos exposure. His diagnosis came as a result of collapsing at
home.

In the early 1960s, Mr Ransome worked for Stator Electrical Ltd in
Enfield.

He revealed to his family he would often have to crawl through
lofts and ceiling voids with pipes insulated by asbestos.

His wife, Valerie, said: "I have been left devastated by John's
death.

"He was the most wonderful, loyal and caring husband and dad who
was everything to me. I still cannot believe he has gone.

"What makes it harder to come to terms with is how quickly he died.
We had only just started to come to terms with his diagnosis when
he died.

"I'm devastated by the fact that we never got to say goodbye
properly."

As well as wife Valerie, John also left behind his two daughters,
Yvonne Short and Tracey Rohse.

"Dad was fit and healthy for his age. He kept active and would walk
into town to buy a paper and go shopping and he would go out to
meet friends," said eldest daughter Yvonne.

"I was chatting with dad the day before he died. He was talking
fine and did not appear in any pain. The next thing we received a
phone call the following morning saying he had died in the night.

"While nothing can make up for dad's death we just want to find out
if more could have been done to prevent his exposure to asbestos.
We would be extremely grateful to anyone who can help us with
this.

"Any information could be vital in getting answers regarding the
illness which took his life."

The family has instructed lawyers Irwin Mitchell to investigate
John's exposure.

Specialist lawyer Lacey St James said: "This is yet another
incredibly tragic case which highlights the devastating impact that
asbestos exposure can have.

"His family remain devastated by their loss but are keen to gain
answers regarding just how he came to be exposed to asbestos. With
this in mind, we would be grateful to anyone who can provide
information regarding these employers and the working conditions
John would have faced."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Housing Contractor Pleads Guilty to Mishandling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Weiner, writing for The Washington Post, reported that five
years after residents in Alexandria's largest affordable-housing
complex were exposed to asbestos during renovations, the contractor
hired to deal with the problem has pleaded guilty to violating the
Toxic Substances Control Act.

Paul Potter, 76, acknowledged in Alexandria federal court that when
performing asbestos removal at Old Town's two Hunting Point towers
in 2014 he did not hire accredited workers or have a trained
supervisor on site.

Defense attorney Cary Greenberg said Potter believed he could
remove asbestos-laden windows without actually disturbing the
hazardous material.

"Mr. Potter's intention was to remove the windows appropriately,"
Greenberg said. "But ultimately he was unsuccessful and was not in
compliance."

Hunting Point's 525 apartments were owned by the Virginia
Department of Transportation until 2013, when the buildings were
sold to a Chicago-based real estate developer called the Laramar
Group. In 2011, a VDOT study found asbestos in some of the vinyl
floor tiles and mastic, exterior door caulk, exterior window caulk,
and interior and exterior window glaze. In early 2014, Laramar had
begun renovating and hired Potter's company, Chelsea Environmental,
to remove the asbestos for $314,400.

Potter told his workers to remove the apartment buildings' window
frames intact so the asbestos would not break into smaller pieces
and become airborne. But the scrapers they used on the window
frames did disturb the caulk and glaze, and Potter acknowledged in
court filings that he did not tell his workers to take any measures
to keep asbestos from getting into the air.

Debris and dust fell into tenants' apartments, according to
prosecutors, and into outside common areas.

Tenants complained to the Environmental Protection Agency, and
inspectors over several visits found asbestos debris and saw that
workers were not following safety precautions, according to the
filings. Work was halted in April 2014, three months after Potter's
team began.

Testing estimated that the concentration of asbestos in the debris
would not cause "an immediate public health concern," according to
prosecutors, but they said it is "difficult to say there is no long
term risk from exposure to low levels of asbestos that might remain
in the building."

The Laramar Group claimed in 2014 to have learned of the asbestos
only when the EPA ordered Chelsea Environmental to stop work. But
according to the court filings, the company had provided VDOT's
asbestos survey to Potter in 2013 and hired him specifically to
deal with the problem.

Laramar, which did not return a request for comment, still owns the
apartments. The complex is now called Bridgeyard Old Town.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos
lawsuits related to its discontinued heat technologies segment,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018.

IntriCon Corporation states, "The Company is a defendant along with
a number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have
or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of
exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold
by one or more named defendants.  These lawsuits relate to the
discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March
2005.  Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the
Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid
claims against the Company.

"Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies.  However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years.

"Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and
insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either
ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have
denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a
reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to
investigate further.  Because settlement payments are applied to
all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos,
the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense
and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess
insurance policies.

"However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have
deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the
Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects
that its litigation costs will increase in the future.  Further,
many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and
thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or
operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for
asbestos-related lawsuits.

"The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some
of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
liquidity, or results of operations.  Management believes that the
number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits,
and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under
which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the
ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2YnXffg


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Wins Trial Over Calif. Man's Talc-Cancer Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk, Sarah Favot and Jef Feeley, writing for
Bloomberg, reported that Johnson & Johnson won the latest trial
over claims its iconic baby powder can cause cancer, as a jury in
Long Beach, California, rejected a lawsuit brought by a 65-year-old
retired teacher who claimed the product was contaminated with
asbestos.

The J&J victory comes the week after the company settled three
cases alleging baby powder caused a rare asbestos-connected cancer.
Two, in Oklahoma and California, were settled during trial. The
other, in New York, was settled less than two weeks before trial
was set to begin.

Plaintiff Robert Blinkinsop was diagnosed in July 2017 with
mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the lining of the lung generally
caused by asbestos exposure. Blinkinsop used Johnson's baby powder
daily for personal hygiene from 1977 to 1994 and on his children
from 1992 to 1996, his attorney, Mark Bratt, said at trial. He also
used the company's Shower to Shower talc product.

J&J is facing more than 13,000 lawsuits linking baby powder and
another talc product, Shower to Shower, to ovarian cancer or
mesothelioma. More than two dozen trials have been scheduled in
U.S. courts in 2019.

"Today's jury unanimously ruled that Johnson's Baby Powder does not
contain asbestos and was not the cause of the plaintiff's disease,"
Kim Montagnino, company spokeswoman, said in an emailed statement.
"This conclusion is aligned to the decades of clinical evidence and
scientific studies by medical experts around the world that support
the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder."

Blinkinsop's attorney said he was shocked and disappointed by the
verdict.

"Given the hundreds of positive historical tests from J&J showing
asbestos in its talc containing baby powder, as well as J&J's
ongoing decision to use deceptive testing techniques that allow for
false negative results -- we have no doubt asbestos was, and
currently still is in J&Js talc baby powder products,” Bratt said
in a statement. "Asbestos in baby powder is a huge public health
concern that is far bigger than just this case.”

The company's record at trial has been mixed so far. The company
lost a $29 million jury award in a California mesothelioma case
March 13 and won a defense verdict in a New Jersey trial March 27,
the same day it settled the three cases.

Several of the first trials resulted in plaintiffs' verdicts,
including one for $4.69 billion in St. Louis in 2018 to 22 women
with ovarian cancer. But J&J has been able to win reversals of
three of the first five jury awards.

The company has also won other defense verdicts in cases alleging
links between baby powder and mesothelioma beyond the New Jersey
trial.

Some of the verdicts include awards against J&J's talc supplier,
Imerys America, which filed for bankruptcy protection in February.

Lawyers for Blinkinsop and his wife Karen alleged that J&J knew for
decades that its talc contained asbestos yet didn't warn or protect
customers. People at J&J "made some really poor decisions in the
past," which led to Blinkinsop's exposure to asbestos, Bratt said.
Talc and asbestos were found in Blinkinsop's lung tissue, he said.

Blinkinsop's condition is "terminal," he testified at trial. "It's
not curable," he said. The doctors have "all said the same thing
that if everything goes well, I might survive three years," he told
jurors. "Never any guarantee about the quality of life during that
time."

The company's attorney told jurors here is no asbestos in J&J talc
products and its talc didn't cause Blinkinsop's illness. "For over
40 years we have been working with the best scientists, the best
universities and the best laboratories who have all confirmed our
products do not contain asbestos," defense attorney Bruce Hurley
said.

Blinkinsop could have been exposed to asbestos while working on
construction jobs, he said.

"Mr. Blinkinsop's mesothelioma was not cause by Johnson's baby
powder," Hurley said. "Cosmetic talc does not cause mesothelioma."

The case is Blinkinsop v. Albertson Co., BC677764, Superior Court,
Los Angeles Co. (Long Beach).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: KCIC Releases Asbestos Litigation Report for 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------
KCIC, a Washington, DC-based consultancy, announced the release of
its fourth annual Asbestos Litigation: 2018 Year in Review report,
which provides an in-depth analysis of asbestos-related personal
injury through year end 2018.

This is the fourth year that KCIC has published this report and it
is the most comprehensive to date. The 2018 analysis gives a
detailed look at how asbestos litigation has changed over the years
and provides insights into the trends currently driving this
litigation.  The report analyzes statistics based on disease,
jurisdiction, and plaintiff firm, while also diving into
alternative exposure types and looking at filings by gender,
resident state, etc.  KCIC has also included a detailed look at the
effects of personal jurisdiction rulings and bankruptcy trust
transparency legislation, while also diving into talc litigation,
alternative exposures, and other trends to forecast the future of
this litigation.

Megan Shockley -- shockleym@kcic.com -- Senior Manager at KCIC,
said, "We are constantly mining our complaint data for trends and
it's always exciting to share this information. We hope that by
keeping abreast of these trends, we can help our clients make more
informed strategic decisions to better manage their liabilities."

The report, which was previewed at this year's Perrin Cutting-Edge
Issues in Asbestos Litigation Conference in March, is now available
for download.  This year, the company will also be presenting the
information via webinar for a more in-depth dive into the data.

For more information on KCIC or to download the Asbestos
Litigation: 2018 Year in Review report, please visit
www.kcic.com/asbestos.  For inquiries or to join the webinar to be
held on May 2, 2019, please contact Megan Shockley at
shockleym@kcic.com.

                        About KCIC

KCIC is a technology and consulting firm that helps companies
manage products liabilities by providing a full range of financial,
strategic and operational services.  Bringing decades of industry
knowledge and technical expertise, KCIC leads the industry not only
in claims administration, but also in insurance policy analysis and
archaeology, liability forecasting, insurer billing and allocation,
credit analysis, expert reporting, and other custom solutions.

KCIC does its best work when partnering with clients to combine
leading-edge technology and consulting expertise to create
innovative solutions.  The combination of experience and technical
capability provides clients a full understanding of their liability
data and insurance coverage, and allows them to make better, more
strategic decisions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Unit Has 62,522 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
has 62,522 pending asbestos-related personal injury claims at year
ended December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company also disclosed that there were 3,359 new claims filed
in 2018.  The Company has also made settlement payments of US$51.4
million in 2018.

The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages.  MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products.  The lawsuits principally
have focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees
during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's
and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain
health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly
publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.  MLIC believes
that it should not have legal liability in these cases.  The
outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain
and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in
legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged
injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the
claims asserted against MLIC.  MLIC employs a number of resolution
strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking
resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling
individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate
circumstances.

"Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos.  MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs
— it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not
manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that
allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any
actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the
plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the
dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with
respect to filing suit has expired.  During the course of the
litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing
claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's
motions.  There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future.  While most cases
brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend
aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including
defending claims at trials.

"The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change.  The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates,
including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims,
the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future
claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a
particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

"The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future.  In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary.  While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.

"The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims.  MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not yet
paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims.  Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i)
the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims; and
(iii) the cost to defend claims.

"MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in
asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending.  Based upon its regular
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its recorded liability for asbestos-related claims to
US$502 million at December 31, 2018."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2Hyv47j


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Man's Case vs AO Moves Forward to Jury Trial
------------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net reported that an
Ohio man who was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2014 has
filed a personal injury lawsuit against the company that made the
protective gear that he wore while working as a cast house helper
in a steel plant. Though the clothing manufacturer, American
Optical Corporation, filed a motion to dismiss his lawsuit,
District Judge Christopher A. Boyko denied the request and is
allowing the case to move forward to a jury trial.

Asbestos provided protection, but caused mesothelioma

One of the great ironies of the historic use of asbestos is that
while the material was used for its protective qualities, it was
actually causing unimaginable harm, including untold numbers of
cases of malignant mesothelioma. Asbestos is a mineral that has
been used for centuries to provide strength to some materials and
to add fire and heat retardant characteristics to others. For
Donald Maclachlan, the presence of asbestos in the articles of
protective clothing that he wore every day while working in the
blast furnace had the advantage of protecting him from intense heat
and the molten splash of hot steel. He recalls having worn thermal
protective coats and gloves, and remembers being told that those
products as well as protective leggings and hoods were provided by
American Optical. He also remembers other details, such as the
"gray, fuzzy" lining of those coats eventually wearing down. He
recalls that when he watched a training video that identified
asbestos pipe insulation, it looked just like what came out of the
coat he had worn.

Asbestos manufacturer argues against responsibility for illness

Though American Optical argues against its responsibility for Mr.
Maclachlan's malignant mesothelioma, their complaint to the court
relied upon the argument that Mr. Maclachlan's original deposition
contained small factual inconsistencies and that he had no proof
that his illness was caused by their product. This argument, which
is similar to the defense mounted by many asbestos companies, was
overruled by the judge, who said that it is up to a jury to
determine the facts of the case, and whether Mr. Maclachlan is
correct in his assertion that the company had a duty of care to
alert him to the dangers of wearing their products.

Many people were unwittingly exposed to asbestos in the course of
simply doing their jobs, and as a result they ended up with
malignant mesothelioma. If you have been affected by this cruel
disease and you need information about the resources available to
you, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help. Contact us
today at 1-800-692-8608.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RLI Has $67.4MM for Tort Claims at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
RLI Corp. has recorded net loss and loss adjustment expense (LAE)
payments of US$67,405,000 as of December 31, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

Net unpaid losses and LAE were US$18,889,000 as of December 31,
2018.

The Company states, "We are subject to environmental site cleanup,
asbestos removal and mass tort claims and exposures through our
commercial excess, general liability and discontinued assumed
casualty reinsurance lines of business.  The majority of the
exposure is in the excess layers of our commercial excess and
assumed reinsurance books of business.

"Our environmental, asbestos and mass tort exposure is limited,
relative to other insurers, as a result of entering the affected
liability lines after the insurance industry had already recognized
environmental and asbestos exposure as a problem and adopted
appropriate coverage exclusions.  The majority of our reserves are
associated with products that went into runoff at least two decades
ago.  Some are for assumed reinsurance, some are for excess
liability business and some followed from the acquisition of
Underwriters Indemnity Company in 1999.

"During 2018, inception to date incurred environmental, asbestos
and mass tort losses decreased slightly."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2XZ7iqU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SCOTUS Upholds Companies' Duty to Warn
-------------------------------------------------------
In AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. ET AL. v. DEVRIES, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DEVRIES, DECEASED, ET AL., No.
17–1104 (U.S.), the Petitioners produced equipment for three Navy
ships. The equipment required asbestos insulation or asbestos parts
to function as intended, but the manufacturers did not always
incorporate the asbestos into their products. Instead, the
manufacturers delivered much of the equipment to the Navy without
asbestos, and the Navy later added the asbestos to the equipment.

Two Navy veterans, Kenneth McAfee and John DeVries, were exposed to
asbestos on the ships and developed cancer. They and their wives
sued the manufacturers, alleging that the asbestos exposure caused
the cancer, and contending that the manufacturers were negligent in
failing to warn about the dangers of asbestos in the integrated
products.  Raising the "bare-metal defense," the manufacturers
argued that they should not be liable for harm caused by
later-added third-party parts. The District Court granted summary
judgment to the manufacturers, but the Third Circuit, adopting a
foreseeability approach, vacated and remanded.

The Supreme Court, voting 9-3, held that in the maritime tort
context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product
requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has
reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be
dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason
to believe that the product's users will realize that danger.

Tort law imposes a duty to exercise reasonable care on those whose
conduct presents a risk of harm to others. That includes a duty to
warn when the manufacturer "knows or has reason to know" that its
product "is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it
is supplied" and "has no reason to believe" that the product's
users will realize that danger.

The Court explained that three approaches have emerged on how to
apply that "duty to warn" principle when a manufacturer's product
requires later incorporation of a dangerous part in order for the
integrated product to function as intended:

   * The first -- the foreseeability rule -- provides that a
manufacturer may be liable when it was foreseeable that its product
would be used with another product or part, even if the
manufacturer's product did not require use or incorporation of that
other product or part.

   * The second -- the bare-metal defense -- provides that if a
manufacturer did not itself make, sell, or distribute the part or
incorporate the part into the product, the manufacturer is not
liable for harm caused by the integrated product -- even if the
product required incorporation of the part and the manufacturer
knew that the integrated product was likely to be dangerous for its
intended uses.

   * A third approach, falling between those two, imposes on the
manufacturer a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation
of a part and the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the
integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended
uses.

According to the Court, the third approach is most appropriate for
this maritime context.  The foreseeability rule would sweep too
broadly, imposing a difficult and costly burden on manufacturers,
while simultaneously overwarning users. The bare-metal defense
ultimately goes too far in the other direction. After all, a
manufacturer that supplies a product that is dangerous in and of
itself, and a manufacturer that supplies a product that requires
incorporation of a part that the manufacturer knows or has reason
to know is likely to make the integrated product dangerous for its
intended uses both "kno[w] or ha[ve] reason to know" that the
product "is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it
is supplied." And in the latter case, the product manufacturer will
often be in a better position than the parts manufacturer to warn
of the danger, because the product manufacturer knows the nature of
the ultimate integrated product.

Requiring a warning in these circumstances will not impose a
significant burden on manufacturers, who already have a duty to
warn of the dangers of their own products. Nor will it result in
substantial uncertainty about when product manufacturers must
provide warnings, because the rule requires a manufacturer to warn
only when its product requires a part in order for the integrated
product to function as intended. And the Court said it is unaware
of any substantial overwarning problems in those jurisdictions that
have adopted the approach taken here. Requiring the product
manufacturer to warn when its product requires incorporation of a
part that makes the integrated product dangerous for its intended
uses is especially appropriate in the context of maritime law,
which has always recognized a "'special solicitude for the
welfare'" of sailors.

The maritime tort rule adopted in this case encompasses all of the
following circumstances, so long as the manufacturer knows or has
reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be
dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason
to believe that the product's users will realize that danger: (i) a
manufacturer directs that the part be incorporated; (ii) a
manufacturer itself makes the product with a part that the
manufacturer knows will require replacement with a similar part; or
(iii) a product would be useless without the part.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, joined.  Justice
Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence
Thomas and Samuel Alito, joined.

In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch held that his disagreement arises
only in the how the Court proceeds to devise its own way of holding
the bare metal manufacturers responsible for later-added asbestos.
In the Court's judgment, the bare metal defendants had a duty to
warn about the dangers of asbestos introduced by others so long as
they (i) produced a product that "require[d] incorporation of"
asbestos, (ii) "kn[ew] or ha[d] reason to know" that the
"integrated product" would be dangerous, and (iii) had "no reason
to believe" that users would realize that danger.  Justice Gorsuch
opined that the Court's new three-part standard surely represents
an improvement over the court of appeals' unadorned
"foreseeability" offering, but said, "it seems to me to suffer from
many of the same defects the Court itself has identified."

Justice Gorsuch pointed out that neither of these standards enjoys
meaningful roots in the common law.  He further pointed out that
the traditional common law rule still makes the most sense.  The
manufacturer of a product is in the best position to understand and
warn users about its risks; in the language of law and economics,
those who make products are generally the least-cost avoiders of
their risks. By placing the duty to warn on a product's
manufacturer, the Court forces it to internalize the full cost of
any injuries caused by inadequate warnings -- and in that way
ensure it is fully incentivized to provide adequate warnings. By
contrast, the Court dilutes the incentive of a manufacturer to warn
about the dangers of its products when the Court requires other
people to share the duty to warn and its corresponding costs.

Justice Gorsuch further opined that the Court's new standard
implicates the same sort of fair notice problem that the court of
appeals' standard did. Decades ago, the bare metal defendants
produced their lawful products and provided all the warnings the
law required. Now, Justice Gorsuch said, they are at risk of being
held responsible retrospectively for failing to warn about other
people's products. "It is a duty they could not have anticipated
then and one they cannot discharge now. They can only pay," the
dissenting justice said.

A copy of the Supreme Court's March 19, 2019, Opinion is available
for free at http://tinyurl.com/y68zy9fo

Attorneys for Petitioners, Air and Liquid Systems Corp., et al.:

     Shay Dvoretzky, Esq.
     Jones Day
     51 Louisiana Avenue NW
     Washington, DC 20001-2113
     Tel: 202-879-3939
     Email: sdvoretzky@jonesday.com

Attorneys for Respondent, Roberta G. DeVries, Individually and as
Administratrix of the Estate of John B. DeVries, Deceased, et al.:

     Richard Phillips Myers, Esq.
     Paul, Reich & Myers
     1608 Walnut Street, Suite 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: 215-735-9200
     Email: rmyers@prmpclaw.com

Attorneys for Respondent, Party name: General Electric Co.:

     Carter G. Phillips, Esq.
     Sidley Austin LLP
     1501 K Street, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20005
     Tel: +1 202 736 8270
     Email: cphillips@sidley.com

Attorneys for The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
America:

     Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Esq.
     King & Spalding LLP
     1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20006
     Tel: 202-737-0500
     Email: jbucholtz@kslaw.com

Attorneys for Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.:

     James M. Beck, Esq.
     Reed Smith LLP
     Three Logan Square, Suite 3100
     1717 Arch Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-2713
     Tel: 215-851-8100
     Email: jmbeck@reedsmith.com

Attorneys for Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., et al.:

     Mark Alan Behrens, Esq.
     Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
     1155 F Street NW, Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20004
     Tel: 202-783-8400
     Email: mbehrens@shb.com

Attorneys for Richard A. Epstein:

     Nevin Merrill Gewertz, Esq.
     Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP
     Courthouse Place
     54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: (312) 494-4400
     Email: nevin.gewertz@bartlit-beck.com

Attorneys for Multiple Veterans Organizations:

     Christian Hancock Hartley, Esq.
     Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd, LLC
     1015 Locust St., Suite 1200
     St. Louis, MO 63101
     Tel: (314) 241-2003
     Email: chartley@mrhfmlaw.com

Attorneys for Evelyn Hutchins, Flora Everett, James T. McAllister:

     Lisa White Shirley, Esq.
     Dean, Omar & Branham, LLP
     302 N. Market Street, Suite 300
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Tel: (214) 722-5990
     Email: lshirley@dobllp.com

Attorneys for Port Ministries International:

     Michael F. Sturley, Esq.
     727 East Dean Keeton Street
     Austin, TX 78705-0000
     Tel: (512) 232-1350
     Email: msturley@law.utexas.edu

Attorneys for American Association for Justice:

     Jeffrey Robert White, Esq.
     American Association for Justice
     777 6th Street NW, Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20001-3723
     Tel: (202) 944-2839
     Email: jeffrey.white@justice.org


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tasmanian Unions Worried About Workers' Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Bailey, writing for The Examiner, reported that up to 10 staff
working at the Launceston Reception Prison may have been exposed to
deadly asbestos.

Unions say staff were potentially exposed when dust from
refurbishment work fell onto the desks where two nurses were
working.

Community and Public Sector Union secretary Tom Lynch said the
asbestos register for the prison noted there was asbestos in the
floor and wall tiles and the register was made available to the
successful tenderer.

He said despite this knowledge, staff were exposed when materials
were removed last month.

"Our members are concerned that their health may have been affected
by this exposure and angry that sufficient safeguards were not put
in place to protect them," Mr Lynch said.

"It's bad enough they are being expected to work in a construction
site at a time when the whole prison system is buckling under the
pressure of record prisoner numbers, but to now have the ticking
time bomb of a potential asbestos exposure it totally
unacceptable."

Mr Lynch said he also believed that additional asbestos was found
that was not included on the site register.

He said 10 staff working at the reception prison were told they
could be placed on the National Asbestos Exposure Register and have
x-rays.

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation executive director
Andrew Brakey also expressed concern at the potential asbestos
exposure.

"It is very worrying," Mr Brakey said. "We know that exposure
doesn't always lead to problems or mesothelioma, but workers could
get sick 30 years down the track.

"We need to get them on the exposure register so they have recourse
in the future."

A Department of Justice spokesman said when the asbestos was
discovered works were "halted immediately" and the area fully
sealed and contained.

"Worksafe Tasmania were notified and the Department has engaged a
licenced asbestos removalist to remove the asbestos, conduct air
monitoring and complete a full asbestos inspection of stage two
area of works," he said.

"Construction works will not restart until Worksafe Tasmania
approval is received and air monitoring will continue for the
duration of the stage one and stage two works and for a reasonable
period post-completion.

"All affected staff and stakeholders are being kept fully informed
of the asbestos removal and air monitoring processes."

The spokesman said it was not unusual to find asbestos in a
building as old as the prison.

The government is spending about $1 million at the prison to
deliver on its commitment to remove police out of courts and
provide improved staff amenities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Defends Less Than 200 Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Univar Inc. fewer than 200 asbestos-related claims as of December
31, 2018, for which the Company has liability for defense and
indemnity pursuant to the indemnification obligation, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

Univar states, "The Company is subject to liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.  The claims
result primarily from an indemnification obligation related to
Univar USA Inc.'s ("Univar") 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical
Company from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson").  Univar's
obligation to indemnify McKesson for settlements and judgments
arising from asbestos claims is the amount which is in excess of
applicable insurance coverage, if any, which may be available under
McKesson's historical insurance coverage.  Univar is also a
defendant in a small number of asbestos claims.  As of December 31,
2018, there were fewer than 200 asbestos-related claims for which
the Company has liability for defense and indemnity pursuant to the
indemnification obligation.  Historically, the vast majority of the
claims against both McKesson and Univar have been dismissed without
payment.  While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of
these matters, it does not believe, based upon current available
facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of these matters will
have a material effect on its overall financial position, results
of operations, or cash flows.  However, the Company cannot predict
the outcome of any present or future claims or litigation and
adverse developments could negatively impact earnings or cash flows
in a particular future period.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2W5OPaH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Has 109 Pending PI Cases at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc.'s subsidiary, NL Industries, Inc., has 109 pending
personal injury cases related to products manufactured in past
operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "NL has been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust.  In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated
by NL.  There are 109 of these types of cases pending, involving a
total of approximately 584 plaintiffs.  In addition, the claims of
approximately 8,676 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed
or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio courts.  We do not expect
these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the
courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims.  We have not
accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty
of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if
any.  To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these
matters.  Based on information available to us, including facts
concerning historical operations, the rate of new claims, the
number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and our prior
experience in the defense of these matters.

"We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these
matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are not
material).  Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible
outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.  We have
sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a
finding of no liability from each claim.  In addition, from time to
time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims
purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including
notices provided to insurers with which we have entered into
settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies.  These
insurers may seek indemnification from us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2ux4C6p


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Had 300 Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. is defending approximately 300
lawsuits in different jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "The complaints in these cases typically name a
large number of defendants and do not identify any of our
particular products as a source of asbestos exposure.  To date,
discovery has failed to yield evidence of substantial exposure to
any of our products and no judgments have been entered against
us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2XSwFuF



                            *********

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 2019. 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 ***