CAR_Public/190605.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, June 5, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 112

                            Headlines

22ND CENTURY GROUP: Bid to Substitute Plaintiffs in "Finch" Sought
22ND CENTURY GROUP: Facing Complaint in Bull Class Suit
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Opioid Addiction in Quebec
ABBVIE INC: Faces 10 Class Suits by Indirect HUMIRA Buyers
ABBVIE INC: Still Faces Suit over AndroGel "Sham Litigation"

ABBVIE: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Medical Mutual Suit
ADT INC: Unit Continues to Defend Villegas Suit in California
ADVANCED MICRO: Hauck et al. Appeal Judgment in Processors Suit
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif. Underway
ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Warner Chilcott Pending

ALLERGAN PLC: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. in Asacol(R) Suit Denied
ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Securities Suit Still Pending
AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES: Faces C3J Therapeutics Merger-Related Suits
ANALOG DEVICES: Bouvy Suit Asserts Fund Mismanagement
APYX MEDICAL: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action Suit

APYX MEDICAL: June 17 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
APYX MEDICAL: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
AUTOMATIC DATA: Still Faces Class Suits over Use of Biometric Info
AVON PRODUCTS: Still Defends Bevinal Shareholder Class Action
BELLICUM PHARMA: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Kakkar Suit

BOEING CO: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces Cyber Security Breach Suit
CAR-X ASSOCIATES: Leon Sues Over Franchise Agreements
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Still Defends Tagalogon Class Action
CHEMOURS COMPANY: 54 PFOA Personal Injury Cases Still Pending

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Faces Ohio Lawsuit over PFAS in Blood Serum
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Settlement in Brown Suit Wins Preliminary OK
COMSCORE INC: Pawar Law Group Files Securities Fraud Suit
CONNECTICUT: Court Dismisses Class Claims in Tyus Prisoners Suit
COTY INC: Faces Phillips and Rumsey Class Suits Over Tender Offer

CSEA SEIU: Connecticut Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Wholean Suit
CURADEN AG: Court Certifies Class in Lyngaas Junk Fax Suit
DAVITA INC: Must Defend Against Peace Officers' Fund Suit
DOWDUPONT: Unit Still Faces Suits over Fayetteville Facility
EHEALTH INC: Discovery Underway in Calif. Wage-and-Hour Class Suit

EHEALTH INC: TCPA Class Action Ongoing
ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Notice of Appeal Filed in Pipitone Suit
ENDURANCE INT'L: Machado Settlement Fairness Hearing in Sept. 13
EVERCORE INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit v. EGL Pending
EXPEDIA GROUP: Court Denies Damages Class Status in Buckeye Suit

EXTENDED STAY: Faces Multiple Class Suits in California
FGL HOLDINGS: Brokerage Insurance Partners Suit Ongoing
FIDELITY SOUTHERN: Supplemental Info Filed to Appease Merger Suits
FITBIT INC: Arbitration in McLellan Heart Tracking Suit Underway
FITBIT INC: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in California

FLUOR CORP: Mulls Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
FORTERRA INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Class Suit Still Pending
FRED'S INC: Administration of Eddington Settlement Underway
FRED'S INC: Awaits 11th Cir. Ruling in Taylor Case Appeal
FRED'S INC: Still Defends Whitley Class Action in Ohio

GEO GROUP: Immigration Detainees' Class Suits Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: 4th Amended Complaint Filed in Interest Rate Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Arbitration Ongoing in 2010 Employees Class Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Adeptus IPO-Related Suit Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Sea Limited IPO Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss US Treasury Securities Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend SunEdison Class Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: GS&Co. Still Defends Suit over Altice USA IPO
GOLDMAN SACHS: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Ongoing

HARRIS CORP: 4 Lawsuits over L3 Technologies Merger Dismissed
HC2 HOLDINGS: Ohio-CGI Final Settlement Hearing Set for July 23
HC2 HOLDINGS: Schuff Stockholders Litigation Still Ongoing
HEALTH INSURANCE: Consolidated Securities Suit in Florida Ongoing
HEALTH INSURANCE: Faces Parker Class Suit in Florida

HEALTH INSURANCE: Keippel Class Action Complaint Not Yet Served
HEALTH-ADE LLC: Settlement in Bayol Suit Has Prelim Approval
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Koch Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Securities Suit in Pennsylvania Underway
HENRY SCHEIN: Appeal in Marion Diagnostic Class Suit Underway

HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Hatchett Class Suit
HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Kramer Class Action
HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for June 14
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Still Faces Class Action Complaints in Calif.

HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Ramirez Class Action
INOGEN INC: Faces Fabbri and Friedland Class Suits
INT'L LABORATORIES: Count IV in Johnson Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice
INTEC COMMUNICATIONS: Giesson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
INTERACTIVE HEALTH: Karstens Sues Over Unpaid Wages

IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Settlement in Rabkin Suit Finally Approved
JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Daily Class Suits Still Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: De Cruz Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dechristofaro Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Degidio-Mueller Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dela Hunt Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dominguez Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dougherty Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Douglas Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fitzgerald Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fossell Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fullmore Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gire Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gjeloshaj Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Glaser Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Godfrey Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Goforth Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Goodman Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Graham Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Griffin Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Guerrero Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hinson Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Joukl et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Morales Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moranda Suit Moved to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Arciga et al. Suit to C.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Santisteban Suit Moved to C.D. California
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Oct. 17 Hearing Set for Bid to Dismiss Gumm Suit
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Still Defends Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Lawsuits
LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in Davis Class Action Still Pending

LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Nix Sequenom Class Lawsuit Still Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Bloomquist Putative Class Lawsuit Still Pending
LANNETT CO: Bid to Dismiss Drug Pricing-Related Suit Ongoing
LANNETT CO: Briefing on Bid to Dismiss to be Completed by June 13
LANNETT CO: Court Narrows Claims in Pennsylvania Class Suit

LOOMIS ARMORED: Myers Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
LOS ANGELES, CA: Gonzalez-Tzita Seeks to Certify Class
LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Oclaro Still Defends Karri Class Action Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: 1,780 Suits Filed over Opioid Sales
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Amended Complaint Filed in MSP Recovery Suit

MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Action Still Ongoing
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Solomon Suit Still Stayed
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Still Defends Putative Class Action in Puerto Rico
MANNKIND CORP: Still Defends Class Action in Tel Aviv
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Class Certification Bid in Lennen Suit Denied

MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Faces Helman Class Suit in Virgin Islands
MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource's Suit Ongoing
MDL 2047: Court Denies Yance's Bid for Award of Attorneys' Fees
MDL 2084: AbbVie Settles 3 Individual AndroGel Antitrust Suits
MDL 2460: 3 Consolidated Class Suits on Niaspan Still Pending

MDL 2741: Walter v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Williams v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Bid to Vacate Judgment in Forman Suit Pending
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Awaits 5th Cir. Review on Brown Class Status
MORGAN STANLEY: New Antitrust Suits Filed in New York

MUELLER WATER: Continues to Defend New York Class Action
MYLAN NV: Class Cert. in EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Suit Pending
MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed
MYLAN NV: MYL Litigation Recovery I LLC Files Additional Suit
MYLAN NV: Valsartan-Related Class Suit in New Jersey Ongoing

NATURAL HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Named Lead Counsel
NAVIENT CORP: Faces Suits over Consumer Protection Laws Breaches
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Appeal in Carvelli Class Suit Still Pending
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of TCPA Case Settlement
OCWEN FINANCIAL: McWhorter Class Settlement Wins Initial Approval

OCWEN LOAN: Court Rejects Stromberg Settlement
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA Class Action Ongoing
PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Accrues $300K at March 31 for Settled Suits
PAPA JOHN'S: Danker Class Action Ongoing
PBF HOLDING: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Goldstein

PBF HOLDING: Mediation in Kendig Class Suit Ongoing
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Hogan Has Not Filed Amended Complaint
PITNEY BOWES: Still Defends Suit by City of Livonia Retiree Plan
POST HOLDINGS: Opt-Out Plaintiffs Antitrust Claims v. Unit Pending
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Unit Still Defends Advance Trust & Life's Suit

PROTHENA CORP: Securities Class Suit in SDNY Ongoing
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Combination of Sawbill and Moehrl Cases Sought
RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Suit on Labor Practices Underway
SANDALS RESORTS: Feldman Sues Over Deceptive and Fraudulent Tax
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Parmelee Settlement Wins Final Approval

SEARS BENNETT: Johnson Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
SEMPRA ENERGY: 394 Suits over Aliso Canyon Leak Filed as of May 2
SEMPRA ENERGY: Dismissal of Calif. Securities Action under Appeal
T-MOBILE US: Ray & Joyner Sue over Collection of Geolocation Data
TORCHMARK CORP: Continues to Defend Golz Class Action in Calif.

TORCHMARK CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Joh Suit in California
TORCHMARK CORP: Unit Faces Hamilton Class Action in California
TORCHMARK CORP: Unit Faces Putros Class Suit in California
TRUSTMARK CORP: TNB Still Faces Class Suit Over Stanford Collapse
U.S. HEALTHWORKS: Court Won't Extend Discovery Dates in Rodriguez

UNITED SERVICES: Court Certifies Class in Krista Peoples Suit
US XPRESS: Faces Independent Contractor Class Suit in Tennessee
US XPRESS: Faces Several IPO-Related Class Suits
US XPRESS: Trial in TCPA Class Suit to Begin in January 2020
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Wolther Class Action Ongoing

VERSUM MATERIALS: Faces Suits over Entegris Merger Deal
VERSUM MATERIALS: Faces Ventura Class Action in California
VERSUM MATERIALS: Stockholders' Suit No Longer Seeks Injunction
VISTRA ENERGY: Settles Kansas & Missouri Gas Index Pricing Suits
WELLS FARGO: Hernandez Suit over Mortgage Loan Plans Underway

WELLS FARGO: Nov. 7 Final OK Hearing for Interchange Litig. Accord
WELLS FARGO: Settlement Pacts Reached in RMBS Trustee Litigation
WELLS FARGO: Still Faces Coordes Suit over Mortgage Loan Plans
WELLS FARGO: Still Faces Lawsuits over Retail Sales Practices
WELLS FARGO: Still Faces Suit over Debit Card Order of Posting

WESTERN DIGITAL: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Settlement
WESTERN UNION: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in Smallen Class Action
WESTERN UNION: Awaits Final Releases in Tennille & Smet Accords
WESTERN UNION: Class Suit in Argentina v. WUFSA Still Ongoing
WESTERN UNION: Frazier Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration

WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: 6 Suits v. Caustic Soda Producers Filed in N.Y.
WIDEOPENWEST INC: IPO Suits in NY and Colorado Ongoing
WILL COUNTY, IL: Bid to Certify Class Continued
WILMINGTON TRUST: Guidry et al. Seek to Certify Class Action
XEROX CORP: NY Appellate Division's Order in Merger Suit Now Final

XEROX CORP: Ribbe's Putative Derivative, Class Action Underway
YANGTZE RIVER PORT: Behrendsen Securities Class Action Underway
[*] AmerisourceBergen Gains $52MM in 1Q from Antitrust Settlements

                            *********

22ND CENTURY GROUP: Bid to Substitute Plaintiffs in "Finch" Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
22nd Century Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to
substitute the plaintiffs in the case, Ian Finch, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 22nd Century Group,
Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, is still
pending.

On January 29, 2019, Ian M. Fitch, a resident of Essex County
Massachusetts, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's
Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company's
Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled: Ian
Finch, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and John T.
Brodfuehrer, Case No. 2:19-cv-00553.

The Complaint filing alleges that the Plaintiff Mr. Fitch purchased
3,300 shares of the Company's common stock on October 11, 2017 at
$3.04 per share. Mr. Fitch sues individually and seeks to bring a
class action for persons or entities who acquired the Company's
common stock between February 18, 2016 and October 25, 2018, and
alleges in Count I that the Company's Annual Reports on Form 10-K
for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly contained false
statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges in Count II
that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are liable for the allegedly
false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified
money damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel in the Fitch litigation
filed a motion: (1) substituting Joseph Noto, Garden State Tire
Corp, and Stephens Johnson for Mr. Fitch as purportedly
representative plaintiffs, (2) moving to consolidate the litigation
with the Bull litigation, and (3) seeking to be appointed as lead
counsel in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs' counsel in the Bull
litigation filed and then withdrew a comparable motion seeking to
consolidate the cases and be appointed as lead counsel. The motion
in the Fitch litigation remains pending.

Neither the Company nor Messrs. Sicignano or Brodfuehrer have been
served with the Complaint or proposed Amended Complaint in this
case.

22nd Century said, "We believe that the claims are frivolous,
meritless and that the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer have substantial legal and factual defenses to the
claims. Once served with the Amended Complaint, we intend to
vigorously defend the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer
against such claims."

22nd Century Group, Inc., a plant biotechnology company, provides
technology that allows increasing or decreasing the level of
nicotine and other nicotinic alkaloids in tobacco plants, and
cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering
and plant breeding. 22nd Century Group, Inc. was founded in 1998
and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York.


22ND CENTURY GROUP: Facing Complaint in Bull Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
22nd Century Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the complaint in
Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and
John T. Brodfuehrer, has not yet been served on the company, Mr.
Sicignano or Mr. Brodfuehrer and, therefore, the Company and
Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer have not yet filed responses.

On January 21, 2019, Matthew Jackson Bull, a resident of Denver,
Colorado, filed a Complaint against the Company, the Company's
Chief Executive Officer, Henry Sicignano III, and the Company's
Chief Financial Officer, John T. Brodfuehrer, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York entitled:
Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano III, and
John T. Brodfuehrer, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409.

The Complaint filing alleges that Plaintiff Mr. Bull purchased
3,000 shares of the Company's common stock from September 14, 2016
to October 15, 2018, at share prices between $0.91 and $2.57 per
share, and that on September 24, 2018, he sold 419 shares for a
profit at $2.88 per share. Mr. Bull sues individually and seeks to
bring a class action for persons or entities who acquired the
Company's common stock between February 18, 2016 and October 25,
2018, and alleges in Count I that the Company's Annual Reports on
Form 10-K for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 allegedly contained
false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges in
Count II that Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer are liable for the
allegedly false statements pursuant to Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The Complaint seeks declaratory relief, unspecified money damages,
and attorney's fees and costs. The Complaint has not yet been
served on the Company, Mr. Sicignano or Mr. Brodfuehrer and,
therefore, the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and Brodfuehrer have
not yet filed responses.

22nd Century said, "We believe that the claims are frivolous,
meritless and that the Company and Messrs. Sicignano and
Brodfuehrer have substantial legal and factual defenses to the
claims. We intend to vigorously defend the Company and Messrs.
Sicignano and Brodfuehrer against such claims."

22nd Century Group, Inc., a plant biotechnology company, provides
technology that allows increasing or decreasing the level of
nicotine and other nicotinic alkaloids in tobacco plants, and
cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering
and plant breeding. 22nd Century Group, Inc. was founded in 1998
and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Opioid Addiction in Quebec
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Feith, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a new
proposed class action lawsuit is seeking compensation for Quebecers
who've suffered from opioid addiction, targeting 27 companies that
manufactured, marketed or sold the drugs and "deliberately
misrepresented" the effects of opioids.

The defendants are:

  * ABBOTT LABORATORIES, LIMITED
  * APOTEX INC.
  * BGP PHARMA ULC
  * BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CANADA CO.
  * COBALT PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
  * ETHYPHARM INC.
  * HIKMA LABS INC.
  * JANSSEN INC.
  * JODDES LIMITED
  * LABORATOIRE ATLAS INC.
  * LABORATOIRE RIVA INC.
  * MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS ULC
  * PALADIN LABSINC.
  * PFIZER CANADA ULC
  * PHARMASCIENCE INC.
  * PRO DOC LTEE
  * PURDUE FREDERICK INC.,
  * PURDUE PHARMA
  * ROXANE LABORATORIES INC.
  * SANDOZ CANADA INC.
  * SANIS HEALTH INC.
  * STANLEY PHARMACEUTICALS
  * STERIMAX INC.
  * SUN PHARMA CANADA INC.
  * VALEANT CANADA LP
  * 4490142 CANADA INC., F/K/A AS MEDA VALEANT PHARMA CANADA INC.

The class action application, filed in Montreal on May 23, 2019,
seeks $30,000 in damages for each member of the class in addition
to $25 million from each company to be distributed among members
for punitive damages.

The application also seeks compensation for the direct heirs of
people who died after suffering from opioid addiction. It will need
to be authorized by a judge before it can move forward.

The drugs listed in the application include fentanyl, hydrocodone,
hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone and oxymorphone.
Eligible class members need to have been prescribed the drugs since
1996 and have suffered from opioid use disorder.

"These drugs are dangerously addictive," the 38-page application
says, "and the growing number of addictions, overdoses and deaths
in Quebec and Canada caused by opioids has been declared by the
Government of Canada to be a public health emergency."

The companies, it argues, "had an obligation to both ensure the
safety and the safe use of their products and to properly warn,
rather than misinform, of the risks associated with their
products."

The suit is filed on behalf of an anonymous Montreal woman who
became addicted to opioids for seven years after being prescribed
Hydromorph Contin to treat chronic pain.

It says the woman worked at a Montreal university for more than 30
years and wants to be the lead plaintiff, in part, to break the
stigma associated with opioid addiction.

"The Plaintiff remembers meeting with her family doctor when the
decision to prescribe this drug was made," the document says. "The
doctor very clearly told her that they, implying family physicians,
had been advised that they had been underprescribing opioids and
that opioids were the drug of choice to treat pain."

The woman became increasingly addicted to opioids as her tolerance
to the drugs increased.

In 2017, she was entered into a "gruelling" month-long, in-patient
medical detox in the psychiatry ward at the Montreal General
Hospital. The woman says the detoxification process lasted for
another six months after being released.

"She describes her time under the influence of opioids as a
seven-year sentence of 'brain fog,' depression and suicidal
ideation," the application says.  "Her time on prescription opioids
as horrific, and as having caused her to lose more than seven years
of her life, which she can never get back."

The suit argues the companies "chose profits over the health of the
consumers" by hiding how addictive opioids are in order to boost
sales.

It cites statistics from the 2019 National Report on Opioid Related
Deaths that shows that, in Quebec, there were 166 deaths in 2016
related to opioid and other illicit drug use, 181 deaths in 2017,
and 300 deaths between January and September 2018.

"The impact of the opioid crisis in Quebec is being felt more
urgently with each passing year," it says.

The class action application has been filed by the law firms Trudel
Johnston & Lesperance and Fishman Flanz Meland Paquin. More
information can be found at tjl.quebec [GN]


ABBVIE INC: Faces 10 Class Suits by Indirect HUMIRA Buyers
----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that 10 putative class action lawsuits were filed
in March and April 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois by indirect HUMIRA purchasers, alleging that
AbbVie's settlements with biosimilar manufacturers and AbbVie's
HUMIRA patent portfolio violate state and federal antitrust laws.

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

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.



ABBVIE INC: Still Faces Suit over AndroGel "Sham Litigation"
------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. continues to face suits, including a class action case,
in Pennsylvania over alleged "sham litigation" related to AndroGel,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

In September 2014, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a
lawsuit against AbbVie and others in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the
2011 patent litigation with two generic companies regarding
AndroGel was sham litigation and the settlements of that litigation
violated federal antitrust law.

In May 2015, the court dismissed the FTC's settlement-related
claim.  In June 2018, following a bench trial, the court found for
the FTC on its sham litigation claim and ordered a disgorgement
remedy of US$448 million, plus prejudgment interest.  The court
denied the FTC's request for injunctive relief.

AbbVie is appealing the court's liability and disgorgement rulings
and, based on an assessment of the merits of that appeal, no
liability has been accrued for this matter.  The FTC is also
appealing aspects of the court's trial ruling and the dismissal of
its settlement-related claim.

In July and August 2018, several direct AndroGel purchasers brought
two individual and one class action cases in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging
sham litigation based on the court's trial ruling in the FTC's
case.

In April 2019, AbbVie settled with the plaintiffs in the two
individual cases.  The remaining private plaintiff case is stayed
pending the appeals in the FTC's case.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ABBVIE: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Medical Mutual Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2019, that in February 2019, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants' summary
judgment motion in a putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual
of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

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

In November 2014, the case was filed against several manufacturers
of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs), including AbbVie, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of all insurance companies, health benefit
providers, and other third party payers who paid for TRTs,
including AndroGel.

The claims asserted include violations of the federal RICO Act and
state consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices laws.  The
complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

In July 2018, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  In February 2019, the court granted the defendants'
summary judgment motion.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


ADT INC: Unit Continues to Defend Villegas Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that the company's subsidiary continues to defend a
class action suit entitled, Villegas v. ADT.

In June 2013, an ADT subsidiary was served with a class action
complaint in California State Court entitled Villegas v. ADT.

In this complaint, the plaintiff asserted that the ADT subsidiary
violated certain provisions of the California Alarm Act and the Los
Angeles Municipal Alarm Ordinance for its alleged failures to
obtain alarm permits for its Los Angeles customers and disclose the
alarm permit fee in its customer contracts.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for putative class members
who were required to pay enhanced false alarm fines as a result of
the ADT subsidiary not obtaining a valid alarm permit at the time
of alarm system installation.

The case was initially dismissed by the trial court and judgment
was entered in the ADT subsidiary's favor in October 2014, which
the plaintiff appealed. In September 2016, the California Appellate
Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court.

In November 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification and certified four subclasses of customers
who received fines from the City of Los Angeles on or after May 31,
2010 for a false alarm and for not having an alarm system permit: a
pre-March 2009 class of customers installed by the ADT subsidiary;
a pre-March 2009 class of customers installed by ADT Authorized
Dealers; a post-March 2009 class of customers installed by the ADT
subsidiary; and a post-March 2009 class of customers installed by
ADT Authorized Dealers.

ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.


ADVANCED MICRO: Hauck et al. Appeal Judgment in Processors Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Diana Hauck, Shon Elliott, Michael Garcia, JoAnn
Martinelli, Benjamin D. Pollack, and Jonathan Caskey-Medina,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from
the Partial Final Judgment that was entered under Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b) on May 6, 2019, as well as all prior orders that have merged
into the Judgment (including, but not limited to, the April 4, 2019
Order Granting Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint with Prejudice
entered by District Judge Lucy H. Koh.

In her May 6 Judgment, Judge Koh granted the Parties' Joint
Stipulation for Entry of Partial Final Judgment Under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 54(b). Judgment is entered in favor of AMD on
Counts III, V, VII, VIII, XI, XVII, and XIX asserted against AMD in
the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

AMD said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that since January 19, 2018, three putative class
action complaints have been filed against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California: (1)
Diana Hauck et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-0047, filed on
January 19, 2018; (2) Brian Speck et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No.
5:18-cv-0744, filed on February 4, 2018; and (3) Nathan Barnes and
Jonathan Caskey-Medina, et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No.
5:18-cv-00883, filed on February 9, 2018.

On April 9, 2018, the court consolidated these cases and ordered
that Diana Hauck et al. v. AMD, Inc. serve as the lead case.

On June 13, 2018, six plaintiffs (from California, Louisiana,
Florida, and Massachusetts) filed a consolidated amended complaint
alleging that the Company failed to disclose its processors'
alleged vulnerability to Spectre. Plaintiffs further allege that
the Company's processors cannot perform at its advertised
processing speeds without exposing consumers to Spectre, and that
any "patches" to remedy this security vulnerability will result in
degradation of processor performance. The plaintiffs seek damages
under several causes of action on behalf of a nationwide class and
four state subclasses (California, Florida, Massachusetts,
Louisiana) of consumers who purchased AMD processors and/or devices
containing AMD processors. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys'
fees, equitable relief, and restitution.

Pursuant to the court's order directing parties to litigate only
eight of the causes of action in the consolidated amended complaint
initially, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on July 13, 2018.
On October 29, 2018, after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed one
of their claims, the court granted the Company's motion and
dismissed six causes of action with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint on
December 6, 2018. On January 3, 2019, the Company again moved to
dismiss the subset of claims currently at issue.

On April 4, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion and
dismissed all claims currently at issue with prejudice.

A case management conference was scheduled for May 8, 2019 where
the parties and the court were to discuss how the case will proceed
in light of the court's ruling.

Advanced Micro said, "Based upon information presently known to
management, the Company believes that the potential liability, if
any, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, cash flows or results of operations."

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. operates as a semiconductor company
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Computing and
Graphics; and Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit in Calif. Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. is facing a consolidated securities class
action suit in California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On November 5, 2018, a class action lawsuit against Align, and
three of the Company's executive officers, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between July 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018.  The complaint
generally alleges claims under the federal securities laws and
seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs and
expenses incurred in the litigation.

On December 12, 2018, a similar lawsuit was filed in the same court
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between April 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018 (together
with the first lawsuit, the "Securities Actions").

The Court appointed a lead plaintiff on March 22, 2019 and that
lead plaintiff was expected to file a consolidated complaint on May
10, 2019.

The Company said, "Align believes these claims are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend itself.  Align is currently unable
to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot
determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible
loss."


ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Warner Chilcott Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the defendants motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in Warner Chilcott Marketing Practices related
suit is still pending.

A putative nationwide class of private payer entities, or their
assignees, that paid Medicare benefits on behalf of their
beneficiaries filed a complaint against certain subsidiaries of the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The Complaint asserts claims under the federal RICO statute, state
consumer protection statutes, common law fraud, and unjust
enrichment with respect to the sale and marketing of certain
products.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is still
pending.  

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. in Asacol(R) Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification in the Asacol(R) related suit has been denied.

Class action complaints have been filed against certain
subsidiaries of the Company on behalf of putative classes of direct
and indirect purchasers. The lawsuits have been consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The
complaints allege that plaintiffs paid higher prices for Asacol(R)
HD and Delzicol(R) as a result of alleged actions preventing or
delaying generic competition in the market for an older Asacol(R)
product in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state
laws.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages
and/or attorneys' fees. The Company has settled the claims brought
by the direct purchaser plaintiffs.

While the district court granted the indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit later issued a decision reversing the lower court's
decision on class certification.

The appellate court recently denied plaintiffs' motion for
rehearing en banc and remanded the case back to the District Court
where the court recently denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. The company was formerly known as
Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015.
Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Securities Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that three motions seeking appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel are currently pending in a class
action initiated by Caryl Hull Leavitt.

The Company said, "On September 26, 2018, Caryl Hull Leavitt,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws
against us, our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial
Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The complaint purports to bring a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class of persons who
acquired our securities between February 15, 2018 and September 12,
2018 and seeks to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements related to the efficacy
and safety of our product, ONPATTRO.  The plaintiff seeks, among
other things, the designation of this action as a class action, an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief
as the court deems appropriate.

"By stipulation of the parties and Order of the Court dated
November 20, 2018, the action was transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  Motions for the
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were required to be
filed by November 26, 2018.  There are three such motions currently
pending.  We anticipate that an amended complaint will be filed
following the Court's appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

"We believe that the allegations contained in the complaint are
without merit and intend to defend the case vigorously.  We cannot
predict at this point the length of time that this action will be
ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise therefrom."

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


AMPLIPHI BIOSCIENCES: Faces C3J Therapeutics Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AmpliPhi Biosciences Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in three class action suits relate to the
company's merger with C3J Therapeutics, Inc.

On January 3, 2019 the Company and C3J Therapeutics, Inc. ("C3J"),
a private clinical stage biotechnology company focused on the
development of novel targeted antimicrobials, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, which included the
proposed business combination ("Merger") of C3J and Ceres Merger
Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of AmpliPhi, with C3J as the
surviving company.

Between April 15 and April 25, 2019, three putative class action
lawsuits (captioned Midgarden v. AmpliPhi Biosciences Corp., et
al., No. 19-cv-0684 (S.D. Cal. filed Apr. 15, 2019); Henning v.
AmpliPhi Biosciences Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-0728 (S.D. Cal. filed
Apr. 19, 2019); and Plumley v. AmpliPhi Biosciences Corp., et al.,
No. 19-cv-0617 (W.D. Wash. filed Apr. 25, 2019)) were filed in
federal court against the company and the company's board of
directors related to the Merger.

The lawsuits assert violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against
all defendants, and assert violations of Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as to the individual defendants.  

The plaintiffs contend that the company's Definitive Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A, filed on April 4, 2019, omitted or
misrepresented material information regarding the Merger.

The complaints seek injunctive relief, rescission, or rescissory
damages and an award of plaintiffs’ costs, including attorneys'
fees and expenses.

On May 1, 2019, the company amended its Definitive Proxy Statement
on Schedule 14A to provide additional disclosure to its
shareholders.

AmpliPhi Biosciences Corporation is a clinical-stage biotechnology
company focused on precisely targeted bacteriophage therapeutics
for patients with serious and life-threatening antibiotic-resistant
bacterial infections. As of May 9, 2019, was acquired by C3J
Therapeutics, Inc., in a reverse merger transaction.


ANALOG DEVICES: Bouvy Suit Asserts Fund Mismanagement
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Bouvy, on behalf of himself, individually, and all
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Analog Devices, Inc.,
Eileen Wynne, Steve Marsey, Donald Zerio and Doe Defendants 1–20,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00881, (S.D. Cal., May 10, 2019) seeks
actual monetary losses, attorneys' fees, equitable restitution and
other appropriate equitable monetary relief for violations of
Defendants' fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

Bouvy was employed by Linear Technology from 2007 until October
2018 (including after the company merged with Analog Devices). He
is a participant in the Linear Technology Corporation 401(k) Plan.
He claims that the Plan managers failed to diligently evaluate and
monitor the investment options in its portfolio for both
performance and cost, causing participants to pay excessive and
unreasonable fees, costing millions of dollars of losses in their
retirement savings. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     Lily E. Hough, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: (415) 212-9300
     Fax: (415) 373-9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
            lhough@edelson.com


APYX MEDICAL: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Apyx
Medical Corporation (NASDAQ: APYX) securities between August 1,
2018 and April 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Apyx
investors have until June 17, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Apyx investments are encouraged
to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their
legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On February 21, 2019, White Diamond Research released a report
alleging that a clinical study on the use of the Company's J-Plasma
for dermal resurfacing may have missed its endpoints.

On this news, shares of Apyx fell $2.10 per share, or nearly 25%,
to close at $6.40 on February 21, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on April 1, 2019, Apyx announced that it had withdrawn its
510(k) application for the use of J-Plasma for dermal resurfacing,
citing concerns raised by the FDA. Apyx revealed that the FDA had
questioned the device's clinical results, which differed greatly
from two of the investigational centers used in the study, as well
as the potential impact certain protocol deviations. Moreover, Apyx
disclosed that the clinical study did not meet its primary efficacy
endpoint.

On this news, shares of Apyx fell $2.49 per share, or over 35%, to
close at $4.46 on April 2, 2019, thereby injuring investors
further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the clinical study on the use
of J-Plasma for dermal resurfacing had not met its primary efficacy
endpoint; (2) that, as a result, the clinical study did not support
the Company's application for regulatory clearance; (3) that, as a
result, the Company was unlikely to receive regulatory approval of
J-Plasma for dermal resurfacing; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Apyx, have information or 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:

         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
         Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
         Telephone: 215-638-4847
         Toll free: 888-638-4847
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


APYX MEDICAL: June 17 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of a publicly-traded company.
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.

Apyx Medical Corporation (NASDAQ: APYX)
Class Period: August 1, 2018 - April 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 17, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/apyx-medical-corporation-loss-form?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges: Apyx Medical Corporation made materially false
and/or misleading statements throughout the class period and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the clinical study on the use of
J-Plasma for dermal resurfacing had not met its primary efficacy
endpoint; (2) as a result, the clinical study did not support the
Company's application for regulatory clearance; (3) as a result,
the Company was unlikely to receive regulatory approval of J-Plasma
for dermal resurfacing; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Apyx Medical Corporation 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.

Contact:

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


APYX MEDICAL: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of those who acquired Apyx Medical
Corporation (NASDAQ: APYX) securities during the period from August
1, 2018 through April 1, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until June 17, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that Apyx failed to disclose to investors: (i)
that the clinical study on the use of J-Plasma for dermal
resurfacing had not met its primary efficacy endpoint; (ii) that,
as a result, the clinical study did not support the Company's
application for regulatory clearance; and (iii) that, as a result,
the Company was unlikely to receive regulatory approval of J-Plasma
for dermal resurfacing.

On April 1, 2019, Apyx announced that it had withdrawn its 510(k)
application for Renuvion, a patented surgical device for use in
dermal surgical procedures, citing concerns raised by the FDA. Apyx
revealed that the FDA had questioned the device's clinical results,
which differed greatly from two of the investigational centers used
in the study, as well as the potential impact of certain protocol
deviations.

On this news, shares of Apyx fell $2.49 per share, approximately
35.8%, to close at $4.46 on April 2, 2019.

If you acquired Apyx securities, have information, or would like to
learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Contact:

         Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney LLP
         Telephone: (212) 371-6600
         Website: www.kmllp.com
         Email: investigations@kmllp.com
                telrod@kmllp.com [GN]


AUTOMATIC DATA: Still Faces Class Suits over Use of Biometric Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. continues to defend itself against
potential class action complaints related to alleged violations of
the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

In June 2018, a potential class action complaint was filed against
ADP in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  The complaint
asserts that ADP violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, was
negligent and unjustly enriched itself in connection with its
collection, use and storage of biometric data of employees of its
clients who are residents of Illinois in connection with certain
services provided by ADP to clients in Illinois.

The complaint seeks statutory and other unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

In addition, similar potential class action complaints have been
filed in Illinois state courts against ADP and/or certain of its
clients with respect to the collection, use and storage of
biometric data of the employees of these clients.  All of these
claims are still in their earliest stages and the Company is unable
to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, with
respect to these matters.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey.


AVON PRODUCTS: Still Defends Bevinal Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. still defends itself against a purported
shareholder's class action complaint entitled, Bevinal v. Avon
Products, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019

On February 14, 2019, the purported shareholder's class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain
former officers of the Company.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all purchasers of Avon common stock between August 2, 2016 and
August 2, 2017, inclusive.  The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") Act based on allegedly false or misleading
statements and alleged market manipulation with respect to, among
other things, changes made to Avon's credit terms for
Representatives in Brazil.

Avon said, "In light of the early stage of the litigation, we are
unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to
assess the likelihood of loss or to make a reasonable estimate of
the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable
outcome."

Avon Products, Inc. manufactures and markets beauty and related
products in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, south Latin America,
north Latin America, and the Asia Pacific. The company was founded
in 1886 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BELLICUM PHARMA: Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff in Kakkar Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court in the
consolidated Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick
Fair and Alan Musso suit, appointed lead plaintiffs to represent
the putative class.

On February 6, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair
and Alan Musso was filed against the Company, and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division.

A second substantially similar class action was filed on March 14,
2018 by plaintiff Frances Rudy against the same defendants in the
same court.  

The lawsuits purport to assert class action claims on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from May
8, 2017 through January 30, 2018.

The complaints allege that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, by making
materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
clinical trials being conducted in the U.S. to assess rivo-cel
(rivogenlecleucel, formerly known as BPX-501) as an adjunct T-cell
therapy administered after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell
transplantation.  

The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  

The complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class, an
unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses
of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

On April 9, 2018, the District Court consolidated the two lawsuits
under the Kakkar action. On March 26, 2019, the court appointed
lead plaintiffs to represent the putative class.

Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on discovering and developing novel cellular
immunotherapies for the treatment of hematological cancers, solid
tumors, and orphan inherited blood disorders in the United States
and internationally. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


BOEING CO: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds The
Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) investors that a securities fraud class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Boeing securities between January 8, 2019 and
March 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

REMINDER: Investors who purchased Boeing securities during the
Class Period may, no later than June 10, 2019, seek to be appointed
as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this litigation
please visit www.ktmc.com/boeing-ba-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, Boeing, together with its subsidiaries,
is one of the world's major aerospace firms. It is organized based
on the products and services it offers and operates in four
reportable segments: (a) Commercial Airplanes ("BCA"); (b) Defense,
Space & Security; (c) Global Services; and (d) Boeing Capital. The
BCA segment develops, produces and markets commercial jet aircraft
and provides fleet support services, principally to the commercial
airline industry worldwide. On October 29, 2018, shortly after
takeoff, Lion Air Flight 610 crashed, killing all aboard. Then, on
March 10, 2019, shortly after takeoff, Ethiopian Airlines Flight
302 crashed, killing all aboard. The airplanes that crashed were
Boeing 737 MAX jets.

The Class Period commences on January 8, 2019, when the defendants
issued a press release entitled, "Boeing Sets New Airplane Delivery
Records, Expands Order Backlog, Delivered 806 commercial jets in
2018 with record-setting fourth quarter, Won nearly 900 net orders
valued at $143.7 billion after finalizing more than 200 orders in
December, 737 MAX family surpassed 5,000 orders; 777 family
exceeded 2,000 orders." The complaint alleges that, following the
crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, on March 11, 2019,
Ethiopian Airlines grounded its 737 MAX 8. Similarly, the China
Civil Aviation Administration grounded the 737 MAX 8. Following
this news, the price of Boeing shares fell $47.13 per share, or
11.2%, during the two trading days ended March 12, 2019.

Since then, the 737 MAX series aircraft has been grounded by every
country and is no longer permitted to fly. In addition, the U.S.
Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, the U.S.
Department of Justice, and the FBI reportedly opened investigations
into the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") certification
process and into safety-review processes.

On March 21, 2019, The New York Times reported in an article
entitled, "Doomed Boeing Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Company
Sold Only as Extras", that Boeing has hidden from investors, pilots
and passengers, that because of the safety compromised, Boeing
created two new safety features that it sold as "extras" or
"optional features" to keep costs down. Following this news, the
price of Boeing shares fell $10.53 per share, or about 3%, on March
22, 2019.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misled investors about the sustainability of Boeing's
core operation - the BCA - by touting its growth prospects and
profitability, raising guidance, and maintaining that the 737 MAX
was the safest airplane to fly the skies. Boeing made these
statements all while concealing the full extent of safety problems
caused by the placement of larger engines on the 737 MAX that
changed the handling characteristics of the 737 MAX from previous
models. The complaint further alleges that Boeing hid from
investors and passengers that it prepared its own reports and
statements to the FAA certifying its planes as safe to fly and that
these statements and reports were undermined by Boeing's conflicts
of interest in having been delegated authority by the FAA to
examine, test, and help certify its own planes and to provide the
safety analysis for the 737 MAX. Boeing also hid the fact that
Boeing withheld necessary safety features from the Boeing 737 MAX
unless airlines purchased them as "extras" or "optional features"
in order to keep the price down.

Investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class action
lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to contact:

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: (888) 299-7706
                    (610) 667-7706
         Website: www.ktmc.com
         Email: info@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces Cyber Security Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. continues to face a consolidated class
action case in Florida related to cyber security breach, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2019.

On May 12, 2018, the Company issued a public statement that malware
had been discovered at certain Chili's restaurants that resulted in
unauthorized access or acquisition of customer payment card data.
The Company engaged third-party forensic firms and cooperated with
law enforcement to investigate the matter.  Based on the
investigation of the Company's third-party forensic experts, it
believes most company-owned Chili's restaurants were impacted by
the malware during time frames that vary by restaurant, but it
believes in each case began no earlier than March 21, 2018 and
ended no later than April 22, 2018.

The Company was named as a defendant in putative class action
lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, and two in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, filed on May 24, 2018, May 30,
2018, June 14, 2018, and June 28, 2018, respectively (collectively,
the "Litigation") relating to the cyber security incident.

In the Litigation, plaintiffs assert various claims stemming from
the cyber security incident at the Company's Chili's restaurants
involving customer payment card information and seek monetary
damages in excess of US$5.0 million, injunctive and declaratory
relief and attorney's fees and costs.  Since the initial filing of
these cases, the Nevada plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case
and joined the Florida lawsuit.  Counsel for all parties
subsequently agreed to the transfer of the California cases to
Florida, and they have been consolidated into a single matter with
the case already pending there.

The Company said, "We believe we have defenses and intend to defend
the Litigation.  As such, as of March 27, 2019, we have concluded
that a loss from this matter is not determinable, therefore, we
have not recorded a liability related to the Litigation.  We will
continue to evaluate this matter based on new information as it
becomes available."

Brinker International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
develops, operates, and franchises casual dining restaurants in the
United States and internationally. As of June 27, 2018, it owned,
operated, or franchised 1,686 restaurants comprising 997
company-owned restaurants and 689 franchised restaurants under the
Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy brand names. The
company was founded in 1975 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


CAR-X ASSOCIATES: Leon Sues Over Franchise Agreements
-----------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the case captioned LUIS LEON, an individual, and
VEHIJOURN, INC., an Illinois corporation on behalf of themselves
and other plaintiffs similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAR-X
ASSOCIATES CORP., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH06229 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., May 21, 2019) brings a
claim on their own behalves, and on behalf of other individuals or
entities who are similarly situated and have entered into franchise
agreements with Defendant.

In the summer of 2014, Leon had the opportunity to purchase a Car-X
franchise located at 1098 E. Dundee Road in Palatine, Illinois (the
"Palatine Location"). At the time, the store was performing poorly,
and the owner sought to end his relationship with Car-X, so Leon
investigated the opportunity and decided to purchase the franchise
operating from that location. In connection therewith, Leon formed
Vehijourn to hold his franchise. On August 1, 2014, Vehijourn and
Car X entered into a Franchise Agreement (the "Agreement") whereby
Car-X granted to Vehijourn the right to use the Car-X trademarks
and system in connection with the operation ofa Car-X franchise. As
of the execution of the Agreement, Car-X had leased the facility
from which the Palatine Location was operated. The Franchise
Agreement mandated that Vehijoum sublease the premises from Car-X.
In connection therewith, Vehijourn entered into a sublease (the
"Sublease") for the Palatine Location premises, the term of which
ran for approximately five years, from August 16, 2014 through
August 31, 2019. The vast  majority of the customer's serviced by
Vehijourn were from Palatine and the suburbs within a five-mile
radius of Palatine, including Arlington Heights, Buffalo Grove,
Lake Zurich and Barrington. As a result, Vehijoum focused its
marketing efforts in these areas.

From its onset through 2018, Leon successfully operated Vehijourn
from the Palatine Location, regularly paying franchise and other
fees due Car-X pursuant to the Agreement, and otherwise complying
with the obligations under the Agreement. In fact, in the second
quarter of 2018, Vehijourn's service manager won the service
quality award for best service and store revenue, and he finished
in the top ten overall for 2018. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs'
compliance with the Agreement, Vehijourn received little or no
support from Car-X that impacted the acquisition of new customers
or improved operational proficiencies. Instead, Vehijourn operated
mostly independently from Car-X. For example, Vehijourn set its own
pricing based on research it conducted of pricing by its local
competitors, it had marketing initiatives separate and distinct
from Car-X, and it solely trained new personnel as to the operation
of the business and store policies. Furthermore, Vehijourn even
negotiated its own pricing with suppliers and vendors, which often
times were better than Car-X's negotiated pricing, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Luis Leon is a resident of Palatine, Cook County,
lllinois. Leon is the sole shareholder of plaintiff Yehijourn.

Car-X Associates Corp. ("Car-X"), is a Delaware corporation with a
place of business in Schaumburg, Cook County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph R. Ziccardi, Esq.
     Gabriella Moretti, Esq.
     ZICCARDI LAW OFFICES
     77 W. Washington Street, Suite 705
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 372-3477



CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Still Defends Tagalogon Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Tagalogon v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.

On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee filed
a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company improperly classified its managerial
employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate
wage statements, in addition to other claims.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California Labor
Code Private Attorney General Act in addition to other monetary
payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.;
Case No. BC603620).

On April 29, 2016, we filed a response to the complaint.

Cheesecake Factory said, "We intend to vigorously defend this
action. However, it is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from this matter
and, accordingly, we have not reserved for any potential future
payments."

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

The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated engages in the operation of
restaurants. The company produces cheesecakes and other baked
products for own restaurants and international licensees, as well
as external foodservice operators, retailers, and distributors. The
company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Calabasas,
California.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: 54 PFOA Personal Injury Cases Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that since the March 2017 resolution of the
multi-district litigation (MDL) related to the PFOA Leach Class
Personal Injury matters, approximately 54 personal injury cases
have been filed and are pending in West Virginia or Ohio courts
alleging status as a Leach class member.  These cases are
consolidated before the MDL court.  The pending claims relate to
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) personal injury claims of plaintiffs
who did not have cases or claims in the MDL or personal injury
claims based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017.

In 2004, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") settled a
class action captioned Leach v. DuPont, filed in West Virginia
state court, alleging that approximately 80,000 residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water.

Under the Leach settlement, class members may pursue personal
injury claims against DuPont only for those diseases for which the
C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists.  Approximately
3,500 lawsuits were subsequently filed in various federal and state
courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in multi-district
litigation ("MDL") in Ohio federal court.  These were resolved in
March 2017 when DuPont entered into an agreement settling all MDL
cases and claims, including all filed and unfiled personal injury
cases and claims that were part of the plaintiffs' counsel's claims
inventory, as well as cases tried to a jury verdict ("MDL
Settlement") for US$670.7 million in cash, with half paid by
Chemours, and half paid by DuPont.  

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

While all MDL lawsuits were dismissed or resolved through the MDL
Settlement, the MDL Settlement did not resolve PFOA personal injury
claims of plaintiffs who did not have cases or claims in the MDL or
personal injury claims based on diseases first diagnosed after
February 11, 2017.  Since the resolution of the MDL, approximately
54 personal injury cases have been filed and are pending in West
Virginia or Ohio courts alleging status as a Leach class member.
These cases are consolidated before the MDL court.

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


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Faces Ohio Lawsuit over PFAS in Blood Serum
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company continues to defend itself in a putative class
action filed in Ohio related to detectable level of perfluorinated
and polyfluorinated compounds (PFAS) in blood serum, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

In October 2018, a putative class action was filed in Ohio federal
court against 3M Company ("3M"), DuPont, Chemours, and other
defendants seeking class action status for U.S. residents having a
detectable level of PFAS in their blood serum.  The complaint seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, including the establishment of a
"PFAS Science Panel."

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

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


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Settlement in Brown Suit Wins Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the settlement in the
case, Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, has been preliminarily
approved.

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

The company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate, denies that the plaintiff has standing to assert the
claims alleged and is vigorously defending against the claims.

The Company denies any violation of law; however, to avoid the cost
and uncertainty associated with litigation the Company and the
plaintiff entered into a Joint Stipulation of Class Action
Settlement and Release of Claims (the "Settlement Agreement") to
fully and finally dismiss all claims that would be brought in the
case.  

The Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court
and is subject to final approval later this year.

Cinemark said, "During 2018, the Company recorded a litigation
reserve based on the proposed Settlement Agreement."

Cinemark Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
the motion picture exhibition business. As of December 31, 2018, it
operated 341 theatres and 4,586 screens in 41 states of the United
States; and 205 theatres and 1,462 screens in Brazil, Argentina,
Chile, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia, Curacao, and Paraguay. The
company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas.


COMSCORE INC: Pawar Law Group Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of comScore,
Inc. (SCOR) from November 8, 2018 through March 29, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
comScore investors under the federal securities laws. The firm
reminds investors of the June 10 lead plaintiff deadline in the
class action.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 10,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/comscore-inc/or call Vik Pawar,
Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for
information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) comScore was experiencing difficulties implementing its
business strategy; (2) comScore's financial results would be
materially impacted; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about comScore's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

         Contact:
         Vik Pawar, Esq.  
         Pawar Law Group  
         20 Vesey Street, Suite 1210  
         New York, NY 10007  
         Phone: (917) 261-2277
         Fax: (212) 571-0938  
         Email: info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN]


CONNECTICUT: Court Dismisses Class Claims in Tyus Prisoners Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERJUAN TYUS, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT SEMPLE, et. al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-73 (VAB) (D. Conn.), Judge Victor A.
Bolden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
dismissed Mr. Tyus' class claims and declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the surviving state-law claims.

Incarcerated at Garner Correctional Institution from Feb. 24, 2010,
until Dec. 14, 2017, Mr. Tyus alleges that the Defendants should
have been aware of the possibility of radon exposure at Garner
since its construction in 1992.  In December 2013 and January 2014,
Garner was tested for radon.  When testing showed high radon
levels, a radon mitigation system allegedly was installed.

No testing allegedly was performed in the inmate housing units and
the radon mitigation system allegedly was not installed in the
inmate housing units.  Correctional staff allegedly were informed
of the radon exposure, but inmates allegedly were not told.  Mr.
Tyus allegedly has not been tested for radon exposure, has not been
diagnosed with any medical conditions associated with redon
exposure, and has not exhibited any symptoms of radon exposure.

On Jan. 14, 2019, Mr. Tyus filed the Complaint against the
Defendants.  On the same day, he moved to proceed in forma
pauperis.  On Jan. 17, 2019, the Court referred the in forma
pauperis to Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel.  The following
day, Magistrate Judge Garfinkel granted Mr. Tyus' motion to proceed
in forma pauperis.

Mr. Tyus asserts federal and state law claims.  He contends that
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety
in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and Article first, section 8, of the Connecticut
Constitution by housing him at Garner when they knew about the high
levels of radon in the facility.  He also alleges that Defendants
Semple, Dzurenda, and Falcon deprived him of his right to pursue
the matter through the institutional grievance procedure and with
the Connecticut Claims Commission by failing to inform inmates of
the radon exposure in violation of Article first, section 10, of
the Connecticut Constitution.

Mr. Tyus alleges that he brings the action on behalf of himself and
all other inmates subjected to radon exposure at Garner.  He
cannot, however, bring a class action lawsuit pro se.  Accordingly,
Judge Bolden dimissed any claims asserted on behalf of unidentified
persons pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A(b)(1).

Mr. Tyus alleges that he was exposed to radon during his time at
Garner and that the Defendants were aware of the danger of radon
exposure for many years but failed to address it.  Although he
allegedly has not suffered any radon-associated conditions, he need
not have contracted an illness to state a cognizable claim.  The
Judge considers these allegations sufficient, at this time, to
state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim.

Mr. Tyus asserts state law claims for violation of Article first,
sections 8.  As the Connecticut Supreme Court has not recognized a
private right of action under this provision, the Judge declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.   Mr. Tyus also
asserts a claim under Article first, section 10.  As no substantive
rights are created, the Judge also declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bolden dismissed Mr. Tyus' class
claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
surviving state-law claims.

He also entered the following orders:

      (1) The Clerk will contact the Department of Correction
Office of Legal Affairs to ascertain whether any of the Defendants
are currently employed, or whether the Office of Legal Affairs can
forward service packets to retired employees.  For any positive
response, the Clerk will mail a waiver of service of process
request packet to the defendant at the address provided within 21
days of the Order, and report to the Court on the status of those
waiver requests on the 35th day after mailing.  If any Defendant
for whom an actual address was provided fails to return the waiver
request, the Clerk will arrange for in-person service by the U.S.
Marshals Service on the Defendant in his or her individual capacity
and the defendant will be required to pay the costs of such service
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).

      (2) The Clerk will prepare a summons form and send an
official capacity service packet to the U.S. Marshal Service. The
U.S. Marshal is directed to effect service of the complaint on the
defendants in their official capacities at the Office of the
Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06141, within
twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order and to file a
return of service within thirty (30) days from the date of this
order.

      (3) The Clerk will send Mr. Tyus a copy of this Order.

      (4) The Clerk will send a courtesy copy of the Complaint and
this Order to the Connecticut Attorney General and the Department
of Correction Office of Legal Affairs.

      (5) The Defendants will file their response to the complaint,
either an answer or motion to dismiss, within 60 days from the date
the waiver forms are sent.  If they choose to file an answer, they
will admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable
claim recited.  They also may include any and all additional
defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.

      (6) Discovery, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26
through 37, will be completed within seven months (210 days) from
the date of the Order.  Discovery requests need not be filed with
the Court.

      (7) All motions for summary judgment will be filed within
eight months (240 days) from the date of the Order.

      (8) Under Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party must
respond to a dispositive motion within 21 days of the date the
motion was filed.  If no response is filed, or the response is not
timely, the dispositive motion can be granted absent objection.

      (9) If the Plaintiff changes his address at any time during
the litigation of the case, Local Court Rule 83.1(c)2 provides that
the Plaintiff must notify the Court.  Failure to do so can result
in the dismissal of the case.  The Plaintiff must give notice of a
new address, even if he is incarcerated.  He should write "PLEASE
NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS" on the notice.  It is not enough to just put
the new address on a letter without indicating that it is a new
address.  If he has more than one pending case, he should indicate
all of the case numbers in the notification of change of address.
The Plaintiff should also notify the Defendant or the attorney for
the Defendant of his new address.

      (10) Mr. Tyus will utilize the Prisoner E-filing Program when
filing documents with the Court.

      (11) The Court cannot order service on Defendants Doe 1-3 in
their individual capacities without service addresses.  The
Plaintiff is directed to forward this information to the Court
within 30 days from the date of the Order.  Failure to do so may
result in the dismissal of this action as to any Defendant for whom
a service address has not been provided.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2019 Initial review Order
is available at https://is.gd/bujgam from Leagle.com.

Gerjuan Tyus, Plaintiff, pro se.


COTY INC: Faces Phillips and Rumsey Class Suits Over Tender Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a
defendant in two purported stockholder class action suits initiated
by Lawrence Phillips and Robert Rumsey.

Two purported stockholder class action lawsuits concerning the
Offer and the Schedule 14D-9 have been filed by putative
stockholders against the Company and the directors of the Company
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The first case, which was filed on April 3, 2019, is captioned
Lawrence Phillips, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, vs. the Company, Peter Harf, Pierre Laubies, Sabine
Chalmers, Joachim Faber, Olivier Goudet, Anna-Lena Kamenetzky,
Erhard Schoewel, Robert Singer and Paul S. Michaels, Case No.
1:19-cv-00628.

The second case, which was filed on April 9, 2019, is captioned
Robert Rumsey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. the Company, Peter Harf, Pierre Laubies, Sabine
Chalmers, Joachim Faber, Olivier Goudet, Anna-Lena Kamenetzky,
Erhard Schoewel, Robert Singer and Paul S. Michaels, Case No.
1:19-cv-00650.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company's Schedule 14D-9 omits
certain information, including, among other things, certain
financial data and certain analyses underlying the opinion of
Centerview Partners LLC.

Plaintiffs assert claims under the federal securities laws and
seek, among other things, injunctive and/or monetary relief.

The Company believes that plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and
intends to contest them vigorously.

Coty Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures, markets,
distributes, and sells beauty products worldwide. It operates in
three segments: Luxury, Consumer Beauty, and Professional Beauty.
The company was founded in 1904 and is based in New York, New York.
As of April 26, 2019, Coty Inc. operates as a subsidiary of JAB
Cosmetics B.V.


CSEA SEIU: Connecticut Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Wholean Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Warren W. Eginton of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut granted Defendants' motions to dismiss the case,
KIERNAN J. WHOLEAN and JAMES A. GRILLO, Plaintiffs, v. CSEA SEIU
LOCAL 2001, BENJAMIN BARNES, in his official capacity as Secretary
of Policy and Management, State of Connecticut, SANDRA FAE
BROWN-BREWTON, in her official Capacity as Undersecretary of Labor
Relations, State of Connecticut, and ROBERT KLEE, in his official
capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut, Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-1008 (WWE) (D. Conn.).

The Plaintiffs are employees of the Connecticut Department of
Energy and Environmental Protection who paid fair-share or "agency"
fees to Local 2001 prior to the United States Supreme Court
decision, Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, which held that public
employers may not require public employees to pay fair-share fees.
The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint alleges a putative class
action challenging the constitutionality of requiring non-union
members to pay union fees as a condition of state employment
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  The Plaintiffs also allege one
claim of unjust enrichment pursuant to state law.

Defendant Local 2001 serves as the collective bargaining
representative for a bargaining unit comprising employees of the
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
("DEEP").  The Plaintiffs are not union members.

Prior to June 27, 2018, the collective bargaining agreements
governing the Plaintiffs' bargaining unit required non-members to
pay fair-share fees to Local 2001 to cover their portion of the
costs of collective bargaining representation.

The day after Janus was issued, Local 2001 notified DEEP that it
should stop deducting fees from non-members.  Two days later, the
State of Connecticut informed Local 2001 and other labor unions
representing State employee to discontinue deducting agency fees
from non-union members.  Due to the processing time required for
payroll changes, these fees were deducted from non-members' wages
for the payroll issued on July 6, 2018. However, Local 2001 did not
accept those fees and sent refunds directly to the non-members.

Local 2001 as part of a Coalition representing all state employee
unions and the State of Connecticut signed a formal agreement
eliminating from their collective bargaining agreements any
provisions requiring payment of fair-share fees.  In September
2018, the parties signed a stipulated agreement.

The Plaintiffs' second amended complaint recognizes that the State
Defendants stopped deducting forced fees from the Plaintiffs and
class members' wages; and that the Defendants on Sept. 17, 2018,
entered a stipulated agreement which made the forced fees
provisions in the existing CBA null and void in light of Janus.
However, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants failed to notify
them or the proposed class that the CBA no longer requires forced
fees even though the existing CBA's other provisions are still
ongoing until June 30, 2021.  They maintain that the bargaining
unit's membership knowledge that the forced fees provisions
continue to exist chills their exercise of First Amendment rights
to free speech and association.  The Plaintiffs allege that Local
2001 has not refunded the fees it collected before July 6, 2018, to
the Plaintiffs and the class.  They maintain that the Defendants
were on notice regarding the Supreme Court's misgivings about Abood
and have thereby received a windfall from the unconstitutional
collection of non-members' fees.

Defendant CSEA and the State Defendants have filed motions to
dismiss, which assert that the Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory
and injunctive relief are now moot.  Defendant CSEA argues further
that the Plaintiffs' request for repayment of such fees should be
dismissed because it had a good faith reliance on existing law
authorizing collection of such fees.

Judge Eginton finds that the Plaintiffs cannot assert a claim for
prospective relief based on past unconstitutional conduct that has
now ceased or based on a subjective belief that the
unconstitutional conduct may reoccur.  It is well established that
a defendant cannot reasonably be expected to resume conduct that it
acknowledges is contrary to binding precedent.  Accordingly, the
case or controversy regarding the constitutionality of the
collection of agency fees no longer exists for the Court to
determine and remedy.  The Defendants' motions to dismiss will be
granted because the Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief are moot.

Defendant Local 2001's motion to dismiss will also be granted on
the basis of the good faith defense.  The Judge finds that since
Janus, courts considering similar claims have concluded that the
good faith defense is available to private defendants faced with
liability.  He incorporates the extensive analysis finding that a
good faith affirmative defense is available to a private defendant
facing similar claims for repayment of agency fees articulated by
the district court in Mooney v. Illinois Educ. Ass'n.

Finally, the Plaintiffs have alleged a state law claim of unjust
enrichment.  Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3), the Judge
will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the such
state law claim.  This claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Eginton granted the motions to
dismiss.  The Plaintiffs' claims for prospective declaratory and
injunctive relief are dismissed as moot; the Plaintiffs' claims for
compensatory damages or repayment of fees with interest are
dismissed based on the affirmative defense of good faith reliance
on existing law.  The Judge declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claim for unjust
enrichment, which is dismissed without prejudice.  The Clerk is
instructed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2019 Ruling is available
at https://is.gd/F34n41 from Leagle.com.

Kiernan J. Wholean & James A. Grillo, Plaintiffs, represented by
Nathaniel S. Schindler, Law Offices of Martha A. Dean, Jeffrey
Jennings, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education
Foundatio & Milton L. Chappell, National Right to Work Legal
Defense Foundation, Inc.

CSEA SEIU Local 2001, Defendant, represented by Daniel E.
Livingston, Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, Eric
Prince Brown -- ebrown@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP,
Nicole M. Rothgeb, Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly,
Patrick C. Pitts, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Scott A. Kronland --
skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP.

Benjamin Barnes, in his official capacity as Secretary of Office of
Policy and Management, State of Connecticut, Sandra Fae
Brown-Brewton, in her official capacity as Undersecretary of Labor
Relations, State of Connecticut & Robert Klee, in his official
capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut, Defendants,
represented by Philip Miller, Attorney General's Office.


CURADEN AG: Court Certifies Class in Lyngaas Junk Fax Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S., individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, vs. CURADEN AG, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-10910 (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Goldsmith entered
an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Curaden AG's motion
      for summary judgment;

   2. denying Lyngaas' motion for summary judgment;

   3. denying without prejudice Defendants' motion to exclude
      expert witness; and

   4. denying Lyngaas' motion to postpone ruling on the class
      certification motion. Howard must submit a revised expert
      report to Defendants no later than June 3, 2019; any
      follow-up deposition must take place on or before
      June 13, 2019;

   5. granting Lyngaas' motion for class certification and
      certifying a class of:

      "all persons who were successfully sent one or more
      facsimiles in March 2016 offering the Curaprox "5460 Ultra
      Soft Toothbrush" for ".98 per/brush" to "dental professionals

      only"; and

   6. appointing Lyngaas' counsel as counsel for the class.

The Defendants argue that Lyngaas cannot meet the requirement of
ascertainability because he has failed to put forth sufficient
admissible evidence to certify the proposed class. The Court
disagrees, finding it feasible to ascertain whether a particular
individual is a member of the proposed class.[CC]

DAVITA INC: Must Defend Against Peace Officers' Fund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
DaVita Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia Securities
Class Action Civil Suit has been denied.

On February 1, 2017, the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund
of Georgia filed a putative federal securities class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against the Company and certain executives.

The complaint covers the time period of August 2015 to October 2016
and alleges, generally, that the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws concerning the Company's financial
results and revenue derived from patients who received charitable
premium assistance from an industry-funded non-profit organization.


The complaint further alleges that the process by which patients
obtained commercial insurance and received charitable premium
assistance was improper and "created a false impression of DaVita's
business and operational status and future growth prospects."

In November 2017, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and an
amended complaint was filed on January 12, 2018. On March 27, 2018,
the Company and various individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss.

On March 28, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado denied the motion to dismiss.

The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend this
action accordingly.

DaVita Inc. provides kidney dialysis services for patients
suffering from chronic kidney failure or end stage renal disease
(ESRD). The company operates kidney dialysis centers and provides
related lab services in outpatient dialysis centers. The company
was formerly known as DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. and changed
its name to DaVita Inc. in September 2016. DaVita Inc. was founded
in 1994 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


DOWDUPONT: Unit Still Faces Suits over Fayetteville Facility
------------------------------------------------------------
DowDuPont Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that at March 31, 2019, several actions are pending
in federal court against subsidiary E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company ("Historical DuPont") and The Chemours Company ("Chemours")
related to the Fayetteville Works Facility in North Carolina.

One of these actions is a consolidated putative class action that
asserts claims for medical monitoring and property damage on behalf
of putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near
or who draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River.  Another
action is a consolidated action brought by various North Carolina
water authorities, including the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority
and Brunswick County, that seek actual and punitive damages as well
as injunctive relief.  In addition, an action is pending in North
Carolina state court on behalf of about 100 plaintiffs who own
wells and property near the Fayetteville Works facility.  The
plaintiffs seek damages for nuisance allegedly caused by releases
of certain PFCs from the site.

Prior to the separation of Chemours, Historical DuPont introduced
GenX as a polymerization processing aid and a replacement for PFOA
at the Fayetteville Works facility in Bladen County, North
Carolina.  The facility is now owned and operated by Chemours,
which continues to manufacture and use GenX.  In 2017, the facility
became and continues to be the subject of inquiries and government
investigations relating to the alleged discharge of GenX and
certain similar compounds into the air and Cape Fear River.

In August 2017, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District
of North Carolina served Historical DuPont with a grand jury
subpoena for testimony and documents related to these discharges.
Historical DuPont was served with additional subpoenas relating to
the same issue and in the second quarter of 2018, received a
subpoena expanding the scope to any PFCs discharged from the
Fayetteville Works facility into the Cape Fear River.  It is
possible that these ongoing inquiries and investigations, including
the grand jury subpoena, could result in penalties or sanctions, or
that additional litigation will be instituted against Chemours,
Historical DuPont, or both.

The Company said, "While it is reasonably possible that Historical
DuPont could incur liabilities related to the actions described
above, any such liabilities are not expected to be material."

Historical DuPont has an indemnification claim against Chemours
with respect to current and future inquiries and claims, including
lawsuits, related to the foregoing.  At March 31, 2019, Chemours,
with reservations, is defending and indemnifying Historical DuPont
in the pending civil actions.


EHEALTH INC: Discovery Underway in Calif. Wage-and-Hour Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that discovery is still
ongoing in the California Wage-and-Hour class suit.

On April 6, 2018, a former California employee filed a complaint
against us in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Sacramento.

The plaintiff's complaint was filed pursuant to the California
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, purportedly on
behalf of all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt
employees who work or have worked for us in California.  

The complaint alleges that the Company violated a number of wage
and hour laws with respect to these non-exempt employees,
including, among other things, the failure to comply with
California law as to (i) the payment of overtime wages; (ii) the
payment of minimum wages; (iii) providing uninterrupted meal and
rest periods, (iv) the payment of wages earned during employment
and owed upon the termination of employment; (v) providing complete
and accurate wage statements, (vi) keeping of accurate payroll
records; and (vii) the proper reimbursement  for necessary
business-related expenses and costs.

The complaint seeks allegedly unpaid wages, civil penalties and
costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.  

eHealth said, "Discovery has only recently commenced, and as a
result we cannot estimate the likelihood of liability or the amount
of potential damages."

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

eHealth, Inc. provides private health insurance exchange services
to individuals, families, and small businesses in the United States
and China. The company operates through two segments, Medicare; and
Individual, Family and Small Business. eHealth, Inc. was
incorporated in 1997 and is headquartered in Santa Clara,
California.


EHEALTH INC: TCPA Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------
eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit that alleges that the
company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On April 17, 2019, an individual filed a putative class action
complaint against the company that alleges the company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Sections
227(b)(1) and (c)(5) and certain provisions of 47 C.F.R. Section
64.1200 promulgated thereunder.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company (i)
made unsolicited telephone calls to the Plaintiff and putative
class members using a prerecorded voice message in violation of 47
U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1); and (ii) made more than one unsolicited
telephone call to Plaintiff and putative class members within a
12-month period without express consent and without instituting
procedures that comply with regulatory minimum standards for
implementing Do Not Call in violation of 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200
and 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5).

The Company said, "The complaint seeks an order certifying two
classes: (i) a class of individuals in the United States who we (or
agents acting on our behalf) called using a prerecorded voice
message for substantially the same reason we allegedly called the
Plaintiff; and (ii) a class of individuals in the United States who
we (or agents acting on our behalf) called more than one time
within any 12-month period for substantially the same reason we
allegedly called the Plaintiff."

"The complaint also seeks (i) an award of actual and/or statutory
damages for the benefit of Plaintiff and the classes; (ii) an order
declaring that our actions violate the TCPA; (iii) an injunction
requiring us to cease all unsolicited calling activity and to
otherwise protect the interest of the classes; and (iv) such
further other relief as the court deems just and proper."

eHealth, Inc. provides private health insurance exchange services
to individuals, families, and small businesses in the United States
and China. The company operates through two segments, Medicare; and
Individual, Family and Small Business. eHealth, Inc. was
incorporated in 1997 and is headquartered in Santa Clara,
California.


ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Notice of Appeal Filed in Pipitone Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics for Imaging, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs have
taken an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
from a court ruling in the case, Pipitone v. Electronics For
Imaging, Inc.

On August 10, 2017, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and its two named executive officers in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Pipitone v.
Electronics For Imaging, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-05992 (D.N.J.). A First
Amended Complaint was filed on February 20, 2018.

The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that statements by the
Company and its officers about the Company's financial reporting,
revenue recognition, internal controls, and disclosure controls and
procedures were false or misleading.

On January 31, 2019, the district court dismissed the complaint
without prejudice. On April 12, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Electronics for Imaging, Inc. provides industrial format display
graphics, corrugated packaging and display, textile, and ceramic
tile decoration digital inkjet printers worldwide. The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Fremont, California.


ENDURANCE INT'L: Machado Settlement Fairness Hearing in Sept. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May
3, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
Court has scheduled a hearing for September 13, 2019 to determine
whether the proposed settlement in the "Machado" lawsuit is fair,
reasonable and adequate and whether the case should therefore be
dismissed with prejudice.

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

In the third amended complaint, plaintiffs Christopher Machado and
Michael Rubin allege claims for violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of the Company's securities between October 25, 2013
and December 16, 2015, including persons or entities who purchased
or acquired the Company's shares pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's October 25, 2013 initial public offering.

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

On January 12, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all
proceedings pending the outcome of a mediation between the parties.
The court granted the stay on February 21, 2018 and later extended
the stay to allow the parties to discuss a potential resolution of
this matter.  The parties then negotiated the terms and conditions
of a stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers,
which, among other things, provide for the release of all claims
asserted against the Company and its former chief executive officer
and former chief financial officer.

On July 6, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, certification of a
proposed settlement class, and approval of notice to the settlement
class.  On January 2, 2019, the court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduling a hearing for
September 13, 2019 to determine whether the proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate and whether the case should therefore
be dismissed with prejudice.

Endurance International said, "The Company's combined contribution
to the settlement pool under this proposed settlement and the
potential settlement of the McGee litigation would be approximately
equal to the US$7.3 million it reserved for these matters during
the year ended December 31, 2018.  The Company cannot make any
assurances as to whether or when the Machado settlement will be
approved by the court."

Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, provides cloud-based platform solutions for small-and
medium-sized businesses in the United States and internationally.
The company operates in three segments: Web Presence, Domain, and
Email Marketing. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts.


EVERCORE INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit v. EGL Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evercore Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint in the consolidated class action lawsuit against Evercore
Group L.L.C. (EGL) remains pending.

Beginning on or about November 16, 2016, several putative
securities class action complaints were filed against Adeptus
Health Inc. ("Adeptus") and certain others, including EGL as
underwriter, in connection with Adeptus' June 2014 initial public
offering and May 2015, July 2015 and June 2016 secondary public
offerings.  The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas where a consolidated complaint
was filed asserting, in part, that the offering materials issued in
connection with the four public offerings violated the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 by containing alleged misstatements and
omissions.

On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was
subsequently removed as a defendant.  On November 21, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, and the defendants filed
motions to dismiss on February 5, 2018.  On September 12, 2018, the
defendants' motions to dismiss were granted as to the claims
relating to the initial public offering and the May 2015 secondary
public offering, but denied as to the claims relating to the July
2015 and June 2016 secondary public offerings.

EGL underwrote approximately 293,250 shares of common stock in the
July 2015 secondary public offering, representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately US$30.8 million, but did not
underwrite any shares in the June 2016 secondary public offering.
On September 25, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
relating only to the July 2015 and June 2016 secondary public
offerings.

On December 7, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the defendants filed briefs in opposition.  On
February 16, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
after having been granted leave to amend by the court.

On March 4, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss as to
the second amended complaint.

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


EXPEDIA GROUP: Court Denies Damages Class Status in Buckeye Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that in the Buckeye Tree Lodge/2020 O Street
Corporation Lawsuits, on March 13, 2019, the court denied
certification of a damages class and granted certification of a
narrow injunctive relief only class.

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

Expedia Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an
online travel company in the United States and internationally. It
operates through Core OTA, Trivago, HomeAway, and Egencia
segments.
Expedia Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Bellevue, Washington.



EXTENDED STAY: Faces Multiple Class Suits in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Extended Stay America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that as of March 31, 2019,
six purported class action lawsuits in California have been filed
against the Company.  

The complaints allege, among other things, failure to provide meal
and rest periods, wage and hour violations and violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.  

The complaints seek, among other relief, collective and class
certification of the lawsuits, unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the
Court might find just and proper.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and is prepared to
vigorously defend the lawsuits.

While the company believes it is reasonably possible that it may
incur losses associated with the above described lawsuits, it is
not possible to estimate the amount of loss or range of loss, if
any, that might result from adverse judgments, settlements or other
resolution of these lawsuits based on the early stage of these
lawsuits, the uncertainty as to the certification of a class or
classes and the size of any certified class, if applicable, and the
lack of resolution of significant factual and legal issues.

Extended Stay said, "However, depending on the amount and timing,
an unfavorable resolution of some or all of these lawsuits could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's condensed
consolidated financial statements, results of operations or
liquidity in a future period."

Extended Stay America, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
operates, and manages hotels in the United States. The company also
relicenses Extended Stay America brand to third party franchisees.
Extended Stay America, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.


FGL HOLDINGS: Brokerage Insurance Partners Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
FGL Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit initiated by Brokerage Insurance
Partners.

On June 30, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed
against FGL Insurance, FGL, and FS Holdco II Ltd in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, captioned
Brokerage Insurance Partners v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance
Company, Fidelity & Guaranty Life, FS Holdco II Ltd, and John Doe,
No. 17-cv-1815. The complaint alleges that FGL Insurance breached
the terms of its agency agreement with Brokerage Insurance Partners
("BIP") and other agents by changing certain compensation terms.

The complaint asserts, among other causes of action, breach of
contract, defamation, tortious interference with contract,
negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").  

The complaint seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who
entered into an agreement with FGL Insurance to sell life insurance
and who sold at least one life insurance policy between January 1,
2015 and January 1, 2017. The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages in an amount not
presently determinable, among other forms of relief.

On September 1, 2017, FGL Insurance filed a counterclaim against
BIP and John and Jane Does 1-10, asserting, among other causes of
action, breach of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy and violations
of RICO. On September 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, and on October 16, 2017, FGL Insurance filed an Amended
Counterclaim against BIP, Agent Does 1-10, and Other Person Does
1-10.

The parties also filed cross-Motions to Dismiss in Part.

On August 17, 2018, the Court in the BIP Litigation denied all
pending Motions to Dismiss filed by all parties without prejudice,
pending a decision as to whether the BIP Litigation will be
consolidated into related litigation, captioned Fidelity & Guaranty
Life Insurance Company v. Network Partners, et al., Case No.
17-cv-1508.

On August 31, 2018, FGL Insurance filed its Answer to BIP's Amended
Complaint. Also on that date, FGL Insurance filed its Answer to
Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, Filed
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A).

As of March 31, 2019, BIP has not filed any paper or pleading in
response to the Court's August 17, 2018 Order or to FGL Insurance's
filing. BIP's response date has been adjourned to May 15, 2019.

FGL Holdings sells individual life insurance products and annuities
in the United States. The company offers deferred annuities,
including fixed indexed annuity contracts and fixed rate annuity
contracts; immediate annuities; and life insurance products. FGL
Holdings is headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.


FIDELITY SOUTHERN: Supplemental Info Filed to Appease Merger Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity Southern Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that in order to avoid the risk that
the "Parshall" and "Oftedal" merger-related class actions may delay
or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Company's
proposed merger with Ameris Bancorp and to minimize the expense of
defending such Actions, FSC made certain supplemental disclosures
to the Registration Statement in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the SEC on April 26, 2019, as amended on April 30, 2019 (the
"Form 8-K").  

On December 17, 2018, Fidelity entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Ameris Bancorp ("Ameris").

On March 8, 2019, an action captioned Paul Parshall v. Fidelity
Southern Corporation et al., Case 1:19-cv-01098-MHC (the "Parshall
Action"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of a purported class of Fidelity
shareholders against Fidelity, its current directors and Ameris.
This complaint contends, among other things, that the registration
statement on Form S-4 (as amended, the "Registration Statement")
filed by Ameris on February 12, 2019 in connection with the Merger
is false and misleading because it omits certain allegedly material
information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act.
The complaint filed in connection with the Parshall Action seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from
consummating the Merger, a supplement to the Registration Statement
(or, in the event the Merger is consummated, rescinding the Merger
or awarding rescissory damages).  The complaint also seeks to
recover costs, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

On April 24, 2019, an action captioned Morten Oftedal v. Fidelity
Southern Corporation et al., Case 1:19-cv-03656 (the "Oftedal
Action" and together with the Parshall Action, the "Actions"), was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of a purported class of Fidelity shareholders
against Fidelity and its current directors.  This complaint
contends, among other things, that the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus contained in the Registration Statement (the
"Definitive Proxy Statement") is false and misleading because it
omits certain allegedly material information in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9
promulgated under the Exchange Act.  The complaint filed in
connection with the Oftedal Action seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from consummating the
Merger, a supplement to the Registration Statement (or, in the
event the Merger is consummated, rescinding the Merger or awarding
rescissory damages).  The complaint also seeks to recover costs,
including attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

The Company said, "Management believes that the Actions are without
merit, and denies that any further disclosure beyond that already
contained in the Registration Statement and the Definitive Proxy
Statement included therein is required under applicable law to
supplement the Registration Statement and the Definitive Proxy
Statement included therein which has been disseminated to Fidelity
and Ameris stockholders.  Nonetheless, to avoid the risk that the
Actions may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of
the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such Actions,
FSC made certain supplemental disclosures to the Registration
Statement in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on
April 26, 2019, as amended on April 30, 2019 (the "Form 8-K").
Nothing in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q or the Form 8-K shall
be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the supplemental disclosures set forth
herein or therein.  At this time, FSC is unable to state whether
the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of either action is
probable or remote.  FSC is also unable to provide an estimate of
the range or amount of potential loss if the outcome for either
action should be unfavorable."


FITBIT INC: Arbitration in McLellan Heart Tracking Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. is moving forward in private arbitration with Kate
McLellan in relation to the heart rate tracking litigation,
according to the Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2019.

On January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two purported class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the
PurePulse(R) heart rate tracking technology does not consistently
and accurately record users' heart rates.  Plaintiffs allege common
law claims, as well as violations of various states' false
advertising, unfair competition, and consumer protection statutes,
and seek class certification, injunctive and declaratory relief,
restitution, unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages,
punitive damages, statutory penalties and damages, reasonable costs
and expenses including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as
the court may deem just and proper.  On April 15, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated master class action complaint, and
on May 19, 2016, they filed an amended consolidated master class
action complaint.  On January 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion
to compel arbitration.  On October 11, 2017, the court granted the
motion to compel arbitration.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration, and that motion was denied on January 24, 2018.

On February 20, 2018, a second amended consolidated master class
action complaint ("SAC") was filed on behalf of plaintiff Rob Dunn,
the only plaintiff not ordered to arbitration, as a purported class
action.  The SAC alleges the same common law claims as the prior
class actions, as well as violations of false advertising, unfair
competition, and consumer protection statutes of California and
Arizona.  The SAC also seeks class certification, injunctive and
declaratory relief, restitution, unspecified compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, statutory penalties and
damages, reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys' fees,
and other further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On March 13, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and separately moved to strike the class
allegations.  The court dismissed the claims for revocation of
acceptance, violation of California's Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment, but allowed the remaining
claims pending amendment to the complaint with further details.
Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on June 19, 2018.  The
court granted the Company's motion to strike and ordered the
plaintiff to amend to make clear that he is seeking to represent a
class of opt-outs only, but added that plaintiff may amend in the
event the Company's arbitration agreement is found to be
unenforceable.

In response to an April 3, 2018 arbitration demand from Kate
McLellan, one of the original plaintiffs who was compelled to
arbitration, the Company attempted to resolve the individual claim
with Ms. McLellan.  At a May 31, 2018 hearing, the court expressed
concern that the Company was "picking off" Ms. McLellan, thereby
undermining the arbitration option and the court's prior order
compelling arbitration, and it ordered additional briefing.  On
July 24, 2018, the court awarded the plaintiffs their attorneys'
fees on the motion practice, but denied plaintiffs' request that
the arbitration right should be waived as a sanction.  The Company
is moving forward in private arbitration with Ms. McLellan.

Fitbit said, "The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the
claims.  Because the Company is in the early stages of this
litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this
matter."


FITBIT INC: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. continues to defend a putative securities class action
in California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 30, 2019.

On November 1, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants.  The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
arising out of alleged materially false and misleading statements
about the Company's guidance for fiscal 2017 provided during the
fourth quarter of 2016, as well as its updated guidance for the
fourth quarter of 2016.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys' fees,
and other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

Fitbit said, "The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the
claims.  Because the Company is in the early stages of this
litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this
matter."


FLUOR CORP: Mulls Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Fluor Corporation anticipates responding to an amended securities
class action complaint in Texas by July 2019, "likely with a motion
to dismiss the matter," the company said in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

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

In December 2018, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel.  The co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated complaint in March 2019.

The Company said, "It is anticipated that the company will respond,
likely with a motion to dismiss the matter, by July 2019.  While no
assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter,
the company does not believe it is probable that a loss will be
incurred."

Fluor, through its subsidiaries, provides engineering,
procurement,
construction, fabrication and modularization, operation,
maintenance and asset integrity, and project management services
worldwide. It operates through four segments: Energy & Chemicals;
Mining, Industrial, Infrastructure & Power; Diversified Services;
and Government. Fluor Corporation was founded in 1912 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas.


FORTERRA INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Class Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Forterra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York has not yet ruled on the
motion to dismiss by defendants in the IPO-related class action
suit.

Beginning on August 14, 2017, four plaintiffs filed putative class
action complaints in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against various defendants. On July
27, 2018, an order was entered consolidating the lawsuits into a
single action (the "Securities Action"), and transferring the venue
of the case from the Eastern District of New York to the Northern
District of Texas.

On September 17, 2018, an order was entered appointing Wladislaw
Maciuga as lead plaintiff and approving his counsel as lead
counsel. Pursuant to an agreed scheduling order, plaintiffs in the
Securities Action filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint on
November 30, 2018.

The Securities Action is brought by two plaintiffs individually and
on behalf of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the
initial public offering (IPO) and is brought against the Company,
certain of its current and former officers and directors, Lone Star
and certain of its affiliates, and certain banks that acted as
underwriters of the IPO (collectively, the "Securities
Defendants").

The Securities Action generally alleges that the Company's
registration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with the IPO
(the "Registration Statement") contained false or misleading
statements and/or omissions of material facts.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege the Registration Statement (1) made
false and/or misleading statements about the Company's ability to
generate organic growth through cross-selling initiatives amongst
the Company's various businesses while failing to disclose that the
Company had not adequately integrated acquisitions, had not begun
rolling out its cross-selling initiative, and that its businesses
were submitting competing bids against one another, and (2) made
false or misleading statements regarding the existence of certain
accounting practices and alleged material weaknesses in the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting, including the
existence of and accounting for bill and hold transactions, the
lack of sufficient accounting personnel, the lack of effective
internal controls to ensure costs were properly and accurately
accrued, resulting in misstated costs and profits in the Company's
2016 financial statements, and the making of inventory accounting
entries without adequate substantiation or documentation.

The Securities Action asserts claims under Section 11 and Section
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities
Act") and seeks (1) class certification under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, (2) damages suffered by plaintiffs and other class
members, (3) prejudgment and post-judgment interest, (4) reasonable
counsel fees and expert fees, and other costs and expenses
reasonably incurred, and (5) other relief the court deems
appropriate.

On February 15, 2019, the Securities Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss all claims in the case based on plaintiffs' failure to
state a claim. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on
May 1, 2019, and the court has not yet ruled on the motion.

Forterra, Inc. manufactures and sells pipe and precast products the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. It operates through Drainage
Pipe & Products; and Water Pipe & Products segments. Forterra, Inc.
was founded in 2016 and is headquartered in Irving, Texas.


FRED'S INC: Administration of Eddington Settlement Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fred's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2019,
that the settlement for the Abel Eddington and Judy Hudson lawsuit
is "currently being administered."

On March 3, 2018, a lawsuit entitled Abel Eddington and Judy
Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Fred's Inc., and Fred's, Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was
filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of
Texas, Marshall Division.

The complaint alleges that the Company committed various Federal
and state wage and hours violations.  The complaint is filed as
class action and seeks back wages, attorneys' fees, and all other
damages allowable by law.  The Company denies these allegations and
believes it acted appropriately in its wage and hour calculations
and payments.

The Company and the named plaintiffs have settled the case for
US$250,000, including plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and the
settlement is currently being administered.

Fred's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, sells general
merchandise through its retail discount stores and full service
pharmacies.  Fred's, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered
in Memphis, Tennessee.


FRED'S INC: Awaits 11th Cir. Ruling in Taylor Case Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Fred's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2019,
that it awaits the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit regarding the appeal in the case entitled, Tiffany Taylor,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Fred's
Inc. and Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc.

On March 30, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Tiffany Taylor, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Fred's Inc. and
Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the United Stated
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Southern
Division (the "Taylor Complaint").  The Taylor Complaint alleges
that the Company wrongfully and willfully violated the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA").

On April 11, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Melanie Wallace, Sascha
Feliciano, and Heather Tyler, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was
filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County in the state of
Georgia.  The complaint alleges that the Company wrongfully and
willfully violated FACTA.

On April 13, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Lillie Williams and Cussetta
Journey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court
of Fulton County in the state of Georgia.  The complaint also
alleges that the Company wrongfully and willfully violated FACTA.

The complaints are filed as class actions, with the class being
open for five (5) years before the date the complaint was filed.
The complaint seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees, punitive
damages, an injunctive order, and other such relief that the court
may deem just and equitable.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Taylor Complaint, and
this Motion has been granted by the Court.  Plaintiff's counsel has
appealed the Taylor Complaint, which appeal is pending before the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company filed, and the Court granted Motions to Remove and
Motions to Transfer the Williams and Wallace matters to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  Since the
Williams and Wallace matters were removed and transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the
Company has filed a Motion to Consolidate the Williams and Wallace
matters.

When the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in the
Taylor case, the court simultaneously denied the Motion to
Consolidate, in light of the dismissal in Taylor.  In the Wallace
and Williams actions, the District Court entered an order staying
both cases until the U.S Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
decides on the appeal.

Oral argument for the appeal was heard before the Court of Appeals
for the 11th Circuit at the end of January 2019, and the Company
awaits the Court's ruling.

The Company said, "Future costs and liabilities related to this
case may have a material adverse effect on the Company; however,
the Company has not made an accrual for future losses related to
these claims as future losses are not considered probable and an
estimate is unavailable."

Fred's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, sells general
merchandise through its retail discount stores and full service
pharmacies.  Fred's, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered
in Memphis, Tennessee.


FRED'S INC: Still Defends Whitley Class Action in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
Fred's, Inc. still faces a class action suit initiated by Roxie
Whitley, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 2, 2019.

On March 16, 2018, a lawsuit entitled Roxie Whitley, individually
and as next friend of Baby Z.B.D., and Chris and Diane Denson,
individually and as next friends of Baby L.D.L., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Purdue Pharma
L.P.; Purdue Pharma, Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.;
McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health, Inc.; AmeriSourceBergen
Corporation; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson;
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Endo
Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Allergan PLC;
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Actavis, Inc.; Watson
Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson
Pharma, Inc.; and Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the
Circuit Court of Fayette County, Tennessee for the 25th Judicial
District at Somerville.

The complaint fails to allege any wrong-doing by the Company.  The
Complaint is filed as a class action seeking various remedies
allowed under Federal and state laws.  The Company denies any
purported wrong-doing.

On May 9, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Standing, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Product Liability Causes
of Action, a Motion to Dismiss for Statute of Limitations, and a
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on which Relief may
be Sought (collectively, the "May 9, 2018 Motions").  The Court has
not ruled on the May 9, 2018 Motions.

On May 9, 2018 this matter was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio as part of the
National Prescription Opiate Litigation Multidistrict Litigation.

Future costs and liabilities related to this case may have a
material adverse effect on the Company; however, the Company has
not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims as
future losses are not considered probable, and an estimate is
unavailable.

The Company has multiple insurance policies which the Company
believes will limit its potential exposure.

Fred's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, sells general
merchandise through its retail discount stores and full service
pharmacies.  Fred's, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered
in Memphis, Tennessee.


GEO GROUP: Immigration Detainees' Class Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action lawsuits involving immigration detainees.

On February 8, 2017, former civil immigration detainees at the
Aurora Immigration Detention Center filed a class action lawsuit on
October 22, 2014, against the Company in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado (the "Court").

The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the
Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the federal Trafficking
Victims Protection Act ("TVPA").

The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched
because of the level of payment the detainees received for work
performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program
as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program
that are at issue in the case are authorized by the Federal
government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress.


On July 6, 2015, the Court found that detainees were not employees
under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In
February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class' motion for
class certification.

The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three
similar lawsuits have been filed, two in Washington and one in
California.

In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on September 9,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The second was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State Attorney
General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of
Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9,
2017.

In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of
California.

All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective state's
minimum wage laws. However, the California lawsuit, like the
Colorado suit, also includes claims that the Company violated the
TVPA and California's equivalent state statute.

The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously
defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and
claims in these lawsuits.

The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters
at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably
estimable at this stage of the lawsuit.

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

The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based
in Boca Raton, Florida.


GOLDMAN SACHS: 4th Amended Complaint Filed in Interest Rate Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that plaintiffs in the
Interest Rate Swap Antitrust action have filed a fourth
consolidated amended complaint, adding allegations as to the
surviving claims.

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

The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named
in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their
affiliates. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings.

The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among
the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps.


The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under
state antitrust law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount.

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

On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the second individual action,
dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and
tortious interference but denying dismissal of the federal and
state antitrust claims.

On March 13, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend
their complaint to add allegations related to 2008-2012 conduct,
but granted the motion to add limited allegations from 2013-2016.

On March 22, 2019, plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a
fourth consolidated amended complaint, adding allegations as to the
surviving claims.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Arbitration Ongoing in 2010 Employees Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that arbitration is
proceeding in a class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York by three female former
employees.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees. The complaint, as subsequently amended,
alleges that the company (Group Inc.) and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
(GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against female employees
in respect of compensation, promotion and performance evaluations.


The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees
employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and
GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New
York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action
status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.

On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as
to the plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims. On
September 4, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied
defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district
court's class certification decision and subsequently denied
defendants' petition for rehearing.

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

On April 12, 2019, Group Inc. and GS&Co. filed a motion to compel
arbitration as to certain class members who are parties to
agreements with Group Inc. and/or GS&Co. in which they agreed to
arbitrate employment-related disputes, and plaintiffs filed a
motion challenging the enforceability of arbitration agreements
executed after the filing of the class action.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Adeptus IPO-Related Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the defendants in the
class action suit related to Adeptus Health Inc.'s initial public
offering have sought dismissal of the newly asserted additional
misstatement and omission claims in the second amended consolidated
complaint.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in October 2016 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include certain
former directors and officers of Adeptus, as well as Adeptus'
sponsor. As to the underwriters, the consolidated complaint, filed
on November 21, 2017, relates to the $124 million June 2014 initial
public offering, the $154 million May 2015 secondary equity
offering, the $411 million July 2015 secondary equity offering, and
the $175 million June 2016 secondary equity offering.

GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in the June
2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $37 million, 962,378 shares of common stock
in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $61 million, 1.76 million shares of common stock
in the July 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $185 million, and all the shares of common stock
in the June 2016 offering representing an aggregate offering price
of approximately $175 million.

On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On
September 12, 2018, the defendants' motions to dismiss were granted
as to the June 2014 and May 2015 offerings but denied as to the
July 2015 and June 2016 offerings. On December 7, 2018, plaintiffs
moved for class certification. On February 16, 2019, plaintiffs
filed a second amended consolidated complaint.

On March 4, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the newly
asserted additional misstatement and omission claims in the second
amended consolidated complaint.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the third consolidated amended complaint in the Commodities-Related
Litigation remains pending.

Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in
putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and
palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently
amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in
connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for
physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.

Defendants moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended
complaint on July 21, 2017.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Sea Limited IPO Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that defendants are seeking
dismissal of the class action suit related to Sea Limited's $989
million October 2017 initial public offering.

Goldman Sachs Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in
a putative securities class action filed on November 1, 2018 in the
Supreme Court of New York, County of New York, relating to Sea
Limited's $989 million October 2017 initial public offering of
American depositary shares.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Sea Limited
and certain of its officers and directors.

GS Asia underwrote 28,026,721 American depositary shares
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $420
million.

On January 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Defendants moved to dismiss on March 26, 2019.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss US Treasury Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss litigation related to the sale of U.S. Treasury securities
is still pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named
as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the
market for U.S. Treasury securities.  The lawsuits were filed
beginning in July 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a
similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017.

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

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

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

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend SunEdison Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
(GS&Co.) continues to defend in a class action suit over the
issuance and sale of SunEdison, Inc.'s convertible preferred
stock.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in several
putative class actions and individual actions filed beginning in
March 2016 relating to the August 2015 public offering of $650
million of SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison) convertible preferred stock.


The defendants also include certain of SunEdison's directors and
officers. On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy.

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

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

On March 6, 2018, the defendants' motion to dismiss in the class
action was granted in part and denied in part. On February 11,
2019, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the class
action was granted.

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

The defendants have reached a settlement with certain plaintiffs in
the individual actions.

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: GS&Co. Still Defends Suit over Altice USA IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC
(GS&Co.) continues to defend putative securities class suits
related to Altice USA, Inc.'s (Altice) $2.15 billion June 2017
initial public offering.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative
securities class actions pending in New York Supreme Court, Queens
County and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York beginning in June 2018, relating to Altice USA, Inc.'s
(Altice) $2.15 billion June 2017 initial public offering.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Altice and
certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 12,280,042
shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $368 million.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Valeant Securities Suit in Canada Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Goldman Sachs & Co.
LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc., together with Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., continue to defend a putative
class action lawsuit in Canada.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC GS&Co. and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS
Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named as
defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in the
Superior Court of Quebec, Canada.

In addition to the underwriters and initial purchasers, the
defendants include Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
(Valeant), certain directors and officers of Valeant and Valeant's
auditor.

As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint relates to the June 2013
public offering of $2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013 Rule
144A offering of $3.2 billion principal amount of senior notes, and
the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of $900 million principal
amount of senior notes.

The complaint asserts claims under the Quebec Securities Act and
the Civil Code of Quebec. On August 29, 2017, the court certified a
class that includes only non-U.S. purchasers in the offerings.
Defendants' motion for leave to appeal the certification was denied
on November 30, 2017.

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

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

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.


HARRIS CORP: 4 Lawsuits over L3 Technologies Merger Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 29, 2019, that four lawsuits challenging the company's merger
agreement with L3 Technologies, Inc. have been dismissed.

On October 14, 2018, the company announced that on October 12,
2018, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement"), with L3 Technologies, Inc. (L3) and Leopard
Merger Sub Inc., the company's wholly owned subsidiary ("Merger
Sub"), pursuant to which the company and L3 have agreed to combine
in an all-stock merger of equals.

In connection with the Company's pending merger with L3, two
putative class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit were
filed against L3 and its directors (together, the "L3 Parties") in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
between December 19, 2018 and January 15, 2019, and a third
putative class action lawsuit, Kent v. L3 Technologies, Inc., et
al., was filed against the L3 Parties and Harris Corporation and
its wholly owned subsidiary, Leopard Merger Sub Inc. (Harris
Corporation and Leopard Merger Sub Inc., the "Harris Parties"), in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on January 4,
2019.

The complaints in the lawsuits contained substantially similar
allegations contending, among other things, that the registration
statement on Form S-4 in support of the pending merger misstated or
failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in
violation of federal securities laws.

The complaint in the Kent lawsuit further alleged that the Harris
Parties were liable for these violations as "controlling persons"
of L3 within the meaning of federal securities laws.

On March 12, 2019, the parties to the actions entered into an
agreement to settle all claims that were or could have been alleged
in the action subject to, among other things, the supplementation
by L3 of certain disclosures contained in the registration
statement, which were reflected in a Current Report on Form 8-K
filed by L3 with the SEC on March 13, 2019, and the dismissal of
the four lawsuits, all of which were dismissed by March 18, 2019.

Harris Corporation provides technology-based solutions that solve
government and commercial customers' mission-critical challenges in
the United States and internationally. The company operates in
three segments: Communication Systems, Electronic Systems, and
Space and Intelligence Systems. Harris Corporation was founded in
1895 and is headquartered in Melbourne, Florida.


HC2 HOLDINGS: Ohio-CGI Final Settlement Hearing Set for July 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a final settlement
hearing in the class action suit in the Southern District of Ohio
is scheduled for July 23, 2019.

Meanwhile, the case pending before the District of Nebraska was
stayed on February 6, 2019, pending final approval of the class
action settlement in the Ohio action.

On November 28, 2016, Continental General Insurance Company
("CGI"), a subsidiary of the Company, Great American Financial
Resource, Inc. ("GAFRI"), American Financial Group, Inc., and CIGNA
Corporation were served with a putative class action complaint
filed by John Fastrich and Universal Investment Services, Inc., in
the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contract
and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs contend that they were agents of record under
various CGI policies and that CGI allegedly instructed
policyholders to switch to other CGI products and caused the
plaintiffs to lose commissions, renewals, and overrides on policies
that were replaced.

The complaint also alleges breach of contract claims relating to
allegedly unpaid commissions related to premium rate increases
implemented on certain long-term care insurance policies.

Finally, the complaint alleges breach of contract claims related to
vesting of commissions.

On August 21, 2017, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' tortious
interference with contract claim. CGI believes that the remaining
allegations and claims set forth in the complaint are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against them.

The case was set for voluntary mediation, which occurred on January
26, 2018. The Court stayed discovery pending the outcome of the
mediation. On February 12, 2018, the parties notified the Court
that mediation did not resolve the case and that the parties'
discussions regarding a possible settlement of the action were
still ongoing.

The Court held a status conference on March 22, 2018, during which
the parties informed the Court that settlement negotiations remain
ongoing. Nonetheless, the Court entered a scheduling order setting
the case for trial during the week of October 15, 2019.

Meanwhile, the parties' continued settlement negotiations led to a
tentative settlement. On February 4, 2019, the plaintiffs executed
a class settlement agreement with CGI, Loyal American Life
Insurance Company, American Retirement Life Insurance Company,
GAFRI, and American Financial Group, Inc. (collectively, the
"Defendants").  

The settlement agreement, which would require GAFRI to make a $1.25
million payment on behalf of the Defendants, is subject to final
Court approval.  

On February 4, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the class settlement in a parallel action in the
Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 17-CV-00615-SJD, which motion
was granted by the Southern District of Ohio on April 2, 2019.

The Company and CGI are seeking defense costs and indemnification
for plaintiffs' claims from GAFRI and Continental General
Corporation ("CGC") under the terms of an Amended and Restated
Stock Purchase Agreement ("SPA") related to the Company's
acquisition of CGI in December 2015.  

GAFRI and CGC rejected CGI's demand for defense and indemnification
and, on January 18, 2017, the Company and CGI filed a Complaint
against GAFRI and CGC in the Superior Court of Delaware seeking a
declaratory judgment to enforce their indemnification rights under
the SPA.  

On February 23, 2017, GAFRI answered CGI's complaint, denying the
allegations. Meanwhile, the parties' continued settlement
negotiations resulted in a settlement agreement in the Delaware
action.

The settlement agreement, which requires CGI to contribute $250,000
to the settlement payment made by GAFRI in the class action, is
contingent on the final approval of the class action settlement in
the Ohio action.

HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy,
telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and
other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


HC2 HOLDINGS: Schuff Stockholders Litigation Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend against a consolidated class action suit entitled, Schuff
International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately
721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of DBM Global
Inc. (DBMG) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M.
Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald
Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff
International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint").  

On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v.
Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul
Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.
Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359.  

On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now
designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)
and appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel. The currently operative
complaint is the Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs.  

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with
the tender offer, the individual members of the DBMG Board of
Directors and HC2, the now-controlling stockholder of DBMG,
breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class.
The Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form
merger based upon plaintiff’s expectation that the Company would
cash out the remaining public stockholders of DBMG following the
completion of the tender offer.  

The Complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or
compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief.
The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015.

The parties have been exploring alternative frameworks for a
potential settlement.

HC2 Holdings said, "There can be no assurance that a settlement
will be finalized or that the Delaware Courts would approve such a
settlement even if the parties enter into a settlement agreement.
If a settlement cannot be reached, the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend this
matter."

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

HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy,
telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and
other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding
Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


HEALTH INSURANCE: Consolidated Securities Suit in Florida Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In
re Health Insurance Innovations Securities Litigation, Case No.
8:17-cv-2186-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla.).

In September 2017, three putative securities class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers.

The cases were styled Cioe Investments Inc. v. Health Insurance
Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case
No. 1:17-cv-05316-NG-ST, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on September 11, 2017; Michael
Vigorito v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell,
and Michael Hershberger, Case No. 1:17-cv-06962, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on September
13, 2017; and Shilpi Kavra v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.,
Patrick McNamee, Gavin Southwell, and Michael Hershberger, Case No.
8:17-cv-02186-EAK-MAP, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on September 21, 2017.

All three of the foregoing actions (the "Securities Actions") were
filed after a decline in the trading price of the Company's common
stock following the release of a report authored by a short-seller
of the Company's common stock raising questions about, among other
things, the Company's public disclosures relating to the Company's
regulatory examinations and regulatory compliance.

All three of the Securities Actions contained substantially similar
allegations to those raised in the short-seller report alleging
that the Company made materially false or misleading statements or
omissions relating to regulatory compliance matters, particularly
regarding the Company's application for a third-party administrator
license in the State of Florida, which was issued by the State on
February 14, 2018.

In November and December 2017, the Cioe Investments and Vigorito
cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, and on December 28, 2017, they were
consolidated with the Kavra matter under the case caption, In re
Health Insurance Innovations Securities Litigation, Case No.
8:17-cv-2186-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla.).

On February 6, 2018, the court appointed Robert Rector as lead
plaintiff and appointed lead counsel, and lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint on March 23, 2018.

The consolidated complaint, which dropped Patrick McNamee as a
defendant and added Michael Kosloske as a defendant, largely sets
forth the same factual allegations as the initially filed
Securities Actions filed in September 2017 and added allegations
relating to alleged materially false statements and omissions
relating to the regulatory proceeding previously initiated against
the Company by the Montana State Auditor, Commissioner of
Securities and Insurance (the "CSI") which proceeding was dismissed
on October 31, 2017.

The complaint also adds allegations regarding insider stock sales
by Messrs. Kosloske and Hershberger. The consolidated complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

According to the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs in the
action are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of putative classes of
individuals and entities that acquired shares of the Company's
common stock on periods ending September 11, 2017. On May 7, 2018,
the Company and co-defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims,
which is now fully briefed.

On March 29, 2019, the court sua sponte ordered mandatory mediation
on April 24, 2019, which did not result in a settlement and is
scheduled to continue on May 22, 2019.

Health Insurance said, "In connection with the mandatory mediation
order, the court administratively closed the case and terminated
pending motions pending the outcome of the mediation, with the case
to be reopened and any pending motions reactivated if the parties
do not resolve the dispute at mediation. If the case is reopened,
the Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims."

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family health
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States.
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based
in Tampa, Florida.


HEALTH INSURANCE: Faces Parker Class Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has
been named as a defendant in a class action suit entitled, Patricia
Parker, et al. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., et al.

A lawsuit styled as Patricia Parker, et al. v. Health Insurance
Innovations, Inc., et al. was filed in Florida state court on April
19, 2019. The lawsuit, styled as a class action, but not yet
certified, alleges the Company conspired with Simple Health, and
brings causes of action under the Florida Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, conspiracy, fraud, and other claims.

Health Insurance said, "The Company has not yet been served in the
lawsuit, and denies the allegations."

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family health
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States.
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based
in Tampa, Florida.


HEALTH INSURANCE: Keippel Class Action Complaint Not Yet Served
---------------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that company has not
yet been served in the class action suit entitled, Julian Keippel
v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and Michael
D. Hershberger, Case No. 8:19-cv-00421.

On February 18, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit styled Julian
Keippel v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and
Michael D. Hershberger, Case No. 8:19-cv-00421, was filed against
the Company, its chief executive officer, and chief financial
officer in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff in the action is seeking
an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs on behalf of a putative class of individuals and entities
that acquired shares of the Company's common stock during the
period February 28, 2018 through November 27, 2018.

The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or material omissions during the
purported class period relating to the Company's relationship with
third parties, particularly Health Benefits One LLC/Simple Health
Plans and affiliates.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, the Company failed
to disclose to investors that a substantial portion of the
Company's revenues were derived from third parties who allegedly
used deceptive tactics to sell the Company's products and that
regulatory scrutiny of such third parties would materially impact
the Company's operations.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act.

Health Insurance said, "The Company has not yet been served in the
action and intends to vigorously defend against the claims if and
when the Company is served."

Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family health
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States.
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based
in Tampa, Florida.


HEALTH-ADE LLC: Settlement in Bayol Suit Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GABRIELA BAYOL and BRUCE VERBECK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTH-ADE
LLC, and WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01462 MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Provisional Certification of Nationwide Class, and
Approval of Procedure for and Form of Notice.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Bayol and Verbeck's Motion for
Preliminary Approval, filed March 15, 2019.  The matter came on
regularly for hearing on April 19, 2019.

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of the
motion, and the arguments of counsel at the hearing, Judge Chesney
preliminarily certified the Action as a class action, for
settlement purposes only.  

The Class will consist of all persons in the United States and
United States Territories who purchased at retail one or more of
the Subject Products during the Class Period.

Plaintiffs Bayol and Verbeck are designated as the representatives
of the conditionally certified Class.  Further, Bursor & Fisher,
P.A. is designated as the Plaintiffs' Counsel.

The Agreement is preliminarily approved and is sufficient to
warrant sending notice to the Class.

A Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on Oct. 11, 2019,
9:00 a.m.

The form and content of the proposed Long Form Notice and Summary
Notice, attached as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, to the
Plaintiffs' Revised Settlement Notice Documents, filed April 23,
2019, and the notice methodology described in the Agreement and the
Declaration of the Settlement Administrator filed in support of
preliminary approval of the settlement, are approved.  Pursuant to
the Agreement, the Judge appointed RG/2 Claims Administration LLC
as the Settlement Administrator.

No later than May 24, 2019, the Settlement Administrator will
provide notice to the Class pursuant to the terms of the Agreement
and the deadlines, in accordance with the notice program set forth
in the Declaration of the Settlement Administrator filed in support
of preliminary approval of the settlement.  The Parties will
coordinate with the Settlement Administrator to provide notice to
the Class pursuant to the terms set forth therein.

Any Class Member who intends to object to the fairness,
reasonableness, and/or adequacy of the Settlement must, in addition
to filing the written objection with the Clerk of Court no later
than the Objection Deadline, provide a copy of the written
objection by U.S. mail or e-mail to the Settlement Administrator
with a copy by U.S. Mail or e-mail to the Plaintiffs' Counsel and
the Defense Counsel postmarked no later than the Objection
Deadline.

Said objections must be served on the Plaintiffs' Counsel and the
Defense Counsel as follows:

     (a) Upon the Plaintiffs' Counsel at: L. Timothy Fisher Yeremey
Krivoshey BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite
940 Walnut Creek, California 94596 ltfisher@bursor.com
ykrivoshey@bursor.com

     (b) Upon Defense Counsel at: Robert J. Herrington Michael S.
Neighbors GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, California 90067 herrington@gtlaw.com
neighborsm@gtlaw.com

In summary, the deadlines set by the Order are as follows.  These
deadlines may be extended by order of the Court, for good cause
shown, without further notice to the Class.  The Class Members must
check the Settlement Website regularly for updates and further
details regarding the Settlement:

     (a) The Settlement Website and Toll-Free Telephone Number will
be established and become operational no later than May 24, 2019.

     (b) The Long Form Notice will be published on the Settlement
Website and sent via mail or e-mail to class members for whom the
Defendants have contact information no later than May 24, 2019.

     (c) The Internet advertising portion of the Class Notice
program will commence no later than May 24, 2019.

     (d) Beginning no later than the Notice Date, the Summary
Notice will be published in the Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee,
and San Francisco Chronicle once a week for four successive weeks

     (e) The Agreement and the Claim Form1 will be published on the
Settlement Website no later than May 24, 2019.

     (f) The Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee Application will be filed
with the Clerk of Court and posted to the Settlement Website no
later than May 24, 2019.

     (g) All completed Claim Forms must be postmarked and mailed to
the Settlement Administrator or uploaded to the Settlement Website
no later than Aug. 27, 2019.

     (h) All written objections to the Agreement and written
notices of an objector's intention to appear at the Fairness
Hearing will be filed with the Court and served on the Plaintiffs'
Counsel and the Defense Counsel no later than Aug. 27, 2019.

     (i) All Requests for Exclusion will be postmarked and sent to
the Settlement Administrator no later than Aug. 27, 2019.

     (j) No later than Sept. 17, 2019, the Settlement Administrator
will file with the Court: (a) a list of those persons who have
opted out or excluded themselves from the Settlement; and (b) the
details regarding the number of valid Claim Forms received and
processed by the Settlement Administrator.

     (k) The Plaintiffs' motion in support of final approval of the
Settlement, which motion will include a response to any objections,
will be filed no later than Sept. 27, 2019.

     (l) The Fairness Hearing is scheduled for Oct.r 11, 2019, at
9:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jIsGAQ from Leagle.com.

Gabriela Bayol & Bruce Verbeck, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Lawrence
Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. &
Yeremey O. Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor Fisher,
P.A.

Health-Ade LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert James Herrington
-- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP & Michael Slade
Neighbors -- neighborsm@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Whole Foods Market California, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Robert James Herrington, Greenberg Traurig LLP.


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Koch Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Koch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Healthcare Services Group, Inc. and Theodore Wahl, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01227 (E.D. Pa., March 22, 2019), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

This is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of
the securities of Healthcare Services between April 11, 2017 and
March 4, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Plaintiff alleges that during the class period, the Defendants
made false and misleading statements and engaged in a scheme to
deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially
inflated the price of Healthcare Services securities and operated
as a fraud or deceit on the class period purchasers of Healthcare
Services securities by misrepresenting the value of the Company's
business and prospects by overstating its earnings and concealing
the significant defects in its internal controls.

As the Defendants' misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct became
apparent to the market, the price of Healthcare Services securities
fell, as the prior artificial inflation came out of the price. As a
result of their purchases of Healthcare Services securities during
the class period, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class
suffered economic loss.

The Plaintiff purchased Healthcare Services securities during April
11, 2017 and March 4, 2019.

The Defendant Healthcare Services, based in Bensalem, Pennsylvania,
engages in the management, administrative, and operating services
to the housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility maintenance, and
dietary service departments to nursing homes, retirement complexes,
rehabilitation centers, and hospitals in the United States.

The Individual Defendant Wahl is a member of the Board of
Directors, Chief Executive Officer and President of Healthcare
Services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gonen Haklay, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Tel: (215) 600-2817
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: ghaklay@rosenlegal.com


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Securities Suit in Pennsylvania Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare Services Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company and its Chief
Executive Officer are facing a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit filed on March 22, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a plaintiff purportedly on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities between April
11, 2017 and March 4, 2019.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the matters related to the Company's earnings per
share (EPS) calculation practices.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.


HENRY SCHEIN: Appeal in Marion Diagnostic Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the appeal taken by
plaintiffs in the class action suit entitled, Marion Diagnostic
Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et al., is still
pending.

On May 3, 2018, a purported class action complaint, Marion
Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-010509, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois against Becton, Dickinson,
and Co. ("Becton"); Premier, Inc. ("Premier"), Vizient, Inc.
("Vizient"), Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal"), Owens & Minor Inc.
("O&M"), Henry Schein, Inc., and Unnamed Becton Distributor
Co-Conspirators.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants entered into a vertical
conspiracy to force health care providers into long-term
exclusionary contracts that restrain trade in the nationwide
markets for conventional and safety syringes and safety IV
catheters and inflate the prices of certain Becton products to
above-competitive levels.  

The named plaintiffs seek to represent three separate classes
consisting of all health care providers that purchased (i) Becton's
conventional syringes, (ii) Becton's safety syringes, or (iii)
Becton's safety catheters directly from Becton, Premier, Vizient,
Cardinal, O&M or Henry Schein on or after May 3, 2014.  

The complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, and seeks equitable relief, treble damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and expenses, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.  

On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same
allegations against the same parties and adding McKesson
Medical-Surgical, Inc. as an additional defendant. On November 30,
2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and
entered a final judgment, dismissing plaintiffs' complaint with
prejudice.  

On December 27, 2018, plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action."

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

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Hatchett Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action suit initiated by R. Lawrence
Hatchett, M.D.

On January 29, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed
by R. Lawrence Hatchett, M.D. against Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson
Co., Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co., and unnamed co-conspirators in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  

The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class suffered
antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott, price-fixing or
otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Henry Schein, Patterson
and Benco. The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy
overcharged Illinois dental practices, orthodontic practices and
dental laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in
turn passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the
class.  

Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as
"all persons residing in Illinois purchasing and/or reimbursing for
dental care provided by independent Illinois dental practices
purchasing dental supplies from the defendants, or purchasing from
buying groups purchasing these supplies from the defendants, on or
after January 29, 2015."  

The complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740
Ill. Comp. Stat. Sections 10/3(2), 10/7(2), and seeks a permanent
injunction, actual damages to be determined at trial, trebled,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.  

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action."

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Kramer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Kramer v. Henry
Schein, Inc., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co., and
Unnamed Co-Conspirators

On October 9, 2018, a purported class action complaint entitled
Kramer v. Henry Schein, Inc., Patterson Co., Inc., Benco Dental
Supply Co., and Unnamed Co-Conspirators, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  

The complaint alleges that members of the proposed class, comprised
of purchasers of dental services from dental practices in
California, suffered antitrust injury due to an unlawful boycott,
price-fixing or otherwise anticompetitive conspiracy among Henry
Schein, Patterson and Benco.  

The complaint alleges that the alleged conspiracy overcharged
California dental practices, orthodontic practices and dental
laboratories on their purchase of dental supplies, which in turn
passed on some or all of such overcharges to members of the
California class purchasing dental services.  

Subject to certain exclusions, the complaint defines the class as
"all persons residing in California purchasing and/or reimbursing
for dental services from California dental practices on or after
August 31, 2012." The complaint alleges violations of California
antitrust laws, including the Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. and Prof.
Code Section 16720) and the Unfair Competition Act (Cal. Bus. and
Prof. Code Section 17200), and seeks a permanent injunction, actual
damages to be determined at trial, trebled, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.  

On December 7, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the
same claims against the same parties.  

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action."

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

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Henry Schein, Inc.
Securities Litigation

On March 7, 2018, Joseph Salkowitz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against
Henry Schein, Inc., Stanley M. Bergman and Steven Paladino in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No.
1:18-cv-01428.  

The complaint sought to certify a class consisting of all persons
and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased Henry
Schein securities from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018 (the
"Class Period"). The complaint alleged, among other things, that
the defendants had made materially false and misleading statements
about Henry Schein's business, operations and prospects during the
Class Period, including matters relating to the issues in the
antitrust class action and the FTC action described above, thereby
causing the plaintiff and members of the purported class to pay
artificially inflated prices for Henry Schein securities. The
complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.  

Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), the court appointed lead
plaintiff and lead counsel on June 22, 2018 and recaptioned the
putative class action as In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities
Litigation, under the same case number.  

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on
September 14, 2018. The consolidated class action complaint asserts
similar claims against the same defendants (plus Timothy Sullivan)
on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers during the Class
Period.  

It alleges that Henry Schein's stock price was inflated during that
period because Henry Schein had misleadingly portrayed its
dental-distribution business "as successfully producing excellent
profits while operating in a highly competitive environment" even
though, "in reality, (Henry Schein) had engaged for years in
collusive and anticompetitive practices in order to maintain
Schein's margins, profits, and market share."  

The complaint alleges that the stock price started to fall from
August 8, 2017, when the company announced below-expected financial
performance that allegedly "revealed that Schein's poor results
were a product of abandoning prior attempts to inflate sales volume
and margins through anticompetitive collusion," through February
13, 2018, after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a
complaint against Benco, Henry Schein and Patterson alleging that
they violated U.S. antitrust laws.  

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously
against this action. Henry Schein has also received a request under
8 Del. C. Section 220 to inspect corporate books and records
relating to the issues raised in the securities class action and
the antitrust entitled, In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation,
Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB.

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

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for June 14
---------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the court in the case
entitled, In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, has scheduled
a settlement fairness hearing for June 14, 2019.

Beginning in January 2016, purported class action complaints were
filed against Patterson Companies, Inc. ("Patterson"), Benco Dental
Supply Co. ("Benco") and Henry Schein, Inc.

Although there were factual and legal variations among these
complaints, each of these complaints alleges, among other things,
that defendants conspired to fix prices, allocate customers and
foreclose competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental
associations and others that deal with defendants' competitors.  

On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other
actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims
against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes.  

On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth
Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C.,
Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A.
(collectively, "putative class representatives") in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled In re
Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB.  

In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class
representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein,
Benco, Patterson and non-party Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc.
("Burkhart") not to compete on price. The consolidated class action
complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, and seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages,
jointly and severally, and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees and expert fees.  

On September 28, 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement
that proposes, subject to court approval, a full and final
settlement of the lawsuit on a classwide basis.  The court has
scheduled a fairness hearing for June 14, 2019.  

Subject to certain exceptions, the settlement class consists of all
persons or entities that purchased dental products directly from
Henry Schein, Patterson, Benco, Burkhart, or any combination
thereof, during the period August 31, 2008 through and including
March 31, 2016.  

Henry Schein said, "As a result, in our third quarter of fiscal
2018, we recorded a charge of $38.5 million, which was paid into a
settlement fund in January 2019."

Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to
dental practitioners and laboratories, physician practices,
government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate
care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health
Care Distribution, and Technology and Value-Added Services. The
company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New
York.


HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Still Faces Class Action Complaints in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. continues to face complaints of the four
putative class plaintiffs in a lawsuit initially filed in Florida
styled, Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On September 18, 2017, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
and Members were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit, titled Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al. and filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
which alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices statute and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statutes, unjust enrichment, and negligent
misrepresentation.

On August 23, 2018, the Court issued an order transferring the
action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California as to four of the putative class plaintiffs and ordering
the remaining four plaintiffs to arbitration, thereby terminating
the Company defendants from the Florida action.  The plaintiffs
seek damages in an unspecified amount.

Herbalife said, "The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit
and will vigorously defend itself against the claims in the
lawsuit."

Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. develops and sells nutrition solutions in
North America, Mexico, South and Central America, Europe, the
Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. he company was formerly
known as Herbalife Ltd. and changed its name to Herbalife Nutrition
Ltd. in April 2018. Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Ramirez Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz
Global Holdings, Inc., et al.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Old Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in certain of
its public disclosures in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees.

The complaint, as amended, was dismissed with prejudice on April
27, 2017 and on September 20, 2018, the Third Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.  

On February 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the
federal district court to exercise its discretion and allow the
plaintiffs to reinstate their claims to include additional
allegations from the Administrative Order.

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

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
provides airport and off airport vehicle rental and leasing
services. It operates through three segments: U.S. RAC,
International RAC, and All Other Operations. Hertz Global Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Estero, Florida.


INOGEN INC: Faces Fabbri and Friedland Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------
Inogen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a
defendant in two class action suits initiated by William Fabbri and
Steven Friedland.

On March 6, 2019, plaintiff William Fabbri filed a lawsuit against
Inogen, Scott Wilkinson, and Alison Bauerlein, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities between
November 8, 2017 and February 26, 2019.

On March 21, 2019, plaintiff Steven Friedland filed a substantially
similar lawsuit against the same defendants in the same court.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants failed to
disclose that: (i) Inogen had overstated the true size of the total
addressable market for its portable oxygen concentrators and had
misstated the basis for its calculation of the total addressable
market; (ii) Inogen had falsely attributed its sales growth to the
strong sales acumen of its salesforce, rather than to deceptive
sales practices; (iii) the growth in Inogen's domestic
business-to-business sales to home medical equipment providers was
inflated, unsustainable and was eroding direct-to-consumer sales;
and (iv) very little of Inogen's business was coming from the
Medicare market.

The complaints seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief as the
court deems proper.

Inogen said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend itself
against these allegations."

Inogen, Inc., a medical technology company, primarily develops,
manufactures, and markets portable oxygen concentrators for
patients, physicians and other clinicians, and third-party payors
in the United States and internationally. Inogen, Inc. was founded
in 2001 and is headquartered in Goleta, California.


INT'L LABORATORIES: Count IV in Johnson Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory F. van Tatenhove of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, Southern Division, Pikeville, granted
in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
case, FRAN JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL LABORATORIES, LLC,
and QUALITY PACKAGING SPECIALISTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants,
Civil No. 7:19-cv-0004-GFVT (E.D. Ky.).

Plaintiff Johnson maintained a prescription for antiplatelet
medication but potentially received, upon filling that
prescription, cholesterol medication.  By the time she received a
recall notice, she had already ingested all 30 pills in question
and disposed of their packaging.  Because she had no proof of pills
or packaging, she was denied a refund by the Defendants.  

Now, she now seeks to bring a class action on behalf of herself and
all potential class members who did not receive the correct
medications.  Against both International Laboratories and Quality
Packaging Specialists, Ms. Johnson asserts claims of breach of
express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, violations of
consumer protection and consumer fraud acts, and vicarious
liability.  

The Defendants seek to have the matter dismissed pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 12(b)(7), and 9(b).
They allege that because Ms. Johnson no longer has the pill bottle
or the pills, she will not be able to provide evidence that she
received Simvastatin instead of Clopidogrel, and therefore fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  They also assert
that Ms. Johnson fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim
for violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.  Finally,
the Defendants seek to dismiss this action under Rule 12(b)(7) for
failure to join a party under Rule 19.

This is not the only action Ms. Johnson has filed against the
Defendants.  Also pending before the Court is a personal injury
lawsuit, brought on behalf of only Ms. Johnson, against Walmart,
Inc., Walmart Stores East, L.P., and Stephanie Wallace, the
Pharmacist-in-Charge at the Pikeville Walmart Pharmacy, in addition
to International Laboratories and Quality Packaging Specialists.
That lawsuit alleges theories of negligence against Walmart and Dr.
Wallace for failure to identify the mislabeling of her
prescription.  That lawsuit seeks damages for the stroke she
experienced in February of 2018, shortly after she believes she
received the wrong medication.  In contrast, the instant matter
alleges that she and other members of the proposed class did not
receive what they paid for, and that the Defendants were unjustly
enriched because of that mistake.

Judge van Tatenhove holds that while Ms. Johnson may no longer
possess the pills or the pill bottle, this does not preclude her
ability to discover and produce additional evidence to prove her
claims.  The Judge cannot consider sufficiency of evidence at this
stage.  Ms. Johnson has failed to allege facts sufficient to
support a claim under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, but,
construing the Complaint in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, her other allegations are sufficient to survive a
motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the Judge granted in part the Motion to Dismiss as to
Count IV — Consumer Protection/Consumer Fraud Acts and Count IV
is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b).  He denied in part the Motion to Dismiss as to all
other counts.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/TLFsyr from Leagle.com.

Fran Johnson, Individually and obo All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Hans G. Poppe -- hans@poppelawfirm.com --
The Poppe Law Firm, Kathleen Coffey Thompson, The Poppe Law Firm,
Kirk A. Laughlin -- kirk@poppelawfirm.com -- The Poppe Law Firm &
Scarlette Burton Kelty, The Poppe Law Firm.

International Laboratories, LLC & Quality Packaging Specialists
International, LLC, Defendants, represented by Jane C. Higgins --
jhiggins@ppoalaw.com -- Phillips Parker Orberson & Arnett PLC,
Lauren Lea Crosby Thompson -- lthompson@ppoalaw.com -- Phillips
Parker Orberson & Arnett PLC & William B. Orberson --
worberson@ppoalaw.com -- Phillips Parker Orberson & Arnett PLC.


INTEC COMMUNICATIONS: Giesson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages, Damages
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROY GIESSON AND DONALD LEE, Plaintiffs v. INTEC COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC, AND TEKKCOMM, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00173-JRG
(E.D. Tex., May 14, 2019) alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") seeks unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated
damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and
litigation expenses/costs, including expert witness fees and
expenses.

The Defendants have repeatedly and willfully violated, and continue
to willfully violate, Sections 6 and 7 of the FLSA by failing to
pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees, or former
employees, for the hours worked, and by failing to pay them for all
overtime hours worked. Plaintiffs were employed in positions which
are not exempt from the requirement that they be compensated for
their hours of work by the payment of straight time and overtime,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were hired by Defendants on or about November 5, 2018,
for the installation of fiber optics to the residents in the East
Texas area.

INTEC COMMUNICATIONS, LLC. does business in the Eastern District of
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
     5380 Old Bullard Road
     Suite 600, #363
     Tyler, TX 75703
     Phone: (903)593-5588



INTERACTIVE HEALTH: Karstens Sues Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Krista Karstens, an individual and Liliana Kazmierczak, an
individual, Plaintiffs, v. Interactive health, Inc., an Illinois
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03088-JJT (D. Ariz., May
14, 2019) is a class action on their own behalves, and pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to recover all unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs of
the action.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant's Company-wide policies
and procedures provided that Plaintiffs and each Class Member was
required to perform work without compensation. The Defendant's
policy requires Plaintiffs and each Class Member to participate in
weekly conference calls without compensation. If Plaintiffs, or any
Class Member, were unable to participate in a weekly call,
Defendant required him/her to obtain notes from the call(s), review
them, and report that review to his/her supervisor--all without
compensation, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Defendant, employed
for some time during March 2016.

Defendant is an Illinois Corporation, authorized to conduct, and
conducting business, in several states throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Troy P. Foster, Esq.
     The Foster Group, PLLC
     7301 N. 16th Street, Ste 102
     Phoenix, AZ 85020
     Phone: 602-461-7990
     Email: tfoster@thefosterlaw.com

          - and -

     Kenneth Frakes, Esq.
     Bergin Frakes Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC
     4343 E. Camelback Road #210
     Phoenix, AZ 85018
     Email: kfrakes@bfsolaw.com


IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Settlement in Rabkin Suit Finally Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Iovance Biotherapeutics said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has approved
the final settlement in the case, Jay Rabkin v. Lion
Biotechnologies, Inc., et al.

On April 10, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
announced settlements with the Company and with other public
companies and unrelated parties in the In the Matter of Certain
Stock Promotion investigation.

The Company's settlement with the SEC is consistent with its
previous disclosures (including in our Annual Report on Form 10-K
that the Company filed with the SEC on March 9, 2017).

On April 14, 2017, a purported shareholder filed a complaint
seeking class action status in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California for violations of the federal
securities laws (Leonard DeSilvio v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et
al., case no. 3:17cv2086) against the Company and three of its
former officers and directors.

On April 19, 2017, a second class action complaint (Amra Kuc vs.
Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no. 3:17-cv-2188) was
filed in the same court.

Both complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements, or by failing to make certain disclosures,
regarding the actions taken by Manish Singh, the former CEO, and
the former investor relations firm that were the subject of the In
the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions investigation.

On July 20, 2017, the plaintiff in the Kuc case filed a notice to
voluntarily dismiss that case. The court entered an order
dismissing the Kuc complaint on July 21, 2017.

On July 26, 2017, the court appointed a movant as lead plaintiff.
On September 8, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
(Jay Rabkin v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no.
3:17-cv-2086) seeking class action status that alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements, or by failing to
make certain disclosures, regarding the actions taken by Manish
Singh and its former investor relations firm that were the subject
of the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions SEC investigation.


On February 5, 2018, the court entered an order dismissing two of
plaintiff's six claims. As the result of mediation, on September
28, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for settlement,
the cost of which, if approved, is expected to be borne by the
Company's insurance carrier and would result in no loss to the
Company.

The court gave preliminary approval to the proposed settlement on
November 30, 2018. A hearing was held on April 12, 2019 to
determine whether the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and whether the claims should be dismissed.

On April 17, 2019, the court approved the final settlement,
involving a payment of $3,250,000 by the Company's insurance
carrier to a settlement fund, awarded attorney's fees and costs to
be paid to plaintiff's counsel from the settlement fund, approved
the plan of allocation for settlement class members, and ordered
that the claims against the Company should be dismissed with
prejudice.

Iovance said, "The Company does not expect to incur any costs or
expenses in connection with this settlement."

Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology
company, focuses on developing and commercializing cancer
immunotherapy products to harness the power of a patient's immune
system to eradicate cancer cells. The company was formerly known as
Lion Biotechnologies, Inc. and changed its name to Iovance
Biotherapeutics, Inc. in June 2017. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.
was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Carlos,
California.


JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Daily Class Suits Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group plc disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company and/or its
subsidiaries continue to face several class action lawsuits related
to VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX.

On March 15, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
("SDNY") against Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC, which
effective January 1, 2019, was renamed Janus Henderson Indices LLC
("Janus Indices"), a subsidiary of the Group, on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased VelocityShares Daily Inverse
VIX Short-Term ETN (Ticker: XIV) between January 29, 2018, and
February 5, 2018 (Eisenberg v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices).
Credit Suisse, the issuer of the XIV notes, is also named as a
defendant in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs generally allege statements by Credit Suisse and
Janus Indices, including those in the registration statement, were
materially false and misleading based on its discussion of how the
intraday indicative value ("IIV") is calculated and that the IIV
was not an accurate gauge of the economic value of the notes.

On April 17, 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against Janus Indices
and Credit Suisse in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of Alabama by certain investors in XIV (Halbert
v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices).

On May 4, 2018, a third lawsuit, styled as a class action on behalf
of investors who purchased XIV between January 29, 2018, and
February 5, 2018, was filed against Janus Indices and Credit Suisse
AG in the SDNY (Qiu v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices).  The
Halbert and Qiu allegations generally copy the allegations in the
Eisenberg case.  On August 20, 2018, an amended complaint was filed
in the Eisenberg and Qiu cases (which have been consolidated in the
SDNY under the name Set Capital LLC, et al. v. Credit Suisse AG, et
al.), adding Janus Distributors LLC, doing business as Janus
Henderson Distributors, and Janus Henderson Group plc as parties,
and adding allegations of market manipulation by all of the
defendants.

On February 7, 2019, a fourth lawsuit was filed against Janus
Indices, Janus Distributors LLC, Janus Henderson Group plc, and
Credit Suisse in the United States District Court of the Eastern
District of New York ("EDNY") by certain investors in XIV (Y-GAR
Capital LLC v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al.) The allegations in
Y-GAR generally assert that the disclosures relating to XIV were
false and misleading.  On March 29, 2019, the plaintiff withdrew
the suit from the EDNY and re-filed it in the SDNY.

On February 4, 2019, a fifth lawsuit was filed against Janus Index,
Janus Distributors LLC, Janus Henderson Group plc and various
Credit Suisse persons in the SDNY (Rubinstein v. Credit Suisse
Group AG, et al.).  The Janus Henderson defendants were served with
the complaint on April 1, 2019.  The suit is styled as a class
action and involves VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Medium-Term
ETN (Ticker: ZIV), but otherwise generally copies the allegations
in the XIV cases.

The Group believes the claims in these exchange-traded note
lawsuits are without merit and is strongly defending the actions.

Janus Henderson Group plc is an asset management holding entity.
Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides services to
institutional, retail clients, and high net worth clients. It
manages separate client-focused equity and fixed income
portfolios.
The firm also manages equity, fixed income, and balanced mutual
funds for its clients. It invests in public equity and fixed
income
markets, as well as invests in real estate and private equity.
Janus Henderson Group plc was founded in 1934 and is based in
London, United Kingdom with additional offices in Jersey, United
Kingdom and Sydney, Australia.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: De Cruz Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
JESSE DE CRUZ and MICHAEL DE CRUZ, Individuals,, the Plaintiffs,
vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New
Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the state of California and DOES 1 through 100, the
Defendants, Case No. BC715170, was removed from the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on April 29, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03533
to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Mark P, Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNTE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: 949 720-1288
          Facsimile: 949 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com

               - and -

          Michelle Parfitt, Esq.
          Patrick Lyons, Esq.
          ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
          4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
          Alexandria, VA 22311
          Telephone: (703) 931-5500
          Facsimile: (703) 820-1656
          E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com
                  plyons@ashcrafflaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dechristofaro Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
JULIENNE DECHRISTOFARO, REINA D. MACKENZIE a/k/a REINA D. RIVAS,
KATHLEEN ALDRICH; MARLENE KNUTSON, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC
AMERICA, inc., the Defendants, Case No. BC622173 (Filed June 1,
2016), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03629to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Curtis G. Hoke, Esq.
          THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
          108 Railroad Ave.
          Orange, VA 22960
          Telephone: (540) 672 4224
          Facsimile: (540) 672 3055
          E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Degidio-Mueller Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA DEGIDIO-MUELLER, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business
in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation
with its principal place of business in the State of California;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
30-2018-01035843-CU-PL-CXC (Filed Dec. 3, 2018), was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 30,
2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-03634 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com

               - and -

          Ted G. Meadows, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
          PORTIS & MILES, PC
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (800) 898 2034

               - and -

          R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
          THE: SMITH LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          681 Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 952-1422

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dela Hunt Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
LALONI DELA HUNT, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the state of California and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants,
Case No. 18CV325843 (Filed April 4, 2018), was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 29,
2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-03547 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Lee Cirsch, Esq.
          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (310) 277-5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277-5103
          E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com
                  michael.akseh-ud@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Susanne Scovern, Esq.
          Joseph McPeak, Esq.
          SCOVERNLAW
          201 Spear St., Suite 1105
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          www.scovernlaw.com
          Telephone: 888.725.1890
          E-mail: scovern@scovernlaw.com
                  joseph_mcpeak@scovemlaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dominguez Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL J. DOMINGUEZ, Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest on
behalf of the ESTATE OF SUSAN DOMINGUEZ, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON
& JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. P/N/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A
LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 18CV328930 (May 30,
2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03702 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Curtis G. Hoke, Esq.
          THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
          108 Railroad Ave.
          Orange, VA 22960
          Telephone: (540) 672-4224
          Facsimile: (540) 672-3055
          E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dougherty Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA ANN DOUGHERTY, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV339072 (Dec.
10, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03741 to the
proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
          Cherisse Heidi A. Cleofe, Esq.
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310 854-4444
          Facsimile: 310 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kiesetlaw
                  palmer@kiesellaw
                  cleofe@kiesel.law

               - and -

          M. Brandon Smith, Esq.
          CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
          1932 N. Druid Hills Road, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30319
          Telephone: 404 419-9500
          Facsimile: 404 419-9501
          E-mail: BSmith@cssfirm.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Douglas Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE A. DOUGLAS, Individually, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with
its principal place of business in the State of California; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC671457
(Aug 8, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03717 to the
proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Peter L. Kaufman, Esq.
          PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
          Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: 310 477 1700
          Facsimile: 310 477 1699
          E-mail: pkaufma@psblaw

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fitzgerald Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER FITZGERALD and SEAN FITZGERALD, the Plaintiffs, vs.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business
in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation
with its principal place of business in the State of California;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
18CV324262 (Filed March 5, 2018), was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on April 30, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-03670 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com

               - and -

          Michelle Parfitt, Esq.
          Patrick Lyons, Esq.
          ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
          4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
          Alexandria, VA 22311
          Telephone: 703-931-5500
          Facsimile: 703-820-1656
          E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com
                  plyons@ashcraftlaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fossell Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
LINDA FOSSELL, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2018-00967024-CU-PL-CXC
(Filed March 9, 2018), was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange, to U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on April 30, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03672
to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fullmore Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
MIA FULLMORE, an individual; KATHLEEN SCHLEY, an individual; SUSAN
OHNSTAD BLACKWELL, an individual; and THERESA MONTOYA, an
individual, the Plaintiffs, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC628366 (Filed July 26, 2016),
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03621 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Mark. P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          Karen L. Karavatos, Esq.
          Cynthia Garber, Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com
                  kkaravatos@robinsonfirm.com
                  cgarber@robinsonfirm.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gire Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
ANNA L. GIRE, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.,
F/KJA LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. the Defendants, Case No. 17CV316282
(Filed Oct. 25, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on April 29, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03542
to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Michael Akselrud, Esq.
          THE LAMER LAW FIRM, PC
          10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 277-5100
          Facsimile: (310) 277-5103
          E-mail: michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert Dassow, Esq.
          William F. Eckhart, Esq.
          HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS, LLC
          10201 N. Illinois St., Suite 500
          Indianapolis, IN 46290
          Telephone: (317) 818-3100
          E-mail: rdassow@hovdelaw.com
                  beckhart@hovdelaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Gjeloshaj Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
DRITA GJELOSHAJ, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California, and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants,
Case No. RIC1809105 (Filed May 15, 2018), was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on April 29, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-03557 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: 310 474 9111
          E-mail: randoot@andootwoifson.com
                  bking@andootwollion.com

               - and -

          Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
          Amanda K. Klevorn, esq.
          BURNS AREST LLP
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504 799 2845
          E-mail: knelson burnscharest.com
          aklevorn burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          Danie H. Charest, Esq.
          Spence M. Cox, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: 469.904.4550
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
                  dcharest@burnscharest.com
                  scox@burnscharest.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Glaser Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH GLASER, Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest on
behalf of the ESTATE OF GLORIA GLASER, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A
LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 17CV321193 (Filed
Dec. 29, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 29, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03548 to the
proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Curtis G. Hoke, Esq.
          THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
          108 Railroad Avenue
          Orange, VA 22960
          Telephone: (540) 672-4224
          Facsimile: (540) 672-3055
          E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Godfrey Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE GODFREY, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A
LUZENAC AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV00599 (Filed
Jan. 16, 2019), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 29, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03565 to the
proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Lauren A. Welling, Esq.
          SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          16755 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (516) 741-5600
          E-mail: lwelling@thesandersfirm.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Goforth Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
IRENE B. GOFORTH, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC.; and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 17CV321194 (Filed Dec. 29, 2017), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 29, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. Case 2:19-cv-03549 to the
proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Curtis G. Hoke, Esq.
          THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
          108 Railroad Ave.
          Orange, VA 22960
          Telephone: (540) 672-4224
          Facsimile: (540) 672-3055
          E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Goodman Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
KRISTY GOODMAN and ALEX TAYEBI, individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business
in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation
with its principal place of business in the State of California;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
30-2018-01011202-CU-PL-CXC (Filed Aug. 9, 2018), was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 29,
2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-03571 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E—mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Graham Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
GAYLE GRAHAM, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing
business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of
California; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No.
17CV318639 (Filed Nov. 6, 2017), was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on April 29, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-03580 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Griffin Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
SHEILA GRIFFIN, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants,
Case No. RG16820115 (Filed June 17, 2016), was removed from the
Superior Court of California, Alameda County, to U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on April 29, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-03552 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Robert A. Mosier, Esq.
          Timothy M. Clark, Esq.
          Lauren A. Welling, Esq.
          Rachel N. Van, Esq.
          SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLP
          2860 Michelle Drive Suite 220
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (877) 480-9142
          Facsimile: (213) 330-0346
          E-mail: rmosier@thesandersfirm.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Guerrero Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS GUERRERO, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest of
Decedent PETRA GUERRERO, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC690778 (Jan 16, 2018), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03660 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Helen Zukin, Esq.
          Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
          Cherisse Cleofe
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Willshire Blvd.
          Beverley Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310 854 4444
          Facsimile: 310 354 0812
          E-mail: atkin@lchasellaw
                  paliner@kiesellaw
                  cleofe@kiesellaw

               - and -

          Steve B. Mikhov, Esq.
          KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310 552-2250
          Facsimile: 310 552-7973
          E-mail: stevem@knightlaw.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hinson Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
JAN HINSON, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a
New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV00120 (March 12, 2018), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Cruz, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03779 the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Joukl et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUDIT JOUKL; SONA WARE-BOYD, Indiviually and as
Successor-In-Interest to the Estate of Sandra L. Logan, Deceased
the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation
doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey
corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants,
Case No. 17CV304902 (May 14, 2018), was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on May 2, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03797
to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Curtis G. Hoke, Esq.
          THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
          108 Railroad Ave.
          Orange, VA 22960
          Telephone: (540) 672-4224
          Facsimile: (540) 672-3055
          E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com



JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Morales Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
NAOMI MORALES, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES,
INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS
TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 17CV318688 (Nov. 6, 2017), was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 30, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03622 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Helen Zukin, Esq.
          Melanie Meneses Palmer, Esq.
          Cherisse Cleofe
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Willshire Blvd.
          Beverley Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310 854 4444
          Facsimile: 310 354 0812
          E-mail: atkin@lchasellaw
                  paliner@kiesellaw
                  cleofe@kiesellaw


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Moranda Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
EARL L. MORANDA, Individually, and Successor-in-Interest to the
Estate of PATRICIA J. MORANDA,, Deceased, the Plaintiff, vs.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A
LUZENAC AMERICA, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 17CV321199 (Filed
Dec. 29, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, to U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 30, 2019. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03646 to the
proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Curtis G. Hoke, Esq.
          THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
          108 Railroad Ave.
          Orange, VA 22960
          Telephone: (540) 672 4224
          Facsimile: (540) 672 3055
          E-mail: choke@millerfirmllc.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Removes Arciga et al. Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson removed the case, SOCORRO PACHECO ARCIGA
Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN
CURRIE, Deceased, AMY GILMORE and KIMBERLY ANN ADAMS and NAYELI
SARAHI DIAZ PACHECO, the Plaintiffs, vs. CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS
COMPANY (sued individually, doing business as, and as successor to
AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC. and CHARLES
MATHIEU INC. and SIERRA TALC COMPANY and UNITED TALC COMPANY, et
al, the Defendants, Case No. JCCP 4674 / BC677102, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the Los Angeles
County, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on May 1, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03700 to the proceeding.

On February 13, 2019, Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two
affiliates, Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada,
Inc., filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition, commencing a
reorganization case styled: In re: Imerys Talc America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 19-10289-LSS, in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware (the "Chapter 11 Case"). Since the
Chapter 11 Case was commenced, the Debtors have remained as debtors
in possession under 11 U.S.C. section 1101 and have the rights,
powers, and duties set out in 11 U.S.C. sections 1107 and 1108. At
the time the Debtors commenced the Chapter 11 Case, the State Court
Talc Claims were pending in the State Court. The State Court Talc
Claims are not proceeding before the United States Tax Court and
are not brought by a governmental unit to enforce its police or
regulatory powers.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer,
Inc.:

          Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
          Julia E. Romano, Esq.
          Amy P. Zumsteg, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213 443 4355
          Facsimile: 213 443 4310
          E-mail: acalfo@kslaw.com
                  jromano@kslaw.com
                  azumsteg@kslaw.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Santisteban Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
THAMAR SANTISTEBAN, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in
California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with
its principal place of business in the State of California; and
DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No.
37-2018-00066710-CU-PL-CTL (Nov. 1, 2018), was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on May 1, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-03706 to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
negligent failure to warn and the design defect of their
talcum-based products.

Johnson & Johnson designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and
sold the products to consumers, and Imerys mined, extracted,
sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated,
packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the
products to Johnson & Johnson.

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc
use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,
none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing
informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the
Products in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of
ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder
label are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoid
inhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoid
contact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Nicholas A. Boylan, Esq.
          Liam F. Vavasour, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS A. BOYLAN, APC
          233 A Street, Suite 1205
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696-6344
          Facsimile: (619) 696-0478



JOHNSON CONTROLS: Oct. 17 Hearing Set for Bid to Dismiss Gumm Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has
scheduled an oral argument hearing on the motion to dismiss the
case styled, Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., for October 17, 2019,
according to Johnson Controls International plc's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v.
Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, naming
Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of
directors at the time of the merger with the Company's merger
subsidiary and certain of its officers, the Company and the
Company's merger subsidiary as defendants.

The complaint asserted various causes of action under the federal
securities laws, state law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights,
including that the individual defendants allegedly breached their
fiduciary duties and unjustly enriched themselves by structuring
the merger among the Company, Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a
manner that would result in a United States federal income tax
realization event for the putative class of certain Johnson
Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly result in certain
benefits to the defendants, as well as related claims regarding
alleged misstatements in the proxy statement/prospectus distributed
to the Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders, conversion and breach
of contract.

The complaint also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., the
Company and the Company's merger subsidiary aided and abetted the
individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks, among other things,
disgorgement of profits and damages.

On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing of
the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion
seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to
make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will
impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the
merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc.
shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting to
the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable by
this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger.

The court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion on
January 4, 2017, and on January 25, 2017, the judge denied the
plaintiffs' motion.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
February 15, 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on
April 3, 2017.

The court had scheduled an oral argument hearing on the motion to
dismiss for October 17, 2019.

Johnson Controls said, "Although the Company believes it has
substantial defenses to plaintiffs' claims, it is not able to
predict the outcome of this action."

Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi industrial company worldwide. The company
operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson
Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls
International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International
plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland.


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Still Defends Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc and its subsidiaries remain
defendants in the Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF") Litigation,
wherein various cases are now in a multi-district litigation
("MDL") before the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina since December 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

Two of our subsidiaries, Chemguard, Inc. ("Chemguard") and Tyco
Fire Products L.P. ("Tyco Fire Products"), have been named, along
with other defendant manufacturers, in a number of class action and
other lawsuits relating to the use of fire-fighting foam products
by the U.S. Department of Defense (the "DOD") and others for fire
suppression purposes and related training exercises.

Plaintiffs generally allege that the firefighting foam products
manufactured by defendants contain or break down into the chemicals
perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and/or other per- and poly fluorinated ("PFAS") compounds
and that the use of these products by others at various airbases,
airports and other sites resulted in the release of these chemicals
into the environment and ultimately into communities' drinking
water supplies neighboring those airports, airbases and other
sites.  PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS compounds are being studied by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and other
environmental and health agencies and researchers.

The EPA has not issued regulatory limits, however; while those
studies continue, the EPA has issued a health advisory level for
PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.  Both PFOA and PFOS are types of
synthetic chemical compounds that have been present in firefighting
foam.  However, both are also present in many existing consumer
products.  According to EPA, PFOA and PFOS have been used to make
carpets, clothing, fabrics for furniture, paper packaging for food
and other materials (e.g., cookware) that are resistant to water,
grease or stains.

Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages
for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, and alleged
diminution in property values, and also seek punitive damages and
injunctive relief to address remediation of the alleged
contamination.  

In September of 2018, the Company filed a Petition for
Multidistrict Litigation with the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking to consolidate all
existing and future federal cases into one jurisdiction.

On December 7, 2018, the JPML issued an order transferring various
AFFF cases to a multi-district litigation ("MDL") before the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina.
Additional cases have been identified for transfer to the MDL.

AFFF Putative Class Actions

Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are named in 21 putative class
actions in federal and state courts in Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Washington.  Each of
these cases has been transferred to the MDL.  The following
putative class actions were filed in fiscal year 2019:

   * Grubb v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 30, 2018 in the
United States District Court, District of Delaware.

   * County of Dutchess v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 12,
2018 in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York.

   * Battisti et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed December 20,
2018 in the United States District Court, Middle District of
Florida.

   * Jackson et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed February 5,
2019 in the United States District Court, Western District of
Washington.

AFFF Individual or Mass Actions

There are approximately 58 individual or "mass" actions pending in
federal court in Colorado (41 cases), New York (4 cases),
Pennsylvania (11 cases) and New Mexico (2 cases) against Chemguard
and Tyco Fire Products and other defendants in which the plaintiffs
generally seek compensatory damages, including damages for alleged
personal injuries, medical monitoring, and alleged diminution in
property values.  The cases involve approximately 7,000 plaintiffs
in Colorado, approximately 126 plaintiffs in New York, 15
plaintiffs in Pennsylvania and two plaintiffs in New Mexico.  These
matters have been transferred to the MDL.  The Company is also on
notice of approximately 660 other possible individual product
liability claims and three possible municipal claims by filings
made in Pennsylvania state court, but complaints have not been
filed in those matters, but the Company anticipates that they soon
will be.

AFFF Municipal Cases

Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are also defendants in 17 cases in
federal and state courts involving municipal or water provider
plaintiffs in Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
New York, Maryland and Ohio.  These municipal plaintiffs generally
allege that the use of the defendants' fire-fighting foam products
at fire training academies, municipal airports, Air National Guard
bases, or Navy bases released PFOS and PFOA into public water
supply wells, allegedly requiring remediation of public property.
All but one of these cases either have been transferred or
identified for transfer to the MDL.  The following municipal
actions were filed in fiscal year 2019:

   * Dutchess County v. The 3M Company et al. filed October 12,
2018 (removed to the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York) and styled as a class action.

   * City of Dayton v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 3, 2018
in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio.

   * City of Stuart v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 18,
2018 in the United States District Court, Southern District of
Florida.

   * City of Tucson and Town of Marana v. The 3M Company et al.,
filed November 8, 2018 in the Superior Court of the State of
Arizona, County of Pima (removed to the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona).

   * New Jersey-American Water Company, Inc. v. The 3M Company et
al., filed November 8, 2018 in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

   * Village of Farmingdale v. The 3M Company et al., filed
December 19, 2018 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Nassau (removed to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York).

   * Town of East Hampton v. The 3M Company et al., filed December
28, 2018 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Suffolk.

   * Ridgewood Water v. The 3M Company et al., filed February 25,
2019, in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Bergen
County (removed to the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey).

   * Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority v. The 3M Company
et al., filed April 10, 2019 in the United States District Court,
District of New Jersey.

   * Town of Vienna v. The 3M Company et al., filed March 30, 2019
in the United States District Court, District of Maryland.

   * New York American Water Company, Inc. v. The 3M Company et
al., filed April 11, 2019 in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of New York.

   * City of Fairbanks v. The 3M Company et al., filed April 26,
2019 in the United States District Court, District of Alaska.

In May 2018, the Company was also notified by the Widefield Water
and Sanitation District in Colorado Springs, Colorado that it may
assert claims regarding its remediation costs in connection with
PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of
those products at the Peterson Air Force Base.  In addition, three
water districts in Pennsylvania, Horsham Water and Sewer Authority,
Warminster Municipal Authority, and Warrington Township have filed
praecipes for summons against Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products and
other AFFF manufacturers relating to alleged PFOS and PFOA
contamination.  These praecipes are not active suits, but have the
effect of tolling the statute of limitations.  In addition, in
February 2019, the County of Westchester, New York sent a Notice of
Intent to File Suit against Chemguard, Tyco Fire Products, other
AFFF manufacturers, and various governmental entities including the
United States and the State of New York in connection with PFOS and
PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of AFFF in and
around the County of Westchester.

State Attorneys General Litigation related to AFFF

In June 2018, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in New York
state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al., No.
904029-18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)) against a number of
manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to
alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from
firefighting foams used at locations across New York, including
Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh and Gabreski Air
National Guard Base in Southampton, Plattsburgh Air Force Base in
Plattsburgh, Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, and unspecified
"other" sites throughout the State.  The lawsuit seeks to recover
costs and natural resource damages associated with contamination at
these sites.  This suit has been removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York and
transferred to the MDL.

In February 2019, the State of New York filed a second lawsuit in
New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al.,
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers,
including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS
and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting
foams used at additional locations across New York.  This second
complaint has not been served.

In January 2019, the State of Ohio filed a lawsuit in Ohio state
court (State of Ohio v. The 3M Company et al., No.
G-4801-CI-021804752 -000 (Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County,
Ohio)) against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of
the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly
resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various specified
and unspecified locations across Ohio.  The lawsuit seeks to
recover costs and natural resource damages associated with the
contamination.  This lawsuit has been removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and transferred to
the MDL.

AFFF Matters Related to the Tyco Fire Products Fire Technology
Center in Marinette, Wisconsin

Tyco Fire Products, in coordination with the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources ("WDNR") and the Wisconsin Department of
Health Services ("DHS"), has been conducting an environmental
assessment of its Fire Technology Center ("FTC") located in
Marinette, Wisconsin and surrounding areas in the City of Marinette
and Town of Peshtigo, Wisconsin.  In connection with the
assessment, PFOS and PFOA have been detected at the FTC and in
groundwater and surface water outside of the boundaries of the FTC.
Tyco Fire Products continues to investigate the extent of
potential migration of these compounds and is working closely with
WDNR and DHS to develop interim measures to remove these compounds
from certain areas where they have been detected.

Tyco Fire Products and its subsidiary Chemguard are defendants in
one lawsuit in Marinette County, Wisconsin alleging damages due to
the historical use of AFFF products at Tyco's Fire Technology
Center in Marinette, Wisconsin.  The putative class action, Joan &
Richard Campbell for themselves and on behalf of other similarly
situated v. Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard Inc., et al.
(Marinette County Circuit Court, filed Dec.  17, 2018) alleges
PFOA/PFOS contaminated groundwater migrated off Tyco's property and
into residential drinking water wells causing both personal
injuries and property damage to the plaintiffs; Tyco and Chemguard
removed this case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin and it has been transferred to the
MDL.  A second lawsuit, Duane and Janell Goldsmith individually and
on behalf of H.G.  and K.G v. Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard
Inc., et al. (Marinette County Circuit Court, filed Dec.  17, 2018)
was also filed by a family alleging personal injuries due to
contaminated groundwater; this case has been dismissed without
prejudice.

The Company is vigorously defending the above AFFF matters and
believes that it has meritorious defenses to class certification
and the claims asserted.  However, there are numerous factual and
legal issues to be resolved in connection with these claims, and it
is extremely difficult to predict the outcome or ultimate financial
exposure, if any, represented by these matters, but there can be no
assurance that any such exposure will not be material.  The Company
is also pursuing insurance coverage for these matters.

Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified
technology and multi industrial company worldwide. The company
operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power
Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson
Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls
International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International
plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland.


LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in Davis Class Action Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is still awaiting ruling
of an appeal from the decision in the putative class action lawsuit
styled, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al.,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

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

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

Laboratory Corp. said, "The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit."

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


LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Nix Sequenom Class Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in the class action lawsuit related to Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings' acquisition of Sequenom, Inc.
remains pending, according to Laboratory Corp.'s Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

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

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

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

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

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

On March 13, 2019, the Court stayed the action in its entirety
pending the U.S. Supreme Court's anticipated decision in Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian.  On April 23, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme
Court dismissed the writ of centiorari in Emulex as improvidently
granted.

Laboratory Corp. said, "The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit."

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


LABORATORY CORP: Bloomquist Putative Class Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings still defends itself
against a putative class action suit entitled, Daniel L. Bloomquist
v. Covance Inc., et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

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

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

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

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

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


LANNETT CO: Bid to Dismiss Drug Pricing-Related Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company is awaiting
a court ruling on its motion to dismiss the third amended complaint
in the putative class action over the company's drug pricing
methodologies and internal controls.  

In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its officers claiming that the Company
damaged the purported class by including in its securities filings
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's drug
pricing methodologies and internal controls.  

An amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September 2017.  In
December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second
amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the Company's
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
in February 2018. In July 2018, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In September 2018,
counsel for the putative class filed a third amended complaint. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in
November 2018.

In February 2019, counsel for the putative class filed a brief in
opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss. In March 2019, the
Company filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss.

The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at
this time.

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LANNETT CO: Briefing on Bid to Dismiss to be Completed by June 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the briefing on the
motion to dismiss in the direct purchasers suit related to generic
drugs price-fixing is scheduled to be completed by June 13, 2019.

On September 25, 2018, two other alleged direct purchasers filed a
purported class action complaint alleging an overreaching,
industry-wide horizontal and vertical conspiracy involving the
company, other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, and various
pharmaceutical distributors to allocate markets and fix prices
generally for a variety of generic drugs.

The case has been added to the multidistrict litigation. On
December 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
February 21, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims. Briefing for
those motions is ongoing and is scheduled to be completed by June
13, 2019.

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LANNETT CO: Court Narrows Claims in Pennsylvania Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court in the
Pennsylvania class action suit has granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the defendants' motion to dismiss.

In October 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its officers in the federal court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer damaged the
purported class by making false and misleading statements in
connection with the possible renewal of the Jerome Stevens
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JSP) Distribution Agreement.   

The Company and the corporate executives named in the complaint
deny that they made any false or misleading statements. In December
2018, counsel for the putative class filed an amended complaint.

The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint in January 2019.
In March 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion to dismiss.

The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this suit at
this time.

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended
release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage
forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well
as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft
gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in
1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LOOMIS ARMORED: Myers Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit SHAKEERA MYERS, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LOOMIS ARMORED
US, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00532-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the action as a
      representative collective action under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act;

   2. granting approval of the proposed FLSA notice of the action
      and the consent form;

   3. directing Defendant to provide updated production of names,
      last known mailing addresses, alternate addresses, telephone

      numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment of all
      putative FLSA plaintiffs/R. 23 class members;

   4. directing Plaintiff to email and/or text message the proposed

      Notice, along with utilizing regular U.S. Mail;

   5. granting certification of the action as a class action under

      Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for the North Carolina Wage and Hour
      Act claims; and

   6. appointing Myers as class representative and the Law Offices

      of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC as class counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Charlotte Smith, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
          HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Robert Ash, IV, Esq.
          Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: 248-355-0300
          Facsimile: 248-746-4001
          E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com
                  mturner@sommerspc.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Jerry Howard Walters, Jr., Esq.
          Houston A. Stokes, Esq.
          Claire B. Deason, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Bank of America Corporate Center
          100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4150
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: 704-972-7013
          Facsimile: 704-333-4005
          E-mail: jwalters@littler.com
                  hstokes@littler.com
                  cdeason@littler.com

LOS ANGELES, CA: Gonzalez-Tzita Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit LEONARDO GONZALEZ-TZITA, an individual,
ESTEBAN DIEGO ESTEBAN, an individual, SIDONIO LOMELI, and
individual and all as class representatives, the Plaintiffs, vs.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00194-FMO-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move Court on
June 6, 2019, for an order:

   1. certifying a class defined as:

      "all registered vehicle owners whose vehicles were seized
and
      impounded by the City of Los Angeles at any time from January

      11, 2014, through February 15, 2017, under the authority of
      Cal. Veh. Code section 21100.4";

   2. preliminarily approving proposed Class Action Settlement
      Agreement; and

   3. authorizing mailing and other forms of notice to class
      members.

The case is a proposed class action bringing federal and state law
challenges to the legality of vehicle seizures undertaken pursuant
to a City of Los Angeles' "bandit taxi" program. Under that
program, City officials impounded for up to 30 days vehicles City
officials contended were being operated as an unlawful vehicle for
hire, more commonly called a "bandit taxi," in violation of
L.A.M.C. section 71.02(a) (the City's bandit taxi ordinance).

The damages claims of the class members and three class
representatives (the Plaintiffs Gonzalez-Tzita, Esteban and Lomeli)
would resolve in the approximate amount of $1,260,500.  The
remaining $440,000 would be for payment of attorneys' fees and
costs, class administration, class representative incentive
payments, and the individual damages claim of Plaintiff
Lomeli.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs:

          Donald W. Cook, Esq.
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 252-9444
          Facsimile: (213) 252-0091
          E-mail: manncook@earthlink.net

LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Oclaro Still Defends Karri Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lumentum Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that Oclaro, Inc. continues
to defend itself from a class action suit entitled, SaiSravan B.
Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al.

In connection with the company's acquisition of Oclaro, seven
lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Oclaro challenging
the proposed merger (the "Merger").

Two of the seven suits were putative class actions filed against
Oclaro, its directors, Lumentum, Prota Merger Sub, Inc. and Prota
Merger, LLC: Nicholas Neinast v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
3:18-cv-03112-VC, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (filed May 24, 2018) (the "Neinast
Lawsuit"); and Adam Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
1:18-cv-00817-GMS, in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware (filed June 9, 2018) (the "Franchi Lawsuit").
Both the Neinstat Lawsuit and the Franchi Lawsuit were voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice.

The other five suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC (the "Wordehoff Lawsuit"),
Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC (the
"Ryan Lawsuit"), Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
5:18-cv-03203-EJD (the "Walker Lawsuit"), Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03262-VKD (the "Garcia Lawsuit"), and
SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD
(the "Karri Lawsuit" and, together with the other six lawsuits, the
"Lawsuits"), were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 25, 2018, May 29, 2018, May
30, 2018, May 31, 2018, and June 9, 2018, respectively.

These five Lawsuits named Oclaro and its directors as defendants
only and did not name Lumentum.

The Wordehoff, Ryan, Walker, and Garcia Lawsuits have been
voluntarily dismissed, and the Wordehoff, Ryan, and Walker
dismissals were with prejudice. The Karri Lawsuit has not yet been
dismissed. The Ryan Lawsuit was, and the Karri Lawsuit is, a
putative class action.

The Lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that Oclaro and
its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by disseminating an incomplete and
misleading Form S-4, including proxy statement/prospectus.

The Lawsuits further alleged that Oclaro's directors violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise proper
control over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The remaining Lawsuit (the Karri Lawsuit) currently purports to
seek, among other things, damages to be awarded to the plaintiff
and any class if the Merger is consummated, and litigation costs,
including attorneys' fees.

The defendants intend to defend the Karri Lawsuit vigorously.

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

Lumentum Holdings Inc. manufactures and sells optical and photonic
products in the Americas, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle
East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments,
Optical Communications and Commercial Lasers. Lumentum Holdings
Inc. was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Milpitas,
California.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: 1,780 Suits Filed over Opioid Sales
-----------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2019, that as of May 7, 2019, the
Company is aware of approximately 1,780 cases related to Opioid
sales.

Since 2017, multiple U.S. states, counties, other governmental
persons or entities and private plaintiffs have filed lawsuits
against certain Mallinckrodt entities, as well as various other
manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers,
individual doctors and/or others, asserting claims relating to
defendants' alleged sales, marketing, distribution, reimbursement,
prescribing, dispensing and/or other practices with respect to
prescription opioid medications, including certain of the Company's
products.

As of May 7, 2019, the cases of which the Company is aware include,
but are not limited to, approximately 1,780 cases filed by
counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other
government-related persons or entities; approximately 122 cases
filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare
funds or other third-party payers; approximately 27 cases filed by
individuals and 7 cases filed by the Attorneys General for New
Mexico, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Georgia, Florida, Alaska and New
York. Certain of the lawsuits have been filed as putative class
actions.

Many of the lawsuits have been coordinated in a federal
multi-district litigation ("MDL") pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The MDL court has issued a
series of case management orders permitting motion practice
addressing threshold legal issues in certain cases, allowing
discovery and setting a trial date in October 2019 for two cases
originally filed in the Northern District of Ohio.

Other lawsuits remain pending in various state courts. In some
jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, Illinois, New York,
Pennsylvania and Texas, certain state court cases have been
coordinated for pretrial proceedings before a single court within
their respective state court systems. State cases are generally at
the pleading and/or discovery stage.

The lawsuits assert a variety of claims, including, but not limited
to, public nuisance, negligence, civil conspiracy, fraud,
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO") or similar state laws, violations of state Controlled
Substances Acts or state False Claims Acts, product liability,
consumer fraud, unfair or deceptive trade practices, false
advertising, insurance fraud, unjust enrichment and other common
law and statutory claims arising from defendants' manufacturing,
distribution, marketing and promotion of opioids and seek
restitution, damages, injunctive and other relief and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The claims generally are based on alleged misrepresentations and/or
omissions in connection with the sale and marketing of prescription
opioid medications and/or an alleged failure to take adequate steps
to prevent abuse and diversion.

Mallinckrodt said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend itself
against these lawsuits and similar lawsuits that may be brought by
others. Since these lawsuits are in early stages, the Company is
unable to predict outcomes or estimate a range of reasonably
possible losses."

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Amended Complaint Filed in MSP Recovery Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2019, that an amended complaint
has been filed in the class action suit entitled, MSP Recovery
Claims, Series II LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

On October 30, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and United BioSource Corporation ("UBC") in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Pursuant to a motion filed by the defendants, the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, and is currently proceeding as MSP Recovery Claims,
Series II LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 23, 2018. The
motion to dismiss was granted on January 25, 2019. MSP was provided
with leave to amend its complaint, and filed the operative First
Amended Class Action Complaint on April 10, 2019 asserting claims
under federal antitrust law, state antitrust laws and state
consumer protection laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company unlawfully maintained a
monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S.
rights to Synacthen Depot and reaching anti-competitive agreements
with the other defendants by selling Acthar Gel through an
exclusive distribution network.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all third-party
payers, or their assignees, in the U.S. and its territories, who
have, as indirect purchasers, in whole or in part, paid for,
provided reimbursement for, and/or possess the recovery rights to
reimbursement for the indirect purchase of Acthar Gel from August
1, 2007 to present.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Action Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, City of Rockford v.
Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

On April 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and United BioSource Corporation (UBC) in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The case is captioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc.,
et al. The complaint was subsequently amended, most recently on
December 8, 2017, to include an additional named plaintiff and
additional defendants.

As amended, the complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories, excluding any
Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entities and certain
others, that paid for Acthar Gel from August 2007 to the present.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was
granted in part by the Court on January 25, 2019, dismissing one of
two named plaintiffs and all claims with the exception of federal
and state antitrust claims.

The remaining allegation in the case is that the Company engaged in
anti-competitive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price
of Acthar Gel.

Mallinckrodt said, "To this end, the suit alleges that the Company
unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market
by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot; and conspired with
the other named defendants by selling Acthar Gel through an
exclusive distributor. The Company intends to vigorously defend
itself in this matter."

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Solomon Suit Still Stayed
-------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2019, that the case, Solomon v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., is still stayed.

On July 20, 2017, a purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock
through Mallinckrodt's Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPPs), filed
a derivative lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the Eastern
District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v. Mallinckrodt plc, et
al., against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer Mark C.
Trudeau ("CEO"), its former Chief Financial Officer Matthew K.
Harbaugh ("CFO"), its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and current
and former directors of the Company. On September 6, 2017,
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint in the Federal
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and refiled
virtually the same complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt stock between November
25, 2014, and January 18, 2017, through the ESPPs.

In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges a class action for those
same purchasers/acquirers of stock in the ESPPs during the same
period. The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the
Securities Act, and for breach of fiduciary duty,
misrepresentation, non-disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs'
assets and breach of contract arising from substantially similar
allegations as those contained in the putative class action
securities litigation described in the following paragraph.
Stipulated co-lead plaintiffs were approved by the court on March
1, 2018.

Co-lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2018
having a class period of July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017. On July
6, 2018, this matter was stayed by agreement of the parties pending
resolution of the Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al.,
matter.

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Still Defends Putative Class Action in Puerto Rico
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. still defends itself against a
putative class action lawsuit related to an electrical failure in
Puerto Rico, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019.

On June 27, 2018, the Company's registered agent notified the
Company that it had been served with a putative class action
lawsuit titled Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc.; Multisystem Restaurant
Inc.; Restaurant Operators Inc.; Apple Caribe, Inc.; on their own
behalf and in representation of all businesses that conduct
business in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico vs. Mammoth Energy
Services Inc.; Cobra Acquisitions, LLC; D.  Grimm Puerto Rico, LLC;
Aseguradoras A, B & C; John Doe; Richard Doe, in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico Superior Court of San Juan.

The plaintiffs allege negligent acts by the defendants caused an
electrical failure in Puerto Rico resulting in damages of at least
US$300 million.

The Company believes this claim is without merit and will
vigorously defend the action.  However, the Company continues to
evaluate the background facts and at this time is not able to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a
material impact on the Company's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company.  The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services.  It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.


MANNKIND CORP: Still Defends Class Action in Tel Aviv
-----------------------------------------------------
MannKind Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action lawsuit in the district court at Tel Aviv,
Economic Department.

Following the public announcement of Sanofi's election to terminate
the license and collaboration agreement between the Company and
Sanofi (the "Sanofi License Agreement") and the subsequent decline
in the Company's stock price, two motions were submitted to the
district court at Tel Aviv, Economic Department for the
certification of a class action against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.

In general, the complaints allege that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S. securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding
the prospects for Afrezza, thereby artificially inflating the price
of its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.

In November 2016, the district court dismissed one of the actions
without prejudice. In the remaining action, the district court
ruled in October 2017 that U.S. law will apply to this case. The
plaintiff has appealed this ruling, and following an oral hearing
before the Supreme Court of Israel, has decided to withdraw his
appeal.

Subsequently, in November 2018, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the certification motion. At a case conference in February
2019, the court directed the parties to negotiate a procedure for
determining whether the plaintiff can distinguish the claims in the
Israeli litigation from those in a U.S. case against the Company
based on the same events (which was dismissed by the U.S. district
court for the Central District of California in August 2016).

The Company will continue to vigorously defend against the claims
advanced.

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

MannKind Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the
development and commercialization of inhaled therapeutic products
for diabetes and pulmonary arterial hypertension patients. MannKind
Corporation was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Westlake
Village, California.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Class Certification Bid in Lennen Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
motion for class certification in the class action suit initiated
by Anthony and Beth Lennen has been denied and the company has
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

In May 2016, the company, certain of its subsidiaries, and certain
third parties were named as defendants in an action filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by Anthony
and Beth Lennen.

The case is filed as a putative class action; the plaintiffs seek
to represent a class consisting of themselves and all other
purchasers of Marriott Vacation Club Destinations (MVCD) points,
from inception of the MVCD program in June 2010 to the present, as
well as all individuals who own or have owned weeks in any resorts
for which weeks have been added to the MVCD program.

Plaintiffs challenged the characterization of the beneficial
interests in the MVCD trust that are sold to customers as real
estate interests under Florida law. They also challenged the
structure of the trust and associated operational aspects of the
trust product. The relief sought includes, among other things,
declaratory relief, an unwinding of the MVCD product, and punitive
damages.

In October 2017, after the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the initial complaint, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. In November 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint, and in March 2019, the Court partially
granted the company's motion.

In April 2019, the company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings regarding the sole remaining claim against it. In October
2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which
was denied without prejudice in April 2019.

Marriott Vacations said, "We dispute the plaintiffs" material
allegations and continue to defend against the action vigorously.
Given the early stages of the action and the inherent uncertainties
of litigation, we cannot estimate a range of the potential
liability, if any, at this time."

Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation develops, markets, sells,
and manages vacation ownership and related products under the
Marriott Vacation Club, Grand Residences by Marriott, Sheraton,
Westin, Hyatt Residence Club brands, and Marriott Vacation Club
Pulse brands. The company operates through two segments, Vacation
Ownership and Exchange & Third-Party Management. Marriott Vacations
Worldwide Corporation is headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Faces Helman Class Suit in Virgin Islands
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the
company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action
suit initiated by Alan and Marjorie Helman.

In April 2019, the company, certain of its subsidiaries, Marriott
International, and certain of its subsidiaries were served with a
complaint in an action originally filed on January 24, 2019 in the
Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas by
Alan and Marjorie Helman and 5 other named plaintiffs.

The case is filed as a putative class action; the plaintiffs seek
to represent a class consisting of themselves and all other owners
of fractional interests at The Ritz-Carlton Club, St. Thomas
("RCC-St. Thomas") from May 22, 2002 to January 26, 2014 (excluding
those who have lost their interests via a loan foreclosure).

Plaintiffs allege that their fractional interests were devalued by
the affiliation of RCC-St. Thomas and other Ritz-Carlton Clubs with
the company's Marriott Vacation Club Destinations (MVCD) program.
The relief sought includes, among other things, unspecified
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, disgorgement of profits
and attorneys' fees.

Marriott Vacations said, "We dispute the plaintiffs' material
allegations and intend to defend against the action vigorously.
Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate
a range of the potential liability, if any, at this time."

Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation develops, markets, sells,
and manages vacation ownership and related products under the
Marriott Vacation Club, Grand Residences by Marriott, Sheraton,
Westin, Hyatt Residence Club brands, and Marriott Vacation Club
Pulse brands. The company operates through two segments, Vacation
Ownership and Exchange & Third-Party Management. Marriott Vacations
Worldwide Corporation is headquartered in Orlando, Florida.


MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource's Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 30, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by Physicians Healthsource,
Inc. (PHI).

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. (PHI).

The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief.

On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case
pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company with
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the
District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a
ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October 30, 2014, the FCC
granted some of the relief and denied some of the relief requested
in the Company's petition. Both parties appealed the FCC's decision
on the petition.

On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint
request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on the
appeal.

On March 31, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and
remanded the FCC's decision, holding that the applicable FCC rule
was unlawful to the extent it requires opt-out notices on solicited
faxes. On April 28, 2017, PHI filed a petition seeking rehearing by
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the requested rehearing on
June 6, 2017. The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on September 5,
2017 seeking review of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision.


The Company and the FCC filed oppositions to this petition on
January 16, 2018. On February 20, 2018, the Supreme Court denied
certiorari. The District Court lifted the stay on April 9, 2018 and
set a trial date of November 5, 2019. The current deadline for PHI
to file its motion for class certification is May 20, 2019.

Masimo said, "The Company believes it has good and substantial
defenses to the claims in the District Court litigation, but there
is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The Company is
unable to determine whether any loss will ultimately occur or to
estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has
been accrued by the Company in the accompanying condensed
consolidated financial statements."

Masimo Corporation, a medical technology company, develops,
manufactures, and markets noninvasive monitoring technologies
worldwide. Masimo Corporation was founded in 1989 and is
headquartered in Irvine, California.


MDL 2047: Court Denies Yance's Bid for Award of Attorneys' Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL CASES, Civil Action MDL
No. 2047 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Yance Law Firm,
LLC's Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees on Interest Earned.

From 2004 through 2006, the housing boom in Florida and rebuilding
efforts necessitated by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina led to a
shortage of construction materials in the United States, including
drywall.  As a result, drywall manufactured in China was brought
into the United States and used in the construction and
refurbishing of homes in coastal areas of the country, notably the
Gulf Coast and East Coast.  Sometime after the installation of the
Chinese drywall, homeowners began to complain of emissions of
foul-smelling gasses, the corrosion and blackening of metal wiring,
surfaces, and objects, and the breaking down of appliances and
electrical devices in their homes.  Many of these homeowners also
began to report various physical afflictions allegedly caused by
the Chinese drywall.

These homeowners began to file suit in various state and federal
courts against homebuilders, developers, installers, realtors,
brokers, suppliers, importers, exporters, distributors, and
manufacturers who were involved with the Chinese drywall.  Because
of the commonality of facts in the various cases, the litigation
was designated as multidistrict litigation.  Pursuant to a June 15,
2009 transfer order from the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, all federal cases involving
Chinese-manufactured drywall were consolidated for pretrial
proceedings in MDL 2047 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana.

The Chinese drywall at issue was largely manufactured by two groups
of Defendants: (1) the Knauf entities and (2) the Taishan entities.
Because the Taishan entities contested jurisdiction at the outset
and refused to accept service of process, it was necessary to
conduct the litigation along two tracks.  The first track involved
the Knauf entities.

The Knauf entities are German-based, international manufacturers of
building products, including drywall, whose Chinese subsidiary,
Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. ("KPT"), advertised and sold
its Chinese drywall in the United States.  The Knauf entities are
named Defendants in numerous cases consolidated with the MDL
litigation as well as litigation in state courts.  The Knauf
entities did not contest jurisdiction and first entered their
appearance in the MDL litigation on July 2, 2009.

On Oct. 14, 2010, Knauf agreed to participate in a pilot program to
remediate a number of homes using the remediation protocol
formulated by the Court in the Hernandez v. Knauf Gips KG case.
The Knauf pilot remediation program has remediated over 2,800 homes
containing KPT Chinese drywall using essentially the same protocol.
At the Court's urging, after a number of homes had been
remediated, the parties began working together to monetize this
program and make it available to a broader class of plaintiffs.

Thereafter, the PSC and Knauf entered into settlement discussions,
and on Dec. 20, 2011, some two years after the formation of the
MDL.  The PSC reached a global remediation settlement with Knauf,
which is designed to resolve all Knauf-related Chinese drywall
claims.  After a bellwether trial involving the downstream Knauf
distributor, North River, numerous other settlement agreements were
also reached with other downstream entities in the chain of
commerce with the Knauf.  These entities included various
distributers, builders, and installers (and their insurers) of the
Knauf-manufactured Chinese drywall.

On Aug. 12, 2013, the Plaintiffs' and the Defendants' Liaison
counsel entered into a second settlement agreement addressing
claims filed after Dec. 9, 2011.  Under the New Claims Settlement
Agreement, Claimants who gave notice prior to Oct. 25, 2013 and
qualified under the terms of the New Claims Agreement were eligible
to seek benefits under the Knauf Class Settlement Agreement,
subject to the requirements set forth in both agreements.

Under the terms of the settlements, the claimants with KPT Chinese
drywall (drywall manufactured by Knauf's Chinese subsidiary) were
offered several options.  Under Option 1, the claimants were
offered the opportunity to receive a complete, environmentally
certified remediation of their properties.  Under Option 2, the
claimants were offered cash reimbursement in the event the home was
already remediated.  Finally, under Option 3, claimants were
offered a cash payment instead of remediation as well as the
opportunity to receive monetary benefits from the Knauf downstream
chain of commerce entities to compensate them for other
specifically designated losses.

As part of the Knauf remediation settlement, the Defendants also
agreed to pay reasonable costs, including the cost of administering
the program and an additional amount for attorneys' fees, which
includes both the fees for contract counsel and those for common
benefit counsel.  This payment relieves every claimant of all
contingency fee and cost reimbursement obligations to both retained
contract counsel and common benefit counsel (with exception of the
Virginia litigants), and thus represents an amount which otherwise
would have been payable by the claimants out of their settlement
recovery.

The claimants having received their appropriate portion of the
settlement funds, the Court endeavored to allocate attorneys' fees
to contract counsel and common benefit counsel pursuant to
Pre-Trial Order 28.  PTO 28 lays out the multi-step process by
which the Court disbursed attorneys' fees.  Throughout the process,
the Court was aided by Special Master Daniel Balhoff,
Court-Appointed CPA Philip Garrett, and Court-Appointed Settlement
Administrator BrownGreer.

After completing steps one through four, the Court proceeded to
step five to determine the total amount of the common benefit fund
and the amount of funds for individual counsel for claimants.  In
its Jan. 31, 2018 order, the Court found the appropriate split
between the contract counsel and the common benefit counsel was 52%
for the common benefit counsel and 48% for the contract counsel.
Thereafter, on Feb. 4, 2019, the Court proceeded to step six,
allotting the common benefit fund to various firms in differing
amounts.  The next day, the Court issued its final judgment
regarding common benefit attorneys' fees.

On Feb. 19, 2019, Yance filed a motion seeking an award of attorney
fees on the interest earned from the Attorney Fee Qualified
Settlement Fund since the Court entered its Final Judgment,
claiming that its actions alone caused the Funds to be returned to
the Court's registry, which resulted in higher interest returns.
According to Yance, it deserves a fee for its efforts.  On March
12, 2019, Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel, Herman, Herman, & Katz
and Levin, Sedran & Berman LLP, jointly filed a memorandum in
opposition.  On March 26, 2019, Yance filed a reply memorandum.

Relatedly, on Jan. 10, 2014, the Court issued PTO 28 regarding
attorney fee and cost reimbursement guidelines.  The Court modified
this PTO on May 25, 2016, setting forth additional timelines and
other procedural steps with which attorneys seeking a common
benefit fee must comply.

Judge Fallon finds that Yance has not complied with either PTO 8 or
PTO 28 and therefore is not entitled to any monies from the Common
Benefit Fund.  Moreover, the Court established the Common Benefit
Fund to reimburse attorneys whose work contributed to the common
benefit of the claimants in the case.  Yet, as Yance readily
admits, it has not done work on behalf of any claimants in many
years.  As a result, the Judge will deny Yance's motion seeking
funds from the common benefit as being both untimely and without
merit.

Finally, in its motion, Yance contends it is entitled to fees for
its having filed a motion to transfer the Fund into the Court's
registry, which the Court denied as moot.  The interest rate
available has fluctuated over the period in question.  Disputes
among counsel over attorneys' fees caused delays and necessitated
further hearings.  This reduced the importance of immediate access
to the common benefit funds.  In addition, interest rates improved
for Court registry deposits.  Accordingly, the Court ordered the
funds be transferred to the Court's registry.  That Yance at one
time filed a motion seeking to transfer the Funds does not entitle
it to a fee.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Fallon denied Yance's Motion for
an Award of Attorney Fees on Interest Earned.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2019 Order & Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/ki4fpO from Leagle.com.

Lynn C Greer, Special Master, pro se.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Russ M. Herman --
rherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Leonard A.
Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC.

Homebuilders and Installers Steering Committee, Defendant,
represented by Phillip A. Wittmann -- pwittmann@stonepigman.com --
Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC.

Insurer Steering Committee, Defendant, represented by Judy Y.
Barrasso -- JBarrasso@BarrassoUsdin.com -- Barrasso, Usdin,
Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC.

Defendant, Defendant, represented by Kerry J. Miller --
kmiller@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz & Andrew J Brien -- brien@carverdarden.com -- Carver,
Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux.

Defendant, Liaison Counsel for Taishan, BNMB entities, and CNBM
entities, Defendant, represented by Harry Rosenberg --
harry.rosenberg@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP.


MDL 2084: AbbVie Settles 3 Individual AndroGel Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
In re: AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084, AbbVie Inc. has
settled with the plaintiffs in three of the individual lawsuits,
which will be dismissed with prejudice, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

Several pending lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company Abbott acquired in
February 2010 and now known as AbbVie Products LLC) and others are
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) Rules as In re: AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 2084.

These cases, brought by private plaintiffs and the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), generally allege Solvay's patent litigation
involving AndroGel was sham litigation and the 2006 patent
litigation settlement agreements and related agreements with three
generic companies violate federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs
generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

These cases include: (a) four individual plaintiff lawsuits; (b)
three purported class actions; and (c) Federal Trade Commission v.
Actavis, Inc. et al.  Following the district court's dismissal of
all plaintiffs' claims, appellate proceedings led to the
reinstatement of the claims regarding the patent litigation
settlements, which are proceeding in the district court.

In July 2018, the court denied the private plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

In February 2019, AbbVie and the FTC reached a settlement that
applies certain conditions on future patent settlements involving
former Solvay products, as part of which the FTC's claims were
dismissed with prejudice.  In April 2019, AbbVie settled with the
plaintiffs in three of the individual lawsuits, which will be
dismissed with prejudice.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


MDL 2460: 3 Consolidated Class Suits on Niaspan Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. still faces lawsuits, including three consolidated
purported class actions, related to a 2005 patent litigation
settlement involving Niaspan, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

Lawsuits are pending against AbbVie and others generally alleging
that the 2005 patent litigation settlement involving Niaspan
entered into between Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired
by Abbott in 2006 and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a
generic company violates federal and state antitrust laws and state
unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws.
Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees.

The lawsuits, including a putative end-payer class action filed in
December 2018, consist of four individual plaintiff lawsuits and
three consolidated purported class actions: one brought by Niaspan
direct purchasers and two brought by Niaspan end-payers.  The cases
are pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial
proceedings under the MDL Rules as In re: Niaspan Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 2460.

In October 2016, the Orange County, California District Attorney's
Office filed a lawsuit on behalf of the State of California
regarding the Niaspan patent litigation settlement in Orange County
Superior Court, asserting a claim under the unfair competition
provision of the California Business and Professions Code seeking
injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties and attorneys'
fees.

In May 2018, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the
District Attorney's Office may not bring monetary claims beyond the
scope of Orange County.

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, a
therapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;
IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocytic
leukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with or
without ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronic
hepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
North Chicago, Illinois.


MDL 2741: Walter v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH E. WALTER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00296 (Filed Feb. 22, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco) on May 1, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02375-VC to the proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Walter case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October
3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out
of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its
active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The
Plaintiff alleges that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MDL 2741: Williams v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA R. WILLIAMS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00299 (Filed Feb. 22, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on May 1, 2019. The Northern District
of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-02379-VC to the
proceeding.

The suit seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Williams case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Plaintiff alleges that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. Plaintiff also alleges that
the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in
particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues
concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Bid to Vacate Judgment in Forman Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Meridian Bioscience Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to
reconsider, set aside, alter, amend, or vacate the judgment of
dismissal filed in the class action suit initiated by Barbara
Forman, is pending.

On November 15, 2017, Barbara Forman filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio naming Meridian, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer (in their capacities as such) as defendants.

An amended complaint was filed on April 16, 2018 and the Company
believes the essential elements of the amended complaint are the
same. The complaint and the amended complaint are hereafter
referred to as the "Complaint". The Complaint seeks compensatory
damages and attorneys’ fees.

On February 13, 2019 the Court granted Meridian's motion to dismiss
and dismissed the Complaint in its entirety.

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider, Set Aside, Alter, Amend, or
Vacate the Judgment of dismissal on March 13, 2019.

Meridian opposed the Plaintiff's motion on April 3, 2019 and the
Plaintiff filed a reply on April 17, 2019.

The motion remains pending before the Court.

Meridian said, "Accordingly, no provision for litigation losses has
been included within either of the accompanying Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and six months
ended March 31, 2019 or March 31, 2018."

Meridian Bioscience Inc., an integrated life science company,
manufactures, develops, sells, and distributes diagnostic test
kits. Meridian, founded in 1976, is based in Cincinnati.


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Awaits 5th Cir. Review on Brown Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. is awaiting the review of
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals over the District Court's order
granting class certification in the lawsuit initiated by Nathaniel
Brown, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.  The Company also said that it intends to appeal
the District Court's order granting plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment to the Fifth Circuit if permission to appeal is granted.

In April 2017, plaintiff Nathaniel Brown, on behalf of a purported
class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Operating
Partnership, as the successor by merger to Post Properties' primary
operating partnership, and MAA in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

The lawsuit alleges that Post Properties, Inc. (and, following the
Post Properties merger in December 2016, the Operating Partnership)
charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section
92.019.  The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorneys'
fees and costs.

In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by
the plaintiff.  Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court
denied the Company's motion for summary judgment and granted the
plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  Because the
District Court certified a class prior to granting the plaintiff's
motion for partial summary judgment, the District Court's ruling
applies to the entire class.

In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
Company's petition to review the District Court's order granting
class certification.

The Company said, "We intend to appeal the District Court's order
granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to appeal is granted.  We
will continue to vigorously defend the action and pursue such
appeals."


MORGAN STANLEY: New Antitrust Suits Filed in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley is facing a series of putative class action
complaints filed in the Southern District of New York beginning on
March 25, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

Beginning on March 25, 2019, the Firm was named as a defendant in a
series of putative class action complaints filed in the Southern
District of New York, the first of which is styled Alaska
Electrical Pension Fund v. BofA Secs., Inc., et al.

Each complaint alleges a conspiracy to fix prices and restrain
competition in the market for unsecured bonds issued by the
following Government-Sponsored Enterprises: the Federal National
Mortgage Associate; the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; the
Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation; and the Federal Home
Loan Banks. The purported class period for each suit is from
January 1, 2012 to June 1, 2018. Each complaint raises a claim
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief and treble compensatory damages.

Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, provides various
financial products and services to corporations, governments,
financial institutions, and individuals in the Americas, Europe,
the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The company operates through
Institutional Securities, Wealth Management, and Investment
Management segments.  Morgan Stanley was founded in 1924 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.



MUELLER WATER: Continues to Defend New York Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Water Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend in a putative class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On April 11, 2019, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Mueller Water Products, Inc. and certain of
the company's former and current officers (collectively, the
"Defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The proposed class consists of all persons and entities that
acquired the company's securities between May 9, 2016 and August 6,
2018 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including, among other things, that the company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects during
the proposed Class Period.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs but does not specify the amount.

Mueller Water said, "We believe the allegations are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. However, the
outcome of this legal proceeding cannot be predicted with
certainty."

Mueller Water Products, Inc. manufactures and markets products and
services for use in the transmission, distribution, and measurement
of water in the United States, Canada, and internationally. It
operates in two segments, Infrastructure and Technologies. The
company is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


MYLAN NV: Class Cert. in EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the motion for class certification in
the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Civil Litigation is pending.

Mylan Specialty and other Mylan-affiliated entities have been named
as defendants in putative class actions relating to the pricing
and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.

The plaintiffs in these cases assert violations of various federal
and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as common law
claims. Plaintiffs' claims include purported challenges to the
prices charged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and/or the marketing
of the product in packages containing two auto-injectors, as well
as allegedly anti-competitive conduct.

A Mylan officer and other non-Mylan affiliated companies were also
named as defendants in some of the class actions.

These lawsuits were filed in the various federal and state courts
and have either been dismissed or transferred into a multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas and have been consolidated.

Mylan filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint,
which was granted in part and denied in part. On December 7, 2018,
the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. This motion
remains pending. A trial date has been scheduled for November 2020.


Mylan said, "We believe that the remaining claims in these lawsuits
are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

On April 24, 2017, Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC ("Sanofi") filed a
lawsuit against Mylan Inc. and Mylan Specialty in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

This lawsuit has been transferred into the aforementioned MDL. In
this lawsuit, Sanofi alleges exclusive dealings and
anti-competitive marketing practices in violation of the antitrust
laws in connection with the sale and marketing of the EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector.

On November 1, 2018, Sanofi filed a Motion for a Suggestion of
Remand of the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey. On January 23, 2019, the Court denied Sanofi's motion
without prejudice.

Mylan said, "We believe that Sanofi's claims in this lawsuit are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the IEC Fund Action in the Tel Aviv
District Court (Economic Division) remains stayed until a judgment
is issued in the securities litigation pending in the United
States.

On October 13, 2016, a purported shareholder of Mylan N.V. filed a
lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class
action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V. shareholders on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange, against Mylan N.V. and four of its directors and
officers (collectively, for purposes of this paragraph, the
"defendants") in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division)
(the "Friedman Action").

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in Mylan
N.V.'s reports to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange regarding Mylan
N.V.'s classification of its EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector for purposes
of the  Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP), in violation of both
U.S. and Israeli securities laws, the Israeli Companies Law and the
Israeli Torts Ordinance. The plaintiff seeks damages, among other
remedies.

On April 30, 2017, another purported shareholder of Mylan N.V.
filed a separate lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the
lawsuit as a class action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V.
shareholders on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, in the Tel Aviv
District Court (Economic Division), alleging substantially similar
claims and seeking substantially similar relief against the
defendants and other directors and officers of Mylan N.V., but
alleging also that this group of defendants made false or
misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in
connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to
EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs, and alleging
violations of both U.S. federal securities laws and Israeli law
(the "IEC Fund Action").

On April 10, 2018, the Tel Aviv District Court granted the motion
filed by plaintiffs in both the Friedman Action and the IEC Fund
Action, voluntarily dismissing the Friedman Action and staying the
IEC Fund Action until a judgment is issued in the purported class
action securities litigation pending in the U.S.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

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

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: MYL Litigation Recovery I LLC Files Additional Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that MYL Litigation Recovery I LLC filed an
additional complaint against Mylan N.V., Mylan Inc., and certain of
their current and former directors and officers in the SDNY
asserting allegations pertaining to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector under
the federal securities laws that overlap in part with those
asserted in the second amended complaint.

Purported class action complaints were filed in October 2016
against Mylan N.V., Mylan Inc. and certain of their current and
former directors and officers (collectively, for purposes of this
paragraph, the "defendants") in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") on behalf of certain
purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. and/or Mylan Inc. on the
NASDAQ.

The complaints alleged that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation
of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating
to Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc.'s classification of their EpiPen®
Auto-Injector as a non-innovator drug for purposes of the MDRP.

The complaints sought damages, as well as the plaintiffs' fees and
costs.

On March 20, 2017, after the actions were consolidated, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed, alleging substantially
similar claims and seeking substantially similar relief, but adding
allegations that defendants made false or misleading statements and
omissions of purportedly material fact in connection with allegedly
anticompetitive conduct with respect to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and
certain generic drugs, and alleging violations of both federal
securities laws (on behalf of a purported class of certain
purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. and/or Mylan Inc. on the
NASDAQ) and Israeli securities laws (on behalf of a purported class
of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange).

On March 28, 2018, defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint was granted in part (including the dismissal of
claims arising under Israeli securities laws) and denied in part.

On July 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
including certain current and former directors and officers and
additional allegations in connection with purportedly
anticompetitive conduct with respect to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and
certain generic drugs. On August 6, 2018, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted in part
and denied in part on March 29, 2019.

On February 26, 2019, MYL Litigation Recovery I LLC (an assignee of
entities that purportedly purchased stock of Mylan N.V.) filed an
additional complaint against Mylan N.V., Mylan Inc., and certain of
their current and former directors and officers in the SDNY
asserting allegations pertaining to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector under
the federal securities laws that overlap in part with those
asserted in the second amended complaint. The Complaint seeks
damages as well as the plaintiff's costs.

We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and
intend to defend against them vigorously.

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


MYLAN NV: Valsartan-Related Class Suit in New Jersey Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit related to valsartan.

Mylan N.V., and three of its subsidiaries (Mylan Inc., Mylan
Laboratories Ltd. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.), along with
numerous other manufacturers, retailers and others, have been named
as defendants in lawsuits in the United States and other countries
stemming from recalls of valsartan-containing medications. The
United States litigation, which will take place in an MDL in the
District of New Jersey, includes class action allegations seeking
the refund of the purchase price and other economic damages
allegedly sustained by consumers who purchased valsartan-containing
products as well as claims for personal injuries allegedly caused
by ingestion of the medication.

Moreover, Mylan has received requests to indemnify purchasers of
Mylan's active pharmaceutical ingredient and/or finished dose forms
of the product.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.


NATURAL HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Named Lead Counsel
-------------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the court has appointed
Xia Yang as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P. A. as lead
counsel.

On January 8, 2019, the Company and its two executive officers were
named in a putative securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
captioned Kauffman v. Natural Health Trends Corp., Case No.
2:19-cv-00163.

The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between April
27, 2016 and January 5, 2019, inclusive, under (i) Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against the Company and Chris T. Sharng and
Timothy S. Davidson (together, the "Individual Defendants"), and
(ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual
Defendants.

The complaint alleges, in part, that the Company made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the legality of its
business operations in China, including running an allegedly
illegal multilevel marketing business. The complaint seeks an
indeterminate amount of damages, plus interest and costs.

On May 3, 2019, the court issued an order appointing Xia Yang as
lead plaintiff and appointing The Rosen Law Firm, P. A. as lead
counsel. The plaintiff was given until June 3, 2019 to file an
amended complaint.

Natural Health said, "Defendants believe that these claims are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them."

Natural Health Trends Corp., a direct-selling and e-commerce
company, provides personal care, wellness, and lifestyle products
under the NHT Global brand. Natural Health Trends Corp. was founded
in 1988 and is headquartered in Kowloon, Hong Kong.


NAVIENT CORP: Faces Suits over Consumer Protection Laws Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that it has been named as defendants in various
class action cases over alleged violations of consumer protection
laws.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases alleging violations of various state and federal
consumer protection laws including the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010 ("CFPA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and various other state
consumer protection laws.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in putative class
actions alleging violations of various state and federal consumer
protection laws related to borrowers and the Public Service Loan
Forgiveness program.

Navient said, "The Company denies the allegations and intends to
vigorously defend against the allegations."


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Appeal in Carvelli Class Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal in the case,
Carvelli v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et al., still remains
pending.

Ocwen said, "We have previously disclosed that as a result of the
federal and state regulatory actions taken in April 2017 and
shortly thereafter, and the impact on our stock price, several
putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed against
Ocwen and certain of its officers that contain allegations in
connection with Ocwen's statements concerning its efforts to
satisfy the evolving regulatory environment, and the resources it
devoted to regulatory compliance, among other matters."

Those lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida in the matter captioned
Carvelli v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et al. (S.D. Fla.). In
April 2018, the court in Carvelli granted the company's motion to
dismiss, and dismissed the consolidated case with prejudice.
Plaintiffs thereafter filed a notice of appeal, and that appeal
remains pending. Ocwen and the other defendants intend to defend
themselves vigorously.

Ocwen said, "Additional lawsuits may be filed against us in
relation to these matters. At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict
the outcome of this existing lawsuit or any additional lawsuits
that may be filed, the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
associated with the resolution of such lawsuits or the potential
impact such lawsuits may have on us or our operations. If
additional lawsuits are filed, Ocwen intends to vigorously defend
itself against such lawsuits. If our efforts to defend the existing
lawsuit or any future lawsuit are not successful, our business,
financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be
materially and adversely affected."

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

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of TCPA Case Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) related class suits are
awaiting the court's approval of the parties settlement.

Ocwen has been named in putative class actions and individual
actions related to its compliance with the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). Generally, plaintiffs in these actions
allege that Ocwen knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA by
using an automated telephone dialing system to call class members'
cell phones without their consent.

In July 2017, Ocwen entered into an agreement in principle to
resolve two such putative class actions, which have been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (N.D.
Ill.); Beecroft v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (N.D. Ill.).

Subject to final approval by the court, the settlement will include
the establishment of a settlement fund to be distributed to
impacted borrowers that submit claims for settlement benefits
pursuant to a claims administration process.

While Ocwen believes that it has sound legal and factual defenses,
Ocwen agreed to this settlement in principle in order to avoid the
uncertain outcome of litigation and the additional expense and
demands on the time of its senior management that such litigation
would involve.

In October 2017, the court preliminarily approved the settlement
and, thereafter, the company paid the settlement amount into an
escrow account held by the settlement administrator. However, in
September 2018, the Court denied the motion for final approval.

In November 2018, the parties engaged in mediation to address the
issues raised by the Court in its denial order. The parties
thereafter reached a revised agreement, and in January 2019, the
Court indicated it intended to grant the parties' renewed motion
for final approval, but to date has not yet done so. Additional
lawsuits may be filed against the company in relation to these
matters.

Ocwen said, "At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome
of these existing lawsuits or any additional lawsuits that may be
filed, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with
the resolution of such lawsuits or the potential impact such
lawsuits may have on us or our operations. Ocwen intends to
vigorously defend against these lawsuits. If our efforts to defend
these lawsuits are not successful, our business, financial
condition liquidity and results of operations could be materially
and adversely affected."

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: McWhorter Class Settlement Wins Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the presiding court in
McWhorter et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, granted preliminary
approval of the proposed class settlement.

In 2014, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Ocwen in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, alleging that Ocwen violated the FDCPA by charging
borrowers a convenience fee for making certain loan payments. The
case is entitled, McWhorter et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
(N.D. Ala.).

The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages under the FDCPA,
compensatory damages and injunctive relief. The presiding court
previously ruled on Ocwen's motions to dismiss, and Ocwen answered
the operative complaint.

Ocwen subsequently entered into an agreement in principle to
resolve this matter, and in January 2019, the presiding court
granted preliminary approval of the parties' proposed class
settlement.

While Ocwen believes that it has sound legal and factual defenses,
the company agreed to this settlement in principle in order to
avoid the uncertain outcome of litigation and the additional
expense and demands on the time of its senior management that such
litigation would involve. There can be no assurance that the court
will finally approve the settlement.

Ocwen said, "In the event the settlement is not finally approved,
the litigation would continue, and we would vigorously defend the
allegations made against Ocwen. Our accrual with respect to this
matter is included in the $52.9 million legal and regulatory
accrual referenced above. We cannot currently estimate the amount,
if any, of reasonably possible loss above the amount accrued."

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company,
originates and services loans in the United States, the United
States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial
Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm
Beach, Florida.


OCWEN LOAN: Court Rejects Stromberg Settlement
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit BONNIE LYNNE STROMBERG, the Plaintiff,
v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
15-cv-04719-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judeg Jon S. Tigar entered an
order:

   1. denying, without prejudice, the motion for preliminary
      settlement approval;

   2. deferring ruling on preliminary class certification until
      the parties present a settlement that otherwise merits
      preliminary approval; and

   3. setting July 19, 2019 as due date for motion for class
      certification or, alternatively, a motion for preliminary
      approval of class settlement.

Stromberg asserts a California state law claim against Morgan
Stanley Private Bank, N.A., and RBS Citizens, N.A. and Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, for failing to reconvey deeds of trust on real
property 30 days after repayment of home loans.[CC]

ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by The
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA).

On May 25, 2012, The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority (SEPTA) filed a putative class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against
the Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and
executive officers (collectively, the "Defendants").

The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010
through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and
financial results, including misleading statements concerning the
stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting
standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use
of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest,
costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for
appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24,
2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead
Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint
and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013.


Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification.

On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for
enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in order to
permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the amended
complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and defendants'
defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion,
mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring
SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013
or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances that require a
further enlargement of time.

On January 14, 2013, the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file an amended complaint on or
before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and the
underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common
stock.

In addition, among other things, the amended complaint extends the
purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15, 2010
through April 5, 2012. Pursuant to the Court’s March 28, 2013
Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013, all defendants filed
their motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on July 22,
2013, SEPTA filed its "omnibus" opposition to all of the
defendants’ motions to dismiss. On August 23, 2013, all
defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions
to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument on
the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint to
be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on the pending motions
to dismiss SEPTA’s amended complaint was held on April 29, 2014.

The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case
pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the
parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address
discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification
would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to
dismiss.

On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed
supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the U.S. Supreme
Court’s March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers
District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed
without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants,
finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.

The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to
amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed amendment,
or file a notice of its intention to stand on the amended
complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second amended
complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the proposed
second amended complaint are essentially the same or similar to the
allegations of the dismissed amended complaint.

The proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the
Orrstown Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged
failures of internal controls over loan underwriting, risk
management, and financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012,
in violation of the federal securities laws.

On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's motion for leave to
amend and SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day.

On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order
directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March
18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants’
motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file
reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,
2016. Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance
with the Court-ordered schedule, above.

The February 25, 2016 Order stays all discovery and other deadlines
in the case (including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class
certification) pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss.

The allegations of SEPTA's second amended complaint disclosed the
existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-finding inquiry
regarding the Company being conducted by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).

As disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016,
on that date the Company entered into a settlement agreement with
the SEC resolving the investigation of accounting and related
matters at the Company for the periods ended June 30, 2010, to
December 31, 2011.

As part of the settlement of the SEC's administrative proceedings
and pursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without admitting or
denying the SEC's findings, the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Executive
Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, and its Chief Accounting
Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to the SEC.

The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of $1,000,000. The
Company had previously established a reserve for that amount which
was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of 2016. In the
settlement agreement with the SEC, the Company also agreed to cease
and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future
violations of Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and
Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules
12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder.

On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the Court
a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding the settlement with
the SEC. The Notice attached a copy of the SEC's cease-and-desist
order and briefly described what the Company believed were the most
salient terms of the neither-admit-nor-deny settlement.

On September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response to the Notice, in
which SEPTA argued that the settlement with the SEC did not support
dismissal of the second amended complaint.

On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum
granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss
SEPTA's second amended complaint. The Court granted the motions to
dismiss the Securities Act claims against all defendants, and
granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except Orrstown Financial
Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Bradley S.
Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly.

The Court also denied the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act
Section 20(a) claims against Quinn, Everly, and Embly.

On January 31, 2017, the Court entered a Case Management Order
establishing the schedule for the litigation and, on August 15,
2017, it entered a revised Order that, among other things, set the
following deadlines: all fact discovery closes on March 1, 2018,
and SEPTA's motion for class certification is due the same day;
expert merits discovery closes May 30, 2018; summary judgment
motions are due by June 26, 2018; the mandatory pretrial and
settlement conference is set for December 11, 2018; and trial is
scheduled to begin on January 7, 2019.

On December 15, 2017, the Orrstown Defendants and SEPTA exchanged
expert reports in opposition to and in support of class
certification, respectively. On January 15, 2018, the parties
exchanged expert rebuttal reports. SEPTA’s motion for class
certification was due March 1, 2018, with the Orrstown
Defendants’ opposition due April 2, 2018, and SEPTA’s reply due
April 23, 2018.

On February 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a Status Report and Request for a
Telephonic Status Conference asking the Court to convene a
conference to discuss the status of discovery in the case and
possible revisions to the case schedule. On February 12, 2018, the
Orrstown Defendants filed their status report to provide the Court
with a summary of document discovery in the case to date.

On February 27, 2018, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for a
continuance of the existing case deadlines pending a status
conference with the Court or the issuance of a revised case
schedule. On February 28, 2018, the Court issued an Order
continuing all case management deadlines until further order of the
Court.

On March 27, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status conference
with the parties to discuss outstanding discovery issues and case
deadlines. On May 2, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report.
On May 10, 2018, the Court held a follow-up telephonic status
conference at which the parties reported on the progress of
discovery to date. Party and non-party document discovery in the
case has continued. To date, SEPTA has taken a few non-party
depositions.

On August 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a motion to compel the production of
Confidential Supervisory Information (CSI) of non-parties the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the
Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, in the
possession of Orrstown and third parties. On August 23, 2018, the
Orrstown Defendants filed a response to the motion to compel.

On August 30, 2018, the FRB filed an unopposed motion to intervene
in the Action for the purpose of opposing SEPTA's motion to compel,
and on September 27, 2018, the FRB filed its brief in opposition to
SEPTA's motion. On October 11, 2018, SEPTA filed its reply brief in
support of its motion to compel. On February 12, 2019, the Court
denied SEPTA's motion to compel the production of CSI on the ground
that SEPTA had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.

On April 11, 2019, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint seeks to
reassert the Securities Act claims that the Court dismissed as to
all defendants on December 7, 2016, when the Court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss SEPTA's second
amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint also seeks
to reassert the Exchange Act claims against those defendants that
the Court dismissed from the case on December 7, 2016. Defendants'
briefs in opposition to SEPTA’s motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint were filed on April 25, 2019.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second amended
complaint, and the allegations of the proposed third amended
complaint, are without merit and intends to defend itself
vigorously against those claims.

Orrstown said, "It is not possible at this time to estimate
reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible
losses, in connection with the litigation."

Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. operates as the holding company
for Orrstown Bank that provides commercial banking and trust
services in the United States. The company provides its banking and
bank-related services through branches located in Berks,
Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Perry, and York counties
of Pennsylvania, as well as Washington County, Maryland. Orrstown
Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered
in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.


PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES: Accrues $300K at March 31 for Settled Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that it has accrued a total
amount of $300,000 as of March 31, 2019, in connection with its
settlement agreement for the five merger-related lawsuits filed in
2018 and the first quarter of 2019.

In connection with the proposed acquisition of the Company by
Illumina, five lawsuits were filed, with each lawsuit naming the
Company and its directors as defendants.

Three putative class action complaints, captioned Wang v. Pacific
Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-7450 (N.D.
Cal.), Morrison v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et al.,
No. 3:18-cv-7654 (N.D.  Cal.), and Speiser v. Pacific Biosciences
of California, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-0072 (N.D.  Cal.), were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on December 11, 2018, December 20, 2018, and January
4, 2019, respectively.  A fourth putative class action complaint,
captioned Rosenblatt v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., et
al., No. 1:18-cv-2005 (D.  Del.), was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on December 18, 2018.
An individual complaint, captioned Washington v. Pacific
Biosciences of California, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-7614 (N.D.
Cal.), was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on December 19, 2018.

Each of these lawsuits asserted claims under Section 14(a) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with the disclosures contained in the Company's preliminary proxy
statement on Schedule 14A, filed with the Securities Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") on December 5, 2018, the Company's
definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A, filed with the SEC on
December 18, 2018, or both.  The complaints sought a variety of
equitable and injunctive relief including, among other things,
enjoining the consummation of the acquisition and awarding the
plaintiffs costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company said, "Although our management believed that the claims
were without merit, we agreed to make supplemental disclosures in
exchange for plaintiffs' agreement that the supplemental
disclosures would moot their claims.  We made these supplemental
disclosures in a proxy statement amendment on Schedule 14A, filed
with the SEC on January 18, 2019."

On January 29, 2019, all parties to each of the lawsuits reached an
agreement pursuant to which the Company would pay a total of
US$300,000 in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs.  On January 29,
2019, each plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of his or her
lawsuit.  As of March 31, 2019, the Company accrued a total amount
of US$300,000 for the five lawsuits filed in 2018 and the first
quarter of 2019.

Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. designs, develops, and
manufactures sequencing systems to resolve genetically complex
problems. The company was formerly known as Nanofluidics, Inc.
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is
headquartered in Menlo Park, California.


PAPA JOHN'S: Danker Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------
Papa John's International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Danker v. Papa
John's International, Inc. et al.

On August 30, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, Danker v.
Papa John's International, Inc. et al, on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased or acquired stock in Papa John's through a
period up to and including July 19, 2018. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections l0(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The District Court has appointed the Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System to lead the case and has also issued a scheduling
order for the case to proceed.  An amended complaint was filed on
February 13, 2019.

Papa John's said, "The Company believes that it has valid and
meritorious defenses to these suits and intends to vigorously
defend against them.  The Company has not recorded any liability
related to these lawsuits as of December 30, 2018 as it does not
believe a loss is probable or estimable."

Papa John's International, Inc. operates and franchises pizza
delivery and carryout restaurants under the Papa John's trademark
in the United States and internationally. It operates through four
segments: Domestic Company-Owned Restaurants, North America
Commissaries, North America Franchising, and International
Operations. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Louisville, Kentucky.


PBF HOLDING: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Goldstein
------------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion for class
certification in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., has been denied.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy Company LLC, and
the company's subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and
Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of the company's
Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.


The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in
the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the
ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for any
liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff.

On March 18, 2019, the class certification hearing was held and the
judge took the matter under submission. On April 1, 2019, the judge
issued an order denying class certification.

PBF Holding said, "As it is currently unclear what the plaintiffs
plan to do regarding the denial of class certification, we cannot
currently estimate the amount or the timing of its resolution. We
presently believe the outcome will not have a material impact on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC refines and supplies unbranded
transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks,
lubricants, and other petroleum products in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey. PBF Holding Company LLC is a subsidiary of
PBF Energy Company LLC.


PBF HOLDING: Mediation in Kendig Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the mediation in the
class action suit entitled, Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al.
v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., is ongoing.

On September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v.
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and Torrance
Refining Company LLC along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as defendants in a class
action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of
Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize
and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and
Competition Law.

Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic damages, statutory
damages, civil penalties provided by statute, disgorgement of
profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, interest,
attorney's fees and costs.

To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1,
2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logistics
assets.

On October 26, 2018, the matter was removed to the Federal Court,
California Central District. A mediation hearing between the
parties is currently scheduled for April 29, 2019.

PBF Holding said, "As this matter is in the class certification
phase, we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of its
resolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC refines and supplies unbranded
transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks,
lubricants, and other petroleum products in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey. PBF Holding Company LLC is a subsidiary of
PBF Energy Company LLC.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Hogan Has Not Filed Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019, that as of April 24, 2019, Patrick
Hogan has not yet filed a Second Amended Complaint in his class
action suit.

On October 10, 2016, Patrick Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and
a putative class of persons who purchased shares of PPC's stock
between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against PPC and its named executive officers.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC's SEC filings
contained statements that were rendered materially false and
misleading by PPC's failure to disclose that (i) the Company
colluded with several of its industry peers to fix prices in the
broiler-chicken market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken
Antitrust Litigation, (ii) its conduct constituted a violation of
federal antitrust laws, (iii) PPC's revenues during the class
period were the result of illegal conduct and (iv) that PPC lacked
effective internal control over financial reporting.

The complaint also states that PPC's industry was anticompetitive.
On April 4, 2017, the Court appointed another stockholder, George
James Fuller, as lead plaintiff.

On May 11, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
extended the end date of the putative class period to November 17,
2017.  PPC and the other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12,
2017, and the plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017.  PPC
and the other defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017.

On March 14, 2018, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint
without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of PPC and the
other defendants.  On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff moved for
reconsideration of the Court's decision and for permission to file
a Second Amended Complaint.  PPC and the other defendants filed a
response to the plaintiff's motion on April 25, 2018.

On November 19, 2018, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration and granted plaintiff leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint.  As of April 24, 2019, plaintiff has not yet
filed a Second Amended Complaint.

Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered
in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.


PITNEY BOWES: Still Defends Suit by City of Livonia Retiree Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes Inc. continues to face a putative class action
entitled, City of Livonia Retiree Health and Disability Benefits
Plan v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

In August 2018, the Company, certain of its directors, officers and
several banks who served as underwriters, were named as defendants
in City of Livonia Retiree Health and Disability Benefits Plan v.
Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a putative class action lawsuit filed in
Connecticut state court.

The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, on behalf of those who purchased notes issued by the
Company in connection with a September 13, 2017 offering, alleging,
among other things, that the Company failed to make certain
disclosures relating to components of its third quarter 2017
performance at the time of the notes offering.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages and other relief.

In addition, in December 2018 and then in February 2018, certain of
the Company's officers and directors were named as defendants in
two virtually identical derivative actions purportedly brought on
behalf of the Company, Clem v. Lautenbach et al. and Devolin v.
Lautenbach et al. These two actions, both filed by the same counsel
in Connecticut state court, allege, among other things, breaches of
fiduciary duty relating to these same disclosures, and seek
compensatory damages and other relief derivatively for the benefit
of the Company.

The Company said, "Although litigation outcomes are inherently
unpredictable, we believe these matters are without merit and
intend to defend them vigorously.  A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this
time."

Pitney Bowes Inc. offers customer information management, location
intelligence, and customer engagement products and solutions in the
United States and internationally. The company operates in three
segments: Commerce Services; Small & Medium Business Solutions; and
Software Solutions. The company was formerly known as Pitney Bowes
Postage Meter Company. Pitney Bowes Inc. was founded in 1920 and is
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.



POST HOLDINGS: Opt-Out Plaintiffs Antitrust Claims v. Unit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that anti-trust claims by plaintiffs who opted out
of class action lawsuits is still ongoing against a subsidiary.

In late 2008 and early 2009, approximately 22 class action lawsuits
were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc.
("MFI"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg
products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production
and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified
damages.  All cases were transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The case involved three plaintiff groups: (i) a nationwide class of
direct purchasers of shell eggs ("direct purchaser class"); (ii)
individual companies (primarily large grocery chains and food
companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted
out of various settlements and filed their own complaints related
to their purchases of shell eggs and egg products ("opt-out
plaintiffs"); and (iii) indirect purchasers of shell eggs
("indirect purchaser plaintiffs").

To date, MFI has resolved the following claims, including all class
claims: (i) in December 2016, MFI settled all claims asserted
against it by the direct purchaser class for a payment of US$75.0
million, which was approved by the district court in December 2017;
(ii) MFI settled all claims asserted against it by opt-out
plaintiffs related to shell egg purchases on confidential terms in
January 2017; and (iii) in June 2018, MFI settled all claims
asserted against it by indirect purchaser plaintiffs on
confidential terms.  MFI has at all times denied liability in this
matter, and no settlement contains any admission of liability by
MFI.

MFI remains a defendant only with respect to claims that seek
damages based on purchases of egg products by six opt-out
plaintiffs.  The district court had granted summary judgment
precluding any claims for egg products purchases by such opt-out
plaintiffs, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and
remanded these claims for further pre-trial proceedings.
Defendants have filed a second motion for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of the claims, and that motion is currently pending.

The Company said, "Although the likelihood of a material adverse
outcome in the egg antitrust litigation has been significantly
reduced as a result of the MFI settlements, the remaining portion
of the case could still result in a material adverse outcome."

Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding
company in the United States and internationally. It operates
through Post Consumer Brands, Weetabix, Refrigerated Food, and
Active Nutrition segments. The company was founded in 1895 and is
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Unit Still Defends Advance Trust & Life's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a company subsidiary
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Advance Trust &
Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life
Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective Life Insurance
Company.

Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities
Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290, is a putative class
action that was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Plaintiff alleges that Protective Life Insurance Company (PLICO)
required policyholders to pay unlawful and excessive cost of
insurance charges. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of
universal life and variable universal life policies issued or
administered by PLICO or its predecessors that provide that cost of
insurance rates are to be determined based on expectations of
future mortality experience.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and other
unspecified relief.

Protective Life said, "The Company is vigorously defending this
matter and cannot predict the outcome of or reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that might result from this
litigation."

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

Protective Life Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
financial services primarily in the United States. The company
engages in the production, distribution, and administration of
insurance and investment products. The company was founded in 1907
and is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life
Corporation is a subsidiary of Dai-ichi Life Holdings, Inc.


PROTHENA CORP: Securities Class Suit in SDNY Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Prothena Corporation plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Prothena Corporation
plc Securities Litigation.

On July 16, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Granite
Point Capital v. Prothena Corporation plc, et al., Civil Action No.
18-cv-06425, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses in an
unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased the Company's ordinary shares between October 15, 2015
and April 20, 2018, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements
and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements
and in the Company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission during the putative class period, regarding the clinical
trial results and prospects for approval of the Company's NEOD001
drug development program.

On October 31, 2018, the Court issued an order naming Granite Point
Capital and Simon James, an individual, as the lead plaintiffs in
the purported class action, which is now entitled In re Prothena
Corporation plc Securities Litigation.

Prothena  said, "Because the Company is in the early stages of this
proceeding, the Company is not able to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that could result from the
proceeding."

Prothena Corporation plc, a clinical-stage neuroscience company,
focuses on discovery and development of novel therapies for
life-threatening diseases in the United States. Prothena
Corporation plc was founded in 2012 and is based in Dublin,
Ireland.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Combination of Sawbill and Moehrl Cases Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case styled, Sawbill Strategic, Inc. v. The
National Association of Realtors, Homeservices of America, Inc.,
Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., and RE/MAX
Holdings, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois), on April 17, 2019, is seeking to consolidate the case
with another action styled, Moehrl v. The National Association of
Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc.,
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois).

Realogy Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that "Moehrl" is a putative class action
complaint filed on March 6, 2019 by plaintiff Christopher Moehrl
against NAR, the Company, Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX
Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged in a continuing
contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade
and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because
defendant NAR allegedly established mandatory anticompetitive
policies for the multiple listing services and its member brokers
regarding the setting and payment of the buyer broker commission.
The plaintiff further alleges that the defendant franchisors
conspired with NAR by requiring their respective franchisees to
comply with NAR's policies and Code of Ethics.  The plaintiff seeks
a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from requiring home
sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or to otherwise restrict
competition among buyer brokers, an award of damages and/or
restitution, attorneys fees and costs of suit.  The Company was
served with the complaint on March 21, 2019.  Plaintiff's counsel
has filed a motion to appoint lead counsel in the case, which has
yet to be briefed or decided by the court.

The "Sawbill Strategic" lawsuit is a putative class action seeking
to certify the same class, based on the same allegations and
against the same defendants as the Moehrl litigation.  On April 17,
2019, plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate the Sawbill and
Moehrl litigation.

Plaintiff Christopher Moehrl is represented by:

     Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 357-0370
     E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Daniel A. Small, Esq.
     Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
     Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
     Courtney A. Elgart, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
     Washington, DC 20005
     Tel: (202) 408-4600
     E-mail: dsmall@cohenmilstein.com
             bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
             celgart@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 623-7292
     E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
     Chicago, IL 60611
     Tel: (708) 628-4949
     E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
     Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN
     715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Tel: (510) 725-3000
     E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com
             riop@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     George Farah, Esq.
     HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
     81 Prospect Street
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Tel: (212) 477-8090
     E-mail: gfarah@hfajustice.com

          - and -

     William H. Anderson, Esq.
     HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
     4730 Table Mesa Drive, Suite G-200
     Boulder, CO 80305
     Tel: (303) 800-9109
     E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com

          - and -

     Benjamin David Elga, Esq.
     Brian Shearer, Esq.
     JUSTICE CATALYST LAW
     25 Broadway, Ninth Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (518) 732-6703
     E-mail: belga@justicecatalyst.org
             brianshearer@justicecatalyst.org

          - and -

     Monte Neil Stewart, Esq.
     Russell E. Marsh, Esq.
     WRIGHT MARSH & LEVY
     300 S. 4th Street, Suite 701
     Las Vegas, NV 89101
     Tel: (702) 382-4004
     E-mail: monteneilstewart@gmail.com
             rmarsh@wmllawlv.com

          - and -

     Vildan A. Teske, Esq.
     Marisa C. Katz, Esq.
     TESKE KATZ KITZER & ROCHEL PLLP
     222 South Ninth Street, Suite 4050
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: (612) 746-1558
     E-mail: teske@tkkrlaw.com
             katz@tkkrlaw.com

Plaintiff Sawbill Strategies Inc. is represented by:

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     Thomas Arthur Doyle, Esq.
     Mark Richard Miller, Esq.
     Wexler Wallace LLP
     Tel: 312-346-2222
     E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
             tad@wexlerwallace.com
             mrm@wexlerwallace.com

Defendant HomeServices of America, Inc. is represented by:

     Denise A. Lazar, Esq.
     Karoline Elizabeth Jackson, Esq.
     Matthew B. Barr, Esq.
     Robert Dean Macgill, Esq.
     Matthew Thomas Ciulla, Esq.
     Barnes & Thornburg LLP
     Tel: 312-214-4816
     E-mail: denise.lazar@btlaw.com
             kjackson@btlaw.com
             matthew.barr@btlaw.com
             robert.macgill@btlaw.com
             matthew.ciulla@btlaw.com

Defendant Keller Williams Realty, Inc. is represented by:

     Martin G. Durkin, Esq.
     William Foster Farley, Esq.
     Timothy Ray, Esq.
     Holland & Knight LLC
     Tel: 312-263-3600
     E-mail: martin.durkin@hklaw.com
             william.farley@hklaw.com
             timothy.ray@hklaw.com

Defendant National Association of Realtors is represented by:

     Adam J. Diederich, Esq.
     Jack R. Bierig, Esq.
     Schiff Hardin LLP
     Tel: 312-258-5500
     E-mail: adiederich@schiffhardin.com
             jbierig@schiffhardin.com

Defendant Re/Max Holdings, Inc. is represented by:

     Odeshoo Hasdoo, Esq.
     Paula W. Render, Esq.
     Erin Lind Shencopp, Esq.
     Jones Day
     Tel: 312-269-4214
     E-mail: ehasdoo@jonesday.com
             prender@jonesday.com
             eshencopp@jonesday.com

Defendant Realogy Holdings Corp. is represented by:

     Kenneth Michael Kliebard, Esq.
     Stacey Anne Mahoney, Esq.
     Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
     Tel: 312-324-1000
     E-mail: kenneth.kliebard@morganlewis.com
             stacey.mahoney@morganlewis.com

Realogy Holdings Corp. is a holding company for its consolidated
subsidiaries including Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC and
Realogy Group LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries.  Realogy,
through its subsidiaries, is a global provider of residential real
estate services.  Neither Realogy Holdings, the indirect parent of
Realogy Group, nor Realogy Intermediate, the direct parent company
of Realogy Group, conducts any operations other than with respect
to its respective direct or indirect ownership of Realogy Group.


RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Suit on Labor Practices Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. is defending itself against a class
action styled, Quiroz Guerrero v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc.,
et al., Case No RIC1804127, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

On February 26, 2018, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside, alleging that the Company
violated the California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code, by failing to pay minimum wages, pay overtime
wages, permit required meal and rest breaks and provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims.  This lawsuit seeks
unspecified penalties under the California's Private Attorney's
General Act in addition to other monetary payments.

The Company said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter,
including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or reasonably
estimated at this time, we intend to vigorously defend this
matter."

Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, operates, and franchises fine dining restaurants.  Its
restaurants offer food and beverage products to special occasion
diners and frequent customers, as well as business clientele.  The
Company operates restaurants under the Ruth's Chris Steak House
trade name.  The Company was founded in 1965 and is headquartered
in Winter Park, Florida.


SANDALS RESORTS: Feldman Sues Over Deceptive and Fraudulent Tax
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vitali Feldman, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANDALS RESORTS INTERNATIONAL,
LTD., d/b/a Sandals, UNIQUE VACATIONS, INC. d/b/a/ Unique
Vacations, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-22046-UU (S.D. Fla., May
21, 2019) is a Class Action lawsuit dealing with the current and
former guests at Sandals' resorts throughout the Caribbean who were
charged a local government "tax" and/or deceived into paying such
tax [in whole or in part] that was, in fact, being secretly
retained by Defendants for their own use, benefit and profit,
within the applicable limitations period.

This fraudulent deceptive practice has been ongoing for decades. At
all times material, it is represented to the public and Plaintiffs
and others similarly situated that the 'all inclusive' packages
include "all taxes." The way the charges were presented to the
guests was described in a deceptive way by labeling the charge(s)
as a local government tax, when in fact Sandals was charging more
money for the room. The term "tax" necessarily constitutes a
representation to a reasonable consumer that it is a "pass-through"
charge, imposed by the government, which Sandals will pay to the
respective government. As an example, all guests of Beaches Turks &
Caicos have been charged and paid a 12% accommodation tax. Unknown
to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated is the existence of an
agreement between Sandals and the Turks and Caicos government
permitting Sandals to retain a significant percentage of such taxes
for its own use and benefit instead of remitting the monies to the
government, says the complaint.

These tax charges are used to generate extra profit at the expense
of Plaintiff and others similarly situated, who were deceived into
believing the fees are legitimate charges directly related to
Sandals' owed and paid taxes to the government. In fact, the fees
are nothing but profit-enhancers disguised as taxes that have a
legitimate purpose, constituting a violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUPTA"). Additionally,
Turks and Caicos law prohibits the accommodation tax being
collected from anyone under 12-years-old. All guests under
12-years-old at the Beaches Turks & Caicos resort were fraudulently
charged the 12% accommodation tax by Sandals, also thereby
constituting a violation of FDUPTA. In short, Sandals has, through
fraud, deception, omission and/or concealment, engaged in a pattern
of unlawful profiteering, deceit, and self-dealing with regard to
charging a local government tax and retaining a large percentage of
such, the complaint says.

Plaintiff Vitali Feldman is an individual who resides in and is a
citizen of New Jersey.

SANDALS RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., d/b/a Sandals ("SRI") is a
corporation incorporated under the laws of Jamaica but doing
business in Florida and is the owner and operator of 19 resorts
located throughout the Caribbean.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     MICHAEL A. WINKLEMAN, ESQ.
     JASON R. MARGULIES, ESQ.
     MARC E. WEINER, ESQ.
     DANIEL W. GRAMMES, ESQ.
     LIPCON, MARGULIES, ALSINA & WINKLEMAN, P.A.
     One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776
     2 South Biscayne Boulevard
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 373-3016
     Facsimile: (305) 373-6204
     Email: mwinkleman@lipcon.com
            jmargulies@lipcon.com
            mweiner@lipcon.com
            dgrammes@lipcon.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Parmelee Settlement Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ed Kinkeade issued an order dated June 3, 2019, approving:

     -- the settlement of the class action styled as, Parmelee v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00783
(N.D. Tex.);

     -- a plan of allocation of net settlement fund; and

     -- awarding attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Company is
a defendant in two purported securities class actions lawsuits that
were filed in March and April 2016 in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Texas.

The lawsuits were consolidated and are now captioned Parmelee v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.

The lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a
class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired
our securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securities
laws by making false or misleading statements, as well as failing
to disclose material adverse facts, in its periodic reports filed
under the Exchange Act and certain other public disclosures, in
connection with, among other things, the Company's change in its
methodology for estimating its allowance for credit losses and
correction of such allowance for prior periods.

In March 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
In January 2018, the court granted the Company's motion as to
defendant Ismail Dawood (the Company's former Chief Financial
Officer) and denied the motion as to all other defendants. In July
2018, the lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement of the lawsuit for a cash
payment of $9,500.

In September 2018, the court entered an order granting the motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement of the lawsuit. A final
settlement approval hearing was scheduled for May 2019.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a specialized consumer
finance company, provides vehicle finance and third-party servicing
in the United States. Its products and services include retail
installment contracts and vehicle leases, as well as dealer loans
for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital, and
revolving lines of credit. The company was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. is a subsidiary of Santander Holdings USA, Inc.


SEARS BENNETT: Johnson Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. SEARS BENNETT & GERDES, LLP,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01771 (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2019) is
action on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA").

In connection with the collection of the Debt, Defendant sent
Plaintiff written correspondence dated January 7, 2019, which
states, in relevant part: "In the event that full payment is not
received within 30 days of the date of this letter, the Association
will commence foreclosure proceedings against the above reference
property".

While the letter then provides the dispute rights contained in the
FDCPA, they are overshadowed by the preceding sentences, which
would cause the consumer to overlook his rights due to the fear of
an imminent lawsuit. A consumer, faced with the demand for payment,
may well wonder what good it would do to dispute, given that he
will face a lawsuit anyway if payment is not made, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt
asserted to be owed or due a creditor other than Defendant.

Defendant is an entity who at all relevant times was engaged, by
use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to
collect a "debt".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russell S. Thompson IV, Esq.
     Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC
     5235 E. Southern Ave. D106-618
     Mesa, AZ 85206
     Phone: 602-388-8898
     Facsimile: 866-317-2674
     Email: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com


SEMPRA ENERGY: 394 Suits over Aliso Canyon Leak Filed as of May 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that 394 lawsuits have been
filed over the so-called Aliso Canyon Leak as of May 2, 2019.

On October 23, 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its
injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural
gas storage facility (the Leak), located in the northern part of
the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon
natural gas storage facility has been operated by SoCalGas since
1972. SS25 is one of more than 100 injection-and-withdrawal wells
at the storage facility.  SoCalGas worked closely with several of
the world's leading experts to stop the Leak, and on February 18,
2016, the California Department of Conservation's Division of Oil,
Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) confirmed that the well was
permanently sealed. SoCalGas calculated that approximately 4.62 Bcf
of natural gas was released from the Aliso Canyon natural gas
storage facility as a result of the Leak.  

As of May 2, 2019, 394 lawsuits, including approximately 48,500
plaintiffs, are pending against SoCalGas, some of which have also
named Sempra Energy. All these cases, other than a matter brought
by the Los Angeles County District Attorney and the federal
securities class action discussed below, are coordinated before a
single court in the LA Superior Court for pretrial management (the
Coordination Proceeding).

Pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, in November 2017, the
individuals and business entities asserting tort and Proposition 65
claims filed a Third Amended Consolidated Master Case Complaint for
Individual Actions, through which their separate lawsuits will be
managed for pretrial purposes.

The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for negligence,
negligence per se, private and public nuisance (continuing and
permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, strict liability,
negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress,
fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium, wrongful death and
violations of Proposition 65 against SoCalGas, with certain causes
also naming Sempra Energy.

The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages
for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost profits, property
damage and diminution in property value, injunctive relief, costs
of future medical monitoring, civil penalties (including penalties
associated with Proposition 65 claims alleging violation of
requirements for warning about certain chemical exposures), and
attorneys' fees.

In January 2017, pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, two
consolidated class action complaints were filed against SoCalGas
and Sempra Energy, one on behalf of a putative class of persons and
businesses who own or lease real property within a five-mile radius
of the well (the Property Class Action), and a second on behalf of
a putative class of all persons and entities conducting business
within five miles of the facility (the Business Class Action).

Both complaints assert claims for strict liability for
ultra-hazardous activities, negligence and violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law. The Property Class Action also
asserts claims for negligence per se, trespass, permanent and
continuing public and private nuisance, and inverse condemnation.

The Business Class Action also asserts a claim for negligent
interference with prospective economic advantage. Both complaints
seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.

In December 2017, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate
District ruled that the purely economic damages alleged in the
Business Class Action are not recoverable under the law. In
February 2018, the California Supreme Court granted a petition
filed by the plaintiffs to review that ruling, and oral argument on
the appeal was heard in March 2019.

Complaints by property developers were filed in 2017 and 2018
against SoCalGas and Sempra Energy alleging causes of action for
strict liability, negligence per se, negligence, continuing
nuisance, permanent nuisance and violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, as well as claims for negligence against certain
directors of SoCalGas.

The complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. These claims are also joined
in the Coordination Proceeding.

Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Dismissal of Calif. Securities Action under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that plaintiffs in the class
action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (SDCA) have commenced an appeal challenging
the dismissal of the case.

A federal securities class action alleging violation of the federal
securities laws has been filed against Sempra Energy and certain of
its officers and certain of its directors in the SDCA.

In March 2018, the court dismissed the action with prejudice, and
in December 2018 the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
reconsideration of that order.

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal.

Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.


T-MOBILE US: Ray & Joyner Sue over Collection of Geolocation Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWNAY RAY 3 HIGH HAVEN PLACE, APT. 1C NOTTINGHAM, MD 21236; and
KANTICE JOYNER 310 LORD WILLOUBHBY WAY EDGEWOOD, MD 21040, on their
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. T-MOBILE US, INC., 3650 131st AVENUE SEBELLEVUE, WA
98006, Case No. 1:19-cv-01299-SAG (D. Md., May 2, 2019), targets
Defendant's collection of geolocation data and the unauthorized
dissemination to third-parties of the geolocation data collected
from its users' cell phones. The case seeks damages for T-Mobile's
gross failure to safeguard highly personal and private consumer
geolocation data in violation of federal law.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to secure redress against
T-Mobile for its reckless and negligent violations of customer
privacy rights. The Plaintiffs and Class Members are T-Mobile
customers.

According to the complaint, T-Mobile admittedly sells customer
geolocation data to third-parties, including but not limited to
data aggregators, who in turn, are able to use or resell the
geolocation data with little or no oversight by T-Mobile. As a
direct consequence of T-Mobile's violations of the FCA, Plaintiffs
and Class Members have been damaged, in an amount to be proven at
trial.

T-Mobile flagrantly and repeatedly violated its commitments made to
Plaintiffs in its Privacy Policy and Code of Business Conduct, as
well as its legal obligations under the FCA and the CPNI Rules by
willingly disclosing Plaintiffs CPNI to unauthorized third-parties.
T-Mobile failed to protect the confidentiality of Plaintiffs and
Class Members' CPI and CPNI, including their wireless telephone
numbers, account information, private communications, and location,
by divulging that information to third-parties, including but not
limited to data aggregators, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Cory L. Zajdel, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Toppe, Esq.
          David M. Trojanowski, Esq.
          Z LAW, LLC
          2345 York Road, Ste. B-13
          Timonium, MD 21093
          Telephone: (443) 213-1977
          E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com
                  jct@zlawmaryland.com
                  dmt@zlawmaryland.com

TORCHMARK CORP: Continues to Defend Golz Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Golz v. American
Income Life Insurance Company, et al.

On October 18, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against Torchmark Corporation and American Income Life Insurance
Company in California's Los Angeles County Superior Court (Golz v.
American Income Life Insurance Company, et al Case No.
18STCV01354).

American Income removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
2:18-cv-09879 R (SSx)).

An amended complaint was filed on February 5, 2019. The amended
complaint alleges that the putative class members are employees and
asserts claims under the California Labor Code and California
Business and Professions Code.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff was an American Income
insurance agent trainee in California who seeks to represent a
class of individuals in California whom American Income classified
as independently contracted agent trainees.

The class period is alleged to begin four years prior to the
complaint's filing. The complaint seeks compensatory damages,
penalties, and attorney fees on claims for failure to pay minimum
wage and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure
to appropriately pay wages at termination, failure to provide
itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses,
and unfair business practices.

The Company continues to assess the amount and thus does not have a
reasonable estimate of any potential liability.

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

Torchmark Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various
life and health insurance products, and annuities in the United
States, Canada, and New Zealand. It operates through four segments:
Life Insurance, Health Insurance, Annuity, and Investment.
Torchmark Corporation was founded in 1900 and is headquartered in
McKinney, Texas.


TORCHMARK CORP: Unit Continues to Defend Joh Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's
subsidiary American Income Life Insurance Company continues to face
a class action suit entitled, Joh v. American Income Life Insurance
Company, Case No. C18-01863).

On September 12, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income Life Insurance Company in California's
Contra Costa County Superior Court (Joh v. American Income Life
Insurance Company, Case No. C18-01863).

An amended complaint was filed on October 18, 2018. American Income
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Case No. 3:18-cv-06364-TSH).

The plaintiff, a former insurance sales agent of American Income,
is suing on behalf of all current and former sales agents who sold
insurance for American Income in the state of California for the
four years prior to the filing of the complaint.

The amended complaint alleges that such individuals are employees
and asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California
Business and Professions Code, and California Private Attorney
General Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties
and attorney fees on claims for failure to pay wages/commissions,
failure to appropriately pay agents at termination, failure to
provide itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse expenses and
unfair business practices.

The Company continues to assess the amount and thus does not have a
reasonable estimate of any potential liability.

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

Torchmark Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various
life and health insurance products, and annuities in the United
States, Canada, and New Zealand. It operates through four segments:
Life Insurance, Health Insurance, Annuity, and Investment.
Torchmark Corporation was founded in 1900 and is headquartered in
McKinney, Texas.


TORCHMARK CORP: Unit Faces Hamilton Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's
subsidiary American Income Life Insurance Company continues to face
a putative class action suit entitled, Hamilton v. American Income
Life Insurance Company.

On December 14, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income Life Insurance Company in United States
District Court for the Northern District of California (Hamilton v.
American Income Life Insurance Company, Case No. 4:18-cv-7535-KAW).


An amended complaint was filed on January 23, 2019. The plaintiffs,
former insurance sales agents of American Income, are suing on
behalf of all current and former sales agents who sold insurance
for American Income in the state of California for the last four
years prior to the filing of the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges that putative class members are employees and
asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California Business
and Professions Code, and California Private Attorney General Act.


The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney
fees on claims for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately
pay agents at termination, failure to provide itemized wage
statements, failure to reimburse expenses, and unfair business
practices.

The Company continues to assess the amount and thus does not have a
reasonable estimate of any potential liability.

Torchmark Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various
life and health insurance products, and annuities in the United
States, Canada, and New Zealand. It operates through four segments:
Life Insurance, Health Insurance, Annuity, and Investment.
Torchmark Corporation was founded in 1900 and is headquartered in
McKinney, Texas.


TORCHMARK CORP: Unit Faces Putros Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company's
subsidiary American Income Life Insurance Company, continues to
defend against a putative class action suit entitled, Putros v.
American Income Life Insurance Company.

On January 16, 2019, putative class action litigation was filed
against American Income Life Insurance Company in Orange County,
California Superior Court (Putros v. American Income Life Insurance
Company, Case No. 30-2019-01044772-CU-OE-CXC).

The plaintiff, a former insurance sales agent of American Income,
is suing on behalf of all current and former sales agents who sold
insurance for American Income in the state of California for the
last four years prior to the filing of the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges that putative class members are employees and
asserts claims under the California Labor Code, California Business
and Professions Code, and California Private Attorney General Act.


The complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties and attorney
fees on claims for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide
meal and rest breaks, failure to appropriately pay agents at
termination, failure to provide itemized wage statements, failure
to reimburse expenses, and unfair business practices.

The Company continues to assess the amount and thus does not have a
reasonable estimate of any potential liability.

Torchmark Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various
life and health insurance products, and annuities in the United
States, Canada, and New Zealand. It operates through four segments:
Life Insurance, Health Insurance, Annuity, and Investment.
Torchmark Corporation was founded in 1900 and is headquartered in
McKinney, Texas.


TRUSTMARK CORP: TNB Still Faces Class Suit Over Stanford Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Trustmark National Bank
(TNB) continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit
related to the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a
defendant in three lawsuits related to the collapse of the Stanford
Financial Group.  

The first is a purported class action complaint that was filed on
August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by
Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven
Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano
(collectively, Class Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial
institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as defendants.  

The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers
from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies
received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen
Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group) and (ii)
damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or
more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit
fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme. Plaintiffs have
demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did not quantify damages.  

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. In May 2010, all
defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.  

In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of
an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to represent the
interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances,
to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors. In
December 2011, the Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC)
filed a motion to intervene in this action.  

In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a
magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial
issues. In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to
intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one
of the other defendant financial institutions.  

In February 2013, the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint that
asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant financial
institutions.

The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the
amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from
Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants
allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other
monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford
Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies
by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the
asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The OSIC did not quantify
damages.  

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims. In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification, staying all other discovery and setting a deadline
for the parties to complete briefing on class certification issues.


In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs’ claims and
the OSIC's claims. The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs'
fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's
claims.  

The court denied the motions by TNB and the other financial
institution defendants to dismiss the OSIC's constructive
fraudulent transfer claims.  

On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i)
aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii)
aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas
Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in
breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and participating
in conversion and (v) conspiracy.  

On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the SAC and to reconsider the court's prior denial to
dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against
TNB and the other financial institutions that are defendants in the
action. On July 27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and
the other financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and
also denied the motion by TNB and the other financial institution
defendants to reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the
OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims.  

On August 24, 2016, TNB filed its answer to the SAC. On October 20,
2017, the OSIC filed a motion seeking an order lifting the
discovery stay and establishing a trial schedule.  On November 7,
2017, the court denied the OSIC's motion seeking class
certification and designation of class representatives and counsel,
finding that common issues of fact did not predominate. The court
granted the OSIC's motion to lift the discovery stay that it had
previously ordered.

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

Trustmark Corporation operates as the bank holding company for
Trustmark National Bank that provides banking and other financial
solutions to individuals and corporate institutions in the United
States. Trustmark Corporation was founded in 1889 and is
headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi.


U.S. HEALTHWORKS: Court Won't Extend Discovery Dates in Rodriguez
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Administrative
Motion to Extend Fact Discovery Deadline in the case captioned
CATRINA R. RODRIGUEZ, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF, ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. U.S. HEALTHWORKS, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Case No. 17-cv-06924-KAW. (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff filed the instant administrative motion to extend the
February 1, 2019 fact discovery deadline.

Plaintiff Catrina R. Rodriguez filed a putative class action
against Defendants U.S. Healthworks, Inc. and U.S. Healthworks
Medical Group Professional Corporation, alleging violations of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and similar California
statutes.  

The Plaintiff e-mailed the Defendants regarding the extension of
the fact discovery deadline. The Defendants responded that they
would not extend the discovery cutoff. The Defendants explained
that they had wanted to take the Plaintiff's deposition prior to
filing their motion for summary judgment, but that the Plaintiff
was uncooperative.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate
diligence in prosecuting this case. In Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v.
Omnivision Technologies Inc., the district court denied a motion to
extend the time to complete discovery. Case No. 17-cv-778-BLF, 2018
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201744, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2018). There,
Plaintiff knew when the fact discovery deadline was, yet waited
until `approximately one month before the close of discovery, to
notice and schedule the depositions at issue.

The district court explained that without some explanation for that
delay or indication of factors outside Plaintiff's control, the
Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff diligently pursued the
discovery at issue. Because Plaintiff failed to show diligence in
pursuing discovery, the inquiry should end and the motion to extend
time denied.  

Likewise, the Plaintiff here has made no showing of diligence.
Plaintiff explains that an extension of the fact discovery deadline
is needed so that Plaintiff can obtain a class list, conduct a
30(b)(6) deposition, and obtain all of the disclosure forms
Defendants have used. Plaintiff, however, does not provide any
explanation for why Plaintiff failed to obtain this discovery
before the fact discovery cutoff.

The February 1, 2019 fact discovery deadline was set on December
19, 2018, when the Court entered the parties' stipulated extension
of the trial deadlines. Plaintiff does not explain why she did not
serve the 30(b)6) deposition notice until February 18, 2019, more
than two weeks after the fact discovery deadline passed. Plaintiff
also offers no reason why she did not raise the dispute regarding
the class list to the Court until the instant motion to extend the
fact discovery deadline, and it is not apparent to the Court if
Plaintiff ever sought the disclosure forms from Defendants.

In short, Plaintiff has delayed in conducting discovery and seeking
relief from the deadlines, and provides no explanation for that
delay. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not
shown diligence, and thus there is no good cause for extending the
fact discovery deadline.

A full-text copy of the District Court's May 16, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yy7przed from Leagle.com.

CATRINA R. RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra Rochelle McIntosh,
Setareh Law Group, 315 S Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212,
William Matthew Pao -- william@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group
& Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law
Group.

U.S. HEALTHWORKS, INC., a Delaware corporation & U.S. HEALTHWORKS
MEDICAL GROUP, PROF. CORP., A Delaware corporation, Defendants,
represented by Fraser Angus McAlpine --
fraser.mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Hardev
Singh Chhokar -- Hardev.Chhokar@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C. & Hazel Uy Poei -- poeih@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C.


UNITED SERVICES: Court Certifies Class in Krista Peoples Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KRISTA PEOPLES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED SERVICES
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. C18-1173RSL
(W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of CPA Claim,
Appointment of Class Representative and Counsel, and Order
Identifying Class Members.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants United Services Automobile
Association and USAA Casualty Insurance Co. ("USAA") engaged in per
se unfair acts in the business of insurance by unlawfully
curtailing her benefits under the Personal Injury Protection
("PIP") provisions of her automobile policy.  According to her,
USAA refused to pay (or limited payment for) medical provider bills
whenever an automated review process indicated that the charges for
a particular procedure exceeded a certain threshold established in
a database maintained by the actuarial firm Milliman, Inc.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the failure to investigate or otherwise make
an individualized determination regarding the reasonableness or
necessity of the provider's charges before denying payment violates
the PIP statute and Washington's insurance regulations.  

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of similarly situated
insureds asserting a claim under the Washington Consumer Protection
Act ("CPA") and seeks to certify a class comprised of all
Washington insureds who from Sept. 1, 2015 to July 5, 2018 had
their PIP claims for reimbursement of medical expenses reduced by
Defendant USAA based solely on an Explanation of Reimbursement form
sent to the insured's provider stating that the bill exceeded a
reasonable amount for the service provided.

Judge Lasnik finds that the Plaintiffs have met the requirements of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).  Accordingly, he granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion.  He certified the class of all Washington
insureds who from Sept. 1, 2015 to July 5, 2018 had their PIP
claims for reimbursement of medical expenses reduced by Defendant
USAA based solely on an Explanation of Reimbursement form sent to
the insured's provider stating that the bill exceeded a reasonable
amount for the service provided.

Krista Peoples is appointed representative of the certified class.
The Plaintiffs' counsel is designated as the counsel for the class.
The Judge further ordered the Defendants to provide a full and
complete answer to Interrogatory No. 1 of "Plaintiff's First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production" within 14 days of the
date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 26, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ZwaJss from Leagle.com.

Krista Peoples, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
Wesley Donckers -- bdonckers@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON &
TOWNSEND PLLC, David Elliot Breskin -- dbreskin@bjtlegal.com --
BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC & Young-Ji Ham --
youngji@washinjurylaw.com -- WASHINGTON INJURY LAWYERS, PLLC.

United Services Automobile Association & USAA Casualty Insurance
Company, Defendants, represented by David C. Scott --
dscott@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN, pro hac vice, Jay
Williams -- jwilliams@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN, pro hac
vice, Michael A. Moore -- mmoore@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN, LLP
& John T. Bender -- John.Bender@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS
BISGAARD & SMITH LLP.


US XPRESS: Faces Independent Contractor Class Suit in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in the Independent Contractor class action
suit in Tennessee.

On March 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
against the company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S.
Xpress Leasing, Inc.  The putative class includes individuals who
performed work as lease operators, who leased equipment from the
company, and who were designated as independent contractors.  

The complaint alleges that independent contractors are improperly
designated as such and should be designated as employees and thus
subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The complaint
further alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.'s pay practices with regard
to the putative class members violated the minimum wage provisions
of the FLSA for the period from March 26, 2016 to present.  

The complaint further alleges that the company violated the
requirements of the Truth in Leasing Act with regard to the
independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements the
company entered into with the putative class members. The complaint
further alleges that the company failed to comply with the terms of
the independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements
entered into with the putative class members, that the company
violated the provisions of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in
advertising, describing and marketing the lease purchase program to
the putative class members, and that the company were unjustly
enriched as a result of the foregoing allegations.

U.S. Xpress said, "The matter is not yet in discovery, and we are
currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to reasonably
estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe the
allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend to
defend ourselves vigorously against the complaints relating to such
actions."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company
was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


US XPRESS: Faces Several IPO-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company is
defending against several IPO-related class action suits across the
United States.

Between November 2018 and April 2019, eight substantially similar
putative securities class action complaints were filed against the
company and certain other defendants: five in the Circuit Court of
Hamilton County, Tennessee ("Tennessee State Court Cases"), two in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
("Federal Court Cases"), and one in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York ("New York State Court Case").  

Two of the Tennessee State Court Cases have been voluntarily
dismissed.  All of these matters are in preliminary stages of
litigation.

The company is currently not able to predict the probable outcome
or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any.

On November 21, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against us, five
of our officers or directors, and the seven underwriters who
participated in our June 2018 initial public offering ("IPO"),
alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act").  

The class action lawsuit is based on allegations that the Company
made false and/or misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO.  

The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
IPO, and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, costs and
expenses (including attorneys' fees) on behalf of the putative
class.

On January 23, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018.  On March 7, 2019, this
case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On January 30, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act.

On February 5, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act.

On February 6, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by different plaintiffs alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 19, 2019, this
case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.

On March 8, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee by a different plaintiff alleging claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same
defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018.

On March 14, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same
defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018.

On April 2, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against us and the
same five of our officers and directors as in the action commenced
on November 21, 2018.   

Unlike the previously filed complaints, this complaint did not name
as defendants any of the seven underwriters who participated in the
company's IPO.

The complaints in all the actions listed above allege that the
Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the
IPO, and that, as a result of such alleged statements, the
plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes suffered
damages.  

U.S. Xpress said, "We believe the allegations made in the
complaints are without merit and intend to defend ourselves
vigorously in these matters."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company
was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


US XPRESS: Trial in TCPA Class Suit to Begin in January 2020
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a lawsuit alleging
Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim is currently in discovery
and is set for trial beginning January 13, 2020.  

A class action was filed against the company's subsidiary U.S.
Xpress, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Virginia on December 11, 2017 and amended on March 7, 2018,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, for
two separate proposed classes.

The putative classes include all persons within the United States
to whom the Company either initiated a telephone call to a cellular
telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system or
initiated a call to a residential telephone number using an
artificial or pre-recorded voice at any time from December 11, 2013
to present.  

The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, injunctive
relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company successfully
moved to dismiss the claims related to calls made to residential
lines on grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert such
claims.

The Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss claims for all
purported class members residing outside the State of Virginia for
lack of personal jurisdiction. The matter is currently in discovery
and is set for trial beginning January 13, 2020.  

U.S. Xpress said, "We are currently not able to predict the
probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential
losses, if any. We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these
claims."

U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Truckload and Brokerage. The company
was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Wolther Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Veeco Instruments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend against a purported class action suit entitled, Wolther
v. Maheshwari et al.

On June 8, 2018, an Ultratech shareholder who received Veeco stock
as part of the consideration for the Ultratech acquisition filed a
purported class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Wolther v.
Maheshwari et al., Case No. 18CV329690, on behalf of himself and
others who purchased or acquired shares of Veeco pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus which Veeco filed with the
SEC in connection with the Ultratech acquisition (the "Wolther
Action").

On August 2 and August 8, 2018, two purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Wolther Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs in the same court as the Wolther
Action. These cases have been consolidated with the Wolther Action,
and a consolidated complaint was filed on December 11, 2018.

The consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages and fees under
Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for, among
other things, alleged false/misleading statements in the
registration statement and prospectus relating to the Ultratech
acquisition, relating primarily to the alleged failure to disclose
delays in the advanced packaging business, increased MOCVD
competition in China, and an intellectual property dispute.

Veeco is defending this matter vigorously.

Veeco Instruments Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, sells, and supports semiconductor and thin film
process equipment primarily to make electronic devices worldwide.
Veeco Instruments Inc. was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in
Plainview, New York.


VERSUM MATERIALS: Faces Suits over Entegris Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Versum Materials, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in multiple class suits related to its merger
with Entegris, Inc.

On January 28, 2019, the company announced an agreement and plan of
merger, dated January 27, 2019, between the company and Entegris,
Inc. (Entegris) pursuant to which the company would merge with and
into Entegris, with Entegris as the surviving corporation.

Following the public announcement of the merger agreement signed
between Versum and Entegris, purported stockholders of Versum filed
three putative class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against Versum and the members of the Versum Board (and, in the
case of one of the putative class actions, also against Entegris):
Price v. Versum Materials, Inc. et al., 1:19-cv-00427 (filed on
March 1, 2019), Wang v. Versum Materials, Inc. et al.,
1:19-cv-00460 (filed on March 5, 2019), Wheby v. Versum Materials,
Inc. et al., 1:19-cv-00472 (filed on March 6, 2019), and Robert v.
Versum Materials, Inc. et al., 1:19-cv-00511 (filed on March 14,
2019).  

The lawsuits contain similar allegations contending, among other
things, that the registration statement on Form S-4 misstates or
fails to disclose certain allegedly material information in
violation of federal securities laws. The individual lawsuit (Wang)
additionally alleges that the members of the Versum Board breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the offer made by Merck
KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany ("Merck KGaA") to purchase all of the
issued and outstanding shares of Versum's common stock at a
purchase price of $48.00 per share (the "Initial Merck KGaA
Proposal").

Versum Materials, Inc. develops, manufactures, transports, and
handles specialty materials for the semiconductor and display
industries in the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, China,
Europe, and rest of Asia. The company operates through two
segments, Materials, and Delivery Systems and Services (DS&S).
Versum Materials, Inc. was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in
Tempe, Arizona.


VERSUM MATERIALS: Faces Ventura Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Versum Materials, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a purported class action suit entitled,
Inocencio Ventura v. Versum Materials, Inc.

On April 2, 2019, a purported California class action lawsuit
captioned Inocencio Ventura v. Versum Materials, Inc. was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, containing various class action allegations under
California state wage-and-hour laws, including failure to pay
overtime and minimum wages and failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, to persons employed in California as hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees since April 2015, and other derivative claims,
and seeking unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

Versum Materials, Inc. develops, manufactures, transports, and
handles specialty materials for the semiconductor and display
industries in the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, China,
Europe, and rest of Asia. The company operates through two
segments, Materials, and Delivery Systems and Services (DS&S).
Versum Materials, Inc. was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in
Tempe, Arizona.


VERSUM MATERIALS: Stockholders' Suit No Longer Seeks Injunction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Versum Materials, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the
case entitled, In re Versum Materials, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 2019-0206-JTL, have filed a letter with the
court stating that Plaintiffs will no longer seek an injunction and
withdrawing their request for expedited proceedings.

On January 28, 2019, the company announced an agreement and plan of
merger, dated January 27, 2019, between the company and Entegris,
Inc. pursuant to which the company would merge with and into
Entegris, with Entegris as the surviving corporation.

Purported stockholders of Versum filed two putative class action
lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against
Versum, the members of the Versum Board, and Broadridge Corporate
Issuer Solutions, Inc.: Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 60 Pension
Trust v. Versum Materials, Inc. et al., 2019-0190-JTL (filed on
March 8, 2019) and City of Providence v. Versum Materials, Inc. et
al., 2019-0206-JTL (filed on March 14, 2019).  

The lawsuits contain similar allegations contending, among other
things, that the members of the Versum Board breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Initial Merck KGaA Proposal
and in instituting a shareholder rights agreement (the "Rights
Agreement").  

One lawsuit (City of Providence) additionally contains breach of
fiduciary duty allegations arising out of alleged negotiations by
members of the Versum Board with Entegris without board
authorization and without full disclosure to the board.  

The lawsuits seek relief declaring that the Rights Agreement is
unenforceable or enjoining its use, damages and costs, and other
remedies. One lawsuit (City of Providence) additionally seeks to
enjoin the Entegris Merger.

On March 19, 2019, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an order
consolidating the two lawsuits under the caption In re Versum
Materials, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
2019-0206-JTL.

The complaint previously filed by the City of Providence was
designated the operative complaint. On March 31, 2019, Plaintiffs
in the consolidated lawsuits filed a motion for leave to supplement
the complaint. The supplement contains additional breach of
fiduciary duty allegations arising out of, among other things, the
Board's consideration of the Initial Merck KGaA Proposal.  

On April 7, 2019 the Delaware Chancery Court granted Plaintiffs'
motion and on April 8, 2019 Plaintiffs filed their supplement to
the operative complaint.  

Additionally, Plaintiffs and Versum executed a stipulation dated as
of March 31, 2019 pursuant to which Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw
their motion seeking to enjoin consummation of the Entegris Merger
upon termination of the Rights Agreement.  

On April 3, following Versum's announcement of the termination of
the Rights Agreement, Plaintiffs filed a letter with the court
stating that Plaintiffs will no longer seek an injunction and
withdrawing their request for expedited proceedings.  

Versum Materials, Inc. develops, manufactures, transports, and
handles specialty materials for the semiconductor and display
industries in the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, China,
Europe, and rest of Asia. The company operates through two
segments, Materials, and Delivery Systems and Services (DS&S).
Versum Materials, Inc. was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in
Tempe, Arizona.


VISTRA ENERGY: Settles Kansas & Missouri Gas Index Pricing Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vistra Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that in the Gas Index Pricing Litigation, the
Company and other defendants have reached settlement terms in the
Kansas and Missouri cases, and plaintiffs in those cases filed a
Notice of Settlement with the judge in the multi-district court
proceeding.

The Company, through its subsidiaries, and other energy companies
are named as defendants in several lawsuits claiming damages
resulting from alleged price manipulation through false reporting
of natural gas prices to various index publications, wash trading
and churn trading from 2000-2002.  The cases allege that the
defendants engaged in an antitrust conspiracy to inflate natural
gas prices in three states (Kansas, Missouri and Wisconsin) during
the relevant time period and seek damages under the respective
state antitrust statutes.

Four of the cases are putative class actions and one case,
Reorganized FLI (nka J.P. Morgan Trust Co., National Assn.) v.
Oneok Inc., et al., is an individual action on behalf of Farmland
Industries, Inc. (Farmland), with Farmland seeking full
consideration damages (i.e., the full amount it paid for natural
gas purchases during the relevant timeframe).  The cases are
consolidated in a multi-district litigation proceeding pending in
the U.S. District Court for Nevada.

In March 2017, the court denied the class plaintiffs' motions to
certify class actions in each of the states, which decision was
taken on an interlocutory appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit Court).

In August 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court vacated the district court
orders denying class certification and remanded the cases to the
district court for further consideration of the class certification
issue.

In September 2018, the defendants filed a joint motion for entry of
an order denying class certification, and the plaintiffs filed a
motion for remand of the cases to the transferor courts to decide
class certification issues.

In January 2019, the judge issued an order remanding the
consolidated cases in the multi-district proceedings back to their
respective courts of origin.

Along with the other defendants, the Company had previously reached
settlement terms in the Kansas and Missouri cases, and plaintiffs
in those cases filed a Notice of Settlement with the judge in the
multi-district court proceeding.

As for the Farmland matter, in March 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court
reversed a summary judgment in favor of the defendants and it
shortly will be remanded back to the court of origin for further
discovery and other pretrial proceedings.

The Company said, "While we cannot predict the outcome of these
legal proceedings, or estimate a range of costs, they could have a
material impact on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial condition."

Vistra Energy Corp. is a Texas-based energy company focused on the
competitive energy and power generation markets.


WELLS FARGO: Hernandez Suit over Mortgage Loan Plans Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company is facing a putative class action styled,
Hernandez v. Wells Fargo, et al., related to the Company's mortgage
loan modification plans, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Plaintiff, representing a putative class of mortgage borrowers,
filed the putative class action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The Plaintiff alleges that Wells Fargo improperly
denied mortgage loan modifications or repayment plans to customers
in the foreclosure process due to the overstatement of foreclosure
attorneys’ fees that were included for purposes of determining
whether a customer in the foreclosure process qualified for a
mortgage loan modification or repayment plan.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans.  Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


WELLS FARGO: Nov. 7 Final OK Hearing for Interchange Litig. Accord
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that a hearing to consider final approval of
the settlement of the money damages class claims in the Interchange
Litigation is scheduled for November 7, 2019.

Plaintiffs representing a putative class of merchants have filed
putative class actions, and individual merchants have filed
individual actions, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo &
Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A., and Wachovia Corporation regarding
the interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment
card transactions.  Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks and
bank holding companies are also named as defendants in these
actions.

These actions have been consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The amended and
consolidated complaint asserts claims against defendants based on
alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeks
damages, as well as injunctive relief.  Plaintiff merchants allege
that Visa, MasterCard, and payment card issuing banks unlawfully
colluded to set interchange rates.  Plaintiffs also allege that
enforcement of certain Visa and MasterCard rules and alleged tying
and bundling of services offered to merchants are anticompetitive.
Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other defendants and entities,
are parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide
that they, along with other entities, will share, based on a
formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation.

On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard, and the financial institution
defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated
class action and reached a separate settlement in principle of the
consolidated individual actions.  The settlement payments to be
made by all defendants in the consolidated class and individual
actions totaled approximately US$6.6 billion before reductions
applicable to certain merchants opting out of the settlement.  The
class settlement also provided for the distribution to class
merchants of 10 basis points of default interchange across all
credit rate categories for a period of 8 consecutive months.

The district court granted final approval of the settlement, which
was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit by settlement objector merchants.  Other merchants opted
out of the settlement and are pursuing several individual actions.

On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit vacated the settlement
agreement and reversed and remanded the consolidated action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
for further proceedings.  On November 23, 2016, prior class counsel
filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court, seeking review
of the reversal of the settlement by the Second Circuit, and the
Supreme Court denied the petition on March 27, 2017.  On November
30, 2016, the district court appointed lead class counsel for a
damages class and an equitable relief class.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the
money damages class claims pursuant to which defendants will pay a
total of approximately US$6.2 billion, which includes approximately
US$5.3 billion of funds remaining from the 2012 settlement and
US$900 million in additional funding.  The Company's allocated
responsibility for the additional funding is approximately US$94.5
million.

The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in January
2019, and scheduled a final approval hearing for November 7, 2019.

Several of the opt-out and direct action litigations were settled
during the pendency of the Second Circuit appeal while others
remain pending.  Discovery is proceeding in the opt-out litigations
and the equitable relief class case.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans.  Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.



WELLS FARGO: Settlement Pacts Reached in RMBS Trustee Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that it has reached settlement agreements
related to RMBS Trustee Litigation matters, specifically with a
group of institutional investors (Institutional Investor
Plaintiffs) and with Royal Park Investments SA/NV.

On the other hand, the Company continues to defend complaints filed
by "certain other investors" in December 2014 and 2015 against
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in the Southern District of New York
(Related Federal Cases).

In November 2014, a group of institutional investors (Institutional
Investor Plaintiffs), including funds affiliated with BlackRock,
Inc., filed a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., alleging claims against the Company in its capacity as
trustee for a number of residential mortgage-backed securities
(RMBS) trusts (Federal Court Complaint).

Similar complaints have been filed against other trustees in
various courts, including in the Southern District of New York, in
New York state court, and in other states, by RMBS investors.

The Federal Court Complaint alleges that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
trustee, caused losses to investors and asserts causes of action
based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to
notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers
for purported breaches of representations and warranties, notify
investors of alleged events of default, and abide by appropriate
standards of care following alleged events of default.  Plaintiffs
seek money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of
expenses, and equitable relief.

In December 2014 and December 2015, certain other investors filed
four complaints alleging similar claims against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. in the Southern District of New York (Related Federal Cases),
and the various cases pending against the Company are proceeding
before the same judge.

On January 19, 2016, the Southern District of New York entered an
order in connection with the Federal Court Complaint dismissing
claims related to certain of the trusts at issue (Dismissed
Trusts).  The Company's motion to dismiss the Federal Court
Complaint and the complaints for the Related Federal Cases was
granted in part and denied in part in March 2017.

In May 2017, the Company filed third-party complaints against
certain investment advisors affiliated with the Institutional
Investor Plaintiffs seeking contribution with respect to claims
alleged in the Federal Court Complaint (Third-Party Claims).  The
investment advisors have moved to dismiss those complaints.

On April 17, 2018, the Southern District of New York denied class
certification in the Related Federal Case brought by Royal Park
Investments SA/NV (Royal Park Action).

A complaint raising similar allegations to those in the Federal
Court Complaint was filed in May 2016 in New York state court by a
different plaintiff investor.

In December 2016, the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs filed a new
putative class action complaint in New York state court in respect
of 261 RMBS trusts, including the Dismissed Trusts, for which Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. serves or served as trustee (State Court Action).

In July 2017, certain of the plaintiffs from the State Court Action
filed a civil complaint relating to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s
setting aside reserves for legal fees and expenses in connection
with the liquidation of eleven RMBS trusts at issue in the State
Court Action (Declaratory Judgment Action).  The complaint seeks,
among other relief, declarations that the Company is not entitled
to indemnification, the advancement of funds, or the taking of
reserves from trust funds for legal fees and expenses it incurs in
defending the claims in the State Court Action.  In November 2017,
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in January 2018.

In November 2018, the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs and the
Company entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which,
among other terms, the Company will pay US$43 million to resolve
the Federal Court Complaint and the State Court Action.  The
settlement will also resolve the Third Party Claims and the
Declaratory Judgment Action.  The New York state court has
scheduled a fairness hearing on the settlement for May 6, 2019.

In addition, Royal Park Investments SA/NV and the Company have
reached an agreement resolving the Royal Park Action.  Other than
the Royal Park Action, the Related Federal Cases are not covered by
these settlement agreements.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans.  Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.



WELLS FARGO: Still Faces Coordes Suit over Mortgage Loan Plans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company continues to defend itself in the case
styled, Coordes v. Wells Fargo, et al., according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The plaintiff, representing a putative class of mortgage borrowers,
filed the putative class action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in
the United States District Court for the District of Washington.
The Plaintiff alleges that Wells Fargo improperly denied mortgage
loan modifications or repayment plans to customers in the
foreclosure process due to the overstatement of foreclosure
attorneys’ fees that were included for purposes of determining
whether a customer in the foreclosure process qualified for a
mortgage loan modification or repayment plan.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans.  Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.



WELLS FARGO: Still Faces Lawsuits over Retail Sales Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company continues to face various suits related to
its retail sales practices, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

Federal, state, and local government agencies, including the
Department of Justice, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), and the United States Department of Labor; state
attorneys general, including the New York Attorney General; and
prosecutors' offices, as well as Congressional committees, have
undertaken formal or informal inquiries, investigations or
examinations arising out of certain retail sales practices of the
Company that were the subject of settlements with the CFPB, the
OCC, and the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney announced by
the Company on September 8, 2016.  These matters are at varying
stages.

The Company has responded, and continues to respond, to requests
from a number of the foregoing.  In October 2018, the Company
entered into an agreement to resolve the New York Attorney
General's investigation pursuant to which the Company paid US$65
million to the State of New York.

In December 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with all 50
state Attorneys General and the District of Columbia to resolve an
investigation into the Company's retail sales practices, CPI and
GAP, and mortgage interest rate lock matters, pursuant to which the
Company paid US$575 million.  The Company has also engaged in
preliminary and/or exploratory resolution discussions with the
Department of Justice and the SEC, although there can be no
assurance as to the outcome of these discussions.

In addition, a number of lawsuits have also been filed by
non-governmental parties seeking damages or other remedies related
to these retail sales practices.  First, various class plaintiffs
purporting to represent consumers who allege that they received
products or services without their authorization or consent have
brought separate putative class actions against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and various other jurisdictions.

In April 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement in
the first-filed action, Jabbari v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to
resolve claims regarding certain products or services provided
without authorization or consent for the time period May 1, 2002 to
April 20, 2017.  Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay
US$142 million for remediation, attorneys' fees, and settlement
fund claims administration.  In the unlikely event that the US$142
million settlement total is not enough to provide remediation, pay
attorneys' fees, pay settlement fund claims administration costs,
and have at least US$25 million left over to distribute to all
class members, the Company will contribute additional funds to the
settlement.

In addition, in the unlikely event that the number of unauthorized
accounts identified by settlement class members in the claims
process and not disputed by the claims administrator exceeds
plaintiffs' 3.5 million account estimate, the Company will
proportionately increase the US$25 million reserve so that the
ratio of reserve to unauthorized accounts is no less than what was
implied by plaintiffs' estimate at the time of the district court's
preliminary approval of the settlement in July 2017.  The district
court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement on
June 14, 2018.

Several appeals of the district court's order granting final
approval of the settlement have been filed with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Second, Wells Fargo shareholders brought a consolidated securities
fraud class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging certain misstatements and
omissions in the Company's disclosures related to sales practices
matters.

The Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this
matter pursuant to which the Company paid US$480 million.  The
district court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement on December 20, 2018.

Third, Wells Fargo shareholders have brought numerous shareholder
derivative lawsuits asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims,
among others, against current and former directors and officers for
their alleged involvement with and failure to detect and prevent
sales practices issues.  These actions are currently pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and California state court for coordinated proceedings.
An additional lawsuit asserting similar claims pending in Delaware
state court has been stayed.

Subject to court approval, the parties have entered into settlement
agreements to resolve the shareholder derivative lawsuits pursuant
to which insurance carriers will pay the Company approximately
US$240 million for alleged damage to the Company, and the Company
will pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

Fourth, multiple employment litigation matters have been brought
against Wells Fargo, including an Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) class action in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of 401(k) plan
participants that has been dismissed and is now on appeal; a class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of team members who allege that
they protested sales practice misconduct and/or were terminated for
not meeting sales goals that has now been dismissed, and the
Company has entered into a framework with plaintiffs' counsel to
address individual claims that have been asserted; various wage and
hour class actions brought in federal and state court in California
(which have been settled), New Jersey, and Pennsylvania on behalf
of non-exempt branch based team members alleging that sales
pressure resulted in uncompensated overtime; and multiple single
plaintiff Sarbanes-Oxley Act complaints and state law whistleblower
actions filed with the United States Department of Labor or in
various state courts alleging adverse employment actions for
raising sales practice misconduct issues.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans.  Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.



WELLS FARGO: Still Faces Suit over Debit Card Order of Posting
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the Order of Posting Litigation has
returned to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs filed a series of putative class actions against
Wachovia Bank, N.A.  and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many
other banks, challenging the "high to low" order in which the banks
post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts.  Most of
these actions were consolidated in multi-district litigation
proceedings (MDL proceedings) in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

The court in the MDL proceedings has certified a class of putative
plaintiffs, and Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration of the
claims of unnamed class members.  The court denied the motions to
compel arbitration in October 2016, and Wells Fargo appealed this
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.

In May 2018, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in Wells Fargo's favor and
found that Wells Fargo had not waived its arbitration rights and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing to the Eleventh Circuit,
which was denied in August 2018.

Plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari from the United States Supreme
Court, and that petition was denied in January 2019.  The case has
returned to the district court for further proceedings.

Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans.  Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.



WESTERN DIGITAL: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2019, that the parties in the
class action suit involving SanDisk securities are awaiting a court
order on the motion for preliminary approval of settlement.

Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk and two of its officers, Sanjay
Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class action
lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. Two complaints are brought on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between
October 2014 and March 2015, and one is brought on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between April
2014 and April 2015.

The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities
laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the
defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek,
among other things, damages and fees and costs. In July 2015, the
District Court consolidated the cases and appointed Union Asset
Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as lead
plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
August 2015.

In January 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend.
In February 2016, the District Court issued an order appointing as
new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford,
Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders
Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees’
Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers’ Pension Fund
(collectively, the "Institutional Investor Group").

In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended
complaint. In June 2016, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to
amend. In July 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed a
further amended complaint.

In June 2017, the District Court denied the defendants’ motion to
dismiss. In September 2018, the District Court granted the
Institutional Investor Group's motion to certify a class of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired SanDisk's
publicly traded common stock between October 2014 and April 2015,
excluding those who purchased or otherwise acquired SanDisk's
publicly traded common stock during the class period but who sold
their stock prior to the first corrective disclosure in March 2015.


The Institutional Investor Group alleges artificial inflation in
the price of SanDisk's publicly traded common stock of $9.04 per
share from October 16, 2014 through March 25, 2015, $2.26 per share
on March 26, 2015, and $1.35 per share from March 27, 2015 through
April 15, 2015.

In March 2019, the parties reached a settlement of all claims in
this matter, subject to formal ratification by party
representatives and approval by the court, and a hearing on the
parties' motion for preliminary approval is set for May 16, 2019.
The charge related to the settlement was recorded in Selling,
general and administrative expense.

Western Digital Corporation develops, manufactures, and sells data
storage devices and solutions worldwide. The company sells its
products under the HGST, SanDisk, and WD brands to original
equipment manufacturers, distributors, resellers, cloud
infrastructure players, and retailers. Western Digital Corporation
was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


WESTERN UNION: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in Smallen Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that plaintiffs in Lawrence
Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust et al.
v. The Western Union Company et al., have filed a notice of appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

On February 22, 2017, the Company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former
executive officer of the Company were named as defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits, both of which asserted claims
under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange
Commission rule 10b‑5 and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On May 3, 2017, the two cases were consolidated by the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado under the
caption Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable
Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil
Action No. 1:17‑cv‑00474‑KLM (D. Colo.).

On September 6, 2017, the Court appointed Lawrence Henry Smallen
and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust as the lead
plaintiff. On November 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint ("Amended Complaint") that, among other things,
added two other former executive officers as defendants, one of
whom subsequently was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims under section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b‑5
and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that, during the
purported class period of February 24, 2012, through May 2, 2017,
the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose purported adverse material facts regarding, among other
things, the Company's compliance with AML and anti-fraud
regulations, the status and likely outcome of certain governmental
investigations targeting the Company, the reasons behind the
Company's decisions to make certain regulatory enhancements, and
the Company's premium pricing.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January
16, 2018, and on March 27, 2019, the Court dismissed the action in
its entirety with prejudice and entered final judgment in the
defendants' favor on March 28, 2019. On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and
the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in
this matter."

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Awaits Final Releases in Tennille & Smet Accords
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that all but one of the
eligible jurisdictions have executed a release in the class
settlement in the cases James P. Tennille v. The Western Union
Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company, relieving
the Company from potential unclaimed property liability for the
transactions covered by the settlement.

The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western
Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company, both
of which are pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.

The original complaints asserted claims for violation of various
consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, conversion and
declaratory relief, based on allegations that the Company waits too
long to inform consumers if their money transfers are not redeemed
by the recipients and that the Company uses the unredeemed funds to
generate income until the funds are escheated to state governments.


During the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which the Court preliminarily approved on
January 3, 2013. On June 25, 2013, the Court entered an order
certifying the class and granting final approval to the settlement.


Under the approved settlement, a substantial amount of the
settlement proceeds, as well as all of the class counsel's fees,
administrative fees and other expenses, would be paid from the
class members' unclaimed money transfer funds. During the final
approval hearing, the Court overruled objections to the settlement
that had been filed by several class members. In July 2013, two of
those class members filed notices of appeal.

On May 1, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to overrule the
objections filed by the two class members who appealed. On January
11, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied petitions for
certiorari that were filed by the two class members who appealed.

On February 1, 2016, pursuant to the settlement agreement and the
Court's June 25, 2013 final approval order, Western Union deposited
the class members’ unclaimed money transfer funds into a class
settlement fund, from which class member claims, administrative
fees and class counsel's fees, as well as other expenses have been
paid, with the remainder to go to eligible jurisdictions to which
the unclaimed funds would have escheated in the absence of a
settlement.

On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order creating a fund for
the remainder of the unclaimed funds, which gave eligible
jurisdictions one year to execute a release to receive their
proportionate share of the fund.

All but one of the eligible jurisdictions have executed a release
in order to receive their share of the fund, relieving the Company
from potential unclaimed property liability for the transactions
covered by the settlement, and the Company believes that the
reasonably possible loss associated with the remaining jurisdiction
is immaterial.

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Class Suit in Argentina v. WUFSA Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA"), a company subsidiary,
continues to defend a class action suit in Argentina.

In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No.
19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA").

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for
money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA
does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign
exchange rates. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an
order requiring WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid
and the foreign exchange revenue associated with money transfers
sent from Argentina, plus punitive damages.

The complaint does not specify a monetary value of the claim or a
time period. In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint
formally admissible as a class action.

The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June
2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on
statute of limitations and standing grounds. In April 2017, the
Court deferred ruling on the motion until later in the proceedings.


The process for notifying potential class members has been
completed and the case is currently in the evidentiary stage.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend
itself vigorously."

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

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Frazier Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the case, Frazier et
al. v. The Western Union Company et al., has been stayed pending
arbitration.

On April 26, 2018, the Company, its Western Union Financial
Services, Inc. (WUFSI) subsidiary, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, and various "Doe Defendants" (purportedly
including Western Union officers, directors, and agents) were named
as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims
for alleged violations of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and the Colorado Organized Crime Act, civil
theft, negligence, unjust enrichment, and conversion under the
caption Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil
Action No. 1:18‑cv‑00998‑KLM (D. Colo.).

The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period of
January 1, 2004 to the present, and based largely on the admissions
and allegations relating to the Deferred Prosecution Agreement
(DPA), the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Consent
Order, and the New York State Department of Financial Services
(NYDFS) Consent Order, the defendants engaged in a scheme to
defraud customers through Western Union's money transfer system.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 17, 2018. The
amended complaint is similar to the original complaint, although it
adds additional named plaintiffs and additional counts, including
claims on behalf of putative California, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, and New Jersey subclasses for alleged violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

On August 28, 2018, the Company and the other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of individual arbitrations with the named
plaintiffs, which defendants contend are contractually required. On
March 27, 2019, the Court granted that motion and stayed the action
pending individual arbitrations with the named plaintiffs.  To
date, no such individual arbitration requests have been filed.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of the matter, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and
the other defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this
matter."

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: 6 Suits v. Caustic Soda Producers Filed in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Westlake Chemical Corporation has been named as one of the
defendants in six lawsuits filed against caustic soda producers,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019

The Company and other caustic soda producers were named as
defendants in six purported class action civil lawsuits filed March
22, 25 and 26, 2019 and April 12, 2019 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York.  The lawsuits allege the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price of caustic soda, restrict domestic (U.S.) supply of caustic
soda and allocate caustic soda customers.  The other defendants
named in the lawsuits are Olin, K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly
owned subsidiary of Olin Corporation), Occidental Petroleum
Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation d/b/a OxyChem,
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd., Shintech Incorporated, Formosa
Plastics Corporation, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.

The lawsuits are filed on behalf of the respective named plaintiffs
and a putative class comprised of all persons and entities who
purchased caustic soda in the U.S. directly from one or more of the
defendants, their parents, predecessors, subsidiaries or affiliates
at any time between October 1, 2015 and the present.  Plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive relief.

Westlake Chemical said, "The Company believes the claims are
without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.  At
this time, the Company is not able to estimate the impact, if any,
that these lawsuits could have on the Company's consolidated
financial statements either in the current period or in future
periods."

Westlake Chemical Corporation manufactures and markets basic
chemicals, vinyls, polymers, and fabricated products. The Company
serves a range of consumer and industrial markets, including
flexible and rigid packaging, automotive products, coatings, and
residential and commercial construction.


WIDEOPENWEST INC: IPO Suits in NY and Colorado Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
WideOpenWest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend class action suits in New York and Colorado in relation
to its initial public offering (IPO).

In June and July of 2018, putative class action complaints were
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and Colorado
State Court against WideOpenWest, Inc. and certain of the Company's
current and former officers and directors, as well as Crestview
Advisors, LLC ("Crestview"), Avista Capital Partners ("Avista"),
and each of the underwriter banks involved with the Company's
initial public offering (IPO).

The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the IPO. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased
stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. The complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these
actions.

The Colorado actions have been stayed while the New York cases have
been consolidated with the court staying discovery until after a
determination has been made with respect to the Company's Motion to
Dismiss.  

WideOpenWest said, "The Company is unable at this time to determine
whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact
on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

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

WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high speed data, cable television, and
digital telephony services to residential and business services
customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as
WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc.
in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in
Englewood, Colorado.


WILL COUNTY, IL: Bid to Certify Class Continued
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Andrea Dunn, the Plaintiff, v. County
Of Will, et al., the Defendants, CCase No. 1:18−cv−06304 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Charles P. Kocoras entered an order
continuing the motion to certify class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on May 23, 2019,
the motion to certify class is entered and continued. The motion
hearing set for May 30, 2019 is stricken.  The case has been
referred to Magistrate Judge Kim for settlement.[CC]

WILMINGTON TRUST: Guidry et al. Seek to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit LYLE J. GUIDRY and RODNEY CHOATE, on
behalf of the MRMC ESOP and a class of all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., as successor
to Wilmington Trust Retirement and Institutional Services Company,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00250-RGA (D. Del.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   a. certifying the action as a class action pursuant to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

   b. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel; and

   c. appointing Rodney Choate as Class Representative.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
          Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  rjenny@baileyglasser.com
                  pmuench@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          David A. Felice, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          Red Clay Center at Little Falls
          2961 Centerville Road, Suite 302
          Wilmington, DE 19808
          Telephone: (302) 504-6333
          Facsimile: (302) 504-6334
          E-mail: dfelice@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
          Todd Jackson, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
          2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 269-7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
          E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com
                  todd@feinbergjackson.com

XEROX CORP: NY Appellate Division's Order in Merger Suit Now Final
------------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019, that with regards to the February 21, 2019 decision
of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division,
denying the request of putative class plaintiffs to reinstate
certain claims related to a merger deal between the company and
FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation, there were no further notice of
appeal filed, and the Appellate Decision and Order became "final
and unappealable" on March 26, 2019.

In February 2018, five complaints (the "Fuji Transaction
Shareholder Lawsuits"), including four putative class actions
(which have been consolidated), were filed by Xerox shareholders in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the
"Court") in connection with the proposed transaction to combine
Xerox and Fuji Xerox (the "Fuji Transaction").  All of the
complaints name as defendants Xerox, its directors, and FUJIFILM
Holdings Corporation ("Fujifilm").  The complaint in one of the
actions also names as a defendant Ursula M. Burns, the former Chief
Executive Officer of Xerox.  The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that Xerox's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
negotiating, approving, and purportedly making false and misleading
disclosures about the Fuji Transaction, and that Fujifilm aided and
abetted those breaches.  The complaint in one of the actions
further alleges that Xerox and the director defendants engaged in
common law fraud by purportedly failing to disclose information
about the joint venture agreements between Xerox and Fujifilm.  The
Fuji Transaction Shareholder Lawsuits seek injunctive relief
preventing the previously proposed transactions, and/or additional
disclosures by Xerox's directors, unspecified damages from Xerox's
directors, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as other relief.

One of the Fuji Transaction Shareholder Lawsuits was brought by
Darwin Deason, a Xerox shareholder ("Deason I").  Another complaint
was filed by Mr. Deason against Xerox and its directors in the same
Court on March 2, 2018 ("Deason II") alleging that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by refusing Mr. Deason's request
for a waiver of the deadline for nomination of a new slate of Xerox
directors.  In Deason II, Mr. Deason sought to enjoin Xerox and its
directors from enforcing Xerox's advance notice by-laws, thereby
allowing Mr. Deason to proceed with the nominations, as well as
costs, fees, and other relief.

On April 27, 2018, the Court issued decisions and orders granting
plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motions, which (i) enjoined
Xerox from "taking any further action to consummate the change of
control transaction between Xerox and Fuji that was announced on
January 31, 2018 pending a final determination of the claims
asserted in the underlying action;" (ii) enjoined Xerox from
enforcing its advance notice bylaw provision requiring shareholders
to nominate directors for election at the 2018 annual shareholder
meeting by December 11, 2017; and (iii) required Xerox to waive
such advance notice bylaw provision to permit the noticing of a
slate of director nominees for election at the 2018 annual
shareholder meeting, and denying defendants' motions to dismiss.

On May 1, 2018, Xerox entered into a Director Appointment,
Nomination and Settlement Agreement (the "Initial Settlement
Agreement") with Mr. Deason and Carl C. Icahn and certain of his
affiliates who were also Xerox shareholders (the "Icahn Group"),
among others, that would have resolved Deason I, Deason II and the
pending proxy contest in connection with Xerox's 2018 Annual
Meeting of Shareholders.  The Initial Settlement Agreement expired
by its terms on May 3, 2018 without becoming effective.

On May 7, 2018, defendants filed with the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department,
notices of appeal of, and motions to stay pending appeal, the lower
Court's decision and order.  Defendants also moved the appellate
court for interim relief ordering that the appeal be heard on an
expedited basis.  At a hearing before the appellate court on May 7,
2018, the appellate court ruled that the appeals would be heard on
an expedited basis and granted a partial interim stay allowing
Xerox and Fujifilm to take steps to seek regulatory approvals
related to the Fuji Transaction pending a ruling from the appellate
court on defendants' motions to stay pending appeal.

On May 13, 2018, a second Director Appointment, Nomination and
Settlement Agreement (the "Final Settlement Agreement") with
respect to Deason I, Deason II and the pending proxy contest in
connection with Xerox's 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders that
was initiated by the Icahn Group was signed on behalf of Mr.
Deason, the Icahn Group and all defendants except Fujifilm, and a
memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of the putative
class case was signed by all defendants except Fujifilm.  Pursuant
to the settlements, the settling defendants withdrew their appeal
and motion to stay in Deason I and Deason II.  The settling
defendants also withdrew their motion to stay in the putative class
case.  The Court entered a stipulation of discontinuance as to the
settling parties in Deason II on May 14, 2018, and agreed on June
22, 2018 to do the same in Deason I.

On June 14, 2018, Fujifilm filed answers in Deason I and the
putative class case, along with cross-claims against the members of
the Xerox Board (as constituted before May 13, 2018) and a
third-party complaint against Xerox director Jonathan Christodoro,
seeking contribution for any potential award against Fujifilm for
aiding and abetting purported breaches of fiduciary duties.

On June 19, 2018, the putative class plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of a stipulation of settlement that would
resolve the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the putative class
case against all defendants, other than Fujifilm.  Carmen Ribbe,
the plaintiff in the derivative action, and Fujifilm filed
oppositions to the motion on July 10, 2018.

On June 22, 2018, the Court entered an order denying a joint motion
by the putative class plaintiffs and the settling defendants to
dissolve the injunction in the putative class case as against the
settling defendants, and entered an order denying Fujifilm's motion
to dissolve the injunctions in the putative class case and Deason I
in their entirety.

On July 16, 2018, the Court held a hearing concerning the putative
class plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
in the putative class case.  The Court indicated that it was not
inclined to consider motions for approval of the settlement prior
to considering whether the putative class should be certified.

On August 2, 2018, the Appellate Division entered orders
recognizing the Xerox defendants' withdrawal of their appeal in the
Deason cases and denying all appellants' motions to stay pending
determination of appeals in the Deason and putative class cases.

On August 2, 2018, the Appellate Division entered orders (i) at
their request, deeming withdrawn the Xerox defendants' appeal and
motion to stay in the Deason cases; (ii) upon their request,
deeming withdrawn the Xerox defendants' motion to stay, pending
determination of appeal, the putative class case; and (iii) denying
Fujifilm's motion to stay pending determination of its appeals in
the Deason and putative case cases.

On September 21, 2018, putative class plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of a settlement class and a motion to transmit notice
of the proposed settlement to the proposed class.  On October 17,
2018, derivative plaintiff Carmen Ribbe and Fujifilm filed
oppositions to the putative class plaintiffs' motion to transmit
notice to the proposed class.  The class has not yet been
certified, and preliminary approval has not been granted.

The Appellate Division heard oral argument on September 25, 2018 on
Fujifilm's appeal of the Court's decision.  On October 16, 2018,
the Appellate Division entered a decision and order reversing the
Court's rulings, ordering that the claims brought against Fujifilm
in the cases by Mr. Deason and the purported class be dismissed,
and further ordering that the preliminary injunction of the
proposed Fuji Transaction be dissolved (the "Appellate Decision and
Order").

On November 15, 2018, the putative class plaintiffs filed with the
Appellate Division a motion seeking the opportunity to reargue
Fujifilm's appeal or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal the
Appellate Decision and Order to the New York State Court of
Appeals.

On December 6, 2018, pursuant to the Appellate Decision and Order,
the Court entered a judgment dismissing the complaints against
Fujifilm in Deason I and the putative class case.  The Court
further issued orders denying the putative class plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, without prejudice to renewing the motion
after the outcome of any appeals of the Appellate Decision and
Order.

On January 8, 2019, the Court entered an order staying all further
proceedings in Deason I and the putative class case until thirty
days after exhaustion of appeals, including any appeals to the New
York State Court of Appeals, of the Appellate Decision and Order.
On January 9, 2019, the Court entered an order denying the putative
class plaintiffs' motion to transmit notice to the proposed class,
without prejudice to renewal of their motion at a later time.

On October 31, 2018 and January 3, 2019, respectively, Xerox and
the Xerox director defendants in the putative class case filed with
the Appellate Division a request and motion seeking an extension,
until after any decision regarding approval of settlement of the
putative class action, of the deadline by which to perfect their
appeal of the Court's April 27, 2018 decision and order.

On February 21, 2019, the Appellate Division issued an order
denying the putative class plaintiffs' motion seeking to reargue
Fujifilm's appeal or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal the
Appellate Decision and Order to the New York State Court of
Appeals.  No further notice of appeal was filed, and the Appellate
Decision and Order became final and unappealable on March 26,
2019.

The Company said, "Xerox will vigorously defend these lawsuits to
the extent that the proceedings continue as to Xerox.  At this
time, however, it is premature to make any conclusion regarding the
probability of incurring material losses in these lawsuits.  Should
developments cause a change in our determination as to an
unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or
settlement, there could be a material adverse effect on our results
of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period in
which such change in determination, judgment, or settlement
occurs."

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation,
personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


XEROX CORP: Ribbe's Putative Derivative, Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation is facing a putative derivative and class action
stockholder complaint filed by Carmen Ribbe in New York on April
11, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

On April 11, 2019, Carmen Ribbe filed a putative derivative and
class action stockholder complaint in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for New York County, naming as defendants Xerox,
current Board members Gregory Q. Brown, Joseph J. Echevarria,
Cheryl Gordon Krongard, Sara Martinez Tucker, Keith Cozza, Giovanni
G. Visentin, Jonathan Christodoro, Nicholas Graziano, and A. Scott
Letier, and former Board members Jeffrey Jacobson, William Curt
Hunter, Robert J. Keegan, Charles Prince, Ann N. Reese, and Stephen
H. Rusckowski.

Plaintiff previously filed a putative shareholder derivative
lawsuit on May 24, 2018 against certain of these defendants, as
well as others, in the same court; that lawsuit was dismissed
without prejudice on December 6, 2018.  The new complaint includes
putative derivative claims on behalf of Xerox for breach of
fiduciary duty against the members of the Xerox Board who approved
Xerox's entry into agreements to settle the Deason and In re Xerox
Corporation Consolidated Shareholder Litigation ("XCCSL") actions.

Plaintiff alleges that the settlements ceded control of the Board
and the Company to Darwin Deason and Carl C. Icahn without a vote
by, or compensation to, other Xerox stockholders; improperly
provided certain benefits and releases to the resigning and
continuing directors; and subjected Xerox to potential breach of
contract damages in an action by Fuji relating to Xerox's
termination of the proposed Fuji Transaction.

Plaintiff also alleges that the current Board members breached
their fiduciary duties by allegedly rejecting plaintiff's January
14, 2019 shareholder demand on the Board to remedy harms arising
from entry into the Deason and XCCSL settlements.  The new
complaint further includes direct claims for breach of fiduciary
duty on behalf of a putative class of current Xerox stockholders
other than Mr. Deason, Mr. Icahn, and their affiliated entities
(the "Ribbe Class") against the defendants for causing Xerox to
enter into the Deason and XCCSL settlements, which plaintiff
alleges perpetuated control of Xerox by Mr. Icahn and Mr. Deason
and denied the voting franchise of Xerox shareholders.

Among other things, plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified
amount for the alleged fiduciary breaches in favor of Xerox against
defendants jointly and severally; rescission or reformation of the
Deason and XCCSL settlements; restitution of funds paid to the
resigning directors under the Deason settlement; an injunction
against defendants' engaging in the alleged wrongful practices and
equitable relief affording the putative Ribbe Class the ability to
determine the composition of the Board; costs and attorneys' fees;
and other further relief as the Court may deem proper.

The Company said, "Xerox will vigorously defend against this
matter.  At this time, it is premature to make any conclusion
regarding the probability of incurring material losses in this
litigation.  Should developments cause a change in our
determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final
adverse judgment or settlement, there could be a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial
position in the period in which such change in determination,
judgment, or settlement occurs."

Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation,
personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.


YANGTZE RIVER PORT: Behrendsen Securities Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yangtze River Port and Logistics Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that it is aware of a class
action complaint filed in January 2019 in New York on behalf of
Michael Behrendsen against the Company, among other defendants.
The Company also said that as of the date of this report, no class
has yet to be certified and that the Company has not been served
with the Complaint.

The class action complaint has been filed on January 2, 2019 with
the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York on
behalf of Michael Behrendsen against the Company, Xiangyao Liu, Xin
Zheng and Tsz-Kit Chan (Civil Action Number 1:19-cv-00024-DLI-LB)
(the "Complaint").  The two-count Complaint alleges violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Lead counsel and lead plaintiff for the plaintiff-class was
recently appointed, and pursuant to the latest Stipulation and
Order, must either indicate whether they intend to rely on the
initial Complaint or to file an amended complaint.

The Complaint alleges the defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company's purported lease of the Wuhan Yangtze River Newport
Logistics Center, the Company's main asset, was a fabrication; (2)
the Company's only operating subsidiary, Wuhan Newport, was
declared insolvent in China due to a number of default judgments
against it; and (3) as a result, the defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
The class action seeks to recover damages against the defendants'
actions.


[*] AmerisourceBergen Gains $52MM in 1Q from Antitrust Settlements
------------------------------------------------------------------
During the three and six months ended March 31, 2019,
AmerisourceBergen Corporation recognized gains of US$52.0 million
and $139.3 million, respectively, as a member of the direct
purchasers' class that settled antitrust lawsuits against
pharmaceutical manufacturers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed against certain brand
pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer, by
itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to delay or
prevent generic drugs from entering the market.  These lawsuits are
generally brought as class actions.  The Company is not typically
named as a plaintiff in these lawsuits, but has been a member of
the direct purchasers' class (i.e., those purchasers who purchase
directly from these pharmaceutical manufacturers).  None of the
lawsuits have gone to trial, but some have settled in the past with
the Company receiving proceeds from the settlement funds.  During
the three and six months ended March 31, 2019, the Company
recognized gains of US$52.0 million and US$139.3 million,
respectively, related to these lawsuits.  The Company recognized
gains of US$0.3 million during the three and six months ended March
31, 2018 related to these lawsuits.  These gains, which are net of
attorney fees and estimated payments due to other parties, were
recorded as reductions to cost of goods sold in the Company's
Consolidated Statements of Operations.

AmerisourceBergen Corporation sources and distributes
pharmaceutical products in the United States and internationally.
It markets its products and services through independent sales
forces and marketing organizations.  AmerisourceBergen Corporation
was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chesterbrook,
Pennsylvania.



                            *********

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 ***