CAR_Public/190815.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, August 15, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 163

                            Headlines

8 CHELSEA: Court OKs Arbitration in Balderas FLSA Suit
ABM INDUSTRY: Removes Artiga Suit to C.D. California
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Bid to Dismiss McGovney Class Suit Underway
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Faces Extreme Networks Merger-Related Suits
ALPHA TEAM: Court Grants Extension to File Answer in Drummer

AMAZON.COM: Adamsky et al. Sue over Collection of Children Data
APPLE INC: New Calif. Class Suit Launched Over iPhone Throttling
ARKEMA INC: Seeks 6th Circuit Review of Decision in Carter Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Castillo Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 9th Cir.
BARING BDC: Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Seek to Amend Complaint

BAXTER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss IV Solutions Sales Suit Still Pending
BROKERS EDGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Candelario Suit Alleges
CAMDEN PROPERTY: Court Narrows Claims in Suarez NCDCA Suit
CAPITAL ONE: Charney Lawyers Push Class Suit Over Data Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Castro Suit over Information Data Breach

CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action in Virginia Over Data Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Murphy Falcon and Morgan File Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Requests to Approve Class Actions Filed in Canada
CARBONITE INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
CARBONITE INC: Kehoe Law Files Securities Class Action

CARBONITE INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CARDINAL HEALTH: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Suit
CENTRE COUNTY, PA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Sheffer Suit
CLIENT RESOURCE: Gerstenhaber Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
CLIENT SERVICES: Ali Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation

CONCENTRIX CORP: Class of Call Center Agent Employees Certified
DIAMOND RESORTS: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Gonzalez
DOMINION ENERGY: Customers to Get Refunds as Part of Settlement
DOMINION ENERGY: Some Customers to Receive Refunds in Settlement
ECSD MANAGEMENT: Accused by Pilley of Invading Privacy Under TCPA

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Oct. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FRED'S INC: Pawar Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Faces 3 Class Suits Related to TSYS Merger
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Suit

GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit
INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cavada Says
INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Anemone Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss REMICADE(R) Suit Denied

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss TRACLEER(R)-Related Suit Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Summary Judgment in Contact Lens Suit Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Related Class Suit in Virginia Ongoing
JUST ENERGY: Faces Goitein Suit over 15% Drop in Share Price
KERRY FOODS: Benoskie Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

KOHL'S CORPORATION: Court Terminates Ankcorn Case
LARIO OIL: Class of Oilfield Workers Conditionally Certified
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Suit Still Awaits Court Approval
LONGFIN CORP: Court Dismisses Claims Against Network 1
MARKEL CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in New York

MASTERCARD INC: Canadian Suit over Point-of-Sale Acceptance Ongoing
MASTERCARD INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set in November
MASTERCARD INC: Shift Fraud Liability Suit Still Ongoing
MASTERCARD INC: Suits over ATM Surcharge Fees Still Ongoing
MASTERCARD INC: TCPA Class Suit in Florida Remains Stayed

MDL 2492: Adams Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Belcha Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Goins Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Grant Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Jones Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Kubik Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Simmons Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2818: Court OKs Leave to File Supplemental Authority
MERIWETHER COUNTY, GA: Barbee Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
METLIFE INC: Sept. 16 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Baten Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Garafola Suit Moved to E.D. New York
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Court Extends Page Limit of Dismissal Bid
OASMIA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Mikhlin Suit Over Share Price Drop
OASMIA PHARMACEUTICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action

OOMA INC: Oct. 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PANASONIC CORP: Dec. 12 Resistor Settlement Approval Hearing Set
PETMED EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Fischler Class Suit in NY
PETMED EXPRESS: Reid ADA Class Action Underway in New York
PFIZER: Insurance Exclusions Did Not Preclude Settlement Coverage

RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Davies, et al Suit Moved to D. Massachusetts
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
RESTORATION HARDWARE: Oct. 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Court Consolidates Securities Suits
RITE AID: Howell Suit Moved to District of Connecticut

RUBY RECEPTIONISTS: Law Firms Lose Bid for Summary Ruling
RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Birmingham Funds' Suit Underway
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Hadin, et al. Seek Class Certification
SUPERIOR ENERGY: Underpays Equipment Operators, Algeribiya Says
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Oct. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

TOYOTA MOTOR: Australia's Top Selling Hilux Hit in Class Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Australian Law Firms File Filter Class Action
UNITED PARCEL: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Granted in Hughes
UNITED STATES: Auningputri Appeals Ruling in Probodanu Suit v. DOJ
VARIETY WHOLESALERS: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Miles Suit Says

VOORTMAN COOKIES: Court Compels Arbitration in Cervantes
WAITR HOLDINGS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Halley Suit
WAITR HOLDINGS: Montgomery Bid to Certify Class Denied
WAWA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Employee Stock Ownership Program
WE CARE HOMES: Migues Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA

WELLCARE HEALTH: Stein and Kent Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
WELLS FARGO: Oct. 9 Auto Insurance Settlement Fairness Hearing
WELLS FARGO: Oct. 9 Derivative Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WEST SHORE: Bader Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
[*] Class Action Mulled Over Bike Helmets Lacking MIPS or WaveCel

[*] Securities Fraud Case Filings Up in First Half of 2019

                            *********

8 CHELSEA: Court OKs Arbitration in Balderas FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned  VIDAL BALDERAS,
Plaintiff, v. 8 CHELSEA CORP. d/b/a RIKO PERUVIAN CUISINE, JAMAICA
153 CORP. d/b/a RIKO PERUVIAN CUISINE, APU FOODS CORPORATION d/b/a
RIKO PERUVIAN CUISINE, JACKSON 79 CORP. d/b/a RIKO PERUVIAN
CUISINE, 44 SUNNYSIDE CORP. d/b/a RIKO EXPRESS CAFE, WALTER BURGOS,
and JESSICA BURGOS, Defendants. No. 18-CV-11149 (VEC). (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Vidal Balderas has sued his former employer for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York
Labor Law (NYLL).  Plaintiff alleges that he worked as a dishwasher
for Defendants, a chain of restaurants and its owners.  Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants failed to provide him with the proper
minimum wage, overtime wages, wage statements, and wage notices, as
required by the FLSA and NYLL.

The Arbitration Agreement Is Enforceable

Regardless of whether the cost-sharing provision in the Arbitration
Agreement is valid, the balance of the Agreement is enforceable. In
light of the severance provision the proper remedy for an invalid
cost-sharing provision would be to strike or modify that provision,
not to invalidate the entire Agreement. Plaintiff does not explain
why invalidation of the cost provisions of the arbitration
agreement would require invalidation of the entire Agreement,
perhaps because that position is not supported either by the law of
this Circuit or by the better considered authorities elsewhere.

The Cost-Sharing Provision Is Modified

The Arbitration Agreement provides two options for dividing the
costs and fees of arbitration. If required by law, the Defendants
must bear all costs that the Plaintiff would not otherwise be
required to bear if the Plaintiff's claims proceeded in court.  In
all other circumstances, the Plaintiff and the Defendant must each
pay 50 percent of the arbitration's costs and fees. The parties
have identified no provision of New York law that would require the
Defendant to bear all costs of arbitration that Plaintiff would not
otherwise be required to bear accordingly, absent an order from
this Court, the Arbitration Agreement obligates the Plaintiff to
pay half of the fees and costs of the arbitration forum.

Arbitration would be prohibitively expensive for the Plaintiff were
he required to pay 50 percent of the arbitration's costs and fees.
The Plaintiff has submitted a sworn declaration stating that he
lives paycheck-to-paycheck: he makes approximately $635 per week,
has no savings, and is the primary source of income for his family.
One of Plaintiff's attorneys also submitted a sworn declaration,
stating that, based on a review of the fee schedule of the
arbitration organization designated in the Agreement, the total
costs of the arbitration are estimated to be between $8,000 and
$10,000.   

The Defendants do not dispute that estimate. Crediting those
assertions, even at the low end of the estimated cost, half
($4,000) would be far more than Plaintiff could afford. In
contrast, bringing the claims in this Court would cost Plaintiff
only $400, the filing fee for civil actions which he has already
spent. Because a requirement to split the costs of the arbitration
would prevent Plaintiff from effectively vindicating his statutory
rights, the Court will require Defendants to bear all reasonable
and necessary costs of the arbitration.

The Defendants argue that the expense of arbitration is speculative
because, under the Agreement, the arbitrator has the authority to
award attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing party in
accordance with the substantive law governing the Claims.

The Court disagrees. This provision entitles the arbitrator to
award attorneys' fees and costs; it does not address the
arbitrator's ability to shift the costs of the arbitration forum
(such as the arbitration's filing fee and the arbitrator's hourly
fee.  

This Action Is Stayed

A court must stay proceedings when all of the claims in an action
have been referred to arbitration and a stay [has been] requested.

Here, Defendants have requested a stay although they also request
dismissal as an alternative remedy. Accordingly, a stay of this
Court's proceedings pending arbitration is warranted.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration, subject to the modifications to the Agreement's
cost-sharing provision discussed above. This action is stayed
pending arbitration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3z5f385 from
Leagle.com.

Vidal Balderas, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Melissa Seelig, Lee
Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee , Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, 30
East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016

8 Chelsea Corp., doing business as Riko Peruvian Cuisine, Jamaica
153 Corp., doing business as Riko Peruvian Cuisine, APU Foods
Corporation, doing business as Riko Peruvian Cuisine, Jackson 79
Corp., doing business as Riko Peruvian Cuisine, 44 Sunnyside Corp.,
doing business as Riko Peruvian Cuisine, Walter Burgos & Jessenia
Burgos, Defendants, represented by Argilio Rodriguez , Rodriguez
Law, P.C., Empire State Building, 350 5th Ave #5909, New York, NY
10118.


ABM INDUSTRY: Removes Artiga Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of I. ARTIGA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS,
LLC; and DOE ONE through and including DOE TEN, Defendants, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 19STCV19268) to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
August 2, 2019. The clerk of court for the Central District of
California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06735. The case is assigned to
George H Wu and referred to Magistrate Rozella A Oliver.

ABM Industry Groups, LLC provides facility services. The Company
offers electical lighting, HVAC installation, landscape
maintenance, and janitorial services. ABM Industry Groups serves
clients worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Daniel F. Fears, Esq.,
           Laura Fleming, Esq.,
           Robert T. Matsuishi, Esq.
           PAYNE & FEARS LLP
           4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
           Irvine, CA 92614
           Telephone: (949) 851-1100
           Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
           E-mail: dff@paynefears.com
                   lf@paynefears.com
                   rtm@paynefears.com


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Bid to Dismiss McGovney Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aerohive Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss in
McGovney v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., is currently scheduled
to be heard by the Court in the second half of 2019.

In January 2018, three purported class actions were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and two of its officers. Those
actions were subsequently consolidated into a single action titled
as McGovney v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:18-cv-00435.

The consolidated complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants
made false and misleading statements, in particular regarding the
Company’s financial outlook for the fourth quarter of 2017.

In February 2019, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, finding that the
Complaint failed to state a claim against any defendant.  

In March 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated
amended complaint (the "Complaint").  

Like the prior complaint, the Complaint alleges that the defendants
made false and misleading statements, in particular regarding the
Company's financial outlook for the fourth quarter of 2017. The
Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who
purchased the Company's common stock between November 1, 2017 and
January 16, 2018, inclusive.

The Complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount.  

Defendants have filed a further motion to dismiss the Complaint,
which is currently scheduled to be heard by the Court in the second
half of 2019.

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

Aerohive Networks, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs
and develops cloud networking and enterprise Wi-Fi solutions in the
Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the Asia Pacific.
Aerohive Networks, Inc. was incorporated in 2006 and is
headquartered in Milpitas, California.


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Faces Extreme Networks Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aerohive Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in five class action suits related to its
merger with Extreme Networks, Inc.

On June 26, 2019, Extreme Networks, Inc. and the company issued a
joint press release announcing that they had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated June 26, 2019 pursuant to which
Extreme proposes to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Aerohive at a price of $4.45 per share in cash, in a
transaction valued at approximately $272 million, and which assigns
an enterprise value of approximately $210 million to Aerohive after
accounting for its net cash balance of approximately $62 million.

In July 2019, five actions relating to the Merger were filed by
purported Company shareholders against the Company and the
Company's board of directors. Two actions were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

These cases are titled Silverberg v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:19-cv-04089 (brought as a putative class action on
behalf off all shareholders of the Company) and Naik v. Aerohive
Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-04160.

One action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, titled Shirley v. Aerohive Networks,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06742. Shirley v. Aerohive Networks,
Inc., et al. also names as a defendant the Company's co-founder
Changming Liu.

Two actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware. These cases are titled Plumley v. Aerohive
Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01322 (brought as a
putative class action on behalf of all shareholders of the Company)
and Smith v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01359.

Plumley v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al. also names as defendants
Extreme and the Purchaser.

The complaints generally allege that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by
the Company omits material information necessary for Company
stockholders to make an informed decision regarding the Offer, and
assert claims for violation of Sections 14 and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the Offer or,
should it be consummated, to rescind it or award damages, as well
as an award of the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs in the
actions.

Aerohive Networks, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs
and develops cloud networking and enterprise Wi-Fi solutions in the
Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the Asia Pacific.
Aerohive Networks, Inc. was incorporated in 2006 and is
headquartered in Milpitas, California.


ALPHA TEAM: Court Grants Extension to File Answer in Drummer
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order extending Time to File an Answer in the case captioned
QUINTON DRUMMER, STEFFAN WEBB, and DEMONTRAY STALLWORTH,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ALPHA TEAM CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, BG CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES, LLC, HECTOR BELTRAN, and J.C.M. INDUSTRIES, INC., doing
business as ADVANCE STORAGE PRODUCTS, jointly and severally,
Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-01251-RFB-NJK. (D. Nev.).

The Defendant and the Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel,
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, stipulate and agree
to extend the time for JCM to answer or otherwise respond to the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint.
The Plaintiffs served their First Amended Collective and Class
Action Complaint on JCM on July 5, 2019, and JCM's response is due
on July 26, 2019.

The Plaintiffs and JCM have agreed to a brief extension of time for
Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended
Collective and Class Action Complaint as JCM's counsel was only
recently retained and needs additional time to investigate
Plaintiffs' claims.

JCM shall, therefore, have a 30-day extension, up to and including
August 26, 2019, to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's
First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5p2ez9g from Leagle.com.

Quinton Drummer, Steffan Webb & Demontray Stallworth, Plaintiffs,
represented by Bradley Scott Schrager -bschrager@wrslawyers.com --
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Charles Robert Ash, IV --
crash@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Daniel
Bravo -- DBravo@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman,
& Rabkin, LLP, Kevin J. Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers
Schwartz PC, pro hac vice & Don Springmeyer --
dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and
Rabkin, LLP.

BG Construction Services, LLC, Defendant, pro se.

Hector Beltran, Defendant, pro se.

J.C.M. Industries, Inc., doing business as Advance Storage
Products, Defendant, represented by Daniel Aquino --
Daniel.Aquino@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Kirsten Ann
Milton -- Kirsten.Milton@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC.


AMAZON.COM: Adamsky et al. Sue over Collection of Children Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY ADAMSKY, on behalf of her minor child; LESLIE BERRY, on
behalf of her minor child; VALERIE BERTHELOT, on behalf of her
minor child; DESIREE BLACKBURN, on behalf of her minor child;
JENNIFER BOIT, on behalf of her minor child; JULIE BROWN, on behalf
of her minor child; SARAH CHARACTER, on behalf of her minor child;
LINDSAY COLON, on behalf of her minor child; KRISTI FINLEY, on
behalf of her minor child; CHRISTINA GARDNER, on behalf of her
minor child; TARA GRAY, on behalf of her minor child; SHANE HOWARD,
on behalf of his minor child; JENNIFER LEFLORE, on behalf of her
minor child; ANDRA LOGAN, on behalf of her minor child; JENNIFER
MAURER, on behalf of her minor child; MONICA MENDEZ, on behalf of
her minor child; ERICA MOORE, on behalf of her minor child; BRANDIE
MORGAN, on behalf of her minor child; SAYUJ PAUDEL, on behalf of
her minor child; TARA PITTMAN, on behalf of her minor child; LYNDI
REICHENBACH, on behalf of her minor child; CRYSTAL SEGURA, on
behalf of her minor child; TIFFANY SEVCIK, on behalf of her minor
child; BREANNA SIMPSON, on behalf of her minor child; GARY STANGO,
JR., on behalf of his minor child; NYKITA STEEN, on behalf of her
minor child; MEGAN TAYLOR, on behalf of her minor child; MARQUITA
TUCKER, on behalf of her minor child; MARK WADE, on behalf of his
minor child; ALLISON WINSKE, on behalf of her minor child; JESSICA
XAGORARIS, on behalf of her minor child; PATRICK YOCKEY, on behalf
of his minor child; and ROBERT YOUNG, on behalf of his minor child,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; and A2Z DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01214 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 2, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants for collecting personal identifying
information, including voiceprints, without the consent of the
Plaintiff and the class.

According to the complaint, Amazon Alexa ("Alexa") is a cloud-based
voice service available on over 100 million devices from both
Amazon and third-party device manufacturers. Amazon makes portable
smart speakers of multiple generations that, by connecting to the
Internet, offer Alexa's voice service in a consumer's home using a
range of speaker technology and options, such as the Amazon Echo
and Amazon Echo Dot.

In order to connect the Echo Dot or other Amazon product to Alexa,
a user must first download the Alexa App.

In 2018, Amazon launched the Echo Dot Kids Edition. The Echo Dot
Kids Edition collects persistent identifiers associated with a
child such as MAC (media access control) addresses of devices,
serial numbers, and IP addresses which are all transmitted to the
Amazon Cloud and stored in association with the child's profile and
the accumulating cache of audio voice recordings.

Additionally, the Echo Dot Kids Edition collects other information
about a child in connection with the persistent identifiers, such
as information about the books, music, and skills a child uses, so
that it can make recommendations to and for the child – all for
commercial gain, of course.

Further, the Echo Dot Kids Edition is specifically designed to
collect information from a child with its "Remember This" feature
which allows Alexa to store information conveyed by the child by
saying either "remember" or "make a note". This feature enables
Alexa to develop a relationship with a child, which results in the
child confiding to Alexa whereby Alexa eerily becomes a personal
online "diary," held by Amazon.

Alexa's "Answer Update" function, if activated, calls for Alexa to
respond to questions at a later date if she learns new information
pertaining to the question. In order to have the option to answer
the question at a later date, Alexa's programming must be such that
she collects and stores the question, indefinitely. In all, Amazon
collects at least four types of personal information about children
through the Echo Dot Kids Edition: 1) voice recordings, 2)
persistent identifiers associated with Defendant's purported
"Parental Consent" mechanism is legally inadequate in that it is
generic, general, and vague in nature. In particular, it gives
examples of information rather than specifics. What's more, it
fails to identify how information is to be used and fails to inform
whether information will be disclosed to a third party.

Amazon.com, Inc. engages in the retail sale of consumer products
and subscriptions in North America and internationally. The company
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Ide, Esq.
          IDE LAW OFFICE
          7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500
          Mercer Island, WA 98040
          Telephone: (206) 625-1326
          Facsimile: (206) 622-0909
          E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 640-1160
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (312) 283-3814
          Facsimile: (773) 496-8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com


APPLE INC: New Calif. Class Suit Launched Over iPhone Throttling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Fingas, writing for Apple Insider, reports that lawyers with
Levi & Korsinksky LLP have charged Apple with violating the federal
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as California's Unfair
Competition Law, Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and "trespass
to chattels" rules.

According to the report, the plaintiffs in this latest case are
from diverse parts of the U.S. such as Alaska, Arkansas, and
Pennsylvania, and in a few instances the U.K. and Japan, according
to court documents.

The lawfirm is requesting a jury trial and compensation including
punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment
interest.

"After years of customer frustration and attrition, on December 20,
2017, Apple admitted to one of the largest consumer frauds in
history, affecting hundreds of millions of mobile devices across
the globe," the suit asserts.

In April 2018, a judicial panel order the consolidation of 61
similar lawsuits. It isn't clear if this one will be grouped with
others as well, as the consolidated case hasn't made significant
headway in the courts.

The iPhone slowdown issue began in late 2017 when a Reddit user
discovered CPU throttling after running impromptu benchmarking
tests. Subsequent claims led to conspiracy theorists postulating
that Apple intentionally built the feature as part of a planned
obsolescence scheme, and a series of class actions and government
inquiries followed.

Apple's fix was implemented in iOS 10.2.1 as a way of preventing
sudden shutdowns when a chemically depleted battery wouldn't
provide enough power to keep a device running —but specifically
what Apple chose to do about the problem wasn't disclosed. Apple
ultimately apologized to iPhone owners in December 2017 for a lack
of transparency and cut prices on out-of-warranty battery
replacements, later delivering software updates that expanded data
and let people reduce -- though not eliminate -- instances of
throttling. [GN]


ARKEMA INC: Seeks 6th Circuit Review of Decision in Carter Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Arkema Inc. Retirement Benefits Plan and Arkema, Inc.,
filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Roger
Carter, et al. v. Arkema, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01241, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at
Louisville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

The case involves the pension rights of former employees, who
worked at M&T Chemical Inc.'s facility in Carrolton, Kentucky.
Plaintiffs Roger Carter, Eddie Hewitt, David Warren, and Ricky
Woods are all former hourly employees of M&T, who began their
employment at M&T between 1976 and 1979 and participated in the M&T
Chemicals, Inc. General Pension Plan for Hourly Employees.

The appellate case is captioned as Roger Carter, et al. v. Arkema,
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-5820, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant brief is due on September 9, 2019;

   -- Appellee brief is due on October 7, 2019; and

   -- A Telephone Mediation conference has been scheduled for
      August 20, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. (ET) with Paul Calico.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ROGER D. CARTER, and a class of others
similarly situated; EDDIE DEAN HEWITT, and a class of others
similarly situated; DAVID WAYNE WARREN, and a class of others
similarly situated; and RICKY LYNN WOODS, and a class of others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          David Leightty, Esq.
          Alison Messex, Esq.
          PRIDDY, CUTLER, NAAKE & MEADE, PLLC
          2303 River Road, Suite 300
          Louisville, KY 40206
          Telephone: (502) 632-5292
          Facsimile: (502) 632-5293
          E-mail: dleightty@earthlink.net
                  amessex@pcnmlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants ARKEMA, INC. and ARKEMA INC. RETIREMENT
BENEFITS PLAN are represented by:

          Bart Loveman Greenwald, Esq.
          DUNCAN GALLOWAY EGAN GREENWALD PLLC
          9625 Ormsby Station Road
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 614-6974
          E-mail: bgreenwald@dgeglaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Castillo Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Cindy R. Castillo filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Cindy Castillo v. Bank of America, N.A., et
al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00580-DOC-KES, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 31,
2019, the District Court entered an order denying Plaintiff's
motion to certify a class consisting of:

   California Class: "All hourly-paid, non-managerial call center
   workers of Bank of America, National Association, in the
   State of California within four years prior to the filing
   of the complaint in this action until resolution of this
   lawsuit"; and

and a subclass consisting of:

   Sub-Class 1: "All Class Members who are or were employed by
   Defendants and subject to Defendant's Unfair Business
   Practices."

The District Court held that BofA has provided numerous
declarations demonstrating that call center workers received
compliant meal breaks pursuant to the Bank's policy.  The District
Court further noted that the Plaintiff has admitted that no one at
BofA ever told her that if she had a lunch that was starting late
she could not then come back late to get the full 30 minutes.  The
Plaintiff further testified that it was her understanding that if
she worked more than 10 hours she was entitled to a second meal
period.  Again, the Plaintiff has simply not provided the District
Court with enough evidence of a common question to warrant
certification of this claim.  Accordingly, the motion for class
certification is denied.

The appellate case is captioned as Cindy Castillo v. Bank of
America, N.A., et al., Case No. 19-80098, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner CINDY R. CASTILLO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com

Defendant-Respondent BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a North Carolina
Corporation, is represented by:

          Matthew Kane, Esq.
          Michael D. Mandel, Esq.
          Sean Sullivan, Esq.
          John Arthur Van Hook, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                  mmandel@mcguirewoods.com
                  ssullivan@mcguirewoods.com
                  jvanhook@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Sylvia Kim, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 844-9944
          E-mail: skim@mcguirewoods.com


BARING BDC: Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Seek to Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barings BDC, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that plaintiff's motion
seeking leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint in
the class action suit entitled, In re Triangle Capital Corp.
Securities Litigation, is still pending.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (and then transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina)
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our
common stock between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017.

The first lawsuit was filed on November 21, 2017, and was captioned
Elias Dagher, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case
No. 5:18-cv-00015-FL (the "Dagher Action").

The second lawsuit was filed on November 28, 2017, and was
captioned Gary W. Holden, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation,
et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL (the "Holden Action").

The Dagher Action and the Holden Action were consolidated and are
currently captioned In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL.

On April 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed its First Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The complaint, as currently amended, alleges
certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other
things, that the defendants made certain materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
business, operations and prospects between May 7, 2014 and November
1, 2017.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but did not specify the amount of
damages being sought. On May 25, 2018, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

On March 7, 2019 the court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2019, the plaintiff
filed a motion seeking leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint.

On April 18, 2019, the defendants filed a response in opposition to
the plaintiff's motion for leave. On May 2, 2019, the plaintiff
filed a reply in support of its motion for leave.

The motion for leave is currently pending before the court.

Barings BDC, Inc. is a business development company specializing in
private equity and mezzanine investments. Triangle Capital
Corporation was incorporated on October 10, 2006 and is based in
Raleigh, North Carolina.


BAXTER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss IV Solutions Sales Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action suit related to IV solutions sales is
still pending.

In November 2016, a purported antitrust class action complaint
seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV
solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with
a shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently
were filed.

In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these
matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
February 2017. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint without prejudice in July 2018.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 6, 2018.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
November 9, 2018.

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

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and
provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates
through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa;
and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in
1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.


BROKERS EDGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Candelario Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAY CANDELARIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. BROKERS EDGE ANNUITY & LIFE MARKETING,
INC.; ABC CORPORATIONS; ZYZ, LLC'S; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-01458-L-JLB (S.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Brokers Edge Annuity & Life Marketing, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation offering annuity and life insurance solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex S. Madar, Esq.
          Madar Law Corporation
          14410 Via Venezia #1404
          San Diego, CA 92129
          Telephone: (858) 299-5879
          Facsimile: (619) 354-7281
          E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net


CAMDEN PROPERTY: Court Narrows Claims in Suarez NCDCA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Western Division, issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned
JORGE SUAREZ, Plaintiff, v. CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST, CAMDEN
DEVELOPMENT, INC., and CSP COMMUNITY OWNER, LP, Defendants. No.
5:18-CV-455-D. (E.D.N.C.).

Jorge Suarez on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
filed a complaint in Wake County Superior Court against Camden
Property Trust (Camden Property Trust), Camden Development, Inc.
(Camden Development) and CSP Community Owner, LP, f/k/a CSP
Community Owner, LLC, d/b/a/ Camden Westwood (Camden Westwood),
alleging violations of the North Carolina Debt Collection Act
(NCDCA).

The Defendants first contend that Suarez lacks Article III
standing. To invoke the power of a federal court, a plaintiff must
demonstrate that he has standing under Article III of the
Constitution.

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the complaint's legal
and factual sufficiency. To withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a
pleading must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. In
considering the motion, the court must construe the facts and
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.

When evaluating a motion to dismiss, a court considers the
pleadings and any materials attached or incorporated into the
complaint. A court also may consider a document submitted by a
moving party if it is integral to the complaint and there is no
dispute about the document's authenticity without converting the
motion into one for summary judgment.  Additionally, a court may
take judicial notice of public records when evaluating a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.  

The NCDCA prohibits debt collectors from engaging in unfair debt
collection practices, including the use of threats, coercion,
harassment, unreasonable publications of the consumer's debt,
deceptive representations to the consumer, or other unconscionable
means. An NCDCA claim has three threshold requirements.  

First, the obligation owed must be a debt; second, the one owing
the obligation must be a consumer and third, the one trying to
collect the obligation must be a debt collector. A plaintiff also
must establish the elements of a UDTPA claim: (1) an unfair or
deceptive act (2) in or affecting commerce (3) proximately causing
injury.  

An act is unfair when it offends public policy and when it is
immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially
injurious to consumers. To state a claim under section 75-54, a
plaintiff must plausibly allege that the act complained of
possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead, or created the
likelihood of deception.

As for Suarez's section 75-54 claim, Suarez alleges that defendants
stated that any unpaid balance would be referred to a third-party
collections agency within 30 days but that defendants did not
intend to refer unpaid balances less than $100 or less than 60-days
old.  Suarez alleges that the Statement had the tendency or
capacity to mislead or deceive Suarez as to defendants' intentions
in referring unpaid balances to collection agencies.

Thus, Suarez has plausibly alleged a section 75-54 claim.

As for causation, for claims arising from an alleged
misrepresentation, actual reliance requires that the plaintiff have
affirmatively incorporated the alleged misrepresentation into his
or her decision-making process: if it were not for the
misrepresentation, the plaintiff would likely have avoided the
injury altogether. Non-economic harm, such as emotional distress,
can be cognizable injuries under the NCDCA.   

Suarez alleges that, but for defendants' misrepresentations, he
would not have suffered emotional distress because of his mistaken
belief that defendants would refer his unpaid balance to a
third-party collection agency. Accordingly, Suarez has plausibly
alleged proximate causation, and the claim ekes across the line
from possibility to plausibility. Whether this claim will survive a
motion for summary judgment is an issue for another day.

As for Suarez's section 75-51 claim, section 75-51 forbids debt
collectors from using any unfair threat, coercion, or attempt to
coerce to collect a debt, including by threatening to take any
action not in fact taken in the usual course of business, unless it
can be shown that such threatened action was actually intended to
be taken in the particular case in which the threat was made. The
parallel FDCPA provision forbids debt collectors from threatening
to take any action that is not intended to be taken. The FDCPA
provision applies to false threats of litigation.
  
Suarez alleges that the Statement said that defendants would refer
his unpaid balance to a third-party collection agency when, in
reality, defendants do not do so in the usual course of business
for unpaid debts as small as his. Suarez's section 75-51 claim ekes
across the line from possibility to plausibility. Whether this
claim will survive a motion for summary judgment is an issue for
another day.

As for Suarez's section 75-55 claim, section 75-55 forbids debt
collectors from collecting or attempting to collect any debt by the
use of any unconscionable means. Suarez's allegations do not
plausibly allege that defendants engaged in any conduct that
section 75-55 lists as an unconscionable means.  Although section
75-55's list is not exhaustive, Suarez's allegations merely
repackage defendants' allegedly deceptive conduct.  Accordingly,
Suarez has not plausibly alleged a section 75-55 claim. Thus, the
court grants defendants' motion to dismiss the claim.

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss Suarez's original
complaint, denies in part and grants in part the defendants' motion
to dismiss Suarez's amended complaint and denies as moot Suarez's
motion to remand.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3zbktrd from Leagle.com.

Mr. Jorge Suarez, Plaintiff, represented by Karl Stephen Gwaltney,
Maginnis Law, PLLC, 4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 310, Raleigh, NC,
28403-2710, Scott C. Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield,
Bryson & Mason, LLP & Patrick M. Wallace -- pat@wbmllp.com --
Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

Camden Property Trust, Camden Development, Inc. & CSP Community
Owner, LP, f/k/a CSP Community Owner, LLC, d/b/a Camden Westwood,
Defendants, represented by Kearns Davis -- kdavis@brookspierce.com
-- Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard LLP, Craig Daniel
Schauer -- cschauer@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce McLendon
Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, D. J. O'Brien, III --
dobrien@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey &
Leonard, LLP, Jennifer K. Van Zant -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com --
Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P. & Jessica
Thaller-Moran -- jthaller-moran@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce
McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, LLP.


CAPITAL ONE: Charney Lawyers Push Class Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Global News Canada reports that a Vancouver law firm says a class
action lawsuit has been launched on behalf of six million Canadians
whose personal information was compromised by a data breach at
Capital One Financial Corp.

Ted Charney, Esq. lead counsel of Charney Lawyers, says the breach
may turn out to be "extremely serious."

In addition to credit card application data such as phone numbers,
email addresses, dates of birth and self-reported income, the
hacker was also able to access credit scores, credit limits and
balances, as well as fragments of transaction information from a
total of 23 days in 2016, 2017 and 2018.

Charney says the account information is highly sensitive and in the
wrong hands could be used to commit identity fraud or to cause
damage to credit reputations.

The hacker is alleged to have been in possession of the data since
March, but it remains unclear to what extent the hacker sold or
distributed the data online.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada says it is
investigating the hack, which included one million social insurance
numbers that had been accessed without authorization.
[GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Castro Suit over Information Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHY CASTRO; LENORA GLOVER; PATRICK INSCHO; ANDREW JOHNSON;
TIFFANI MYERS; STEVEN PIKE; HERBERT WHITE; HAMDI ESLAQUIT; and
JOANNE ELENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CAPITAL
ONE, N.A.; AND CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), Defendants, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01008 (E.D. Va., Aug. 2, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for their failure to exercise basic, reasonable care in
securing and safeguarding the Plaintiffs and the class's sensitive
personal information.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that through the Defendants'
failure to secure, monitor, and protect information that consumers
provided to the Defendants at their insistence when they applied
for credit, the Defendants permitted an individual to commit one of
the largest data breaches on record.

The Defendants' lackadaisical approach to data security permitted
an individual to obtain and post on the Internet reams of data with
which consumers like the Plaintiffs entrusted to the Defendants,
including their full names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of
birth, credit scores, credit limits, account information, account
balances, payment histories, Social Security Numbers, and bank
account numbers.

Capital One Financial Corporation provides commercial banking
services. The Bank accepts deposits and offers personal credit
cards, investment products, loans, and online banking services.
Capital One serves customers in the State of Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                 aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                 casey@kellyguzzo.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  craig@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq.
          Tara B. Keller, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1800 Diagonal Road, Ste. 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 273-7770
          Facsimile: (888) 892-3512
          E-mail: matt@clalegal.com
                  tara@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Charles B. Molster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES B. MOLSTER, III, PLLC
          2141 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 202
          Washington, D.C. 20007
          Telephone: (202) 787-1312
          E-mail: cmolster@molsterlaw.com


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action in Virginia Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Hawley, writing for FOX 13 News, reports that it's only
been a few days since Capital One disclosed a massive data breach
that compromised the personal information of more than 100 million
people. The banking giant is now being hit with a class-action
lawsuit.

Morgan & Morgan filed the class-action suit on July 30 in Virginia
where Capital One is based. The legal challenge alleges the company
failed to secure its customers' sensitive information.

Capital One announced July 29 that personal information dating back
as far as 2005 was stolen by a hacker earlier this year. The
compromised data includes names, addresses, social security numbers
and bank account details.

"If you have a Capital One account or you've been denied credit but
submitted an application, your information may have been impacted,"
said Attorney John Yanchunis with the Morgan & Morgan Class Action
Department.

Capital One says it will notify all those affected by the breach.

However, the law firm isn't waiting. Attorneys have already filed
the class-action lawsuit seeking to represent every impacted
consumer, and hold Capital One accountable.

"Why did the company keep that kind of information? Once you extend
credit to someone, then your obligation is defined by that contract
with Capital One. Why it kept that information, why it didn't try
to better secure it is a question we'll be raising in the lawsuit,"
Yanchunis said.

Three experts are now investigating the breach for Morgan & Morgan.
Yanchunis said other defendants could be added to the suit along
with Capital One.

"Those experts are now monitoring activity on the dark web as well
as collecting information from other sources to ascertain who is
responsible in what way," said Yanchunis.

A former Amazon employee, identified by authorities as Paige
Thompson of Seattle, was arrested for the breach. She's accused of
breaking into a Capital One server on Amazon's cloud system to
swipe the customer information.  

Investigators think the 33-year-old may have hacked customer data
from other companies as well. The concern now is if Thompson gave
away or sold any of that personal information.

"While some information may be perceived to be non-sensitive,
cobbled together with other information it can be very damaging to
consumers," explained Yanchunis.

This lawsuit is one of several that have been filed against Capital
One for the data breach. [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Murphy Falcon and Morgan File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Murphy, Falcon & Murphy and Morgan & Morgan's Complex Litigation
Group filed a class action lawsuit against Capital One on behalf of
hundreds of thousands of consumers whose personal information,
including social security numbers, birth dates, and addresses, were
compromised for unauthorized use. The Capital One data breach
occurred in March and April, 2019, and was allegedly discovered in
July, 2019.

The FBI investigation of the data breach at Capital One has
revealed the unauthorized acquisition of personal identifying
information involving massive numbers of Capital One customers. For
many customers it appears that their names, social security
numbers, addresses, and dates of birth have been accessed without
the authority or consent of those customers. The massive data
breach has caused those customers considerable worry and anxiety,
as well as risk of imminent financial loss, and long-term harm to
their credit ratings.

It is apparent that Capital One's commitment to its customers'
privacy and security of privileged customer information was
inadequate. The pervasiveness of the breach of customer data could
only have occurred without competent, thorough, and routinized
testing by Capital One of its policies and cyber security
mechanisms to ensure the privacy of its millions of customers.
Financial institutions such as Capital One are the favored targets
of a broad array of cyber threats ranging from professional cyber
criminals to amateur hackers. It was well known by Capital One that
it could be a target of a cybercrime which would expose millions of
its customers confidential information in the process. Even as
numerous other financial institutions, health care systems, and
various other private and public agencies have been targeted and
attacked by cyber criminals Capital One failed to honor its
commitment and obligation to its customers to ensure that their
confidential personal information was protected from being
compromised.

John Harnishfeger of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy said today, "The
failure of Capital One to ensure its customers' privacy is
appalling.  Capital One's customers had the absolute right to
expect that Capital One would fulfill its legal obligation and its
promise to safeguard and protect its customers' most sensitive
personal financial information which did not happen. Instead,
Capital One customers have now been exposed to financial harm
because of this data breach," Harnishfeger said.

"Consumers must be able to rely on the safety of their sensitive
personal data and that the financial institutions that they choose
to serve them will commit the necessary resources to protect them.
Capital One not only breached its obligation to protect the
information of its customers but it has also breached their trust
at tremendous cost. The breadth of Capital One's failure which may
reach hundreds of thousands of consumers is particularly stunning
and demonstrates a lack of concern about its customers' privacy,
while failing to appreciate the security requirements of any
business that manages sensitive personal electronic data. Thousands
of Capital One customers relied on Capital One to safeguard their
personal information as Capital One had promised to do.
Regrettably, it appears that Capital One betrayed the confidence of
its customers and failed woefully to ensure their customers'
privacy," John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan added.

About Hassan Murphy & Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, P.A.

Hassan Murphy is currently a member of the Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee in In Re: Equifax, Inc., which is responsible for
prosecuting the nationwide consumer data breach litigation against
Equifax, Inc.  Recently, Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, P.A. filed the
first class action lawsuit against Marriott International, Inc.,
for its data breach, which affects 500 million consumers.

Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, P.A. is a Baltimore based law firm which
specializes in complex civil litigation. The firm has a history of
unrelenting dedication to its clients in Baltimore and across the
country. The firm's seasoned trial lawyers have extensive
experience in a wide variety of cases with success rates that far
surpass national averages and are known for formulating creative
approaches to complex litigation. The firm's dedication to its
clients and their cases has resulted in the recovery of hundreds of
millions of dollars by verdicts and settlements for the firm's
clients. The firm's attorneys have won some of the largest verdicts
in high profile, high stakes cases in some of the toughest
jurisdictions around the country. Learn more at
www.murphyfalcon.com

Contact:

         Zach McDaniels, Esq.
         Tel.No.: (410) 539-6500
         Email: Zach.mcdaniels@murphyfalcon.com [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Requests to Approve Class Actions Filed in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mia Anhoury, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that Ile-Bizard
resident Susanna Vincze was upset when she heard about the
Desjardins Group data breach in June, but when she heard about the
Capital One breach she says she couldn't believe it.

Vincze has a Desjardins bank account and a Hudson's Bay credit
card, which is issued by Capital One. Although Desjardins offered
the Equifax insurance service to her and others for the next five
years, Vincze says that when it comes to data breaches "our hands
are tied at the moment. We're sort of powerless against banks."

Not one but two requests to approve class actions against the
American bank in Quebec were filed at the Superior Court of Quebec
on July 30, only 24 hours after Capital One announced there had
been a personal-data breach. The requests have to be approved by a
judge before a class action can go any further.

This latest massive security breach, which was confirmed on July
19, was announced on July 29 by Capital One. It affects 106 million
members, six million of them Canadian.

The stolen personal information includes names, addresses, postal
codes, phone numbers, emails, birthdays and average incomes. The
MasterCard credit-card provider said approximately 1 million social
insurance numbers were stolen.

Quebec City resident Simon Goulet is the lead plaintiff in the
class action filed by Siskinds Law Firm, which has an office in
Quebec City. The request states that Goulet is "greatly troubled
and worried about the use that will be made of his personal
information."

The Siskinds class-action request alleges Capital One failed in its
responsibility and obligation to protect any private, confidential
information given to them by its members. Siskinds lawyer Karim
Diallo charged that financial institutions have significant gaps in
their information protection storage.

The class-action request filed by the Montreal office of Consumer
Law Group alleges Capital One was negligent and failed to
appropriately safeguard its clients' information. The request also
cites the delayed notice to clients, since the breach happened on
March 22 and 23, 2019 but was only announced on on July 29.

Anibal Jodorcovsky, a Dollard-des-Ormeaux resident with a Costco
credit card, says this breach shows companies are not giving
cybersecurity enough attention. "It's just a matter of time until
indirect financial losses or worse occur, and there'll be nobody to
go complain to," he said.

Requests to approve class-action lawsuits against Desjardins were
also filed in July by Montreal-based LPC Avocat and Kugler
Kandestin as well as Siskinds Law firm. The data breach by a
Desjardins employee, who has since been fired, compromised the
personal information of 2.7 million customers. Both requests are
still pending judge's approval.

The LPC Avocat and Kugler Kandestin class-action request is asking
for a $300 monetary compensation for each client affected by the
breach.

Both of Siskinds Law Firm class-action requests accuse Desjardins
and Capital One of unlawful disclosure of private and privileged
information.

Although these class-action requests are a start, McGill assistant
professor of law and privacy expert Ignacio Cofone says they may
face certain challenges.

Most recently, Quebec Superior Court Judge Chantal Tremblay did not
authorize a class-action lawsuit against Yahoo! for cyberattacks
that compromised the confidentiality of users' data. The judge
explained there were no compensable damages, which have to be
"serious and prolonged."

Cofone explained judges are accustomed to recognizing objective
harm, like financial damage, however, privacy harm is subjective
and more difficult for courts to measure.

"Judges have not been very good at identifying privacy harms, which
is the harm that you may suffer that could be related to a breach,"
said Cofone.

"It's hard to predict exactly what position judges will take on
this. Judges could take the traditional approach and reject the
class action by saying, 'We don't know whether you've received
financial damages because of this information leak,'" said Cofone.
"Or they could take the approach that I think at some point they
will start taking, and they will recognize that privacy harm is a
distinct type of harm."

In a class action, plaintiffs have to prove damage, a breach of
duty and a causality between the two. Cofone explained that the
challenge in these cases is to prove there were privacy damages in
the first place and that they were caused by the breach of duty.

For now, Cofone said the question that awaits answering is: "Will
they recognize privacy damages? Or will they hinge on objective
damages to approve a class action?" [GN]


CARBONITE INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Carbonite, Inc.
(NASDAQ: CARB) to the securities class action, Luna v. Carbonite,
Inc. et al., No. 1:19-cv-11662 filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

If you invested in Carbonite between February 7, 2019 and July 25,
2019 (the "Class Period") and suffered losses you do not need to
sign up to be included in the putative class of investors.

If you suffered significant losses (in excess of $50,000) you may
qualify to be a lead plaintiff -- one who selects and oversees the
attorneys prosecuting the case.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must move the Court no later than September 30, 2019 (the "Lead
Plaintiff deadline").  Contact Hagens Berman immediately for more
information about the case and being a lead plaintiff
https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/CA or contact Reed Kathrein,
who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or
emailing CARB@hbsslaw.com.

According to the Complaint, Defendants misled investors about the
technological quality of the Company's Server Backup VM Edition and
its potential to add "meaningfully" to Carbonite's financial
performance for fiscal 2019.  In truth, according to the Complaint,
the Server Backup VM Edition's functionality was of poor quality
and suffered from technological flaws, received poor customer
reviews and complaints, and caused disruption within Carbonite's
salesforce.

On July 25, 2019, the market learned the truth when Carbonite
announced that it was withdrawing the Server Backup VM Edition
product from the marketplace and consequently dramatically lowered
its financial projections for fiscal 2019 and 2020.  That same day,
Carbonite's CEO Mohamad S. Ali -- the strongest proponent and
supporter of Server Backup VM Edition -- abruptly stepped down.

On this news, Carbonite stock declined nearly 25%, wiping out over
$200 million in market capitalization.

"We're focused on are investors' losses and whether Carbonite
misled investors about the quality and functionality of its Server
Backup VM Edition product," said Hagens Berman partner Reed
Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Carbonite should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC.  For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email CARB@hbsslaw.com.

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys.  The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation.  More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com.  For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.

Contact:

         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         Tel.No.: 510-725-3000
         Email: reed@hbsslaw.com [GN]


CARBONITE INC: Kehoe Law Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in United States District Court on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of Carbonite, Inc. (NASDAQ:CARB) during the period
between February 7, 2019 and July 25, 2019 (the "Class Period").
The class action complaint charges Carbonite and certain of its
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased the securities of Carbonite during the Class
Period February 7, 2019 to July 25, 2019 and suffered financial
losses, please contact either Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215)
792-6676, Ext. 804, myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com info@kehoelawfirm.com
or John Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801,
jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com, to learn more about the lawsuit or the
securities investigation.

Carbonite investors and shareholders have until September 30, 2019
to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose adverse information regarding the technological quality of
the Server Backup VM Edition and its potential to add
"meaningfully" to Carbonite's financial performance for fiscal
2019. Specifically, defendants allegedly failed to disclose that:
(i) Carbonite's Server Backup VM Edition was of poor quality and
technologically flawed; (ii) Carbonite was receiving poor reviews
and complaints from customers about the Server Backup VM Edition;
and (iii) the poor quality and technological flaws of the Server
Backup VM Edition were acting as a "disruptive" factor throughout
the Carbonite salesforce and keeping that sales organization from
closing opportunistically on several larger deals during fiscal
2019; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Carbonite lacked any
reasonable basis for issuing its positive projections and financial
forecasts.

Subsequently, on July 25, 2019, Carbonite, according to the
complaint, announced that it was withdrawing the Server Backup VM
Edition from the marketplace and consequently dramatically lowered
its financial projections for fiscal 2019 and 2020. On the same
day, Carbonite's Chief Executive Officer announced he was leaving
the Company.

On this news, the price of Carbonite stock, according to the
complaint, dropped more than 24%, from a close of $23.90 per share
on July 25, 2019 to a close of $18.01 per share on July 26, 2019.

The complaint also alleges that the Carbonite Defendants are liable
for: (i) making false statements; or (ii) failing to disclose
adverse facts known to them about Carbonite. Defendants' fraudulent
scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on
purchasers of Carbonite stock was a success, as it: (i) deceived
the investing public regarding Carbonite's prospects and business;
(ii) artificially inflated the price of Carbonite common stock;
(iii) enabled Defendants Mohamad S. Ali and Anthony Folger, as well
as other Carbonite insiders, to collectively sell close to $3
million of their personally-held Carbonite stock to the
unsuspecting public; and (iv) caused Plaintiff and other members of
the Class to purchase Carbonite common stock at artificially
inflated prices.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff-side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct.  Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion dollars on behalf of
institutional and individual investors. [GN]


CARBONITE INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced on behalf purchasers of Carbonite, Inc.
(NASDAQ:CARB) common stock during the period between February 7,
2019 and July 25, 2019 (the "Class Period").  This action was filed
in the District of Massachusetts and is captioned Luna v.
Carbonite, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-11662.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Carbonite common stock during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff
acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the
litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice.
An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is
not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days
from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, David A. Rosenfeld or Brian E.
Cochran of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com or bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can
view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/carbonite/

The complaint charges Carbonite and certain of its current and/or
former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Carbonite is a software company that provides cloud-based
backup services, including the Server Backup VM Edition for managed
services providers ("MSPs"), which was designed to allow MSPs to
protect their virtual data both locally and in their own cloud.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose adverse information regarding the technological quality of
the Server Backup VM Edition and its potential to add
"meaningfully" to Carbonite's financial performance for fiscal
2019. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
Carbonite's Server Backup VM Edition was of poor quality and
technologically flawed; (ii) Carbonite was receiving poor reviews
and complaints from customers about the Server Backup VM Edition;
and (iii) the poor quality and technological flaws of the Server
Backup VM Edition were acting as a "disruptive" factor throughout
the Carbonite salesforce and keeping that sales organization from
closing opportunistically on several larger deals during fiscal
2019. As a result of this information being withheld from the
market, the price of Carbonite common stock was artificially
inflated to more than $29 per share during the Class Period.

Then, on July 25, 2019, Carbonite announced that it was withdrawing
the Server Backup VM Edition from the marketplace and consequently
lowering its financial projections for fiscal 2019 and 2020. The
same day, Carbonite's Chief Executive Officer announced he was
leaving the Company. On this news, the price of Carbonite stock
declined more than 24%, from a close of $23.90 per share on July
25, 2019 to a close of $18.01 per share on July 26, 2019.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Carbonite common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.

Contacts:

         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Tel.No.: 800-449-4900
         E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                 bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


CARDINAL HEALTH: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP announced that it filed a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Louisiana
Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund ("Louisiana Sheriffs") against
Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal" or the "Company") (NYSE: CAH),
and certain of the Company's senior executives (collectively,
"Defendants").  The action, which is captioned Louisiana Sheriffs'
Pension & Relief Fund v. Cardinal Health, Inc., No.
2:19-cv-03347-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
all purchasers of Cardinal common stock between March 2, 2015 and
May 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Cardinal is a global, integrated healthcare services and products
company.  This action arises from Defendants' misrepresentations
and omissions relating to Cardinal's integration of Cordis Corp.
("Cordis"), a medical device manufacturer Cardinal purchased from
Johnson & Johnson in March 2015, and the inventory and supply chain
problems at Cordis.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misled investors by stating that Cordis would benefit from
Cardinal's advanced inventory management and supply chain
information technology solutions.  Defendants also falsely
represented that the Company properly "reserve[d] for inventory
obsolescence" and that "[i]nventories presented in the consolidated
balance sheets [were] net of reserves for excess and obsolete
inventory."  As a result of these misrepresentations, Cardinal
shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period.

The truth began to emerge on August 2, 2017, when Cardinal reported
weak earnings for its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2017 and
lowered its earnings guidance for fiscal year 2018 due in part to
"higher-than-planned write-offs for excess inventory" at Cordis.
Defendants, however, falsely assured Cardinal's investors that
Cordis's operational deficiencies had been addressed, that the
Company had built the necessary infrastructure and IT systems for
Cordis such that it now had "visibility" of Cordis's inventory, and
that the Cordis business was "going into a phase of a lot more
stability."  Despite Defendants' attempt to soften Cordis's poor
performance, the price of Cardinal stock declined from a closing
price of $77.33 per share on August 1, 2017, to a closing price of
$70.99 per share on August 2, 2017.

Then, on May 3, 2018, Cardinal announced disappointing results for
its third quarter fiscal year 2018 and cut its fiscal year 2018
earnings guidance.  The Company explained that the "biggest
variable driving these results" was the "disappointing performance"
of the Cordis business.  Contrary to the Company's prior statements
that it had visibility into Cordis's inventory and that the Company
properly reserved for obsolete inventory, the Company revealed that
after launching a new global supply chain IT platform over the last
quarter at Cordis, it discovered millions of dollars of unsellable
and expired heart stents and catheters stationed overseas that had
to be written off.  As a result of these disclosures, the price of
Cardinal's stock declined from a closing price of $64.65 per share
on May 2, 2018, to a closing price of $50.80 per share on May 3,
3018.

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available on
BLB&G's website at www.blbglaw.com

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than September 30, 2019, which is
the first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio is open that is 60 days after the
publication date of August 1, 2019.  Any member of the proposed
Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel
of their choice.  Members may also choose to do nothing and remain
part of the proposed Class.

Louisiana Sheriffs is represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 100
attorneys with offices in New York, California, Louisiana,
Illinois, and Delaware.  If you wish to discuss this action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail
at avi@blbglaw.com.

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has built an international
reputation for excellence and integrity.  Specializing in
securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights,
employment discrimination, and civil rights litigation, among other
practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions on
behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide.  Unique
among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest and most
significant securities recoveries in history, recovering billions
of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors.  More information
about BLB&G can be found online at www.blbglaw.com.

CONTACT:

         Avi Josefson, Esq.
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
         New York, New York 10020
         Tel.No.: (212) 554-1493
         Email: avi@blbglaw.com [GN]


CENTRE COUNTY, PA: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Sheffer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Matthew John Sheffer filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Matthew Sheffer v. Centre County, et al.,
Case No. 4-18-cv-02080, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed in the Centre County Court of the State of Pennsylvania
(Case No. 2018-cv-2276) and was removed to the District Court on
October 24, 2018.  The case is assigned to Honorable Matthew W.
Brann and referred to Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Sheffer v. Centre
County, et al., Case No. 19-2726, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant MATTHEW JOHN SHEFFER, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, of Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, appears
pro se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees CENTRE COUNTY and CRYSTAL L. HUNDT, Assistant
District Attorney, are represented by:

          Robert Allen Mix, Esq.
          LEE GREEN & REITER, INC.
          115 E. High Street
          Lock Drawer 179
          Bellefonte, PA 16823
          Telephone: (814) 355-4769
          Facsimile: (814) 355-5024
          E-mail: bmix@lmgrlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees KATHERINE V. OLIVER, Common Pleas Judge; BRIAN
K. MARSHALL, Common Pleas Judge; PAMELA RUEST, Common Pleas Judge;
THOMAS KING KISTLER, Common Pleas Judge; CARMINE W. PRESTIA,
Magisterial District Judge; and THOMAS JORDAN, Magisterial District
Judge, are represented by:

          Robert J. Krandel, Esq.
          ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1414
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 758-6022

Defendant-Appellee JEFFERY EBECK, PA State Trooper, is represented
by:

          Keli M. Neary, Esq.
          Office of Attorney General
          15th Floor, Strawberry Square
          Harrisburg, PA 17120
          Telephone: (717) 787-1180
          Facsimile: (717) 772-4526
          E-mail: kneary@attorneygeneral.gov


CLIENT RESOURCE: Gerstenhaber Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GERSTENHABER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLIENT RESOURCE GROUP, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61958-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 5, 2019) is
a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), arising from Defendant's knowing and willful violations
of the TCPA.

As part of its marketing strategy, Defendant utilizes prerecorded
messages to place calls to unsuspecting consumers on their cellular
telephones for the purpose of selling its goods and services. The
Defendant caused thousands of prerecorded message calls to be
placed to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members,
causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
to halt Defendant's illegal conduct. Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of himself and Class Members and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendants.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Broward County,
Florida.

Defendant offers student loan debt consolidation to its
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
     IJH LAW
     1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: 786.496.4469
     Email: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com

          - and -

     Michael Eisenband, Esq.
     EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
     515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
     Ft. Lauderdale, Fl 33301
     Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
     Phone: 954.533.4092


CLIENT SERVICES: Ali Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Asim Ali, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-02756  (E.D.
N.Y., May 10, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant violated the FDCPA by using false, deceptive and
misleading representation in its attempt to collect the subject
debt.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Kings County, New York and is
natural person allegedly obligated to pay a debt.

The Defendant is a Missouri Corporation with a principal place of
business in Saint Charles County, Missouri. The Defendant is
regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly
owed by consumers and uses mails in its debt collection business.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7600
      Fax: (516) 706-5055
      E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com


CONCENTRIX CORP: Class of Call Center Agent Employees Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JACQLYN KNIGHT, et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. CONCENTRIX CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-07101-KAW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kandis A. Westmore
entered an order on Aug. 1, 2019:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion
      to conditionally certify collective action;

   2. directing Defendant to produce a contact list for the
      narrowed, putative collective within 21 days of this
      order; and

   3. directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the
      proposed notice, which shall be consistent with the
      order; and

   4. directing the parties, within 21 days of the order, to
      either submit a stipulated, proposed notice or a joint
      letter consistent with the order.

Accordingly, the Court conditionally certifies a more narrow
collective consisting of:

   "all current and former Call Center Agent employees, Customer
   Service Representative employees, or other job titles
   performing the same or similar job duties, who worked off-
   the-clock before their shift for Concentrix, in preparation
   for their shift, resulting in working more than forty hours
   per week at any time in the last three years, and were not
   paid overtime for the pre- shift time worked. "At Home" Call
   Center Agents are excluded from the Class."[CC]

DIAMOND RESORTS: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Gonzalez
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion
for Conditional Certification as a Collective Action in the case
captioned DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DIAMOND RESORTS
INTERNATIONAL MARKETING, INC., Defendant. Case No.
2:18-cv-00979-APG-CWH. (D. Nev.).

The Plaintiff moves for conditional certification of the putative
class. Under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
an employee may bring a collective action on behalf of himself or
themselves and other employees similarly situated. Additionally, no
employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he
gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such
consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.
Section 216(b) does not require the district court to authorize
notice to potential plaintiffs, but it is within the court's
discretion to issue such authorization.

In the first stage, the court applies a fairly lenient standard and
typically grants conditional class certification, because the
determination is made prior to the close of the discovery and is
based on limited evidence. If the court conditionally certifies the
class, then putative class members are given notice and the
opportunity to opt-in. District courts are also authorized to
monitor the preparation and distribution of notice to putative
class members upon the certification of the collective action in
the notice stage.  

The second stage occurs following the end of discovery, where the
court uses a stricter standard to assess the scope of the class.
The court reviews the following factors at this stage: (1) the
disparate factual and employment settings of the individual
plaintiffs (2) the various defenses available to the defendants
with respect to the individual plaintiffs and (3) fairness and
procedural considerations.

Here, plaintiff moves for conditional certification, arguing that
they are similarly situated to the putative class members because
all were classified as non-exempt sales representatives and
subjected to defendants' unlawful policies of computing overtime
pay on the hourly wage excluding bonuses and commission. The
Defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that
they are similarly situated to a well-defined group, as defendants
do not employ anyone in the sales representative position.

The Defendants further contend that plaintiffs offer only mere
assertions to support allegations regarding an unlawful pay scheme.
In reply to defendants' arguments, plaintiffs contend that sales
representatives are technically titled Vacation Counselors, but
that defendants have commonly referred to employees serving in this
capacity as sales representatives.

The court finds that the first-stage analysis governs this case, as
the action is in the early stages of litigation. The court notes
that although discovery began in November 2018, this motion was
filed in February of 2019, and that two months of discovery still
remain. It is therefore appropriate for the court to apply the
lenient standard that requires a modest showing that the putative
class action members were victims of a common policy or plan.

Having applied such a standard, the court finds that plaintiffs
have made the requisite showing that they are similarly situated to
the putative class members for the limited purpose of conditional
certification. Plaintiffs provide declarations alleging that they,
and other non-exempt sales representatives, were paid on a
commission and bonus basis with an hourly minimum wage advance.
Plaintiffs also declare that they, and other non-exempt sales
representatives, worked more than 40 hours a week and were not paid
overtime wages based on the total amount of compensation for the
workweek, including any commission or bonus earnings.  

As support for those declarations, plaintiffs provide pay stubs
depicting instances where they worked overtime hours during certain
pay periods, but were nevertheless paid overtime based upon the
hourly minimum wage rate of pay rather than the total amount of
compensation including commissions or bonuses. Plaintiffs then
declare that other sales representatives share the same job duties
of marketing and selling ownership interests in defendants'
properties, and that all defendants' properties share a common
structure.  

Lastly, while plaintiffs refer to the job title for the putative
class members as Sales Representatives, rather than the technical
term of Vacation Counselors, the court still finds that plaintiff
have identified a tenable class because of the duties and
responsibilities associated with the position. However, given that
plaintiffs concede the technical term of the position, the court
finds it necessary for plaintiffs to modify the collective class
definition to include Vacation Counselors. Plaintiffs are also
ordered to modify their proposed notice and consent form to include
Vacation Counselors.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS

The Plaintiffs next request an order requiring defendants to
provide contact information for the putative class members employed
from May 29, 2015 through the present within 10 days, in order to
effectuate notice. The Defendants do not oppose plaintiffs' request
for a list of contact information for putative class members, but
request that the contact information be submitted to a third-party
administrator. The Defendants' failure to contest the request for
the contact information constitutes consent to granting plaintiffs'
motion on this issue. As for the issue of the third-party
administrator, defendants argue that a third-party administrator is
better equipped to handle the sensitive information. Having
reviewed the docket, it appears that the parties have stipulated to
a protective order.  

The protective order should suffice in ensuring the protection of
the information. Therefore, the court grants the request for the
production of the contact information for putative class members.

CONSENT FORM

Because the court has granted conditional certification, the court
must now evaluate plaintiffs' proposed notice and consent form.
Once a collective action is conditionally certified, the court may
authorize plaintiffs' request to send notice to potential
plaintiffs, and the court may set a deadline for potential
plaintiffs to opt-in to the lawsuit.  In issuing notices to
putative class members, the court must take care to avoid even the
appearance of judicial.

The Plaintiffs have provided the court with a proposed notice and
consent form. The Defendants request that the court reject the
proposed notice and consent form, arguing that the form lacks
judicial neutrality and that the language referencing plaintiffs'
counsel's contingency fee should be omitted. Defendants further
request that the court order plaintiff to include information
regarding the contingency fee percentage agreed upon by plaintiffs
and their counsel. Plaintiff replies that that the notice is
sufficiently neutral because it provides language that the court
has taken no position in this case.

As for the issue of the contingency fee stated in section 5 of the
proposed notice, the court finds that plaintiffs must amend the
notice to include the percentage of the fee that plaintiffs agreed
to pay their counsel and how that fee will be calculated.  

Lastly, the court does have one concern regarding the proposed
notice form as it pertains to those that are subject to an
arbitration agreement and those who have potentially released the
claims at issue in this dispute. Defendants raise this issue and
argue that certain putative members are not entitled to notice.
Specifically, defendants argue that the following groups should not
receive notice: employees subject to an arbitration agreement,
employees who have released claims in the California Wage and Hour
case and those employed more than two-years before the notice issue
date.

The Plaintiffs argue that defendants' arguments fail at this stage,
as they require an assessment of the validity of the arbitration
agreement and the release of claims. Plaintiffs also argue that any
factual determinations of the scope of the collective action is
appropriate for the second stage, and that the jury decides which
statute of limitations period applies. The court finds plaintiffs'
arguments persuasive for the following reasons.

In support of their argument regarding the arbitration agreement,
defendants cite to a recently issued Fifth Circuit case where the
court concludes that district courts do not have discretion to
require notice of a pending FLSA collective action to an employee
subject to a binding arbitration agreement.  

While the court declines to evaluate the enforceability of the
arbitration agreement or to evaluate the alleged release of claims,
the court finds it reasonable for plaintiffs to include language
that discusses how the arbitration agreement and a release of
claims may potentially affect opt-in plaintiffs.  As for the
statute of limitations argument raised by defendants, that
determination is also one that is better left for the second stage
and, if necessary, the jury.

The Plaintiffs are instructed to make all necessary changes
consistent with this order, and to meet and confer with defendants'
counsel prior to resubmitting an amended proposed notice and
consent form. An amended prosed notice and consent form must be
submitted to the court within 30 days from the date of this order.

NOTICE PERIOD

Next, plaintiffs request the court to approve a 90-day opt-in
period. Defendants object to the period, arguing that courts in
this district have routinely approved 60 days for plaintiffs to
respond. The court finds that a 90-day period is reasonable, as it
provided recipients of the notice sufficient time to consider their
options and to determine whether they may opt-in, given the issues
regarding the arbitration agreement and a potential release of
claims. The 90-day period is also consistent with the notice time
routinely granted in this circuit. The 90 days will begin on the
date that the notice is mailed.

MANNER OF SERVICE

The Plaintiffs next contend that the notice and consent form should
1) be sent by plaintiffs' counsel via mail and email, 2) be posted
by defendants on-site at all locations, and 3) be enclosed with the
next-regularly scheduled paycheck for currently employed potential
opt-in plaintiffs. Lastly, plaintiffs request that they be
permitted to send a mail and email reminder. Defendants object to
plaintiffs' request for multiple delivery methods, arguing that
plaintiffs have failed to present a need or a compelling reason to
justify a reminder notice.

The court grants plaintiffs' request to contact putative class
members by mail and by email. Mail is permitted, as it is the
preferred method for class certification notice.  The court finds
it reasonable to permit electronic notice, as it is an efficient
and inexpensive method for providing notice where the intended
recipients have reasonably accessible email addresses. The court
declines to order defendants to post the notice on-site at all
locations, as plaintiffs have not demonstrated a need for this
manner of service. Plaintiffs must submit an amended proposed
postcard and email reminder that is consistent with this order, no
later than 30 days from the date of this order.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs Daniel Gonzalez and Jeffrey Hughes'
motion for conditional certification as a collective action is
granted in part and denied in part as stated in this order.

The Plaintiffs must modify the collective class definition to
include Vacation Counselors.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2g2uhpt from Leagle.com.

Daniel Gonzalez & Jeffrey Hughes, Plaintiffs, represented by Martin
Douglas Holmes -- mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright
PLLC, pro hac vice, Michael N. Feder -- MFeder@dickinson-wright.com
-- Dickinson Wright PLLC & Peter F. Klett, III --
pklett@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, pro hac vice.

Diamond Resorts International Marketing, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Alison Megan Hamer -ahamer@HKemploymentlaw.com --
Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin Joseph Treger --
btreger@hkemploymentlaw.com -- Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, pro hac
vice, Howard E. Cole -- hcole@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber
Christie LLP, Kirstin Elisabeth Muller --
kmuller@HKemploymentlaw.com -- Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, pro hac vice
& Jennifer K. Hostetler -- jhostetler@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP.

West Maui Resorts Partners, L.P., Defendant, represented by Alison
Megan Hamer, Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin Joseph
Treger, Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, pro hac vice,Kirstin Elisabeth
Muller, Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, pro hac vice & Jennifer K.
Hostetler, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP.


DOMINION ENERGY: Customers to Get Refunds as Part of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emery Glover and Laurel Mallory, writing for WIS, report that some
Dominion Energy customers will receive refunds following the
settlement of a class-action lawsuit, according to company
officials.

The utility company agreed to a settlement in the lawsuit against
SCE&G, regarding the failed V.C. summer nuclear project back in
2017. Customers who were charged for the construction of that
nuclear project may be eligible for a refund.

While the company denied the allegations brought forth in the suit,
a settlement was reached in November.

In June, a judge decided more than 1 million customers will split
$146 million, which is the largest private class-action settlement
in state history.

Dominion took over SCE&G in January. All former SCE&G customers
affected by the failed nuclear plant should have received
notification about their rights under the settlement.

The refund will come either in the form of a bill credit or cash.

Officials with Dominion said bill credits will begin to apply to
the next billing cycle after the company gets the information they
need from a claims administrator. The timing on that is not yet
clear.

Customers who want more information should contact that
administrator at 877-432-3808 or email
info@scegratepayersettlement.com. A website was set also up for
customers' questions, go to http://www.scegratepayersettlement.com/
to access it. [GN]


DOMINION ENERGY: Some Customers to Receive Refunds in Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emery Glover and Laurel Mallory, writing for Live 5 News, reports
that some Dominion Energy customers will receive refunds following
the settlement of a class-action lawsuit, according to company
officials.

Some Dominion Energy customers will receive refunds following the
settlement of a class-action lawsuit, according to company
officials.

Customers who want more information should contact that
administrator at 877-432-3808 or email
info@scegratepayersettlement.com A website was set also up for
customers' questions. [GN]


ECSD MANAGEMENT: Accused by Pilley of Invading Privacy Under TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
G. AUSTIN PILLEY, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. ECSD MANAGEMENT, LLC dba Apothekare, Case No.
3:19-cv-01414-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal., July 29, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's illegal actions in negligently contacting the Plaintiff
through telephone calls on his cellular telephone, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his
privacy.

Apothekare is a California limited liability company headquartered
in San Diego, California.

Apothekare touts itself as San Diego's largest cannabis shop
selling medical and recreational marijuana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
          Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          James E. Pilley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES E. PILLEY, APC
          PO Box 2612
          Lakeside, CA 92040
          Telephone: (619) 602-0076
          Facsimile: (619) 272-0371
          E-mail: james@jpilley.com


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Oct. 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, et al.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION
Case No. 2017-02081-MJ


SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

To:

All individuals and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded common stock of Endo International plc ("Endo"
or the "Company") issued in or traceable to Endo's
June 5, 2015 offering of 27,627,628 shares.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania, that Plaintiff Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, on behalf of itself
and the proposed Settlement Class,1 and the Company and the other
defendants in the Action, have reached a proposed settlement of the
above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of $50,000,000
that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its entirety (the
"Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Edward Griffith at the
Court of Common Pleas of the Chester County Justice Center,
Pennsylvania, Courtroom 11, 201 W. Market Street, West Chester, PA
19380, at 1:30 p.m. on October 21 2019 (the "Settlement Hearing")
to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i)
approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 27, 2019; (iii)
approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Class Counsel's Fee and Expense
Application.  The Court may change the date of the Settlement
Hearing without providing another notice.  You do NOT need to
attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the
Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT.  If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof
of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the
Settlement, www.EndoInternationalSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:

         Mississippi PERS v. Endo International
         c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
         P.O. Box 173043
         Milwaukee, WI 53217

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class
Counsel:

         Serena Hallowell, Esq.
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005
         www.labaton.com
         settlementquestions@labaton.com
        (888) 219-6877

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than
November 14, 2019.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share
in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will
nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than September 30, 2019.
If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not
be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must
be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are
filed and received no later than September 30, 2019.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: July 31, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHESTER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA

All terms not defined herein shall have the definition assigned to
them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 27,
2019.


FRED'S INC: Pawar Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Fred's Inc.
(NASDAQ: FRED) between December 20, 2016 and June 28, 2017 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Fred's
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Fred's class action, go to
http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/freds-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) the FTC had informed Defendants that the merger between
Rite Aid Corp. and Walgreens was unlikely to garner regulatory
approval as then constituted because of the significant market
overlap between Rite Aid and Walgreens stores; (2) Defendants did
not possess "clarity" from their non-public discussions with FTC
regulators that the deal would be approved, but, rather, FTC
officials had expressed concern that the planned divestitures did
not go far enough to preserve competition in the pharmaceutical
marketplace; (3) delay in the regulatory review process and FTC
requests for additional information were not simply routine and
inconsequential as Defendants had represented; (4) FTC Staff
indicated to Defendants that Fred's did not have the financial
capability and incentives to acquire and operate the assets, nor
the competitive ability to maintain or restore competition in the
market; (5) Fred's wouldn't purchase the Rite Aid stores and
certain assets related to store operations located across the
eastern and western United States pursuant to the Asset Purchase
Agreement; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about Fred'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.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 27,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.

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.

Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.

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


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Faces 3 Class Suits Related to TSYS Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Global Payments Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in three putative class action suits related
to the company's merger with Total System Services, Inc. ("TSYS").

On May 27, 2019, Global Payments and Total System Services, Inc.
("TSYS") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger
Agreement") providing for the merger of TSYS with and into Global
Payments, with Global Payments as the surviving entity (the
"Merger"). TSYS is a leading global payments provider, offering
seamless, secure and innovative solutions across the payments
spectrum - for issuers, merchants and consumers.

Three putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger have
been filed. Two of these lawsuits, captioned Peters v. Total System
Services, Inc. et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00114) and Wolf v. Total
System Services, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:19-cv-00115), were filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia on July 18, 2019.

The third lawsuit, captioned Drulias v. Global Payments Inc., et.
al (Case No. 60774/2019) was filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Westchester on July 19, 2019.  

The Peters lawsuit names as defendants TSYS, the current members of
the TSYS board of directors and certain former members of the TSYS
board of directors.

The Wolf lawsuit names as defendants TSYS, members of the TSYS
board of directors and Global Payments.

The Drulias lawsuit names as defendants Global Payments and members
of its board. The complaints filed in the lawsuits assert, among
other things, claims against the members of the TSYS board of
directors (and in the case of the Wolf action and the Drulias
action, against Global Payments) for filing a materially incomplete
registration statement with the SEC.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits seek, among other things, an
injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the Merger or
rescissory damages to the extent they have already been
implemented, and an award of damages and attorney's fees.

Global Payments said, "We believe that the claims asserted in the
lawsuits are without merit."

Global Payments Inc., incorporated in September, 2000, is a
provider of payment technology services. The Company provides
payment and digital commerce solutions. The Company operates
through three segments: North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific. The
company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.


GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of all investors that purchased GTT
Communications, Inc. (NYSE: GTT) securities between February 26,
2018 and July 1, 2019 (the "Class Period").  Investors have until
September 30, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint, filed on July 30, 2019, alleges that throughout the
Class Period GTT assured investors that it had conducted extensive
due diligence on Interoute, and the acquisition was a natural
strategic fit for GTT. GTT stated that the two companies "fit
together almost hand in glove." After the deal closed, GTT assured
investors that Interoute's integration into the Company was "on
track" and "not as complex" as many of the Company's previous
integrations. Investors began to learn the truth on May 8, 2019,
when GTT disclosed a larger than expected loss for the first
quarter of 2019, including a sequential decline in revenues. GTT
blamed its poor performance on a host of issues with the Interoute
integration, including migrating legacy systems into GTT's
management database, discrepancies with Interoute's billing
systems, and a poor salesforce. GTT further disclosed that shortly
before the acquisition, Interoute had made a strategic shift to
sell cloud services that deviated from GTT's core cloud networking
business.

In response to these disclosures, GTT's stock price plummeted 17.5%
on May 8, 2019, and continued to fall the following day, for a
two-day decline of over 25%. The Complaint asserts claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against GTT and certain of its senior executives
("Defendants"). The action alleges that during the Class Period,
Defendants issued a series of false and/or misleading statements
and failed to disclose material adverse facts about GTT's business,
operations, and prospects, and the Interoute acquisition
specifically. Among other things, Defendants failed to disclose
that: (1) there were delays in migrating Interoute's legacy systems
and processes into GTT's client management database system; (2)
Interoute had made a strategic shift to focus on providing cloud
services that deviated from GTT's core cloud networking business;
(3) Interoute's sales force was underperforming and ineffective at
selling GTT's core cloud networking services; and (4) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation.  For
additional information concerning the GTT class action please go to
https://bespc.com/GTT. For additional information about Bragar
Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com.  Attorney
advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
         Tel.No.: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com [GN]


GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on July 30, 2019, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against GTT Communications, Inc.
(GTT). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is February 26, 2018 through July 1, 2019.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/y5pa5r6b

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all GTT
Communications, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during
the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described above. You may move the Court no later than Monday,
September 30, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire
Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal
requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Website: www.federmanlaw.com
         E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on July 30 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against GTT
Communications, Inc. ("GTT" or the "Company") (NYSE: GTT) on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GTT
common stock between February 26, 2018 and July 1, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

If you purchased GTT common stock during the Class Period and wish
to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court by no later than September 30, 2019. You may
contact David Kaplan (dkaplan@saxenawhite.com), an attorney and
Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the class action.
You may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any
action at this time to be a class member.

GTT provides cloud networking services to multinational companies.
Since 2015, the Company pursued growth through a roll-up strategy
in which it would acquire relatively small companies through
"tuck-in" acquisitions.  However, in February 2018, in sharp
contrast to its historical strategy of acquiring smaller companies,
GTT announced that it was purchasing Interoute Communications
Holdings S.A. ("Interoute"), a telecommunications company that
operated Europe's largest cloud services platform in a
transformational $2.3 billion acquisition that essentially doubled
GTT's size.

Throughout the Class Period, GTT assured investors that it had
conducted extensive due diligence on Interoute, and the acquisition
was a natural strategic fit for GTT -- that the two companies "fit
together almost hand in glove."  After the deal closed, GTT assured
investors that Interoute's integration into the Company was "on
track" and "not as complex" as many of the Company's previous
integrations.     

Investors began to learn the truth on May 8, 2019, when GTT
disclosed a larger than expected loss for the first quarter of
2019, including a sequential decline in revenues.  GTT blamed its
poor performance on a host of issues with the Interoute
integration, including migrating legacy systems into GTT's
management database, discrepancies with Interoute's billing
systems, and a poor salesforce.  GTT further disclosed that shortly
before the acquisition, Interoute had made a strategic shift to
sell cloud services that deviated from GTT's core cloud networking
business.  In response to these disclosures, GTT's stock price
plummeted 17.5% on May 8, 2019, and continued to fall the following
day, for a two-day decline of over 25%.  

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against GTT and
certain of its senior executives ("Defendants").  The action
alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants issued a series of
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about GTT's business, operations, and prospects, and
the Interoute acquisition specifically. Among other things,
Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) there were delays in
migrating Interoute's legacy systems and processes into GTT's
client management database system; (2) Interoute had made a
strategic shift to focus on providing cloud services that deviated
from GTT's core cloud networking business; (3) Interoute's sales
force was underperforming and ineffective at selling GTT's core
cloud networking services; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the class action at www.saxenawhite.com

With offices in Florida, New York, and California, Saxena White P.A
-- https://saxenawhite.com -- concentrates its practice on
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of
institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in
numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured
investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and
state courts throughout the United States. [GN]


INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors that approximately five weeks remain to
make a motion for lead plaintiff in a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of shareholders that acquired shares of
Intelligent Systems Corporation ("INS" or the "Company") (NYSE:
INS) between January 23, 2019, and May 29, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York and seeks to
recover damages for INS investors under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

If you purchased INS securities during the Class Period, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
INS Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew Guarnero
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors:(1) Defendant Petit, the "financial expert" on
Intelligent Systems' Audit Committee engaged in accounting fraud as
the CEO of MiMedx Group, Inc.; (2) Intelligent Systems' CEO,
Defendant Strange, engaged in undisclosed related-party
transactions with Defendant Petit and others and had an undisclosed
personal relationship with the Company's auditor; (3) Intelligent
Systems had its employees set up or take control of shell companies
in Asia so they could partake in undisclosed related-party
transactions for the purpose of either fabricating revenue for the
Company and/or siphoning money out of the Company; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about Intelligent Systems' business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On May 24, 2019, before market hours, Aurelius Value published a
report "INS: A Wolf in Pete's Clothing." The report discussed
MiMedx Group's disclosures concerning Defendant Petit and also
accused the Company's CEO, Defendant Strange, inter alia, of
engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions with Defendant
Petit and others and of  an undisclosed personal relationship with
INS's auditor, Nicolas Cauley.

On this news, shares of INS fell $4.18 per share, or more than 10%
to close at $34.93 per share on May 24, 2019, damaging investors.

On May 30, 2019, before the market opened, Grizzly Research LLC
issued a report entitled "Intelligent Systems Corp: Material
Undisclosed Related Party Transactions Cast Doubt on the Integrity
of Financial Statements." The report presented evidence that
"Intelligent Systems Corp. (INS) has its employees set up or take
control of undisclosed shell companies in Asia, who then partake in
undisclosed related party transactions with INS intended to either
round-trip revenue back to INS or siphon money out of the company."
It further stated that "there is a possibility that all revenue
growth since January 2018 has been a result of undisclosed
round-trip transactions with Indian related parties."

On this news, shares of INS fell $6.82 from the prior day's closing
price of $33.81 or over 20%, to close at $26.99 per share on May
30, 2019.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court no
later than September 9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no action, you may
remain an absent class member.

If you purchased INS securities during the Class Period, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/yxstsqy9 or contact Matthew Guarnero toll free
at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Tel.No.: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cavada Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MALLORY CAVADA, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated v. INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS
GROUP, INC., a Corporation; IHG MANAGEMENT MARYLAND LLC, a Limited
Liability Company; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, INC., a
Corporation; INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, LLC, a
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 37-2019-00039279-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., July
29, 2019), accuses the Defendants of not paying minimum and
overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

Inter-Continental Hotels Group, Inc. is a corporation that conducts
substantial business in California.  IHG Management Maryland LLC is
a limited liability company that conducts substantial business in
California.

Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc. is a corporation that
conducts substantial business in California.  Intercontinental
Hotels Group Resources, LLC is a limited liability company that
conducts substantial business in California.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the
Plaintiff.

The Defendants own and operate hotels in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com
                  Kyle@bamlawca.com
                  aj@bamlawca.com


INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Anemone Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Helen Anemone, Carlos Perez, Veronica Aguirre, Evangelina Martinez,
Melisa Magana, Gabriele Mendoza, Maria de San Juan Cajigas, Maria
Ruiz, Divine Igiraneza, Sivia Martinez, and Ruth Ali, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Interstate Management
Company, LLC dba HyattCentric Chicago, Case No. 1:19-cv-03205 (N.D.
Ill., May 12, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay overtime
for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, and
failed to provide break periods and lunch or discounting excessive
time for lunch breaks and failed to pay all earned wages for all
time worked when due.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in their business performing
mostly housekeeping duties.

The Defendant is a Limited Liability Corporation organized under
the laws of the State of Delaware, which runs the Hyatt Centric
hotel at 100 W. Monroe in Chicago.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
      Baldemar Lopez, Esq.
      LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
      77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 420-6784


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss REMICADE(R) Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that motions to dismiss have
been denied in both the direct and indirect purchaser cases related
to Janssen Biotech, Inc.'s REMICADE(R).

Beginning in September 2017, multiple purported class actions of
direct and indirect purchasers were filed against Johnson & Johnson
and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (collectively, Janssen) alleging that
Janssen's REMICADE(R) contracting strategies violated federal and
state antitrust and consumer laws and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

In November 2017, the cases were consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania as In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation.

A motion to compel arbitration of the direct purchaser case was
denied and is on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.

Motions to dismiss were denied in both the direct and indirect
purchaser cases.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bid to Dismiss TRACLEER(R)-Related Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Actelion Pharmaceutical
Ltd. is seeking to dismiss the amended complaint in the class
action suit related to sales of TRACLEER(R).

In October 2018, two separate putative class actions were filed
against Actelion Pharmaceutical Ltd., Actelion Pharmaceuticals US,
Inc., and Actelion Clinical Research, Inc. (collectively
"Actelion") in United States District Court for the District of
Maryland and United States District Court for the District of
Columbia.  

The complaints allege that Actelion violated state and federal
antitrust and unfair competition laws by allegedly refusing to
supply generic pharmaceutical manufacturers with samples of
TRACLEER(R).  

TRACLEER(R) is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation
Strategy, which imposes restrictions on distribution of the
product.  

In January 2019, the plaintiffs dismissed the District of Columbia
case and filed a consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.  

In February 2019, Actelion filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Summary Judgment in Contact Lens Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that defendants' motions for
summary judgment in the contact lens-related class action suit, are
pending in the District Court.

In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints
were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around
the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.
(JJVCI) and other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the
retail prices of contact lenses.

The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements
with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning
the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers.


The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of
the class action cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in November
2015. In December 2018, the district court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Defendants filed two motions for interlocutory appeal of class
certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. Both motions were denied. Defendants' motions for
summary judgment are pending in the District Court.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Related Class Suit in Virginia Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that in April 2019, Blue
Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc. launched a
class action complaint against Janssen Biotech, Inc, Janssen
Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research & Development, LLC and BTG
International Limited in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Sherman Act
and the antitrust and consumer protections laws of several states
by pursuing patent litigation relating to ZYTIGA(R) in order to
delay generic entry.

The case has been transferred to the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


JUST ENERGY: Faces Goitein Suit over 15% Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
ELI GOITEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUST ENERGY GROUP INC.; DEBORAH MERRIL;
JAMES LEWIS; PATRICK MCCULLOUGH; and JIM BROWN, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-07181 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2019) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that acquired Just Energy securities
between November 9, 2017 and July 23, 2019, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Company Just Energy purports to be
a consumer company focused on essential needs, including
electricity and natural gas commodities; on health and well-being,
through products such as water quality and filtration devices; and
on utility conservation, including renewable energy options.

On July 23, 2019, the Company disclosed that it had "identified
customer enrolment and non-payment issues, primarily in Texas, over
the past 12 months" and that, as a result, it expected an
impairment charge of CAD $45 to $50 million to its Texas
residential accounts receivable.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.66 per share, more
than 15%, to close at $3.72 per share on July 23, 2019, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company experienced customer enrollment and
nonpayment issues; (2) that, as a result, the Company was
reasonably likely to incur an impairment charge to its accounts
receivable; (3) that, as a result, the Company lacked adequate
internal control over its financial reporting; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.

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

Just Energy Group, Inc. sells natural gas and electricity to
residential and commercial customers under long-term fixed-price
and price-protected contracts. The Company also offers its
customers the option to receive all or part of their electricity
and natural gas from renewable sources. Just Energy operates in
Canada and the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

               -and-

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


KERRY FOODS: Benoskie Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Kathy Benoskie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Kerry Foods Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00684 (E.D. Wis.,
May 10, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws.

The Defendant manufactures products for the food and beverage
industry. The Plaintiff performed compensable work as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt manufacturing employee at the Defendant's
manufacturing facility located at N168 W21455 Main Street, Jackson,
Wisconsin 53037.

The Defendant's deliberate failure to compensate its hourly-paid,
non-exempt manufacturing employees for hours worked at the proper
and legal rates of pay and failure to provide overtime rates,
violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set
forth in the WWPCL, asserts the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
      Brookfield, WI 53005
      Tel: (262) 780-1953
      Fax: (262) 565-6469
      E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
              jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com


KOHL'S CORPORATION: Court Terminates Ankcorn Case
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Mark Ankcorn, the Plaintiff,
v. Kohl's Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-01303 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order on Aug. 1,
2019 terminating the civil case.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 1, 2019,
the Plaintiff has dismissed his individual claims with prejudice
and the putative class claims without prejudice, with each party to
bear its own attorneys' fees and costs incurred. Any pending
deadline(s) and motion(s) are stricken as moot.[CC]

LARIO OIL: Class of Oilfield Workers Conditionally Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as NATHAN HANCOCK, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LARIO
OIL & GAS CO., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02140-JAR-KGG (D.
Kan), the Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson entered an order on August
1, 2019:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification;

   2. conditionally certifying Plaintiff's collective action
      under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for
      the following class of persons:

      "all oilfield workers who were or are employed by
      Defendant as a Wellsite/Drill Site Manager or "company
      man," and who were classified as independent contractors
      and paid a day rate at any time within the three years
      preceding the present date";

   3. designating Nathan Hancock as the class representative;

   4. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel;

   5. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to approve
      Plaintiff's form of notice to be reasserted after the
      parties have conferred and modified the notice;

   6. directing parties to submit a joint amended proposed
      notice and consent-to-join form, as well as a brief
      statement summarizing the notice distribution plan, to the
      Court for approval within 14 days of the Court's order;
      and

   7. directing Defendant, within 14 days of the Court's Order,
      to provide Plaintiff a list in electronic and importable
      format, of the first and last names, last-known home
      addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, employee ID
      numbers, and dates of employment for all members of the
      putative class.[CC]

LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Settlement in NY Suit Still Awaits Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that the settlement in the
case entitled, In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation, still
awaits court approval.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions against the Company and several
former executives relating to the Company's contract to develop and
implement an automated time and attendance and workforce management
system for certain agencies of the City of New York ("CityTime").

One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in In Re:
SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants
made misleading statements or omissions about the Company's
revenues, operating income and internal controls in connection with
disclosures relating to the CityTime project.

The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the
individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class
members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated
price.

The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice
and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs then appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued
an opinion affirming in part, and vacating in part, the District
Court's ruling.

The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S.
Supreme Court, which was granted on March 27, 2017. The District
Court granted the Company's request to stay all proceedings,
including discovery, pending the outcome at the Supreme Court.

In September 2017, the parties engaged in mediation resulting in an
agreement to settle all remaining claims for an immaterial amount
to be paid by the Company. The amounts payable by the Company are
covered by an insurance policy.

The terms of the proposed settlement remain subject to court
approval.

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

Leidos Holdings, Inc. provides services and solutions in the
defense, intelligence, civil, and health markets in the United
States and internationally. It operates through three segments:
Defense Solutions, Civil, and Health. The company was founded in
1969 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.


LONGFIN CORP: Court Dismisses Claims Against Network 1
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion for
Reconsideration in the casa captioned IN RE LONGFIN CORP.
SECURITIES CLASS ACTION LITIGATION. No. 18cv2933(DLC). (S.D.N.Y.).

Defendant Network 1 Financial Securities Inc., a broker-dealer,
filed a motion for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order denying
in part Network 1's motion to dismiss this securities fraud action.


This federal securities class action is brought against defendants
Longfin Corp., Network 1, Andy Altahawi and other Longfin
executives and insiders on behalf of investors who purchased
Longfin's stock. This class action is one of several shareholder
suits filed in the wake of an SEC investigation of Longfin. The
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed suit against Longfin
and its executives and insiders and shortly thereafter acquired a
court order freezing $27 million in proceeds from sales of Longfin
Class A stock.

The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict.
Reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party
can point to controlling decisions or data that the court
overlooked. A motion for reconsideration should be granted only
when the defendant identifies an intervening change of controlling
law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a
clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

Network 1 seeks reconsideration of the April 11 Opinion's
determination that the FAC adequately plead Network 1's scienter
with regard to its Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 claim.

Section 10(b) makes it unlawful to use or employ any manipulative
or deceptive device or contrivance in violation of any Commission
rules and regulations.  

Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 actions brought by private plaintiffs
cannot assert a cause of action for aiding and abetting. Rather,
the conduct of a secondary actor must satisfy each of the elements
or preconditions for liability. But, even a bit participant in the
securities markets may be liable as a primary violator under Rule
10b-5 so long as all of the requirements for primary liability are
met. Where a defendant is alleged not to have simply facilitated
manipulative conduct, but rather to be a co-participant  in the
manipulative scheme and profited by that scheme, a defendant may be
liable as a primary violator.

Because a claim for market manipulation is a claim for fraud, it
must be pled with particularity under Rule 9(b).

In order for a securities fraud claim to survive a motion to
dismiss, a plaintiff's complaint must also state with particularity
facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted
with the required state of mind.

Upon reconsideration, the SAC does not adequately plead Network 1's
scienter. The April 11 Opinion found that, while a close question,
the allegations in the FAC gave rise to a strong inference that
Network 1 knew the December 6 Shares were not validly issued. In
reaching this conclusion, the April 11 Opinion relied upon the
allegations in the FAC that the bank statements provided to Network
1 by Altahawi did not contain proof of purchase of the December 6
Shares and that Network 1 would have recognized insiders, such as
Ratakonda, in the list of 24 individual purchasers of the December
6 Shares.

Upon re-examination of these allegations, combined with the
additional allegations contained in the SAC, the plaintiffs have
not adequately alleged scienter. The allegations are not as cogent
or compelling as the inference that Network 1 was lied to by
Longfin. Network 1 asked for confirmation that the December 6
Shares had been paid for on three separate occasions and each time
was assured that they had been validly purchased. Twice, Network 1
received bank statements purporting to show payment and the third
time was falsely told by Meenavalli that the December 6 Shares had
been paid for.

These allegations give rise to an inference that Network 1 did not
know that the December 6 Shares were issued for no consideration.

The plaintiffs emphasize the SAC's assertions that three accounts
contained no evidence of payments for the December 6 Shares. These
assertions do not change the calculus. The SAC does not contain
allegations linking these three accounts to the bank statements
provided to Network 1.

Similarly, while the SAC asserts that Network 1 "must have known
that individuals on the list of 24 December 6 Shareholders" were
Longfin insiders, it provides no particularized allegations that
support this assertion. Although Ratakonda, one of the 24 December
6 Shareholders, was a high-level Longfin executive, Network 1 is
not alleged to have had any communications with him or to have
known of his role. Taken together, the allegations in the SAC lead
to a stronger inference that Network 1 was not aware of its role in
Longfin's scheme to defraud investors than the inference that it
was a knowing participant.

There is no doubt that Longfin's Reg A+ offering was an essential
part of its scheme to defraud investors. It was through this
offering that Longfin was able to reach the 1,000,000-share minimum
necessary to be listed on the NASDAQ market. And, Longfin's
fraudulent issuance of the December 6 Shares was critical to its
reaching that 1,000,000 share minimum. While it would not be
difficult to imagine the various ways in which a lead underwriter
in the Reg A+ offering could have acted to knowingly further this
manipulative scheme, the plaintiffs must plausibly and adequately
plead such knowing participation. The SAC does not do so.

Accordingly, Network 1's  motion for reconsideration of the April
11 Opinion is granted and the claims against Network 1 are
dismissed in their entirety.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy92v5oh from
Leagle.com.

Mohammad A Malik, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Enright
-- denright@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Christopher James
Kupka -- ckupka@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.
Karthik Reddy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rhiana Lauren Swartz --
RSWARTZ@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott + Scott, L.L.P., Christopher James
Kupka , Levi & Korsinsky, LLP & Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV --
TLAUGHLIN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott Scott, L.L.P.

LongFin Corp., Defendant, pro se.

Venkat S. Meenavalli, Defendant, pro se.

Vivek Kumar Ratakonda, Defendant, pro se.

Andy Altahawi, Defendant, represented by Robert Gerard Heim  --
rheim@tarterkrinsky.com -- Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP.

Dorababu Penumarthi, Defendant, pro se.


MARKEL CORP: Continues to Defend Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit in New York related to the Markel CATCo
Inquiries.

Between January 11, 2019 and March 7, 2019, several related
putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Markel Corporation and
certain present or former officers and directors alleging
violations of the federal securities laws relating to the matters
that are the subject of the Markel CATCo Inquiries.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons or entities that
purchased Markel securities between July 26, 2017 and December 6,
2018. The actions have been consolidated.

Markel said "We believe that the claims are without merit."

Markel Corporation, a diverse financial holding company, markets
and underwrites specialty insurance products in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Canada, and internationally. Markel Corporation
was founded in 1930 and is headquartered in Glen Allen, Virginia.

MASTERCARD INC: Canadian Suit over Point-of-Sale Acceptance Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend class action suits in Canada related to its rules related to
point-of-sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no
surcharge" rules.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. The
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's favor)
concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-sale
acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge"
rules.

The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief.

In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action
lawsuits were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against
Mastercard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial
institutions.

The British Columbia suit sought compensatory damages in
unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit sought compensatory
damages of $5 billion on the basis of alleged conspiracy and
various alleged breaches of the Canadian Competition Act.
Additional purported class action complaints were commenced in
Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in
the other suits.

In June 2017, Mastercard entered into a class settlement agreement
to resolve all of the Canadian class action litigation. The
settlement, which requires Mastercard to make a cash payment and
modify its "no surcharge" rule, has received court approval in each
Canadian province. Objectors to the settlement have sought to
appeal the approval orders. In 2017, Mastercard recorded a
provision for litigation of $15 million related to this matter.

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

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set in November
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court has scheduled
a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement of the
"Damage Class" in November 2019.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in the
complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of these
complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state law.

The complaints allege, among other things, that Mastercard, Visa,
and certain financial institutions conspired to set the price of
interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including
the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged
in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and services.

The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No.
1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint
that seeks treble damages.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard’s initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO")
and certain purported agreements entered into between Mastercard
and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate
U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance
because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release,
without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to assess them
for Mastercard's litigation liabilities.

The class plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief
including, but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the
IPO.

In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions.  

The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and
liabilities which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial
institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of
an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the
merchant litigations.  

Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the
event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the
financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard would pay 12% of
the monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a
settlement involving only Mastercard and the financial institutions
with respect to their issuance of Mastercard cards, Mastercard
would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs.

The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among
the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and
settlement sharing agreement described above. Mastercard also
agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in
default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its
business practices, including its "no surcharge" rule.

The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In June 2016, the court of appeals vacated the class action
certification, reversed the settlement approval and sent the case
back to the district court for further proceedings. The court of
appeals' ruling was based primarily on whether the merchants were
adequately represented by counsel in the settlement.

As a result of the appellate court ruling, the district court
divided the merchants' claims into two separate classes - monetary
damages claims (the "Damages Class") and claims seeking changes to
business practices (the "Rules Relief Class"). The court appointed
separate counsel for each class.

Prior to the reversal of the settlement approval, merchants
representing slightly more than 25% of the Mastercard and Visa
purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out of the
class settlement.

Mastercard had anticipated that most of the larger merchants who
opted out of the settlement would initiate separate actions seeking
to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out complaints have been filed
on behalf of numerous merchants in various jurisdictions.
Mastercard has executed settlement agreements with a number of
opt-out merchants.

Mastercard believes these settlement agreements are not impacted by
the ruling of the court of appeals. The defendants have
consolidated all of these matters in front of the same federal
district court that approved the merchant class settlement. In July
2014, the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
the opt-out merchant complaints for failure to state a claim.

In September 2018, the parties to the Damages Class litigation
entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve the Damages
Class claims. Mastercard increased its reserve by $237 million
during 2018 to reflect both its expected financial obligation under
the Damages Class settlement agreement and the filed and
anticipated opt-out merchant cases.

In January 2019, the district court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement and authorized notice of the
settlement to class members. Damages Class members will now have
the opportunity to opt out of the class settlement agreement. If
more than 25% of the merchant purchase volume opts out of the
settlement, the defendants would have the option to terminate the
settlement agreement.

The court has scheduled a final approval hearing in November 2019.
The settlement agreement does not relate to the Rules Relief Class
claims. Separate settlement negotiations with the Rules Relief
Class are ongoing.

As of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, Mastercard had accrued a
liability of $916 million and $915 million, respectively, as a
reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and
anticipated opt-out merchant cases.

As of June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, Mastercard had $662
million and $553 million, respectively, in a qualified cash
settlement fund related to the merchant class litigation and
classified as restricted cash on its consolidated balance sheet.
During the first quarter of 2019, Mastercard increased its
qualified cash settlement fund by $108 million in accordance with
the January 2019 preliminary approval of the settlement.

Mastercard believes the reserve for both the merchant class
litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchants
represents its best estimate of its probable liabilities in these
matters. The portion of the accrued liability relating to both the
opt-out merchants and the merchant class litigation settlement does
not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the matters were
litigated to a final outcome. Mastercard cannot estimate the
potential liability if that were to occur.

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

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Shift Fraud Liability Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend itself against a merchant class action suit involving
conspiracy to shift fraud liability.

In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was
filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard,
Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"),
EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants")
engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present
transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance
with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the
"EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and
California law.

Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for
which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability
Shift on October 1, 2015. The plaintiffs seek treble damages,
attorney's fees and costs and an injunction against future
violations of governing law, and the defendants have filed a motion
to dismiss.

In September 2016, the court denied the Network Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and
the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the court transferred the case to
New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S.
merchant class interchange litigation.

The plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion for class certification,
following the district court's denial of their initial motion.

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

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: Suits over ATM Surcharge Fees Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company expects
briefing on class certification in the class action lawsuits
related to ATM Surcharge Fees to be completed before the end of
2019 in both actions.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard
and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM
terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to
determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they
operate.

Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to
charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed
over Mastercard's and Visa's respective networks that are not
greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks
accepted at the same ATM.  

Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble
the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged
violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  

Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege
that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.


Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  

The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in
the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages
on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated
ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the
defendants’ ATM rules.  

Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble
the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged
violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they allege
that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.


In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and sent
the case back for further proceedings.

Mastercard expects briefing on class certification to be completed
before the end of 2019 in both actions.

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MASTERCARD INC: TCPA Class Suit in Florida Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") class action suit in Florida is still
stayed.

Mastercard is a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") class action pending in Florida.

The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege that
approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them
advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas
Bank ("FAB").

The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax.
Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has
notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has
disputed).

In June 2018, the court granted Mastercard's motion to stay the
proceedings until the Federal Communications Commission makes a
decision on the application of the TCPA to online fax services.

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

Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


MDL 2492: Adams Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Ricky Adams, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02567 (Filed
June 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 2, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-05132 the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
student-athletes.

The Adams case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

MDL 2492: Belcha Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Daniel Belcha and Johnny Johnson, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01883 (Filed May 9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Aug. 2, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05125 the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
student-athletes.

The Belcha case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

MDL 2492: Goins Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Harvey Goins, Jr., individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02565 (Filed June 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Aug. 2, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05131 the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
student-athletes.

The Goins case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

MDL 2492: Grant Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Andrew Grant, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02208 (Filed
June 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 2, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-05128 the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
student-athletes.

The Grant case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

MDL 2492: Jones Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Erik Jones, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02564 (Filed
June 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 2, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-05130 the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
student-athletes.

The Jones case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

MDL 2492: Kubik Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Brad Kubik, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01884 (Filed
May 9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 2, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-05126 the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
student-athletes.

The Kubik case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

MDL 2492: Simmons Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Christopher Simmons, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-02209 (Filed June 3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Aug. 2, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05129 the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
student-athletes.

The Simmons case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

MDL 2818: Court OKs Leave to File Supplemental Authority
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Order granting Defendants'
Motion for Leave to File a Notice of Supplemental Authority in the
case captioned IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS AIR CONDITIONING MARKETING AND
SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION This Document Relates to ALL CASES. Case
No. 18-md-2818, MDL No. 2818.

The Defendants filed a Motion for Leave to File a Notice of
Supplemental Authority in support of their Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Mas Class Action Complaint.
After considering the Motion, accompanying papers, and any response
thereto,

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4gyn7rb from Leagle.com.

Mohamed Tangara, Thomas L Brennan, Lauren Heiser & Christopher
Humpherys, Plaintiffs, represented by Bryan L. Clobes, CAFFERTY
CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP, 205 N Monroe St., Media, PA
19063, Christopher Phillip Taylor Tourek, Bock & Hatch LLC, 134 N.
LaSalle. Suite 1000. Chicago, IL 60602, E. Powell Miller --
epm@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, Joseph G. Sauder, Sauder
Schelkopf LLC, 555 Lancaster Ave. Berwyn, PA 19312, Patrick E.
Cafferty, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, 205 N Monroe
St., Media, PA 19063, Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@millaw.law -The
Miller Law Firm, P.C. & William Kalas WK@miller.law -- The Miller
Law Firm, P.C.

General Motors LLC & General Motors Company, Defendants,
represented by Daniel J. LaCombe – dlacombe@bsdd.com -- Barris,
Sott, Mark S. Cheffo -- mark.cheffo@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP,
Amisha Patel -- amisha.patel@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, Hayden A.
Coleman -- hayden.coleman@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP & Michelle
Yeary -- michelle.yeary@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP.

General Motors Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark S.
Cheffo, Dechert LLP, Amisha Patel, Dechert LLP, Hayden A. Coleman,
Dechert LLP & Michelle Yeary, Dechert LLP.


MERIWETHER COUNTY, GA: Barbee Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
David Barbee, on behalf of himself and other non-exempt Emergency
Medical Technicians and former employees similarly situated v.
Meriwether County Georgia, Case No. 3:19-cv-00045 (N.D. Ga., May
10, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff overtime pay at
the statutory rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular
rate for those hours worked in excess of forty hours per work week
and has failed to maintain proper time records mandated by the
FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt Emergency
Medical Technician and performed related activities for Defendant
in Meriwether County, Georgia from at least May 2016 and continuing
through June 2017.

Meriwether County is a county located in the west central portion
of the U.S. state of Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Tel: (954) 967-5377
      Fax: (954) 327-3013
      E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


METLIFE INC: Sept. 16 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the MetLife Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
                                
CITY OF WESTLAND POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually
and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,

vs.                   
METLIFE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00256-LAK
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
     
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED METLIFE, INC. COMMON
STOCK IN THE AUGUST 3, 2010 OFFERING OR THE MARCH 4, 2011 OFFERING
AND ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
METLIFE, INC. COMMON STOCK BETWEEN FEBRUARY 9, 2011, AFTER THE
PUBLICATION OF METLIFE, INC.'S FOURTH QUARTER AND FULL YEAR 2010
RESULTS, AND OCTOBER 6, 2011,INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE DAMAGED BY
DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, that the above-captioned securities class
action lawsuit (the "Litigation") is currently pending against the
Defendants before the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, United States
District Judge, Southern District of New York.

Two plaintiff classes (the "Classes") were certified by the Court.

One class, the Securities Act of 1933 class (the "1933 Act Class"),
includes all persons who purchased or acquired MetLife common stock
in the Company's August 3, 2010 Offering or the Company's March 4,
2011 Offering (the "Offerings"). Excluded from the 1933 Act Class
are: (i) Defendants and their families; (ii) the officers and
directors of MetLife at all relevant times; (iii) members of their
immediate families; (iv) their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns; and (v) any entity in which Defendants have
or had a controlling interest.

Another class, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 class (the "1934
Act Class"), includes all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired MetLife common stock between February 9, 2011,
after the publication of MetLife's fourth quarter and full year
2010 results, and October 6, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
and who were damaged by Defendants' alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Excluded from the 1934 Act Class
are: (i) MetLife; (ii) the Individual Defendants; (iii) the
Underwriter Defendants; (iv) the members of the immediate families
of each Individual Defendant; (v) any entity in which any Defendant
has a controlling interest; (vi) the officers and directors of
MetLife; and (vii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns of any such excluded party.

The Court has directed that notice of the Court's certification of
the Litigation as a class action on behalf of the Classes be
provided to such persons and entities. No resolution of the
Litigation has yet been reached. There is no money available now
and no guarantee that there will be.

If you purchased or acquired MetLife common stock in the August 3,
2010 Offering, the March 4, 2011 Offering, or during the Class
Period, you may be a "Class Member" and your rights may be affected
by this Litigation. If you have not received a copy of the detailed
"Notice of Pendency of Class Action," you may obtain a copy by
contacting the Notice Administrator at: MetLife Securities
Litigation, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 404152, Louisville, KY,
40233-4152, or by calling 1-888-300-1049, or by downloading a copy
at www.MetLifeSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member
and did not receive the Notice by mail, please send your name and
address to the Notice Administrator so that if any future notices
are disseminated in connection with the Litigation, you will
receive them.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Court-appointed Class Counsel:

                   Shawn A. Williams
                ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
                       & DOWD LLP
                Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
                San Francisco, CA 94104
                Telephone: 800/449-4900
                    www.rgrdlaw.com

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Classes. If you choose to remain a member of
the Classes, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions in MetLife
common stock. You will automatically
be included in the applicable Class, and you will be bound by the
proceedings in this Litigation, including all past, present and
future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or
unfavorable.

If you are a Class Member and do not wish to remain a member of the
Classes, you must take steps to exclude yourself from the Classes.
To exclude yourself from the Classes, you must submit a written
request for exclusion to the Notice Administrator postmarked no
later than September 16, 2019, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the mailed Notice. If you choose
to exclude yourself, you cannot get money or benefits recovered if
any are awarded at a later date.

This Notice is only a summary. For more information visit
www.MetLifeSecuritiesLitigation.com or call 1-800-449-4900.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: June 17, 2019           BY ORDER OF THE COURT
                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
                                

1 "Defendants" include MetLife, Inc. ("MetLife" or the "Company"),
C. Robert Henrikson, William J. Wheeler, Peter M. Carlson, Steven
A. Kandarian, William J. Mullaney, Sylvia Matthews Burwell, Eduardo
Castro-Wright, Cheryl W. Grise, R. Glenn Hubbard, John M. Keane,
Alfred F. Kelly, Jr., James M. Kilts, Catherine R. Kinney, Hugh B.
Price, David Satcher, Kenton J. Sicchitano and Lulu C. Wang (the
"Individual Defendants"). For purposes of this Notice, the term
"MetLife" includes MetLife, Inc., its subsidiaries and/or
affiliates, or any of them. Defendants also include Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC, HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (the
"Underwriter Defendants").

2 The allegations under the Securities Exchange Act are asserted
only against MetLife, Inc. and the Individual Defendants.


MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Baten Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Michigan Logistics, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Randy Baten v. Michigan
Logistics, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-10229-GW-MRW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The nature of suit is stated as other labor litigation.

The appellate case is captioned as Randy Baten v. Michigan
Logistics, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-55865, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 26, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on September 23, 2019;

   -- Appellants Larry Browne, California Logistics, Inc.,
      Michigan Logistics, Inc. and Western Delivery and
      Logistics, LLC's opening brief is due on November 4, 2019;

   -- Appellee Randy Baten's answering brief is due on
      December 4, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee RANDY BATEN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Rachel Bien, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4050
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (323) 673-9000
          E-mail: rmb@outtengolden.com

Defendants-Appellants MICHIGAN LOGISTICS, INC., DBA Diligent
Delivery Systems; CALIFORNIA LOGISTICS, INC., DBA Diligent Delivery
Systems; WESTERN DELIVERY AND LOGISTICS, LLC, DBA Diligent Delivery
Systems; and LARRY BROWNE are represented by:

          Steven A. Groode, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          E-mail: sgroode@littler.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Garafola Suit Moved to E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
The case, Lynnann Garafola on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 604554/2019, was removed from the
Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Central Islip) on Aug. 2, 2019. The
Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-04446 to the proceeding. The suit demands $501,000 in
damages. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Act.

Midland Credit was founded in 1953. The company's line of business
includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively
short periods.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Midland Credit Management, Inc. are:

          Dana Brett Briganti, Esq.
          Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com
                  esilverman@hinshawlaw.com

NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Court Extends Page Limit of Dismissal Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, issued an Order extending the Page
Limit for Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Lead Plaintiffs’
Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the case captioned IN RE
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS SECURITIES LITIGATION. Case No.
4:18-cv-06607-HSG. (N.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, Lead Plaintiffs Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and El   Lead Plaintiffs
filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of
the Federal Securities Laws  against Defendants.

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation extending Defendants' deadline
to respond to the Complaint, Defendants' motion to dismiss is due
by August 2, 2019.

Because of the length and nature of the Complaint which spans 74
pages and 203 paragraphs, concerns dozens of challenged statements,
and asserts claims against seven defendants with potentially
differing bases for dismissal, efendants request an additional 10
pages for their memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss in
order to allow for a more complete discussion of numerous
complicated issues related to Lead Plaintiffs' claims.

The Lead Plaintiffs do not oppose an extension of the page limit
for the Defendants' memorandum in support of their motion to
dismiss to 35 pages.

The Defendants do not oppose a corresponding extension of the page
limit for Lead Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to Defendants'
motion to dismiss to 35 pages.

The Defendants' memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss
will not exceed 35 pages.
Lead Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to Defendants' motion to
dismiss will not exceed 35 pages and Defendants' reply in support
of its motion to dismiss will not exceed 15 pages.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Memorandum
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4sycfgd from
Leagle.com.

John Mulquin, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice
& Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Nektar Therapeutics, Howard W. Robin & Gil Labrucherie, Defendants,
represented by Sara B. Brody -- SBRODY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin
LLP, Alison Fiona Dame-Boyle -- adameboyle@sidley.com -- Sidley
Austin, Matthew James Dolan -- MDOLAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin
LLP & Robin Eve Wechkin -- RWECHKIN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin
LLP, pro hac vice.

John Nicholson, Stephen K Doberstein, Mary Tagliaferri, Jonathan
Zalevsky & Ivan P Gergel, Defendants, represented by Sara B. Brody
-- SBRODY@SIDLEY.COM- Sidley Austin LLP & Robin Eve Wechkin, Sidley
Austin LLP.

Lynn Ronnebaum, Movant, represented by Adam Marc Apton --
aapton@zlk.com -- Levi Korsinsky, LLP.


OASMIA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Mikhlin Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK MIKHLIN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OASMIA PHARMACEUTICAL AB, JULIAN ALEKSOV, MIKAEL ASP,
ANDERS LUNDIN, FREDRIK GYNNERSTEDT, and ANDERS BLOM, Case No.
1:19-cv-04349 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2019), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On June 28, 2019, Oasmia issued a press release that stated it was
reporting suspicious transactions made between Oasmia and Alceco
International S.A. and Ardenia Investment LTD to the Swedish
Economic Crime Authority and appointing a special examiner to
review them.  On this news, shares of Oasmia fell $0.319 per share,
or almost 24%, to close at $1.021 per share on June 28, 2019,
damaging investors, including the Plaintiff.

Alceco, a company controlled by Defendant Julian Aleksov and
Aleksov's former father-in-law, Bo Cederstrand ("Cederstrand"), who
was a Board member of the Company at that time.  Ardenia Investment
LTD ("Ardenia") is another company controlled by Aleksov and
Cederstrand.  Mr. Aleksov is the the founder and former Chief
Executive Officer of the Company.

Oasmia is incorporated in Sweden and its principal executive
offices are located in Uppsala, Sweden.  The Company's American
Depository Shares ("ADSs") have traded on the NASDAQ Capital Market
("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "OASM" since October 23, 2015.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

Oasmia purports to be a pharmaceutical company focused on
innovative treatments within human and animal oncology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com


OASMIA PHARMACEUTICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 31
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Oasmia Pharmaceutical AB (NASDAQ:
OASM) from October 23, 2015 through July 9, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Oasmia
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Oasmia class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1620.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Oasmia engaged in improper related-party transactions
with Alceco International S.A. and Ardenia Investment LTD, which
were controlled by Defendant Aleksov and his former father-in-law;
(2) due to those transactions, millions of Swedish kronor were not
accounted for in Oasmia's books; (3) transactions concerning
Oasmia's patents were also "carried out in a doubtful way;" and (4)
as a result of the aforementioned misconduct, defendants'
statements about Oasmia's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
27, 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://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1620.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. [GN]


OOMA INC: Oct. 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Ooma Securities Litigation:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

In re OOMA, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.        

Lead Case No. CIV536959
CLASS ACTION

Complex Case Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Gerald J. Buchwald,
Dept. 10

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED OOMA, INC. ("OOMA"
OR THE TO: "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE
COMPANY'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN
CONNECTION WITH OOMA'S JULY 17, 2015 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ("IPO"
OR "JULY 2015 IPO")

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on October 18,
2019, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Gerald J. Buchwald at the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Department 10,
400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, to determine whether:
(1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the
above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement ("Stipulation")^2 for $8,650,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the
Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (3)
to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of
the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below)
and, if so, in what amount; (4) to pay Plaintiffs for representing
the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount;
and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable and adequate.

This Action is a consolidated securities class action brought on
behalf of those persons who purchased or acquired Ooma common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
for Ooma's IPO, against Ooma and certain of its officers and
directors and the IPO's underwriters (collectively, "Defendants")
for, among other things, allegedly misstating and omitting material
facts from the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the IPO.
Plaintiffs allege that these purportedly false and misleading
statements inflated the price of the Company's stock, resulting in
damage to Class Members when the truth was revealed. Defendants
deny all of Plaintiffs'
allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED OOMA COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JULY 17,
2015 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JANUARY 14, 2016, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than October
14, 2019) or electronically (no later than October 14, 2019). Your
failure to submit your Proof of Claim by October 14, 2019, will
subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of
the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If
you are a member of the Class and do not request exclusion
therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and
release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the
Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement
documents, online at www.OomaSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by
writing to:

                    Ooma Securities Litigation Settlement
                            c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
                               P.O. Box 404146
                          Louisville, KY 40233-4146

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Class Counsel:

                       ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
                            Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
                        655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
                             San Diego, CA 92101
                           Telephone: 800/449-4900

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY SEPTEMBER 13,
2019, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS
OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL
BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY
PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE
PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFFS FOR REPRESENTING THE CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS
MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO CLASS COUNSEL AND
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY SEPTEMBER 13, 2019, IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
THE HONORABLE GERALD J. BUCHWALD

DATED: June 24, 2019

For purposes of this Settlement only, the Class includes all
persons or

1 entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Ooma common stock on
or before January 14, 2016.

2 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.OomaSecuritiesLitigation.com.


PANASONIC CORP: Dec. 12 Resistor Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Settlements totaling approximately $33.4 million have been reached
with Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
KOA Corporation, KOA Speer Electronics, Inc., ROHM Co., Ltd., ROHM
Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Hokuriku Electric Industry Co., HDK
America, Inc., Kamaya Electric Co., Ltd., and Kamaya Inc.
(collectively, "Defendants").

Am I Included?
The Settlement Class, for all Settlement Agreements, is defined
as:

All persons and entities in the United States who purchased one or
more Linear Resistor(s), from a resistor distributor not for resale
which a Defendant, its current or former subsidiary, or any of its
co-conspirators manufactured and/or sold, between January 1, 2003,
and August 20, 2015. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their
parent companies, subsidiaries and Affiliates, any co-conspirators,
Defendants' attorneys in this case, federal government entities and
instrumentalities, states and their subdivisions, all judges
assigned to this case, all jurors in this case and all persons and
entities who directly purchased Linear Resistors from Defendants.

What do the Settlements provide?
The combined Settlement Fund from these Settlements is $33,400,000.
After deduction of attorneys' fees, notice and administration
costs, and litigation expenses, as approved by the Court, the
remaining Settlement Fund will be available for distribution to
eligible Class Members that file timely, valid claims.

How can I get a payment?
In order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlements
you must submit a valid Claim Form no later than November 12, 2019.
You may submit a Claim Form either online or by mail. Both options
are available at the website www.linearresistorsindirectcase.com.

When will I get a payment?
Payments from the Settlements will not be distributed until the
Court grants final approval of the Settlements, any objections or
appeals are resolved, and all claims have been processed and
verified. Updates will be provided on the Settlements' website at
www.linearresistorsindirectcase.com.

What are my rights?
In order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlements
you must submit a timely, valid Claim Form. Even if you do nothing,
you will be bound by the Court's decisions concerning these
Settlements. If you want to keep your right to sue one or more of
the Settling Defendants regarding Linear Resistor purchases, you
must exclude yourself in writing from the Settlement Class by
September 17, 2019. If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may
object in writing to the Settlements by September 17, 2019. The
Settlement Agreements, along with details on how to exclude
yourself or object, are available at
www.linearresistorsindirectcase.com. The U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California will hold a hearing on December
12, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 11,
19th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102, to consider whether to finally
approve the Settlements. Class Counsel may also request attorneys'
fees of up to 30% of the Settlement Funds, plus reimbursement of
costs and expenses not to exceed $2,165,820.00 for investigating
the facts, litigating the case, negotiating the Settlements,
providing notice to the Classes, and/or settlement administration.
You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your
own expense, but you don't have to. The hearing may be moved to a
different date or time without additional notice, so it is a good
idea to check the above-noted website for additional information.
The Court has appointed the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,
LLP to represent Indirect Purchaser Class members. Please do not
contact the Court about this case.

For More Information: 888-209-5181 /
www.linearresistorsindirectcase.com


PETMED EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Fischler Class Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
PetMed Express, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit in New York entitled, Brian Fischler,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. PetMed Express, Inc.; Case No. 19-cv-02391.

In January 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed by a
different individual in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that company's website,
www.1800petmeds.com, does not comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City
Human Rights Law, and discriminates against visually impaired
individuals.

The Plaintiff named a New York corporation named Pet Meds Inc.,
which is not related or affiliated with the Company, as the
defendant. However, the Plaintiff has sought to remedy that error
by requesting leave to file an amended complaint naming the
Company, which request the Court granted on April 9, 2019.

On April 18, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiff's request to
transfer the case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, where it is currently pending.

The matter is styled Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. PetMed Express, Inc.; Case
No. 19-cv-02391.

The Company denies any wrongdoing and it intends to vigorously
defend itself against such allegations.

PetMed said, "At this early juncture, the Company can neither
accurately predict the likelihood of an unfavorable or adverse
outcome nor provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential
loss, if any."

PetMed Express, Inc. and its subsidiaries, doing business as
1-800-PetMeds, operates as a pet pharmacy in the United States. The
company markets prescription and non-prescription pet medications,
and other health products for dogs and cats directly to the
consumers. PetMed Express, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Delray Beach, Florida.


PETMED EXPRESS: Reid ADA Class Action Underway in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
PetMed Express, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Valentin Reid, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. PetMed Express, Inc.

The Company is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit,
filed in May 2019, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York seeking injunctive and monetary
relief styled Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. PetMed Express, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-4169,
alleging that the Company's website, www.1800petmeds.com, does not
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State
Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law, and
discriminates against visually impaired individuals.

The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend
itself against such allegations. At this stage, the company can
neither accurately predict the likelihood of an unfavorable or
adverse outcome nor provide an estimate of the amount or range of
potential loss, if any.

PetMed Express, Inc. and its subsidiaries, doing business as
1-800-PetMeds, operates as a pet pharmacy in the United States. The
company markets prescription and non-prescription pet medications,
and other health products for dogs and cats directly to the
consumers. PetMed Express, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Delray Beach, Florida.


PFIZER: Insurance Exclusions Did Not Preclude Settlement Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven A. Meyerowitz, writing for Law.com, reports that a Delaware
court has ruled that exclusions in insurance policies issued to
Pfizer Inc. did not preclude coverage for the $568 million it
agreed to pay to settle a securities fraud class action.

The case
In December 2004, Philip Morabito sued Pfizer and Henry A.
McKinnell, then Pfizer's board chair and chief executive officer,
on behalf of those who purchased Pfizer's common stock between
November 1, 2000 and December 16, 2004 (class period). The suit
alleged two claims under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934:
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act and
the rules promulgated thereunder.

On or about March 27, 2012, an amended complaint was filed that
revised the causes of action, named four additional individual
defendants (who were directors, officers, and employees of Pfizer),
and amended the class period to October 31, 2000 through October
19, 2005. The amended complaint alleged that Pfizer and the
individual defendants had made false representations and omissions
regarding the cardiovascular risks associated with two of Pfizer's
drugs: Celebrex and Bextra.

On December 21, 2016, the district court granted final approval of
a settlement of the class action pursuant to which Pfizer agreed to
pay $486 million on behalf of itself and the individual defendants.
In addition to the settlement award, Pfizer, on behalf of all
defendants, incurred more than $82 million in defense costs.

Arch Insurance Company and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company, which
had issued excess directors and officers ("D&O") insurance policies
to Pfizer, denied coverage for the class action, claiming that
coverage was barred by exclusions in the insurance policy issued to
Pfizer by its primary carrier, National Union Fire Insurance Co.,
to which their policies generally "followed form."

That was so, the insurers argued, that the D&O policies' exclusions
precluded coverage because the class action was either a claim
"arising out of…" or shared "as a common nexus any fact,
circumstance…" with Garber v. Pharmacia Corp., a securities fraud
class action lawsuit brought by shareholders of Pharmacia
Corporation (which Pfizer acquired in April 2003) who purportedly
incurred financial losses as a result of false and misleading
statements regarding Celebrex's gastrointestinal health risks.

Pfizer asked a Delaware court to declare that the insurers were
obligated to pay for the costs it incurred in connection with the
defense and settlement of the Morabito class action.

The parties moved for summary judgment.

The insurers posited that because the Morabito action and the
Garber action contained overlapping and common allegations
regarding Pfizer's and Pharmacia's allegedly fraudulent
misrepresentations and omissions concerning the safety of Celebrex,
the two actions were unquestionably related.

For its part, Pfizer contended that although the two actions
involved securities claims concerning the drug Celebrex, they were
unrelated for purposes of the D&O policies because they implicated
"different plaintiffs, different defendants, different alleged
harms, and different alleged wrongful conduct committed by
different people."

The exclusions
The "specific litigation exclusion" in the National Union policy,
which was similar to the specific litigation exclusions in the
insurers' policies, provided that the insurers were not liable for
any:

Loss in connection with any claim(s) alleging, arising out of,
based upon, attributable to or in any way related directly or
indirectly . . .  to a related Breach of Fiduciary Duty or a
related Wrongful Action alleged in a lawsuit entitled Robert L.
Garber v. Pharmacia.

The "related wrongful acts exclusion" precluded coverage for loss
in connection with claims made against an insured:

alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to the facts
alleged, or to the same or related Wrongful Acts alleged or
contained in any Claim which has been reported, or any
circumstances of which notice has been given, under any policy of
which this policy is a renewal or replacement or which it may
succeed in time.

The decision
The district court, applying Delaware law, granted Pfizer's motion,
ruling that the Morabito action and the Garber action were "not
fundamentally identical."

In its decision, the district court reasoned that although both
were class action lawsuits alleging securities violations, the two
actions did not cover the "same subject" and the exclusions,
therefore, did not preclude coverage. The district court pointed
out that the Garber case was brought by Pharmacia's shareholders
seeking redress for allegedly fraudulent and misleading statements
Pharmacia and its co-marketer Pfizer made regarding the
gastrointestinal health risks of Celebrex.

Specifically, the district court continued, the Garber plaintiffs
alleged that Pharmacia and Pfizer publicly misrepresented the
results of a study to create the impression that Celebrex users
"had fewer upper-GI toxic effects than those who took other
traditional NSAIDs" all-the-while knowing that the study as
originally designed did not demonstrate a superior GI safety
profile for Celebrex over traditional NSAIDs.

On the other hand, the district court observed, the Morabito
plaintiffs brought suit against Pfizer and some of its executives
for false representations and omissions regarding the
cardiovascular risks associated with Celebrex and another drug,
Bextra. Despite including the same study among the list of material
information the defendants in the Morabito action had access to,
the alleged market harm in the Morabito action stemmed specifically
from the defendants "repeatedly touting internal safety data which
they claimed demonstrated cardiovascular safety" while they "were
in possession of completed drug safety studies and other data and
information which documented the serious cardiovascular risks of
Celebrex and/or Bextra."

In short, the district court found, although there may be some
thematic similarities, the two actions were "truly, in all relevant
respects, different." It concluded that the wrongs alleged in the
Garber and Morabito actions involved "entirely distinct
misrepresentations of very different health risks associated with
Celebrex" and were "not fundamentally identical."

Therefore, the exclusions in the D&O policies did not excuse the
insurers' coverage obligations.

The case is Pfizer Inc. v. Arch Ins. Co. [GN]


RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Davies, et al Suit Moved to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Denise Davies and Colleen Shaw, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Raymours
Furniture Company, Inc.; Neil Goldberg; and Steven Goldberg, the
Defendants, Case No. 1973cv00635, was removed from the Bristol
Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston) on Aug. 2, 2019. The District of
Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-11669 to the
proceeding. The suit demands $25,000 in damages.

Raymours Furniture retails home furnishing products. The Company
provides furniture for the living room, bedroom, dining room, youth
bedroom, and home office.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Christopher Kaczmarek, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          One International Place, Suite 2700
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 378-6016
          Facsimile: (617) 507-8046
          E-mail: ckaczmarek@littler.com

REALOGY HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to make a motion for lead
plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
investors who purchased shares of Realogy Holdings Corp. ("Realogy"
or the "Company") (NYSE: RLGY) between February 24, 2017 and May
22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case alleges that
Realogy and/or its executives issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

If you purchased Realogy securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Realogy RLGY Shareholder
Class Action or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that (1) Realogy was engaged in anticompetitive behavior by
requiring property sellers to pay the commissions of a buyer's
broker at an inflated rate; (2) Realogy's anticompetitive actions
would prompt the U.S. Department of Justice to open an antitrust
investigation into the real estate industry's practices regarding
brokers' commissions; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements
about the Realogy's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

On this news, shares of Realogy fell by 9% or $0.71, to close at
$7.13 on May 23, 2019.

If you purchased RLGY securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit https://tinyurl.com/y6574dg6
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action, you
must move the court no later than September 9, 2019. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you
take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: http://www.bernlieb.com   
         Tel.No.: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Oct. 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND
(III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:   

All persons and entities who, during the period from March 26, 2015
through June 8, 2016, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of RH (formerly Restoration Hardware Holdings,
Inc.) (the "Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities who
are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the full
printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $50,000,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action.

A hearing will be held on October 22, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., before
the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers at Courtroom 1 of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301
Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, to determine whether: (1) the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated May 6, 2019 (and in
the Notice), should be granted; (3) the proposed Plan of Allocation
should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) the application
of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of 15% of the
Settlement Fund (or $7,500,000 plus interest) and payment of
litigation expenses of up to $950,000 from the Settlement Fund,
which may include the expenses of Lead Plaintiffs directly related
to their representation of the Class, should be approved.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator at RH Securities Litigation,
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173074, Milwaukee, WI  53217,
1-866-217-4456. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be
downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
RHSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked no later than October 8, 2019.  If you are a
Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than October 1, 2019, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than October 1, 2019, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, RH, or its
counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel: Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq., 2121 Avenue of the Stars,
Suite 2575, Los Angeles, CA 90067, (800) 380-8496,
settlements@blbglaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:  In re
RH, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box
173074, Milwaukee, WI 53217, (866) 217-4456 (toll free),
RHSecuritiesLitigation.com.

By Order of the Court


REVOLUTION LIGHTING: Court Consolidates Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Fred Remer's Motion to
Consolidate the Cases, be Appointed Lead Plaintiff, and have Faruqi
& Faruqi, LLP Approved as Lead Counsel in the cases captioned JAMES
GLAVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. REVOLUTION LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et
al., Defendants. CHRIS HUBNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REVOLUTION LIGHTING
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. BOB BISHOP, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
REVOLUTION LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. Nos.
19-CV-980 (JPO), 19-CV-2308 (JPO), 19-CV-2722 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff James Glavan filed a complaint on behalf of a class of
investors who acquired Revolution securities. The complaint alleges
that Revolution and three of its officers violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and that the officers are also liable as control
persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Consolidation

All three pending motions seek the consolidation of the Glavan,
Hubner, and Bishop actions. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
42(a)(2) permits consolidation where actions before the court
involve a common question of law or fact. In determining whether to
exercise its broad discretion3 to consolidate actions that satisfy
that baseline criterion, a court must ask whether the specific
risks of prejudice and possible confusion that could arise from
consolidation are overborne by the risk of inconsistent
adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on
parties, witnesses, and available judicial resources posed by
multiple lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude multiple
suits as against a single one, and the relative expense to all
concerned.

The Court easily concludes that consolidation is warranted here. No
party has opposed consolidation, and all three actions assert
identical claims against identical defendants on behalf of an
identical plaintiff class on the basis of almost identical factual
allegations. Nothing would be gained by litigating these cases
separately, and indeed, taking such a course would be inefficient
and would raise the risk of inconsistent outcomes.

The Court therefore orders the consolidation of these three
actions.

Lead Plaintiff

The PSLRA tasks the court overseeing a private securities class
action with appointing as lead plaintiff the member or members of
the purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most
capable of adequately representing the interest of class members.

Here, all three contenders for lead plaintiff have filed timely
motions, and no class member has suggested that any of the movants
are incapable of representing the class or are subject to unique
defenses. The Court will therefore appoint as lead plaintiff the
movant with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by
the class.

While the PSLRA does not provide any explicit guidance about how to
calculate the size of a given plaintiff's financial interest,
courts in this Circuit have traditionally examined four factors:
(1) the number of shares purchased during the class period (2) the
number of net shares purchased during the class period (3) the
total net funds expended during the class period and (4) the
approximate loss suffered during the class period.

Based on these factors, Detroit P&F is out of the running from the
get-go. In its own account, Detroit P&F's maximum damages are
$393,624.84. But both the Grahams and Remer have claimed losses
that well exceed this figure  and Detroit P&F has offered no
rebuttal. The Court therefore concludes that Detroit P&F does not
have the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the
class and so is ineligible to serve as lead plaintiff here.

This leaves the Grahams and Remer. As for the Grahams, between the
two of them, they acquired 301,286 Revolution shares from July 26,
2018, to September 28, 2018, for a sum total of $1,008,289.69.
Because those shares were worth only $177,860.87 as of the end of
the class period on November 14, 2018, the Grahams claim losses of
$830,428.82.  

Remer's story is more complicated. At the time the class period
began, Remer already held 11,940 Revolution shares, which he had
purchased for a total of $497,737.11. Then, during the class
period, Remer acquired 511,517 more shares, for a total cost of
$3,157,547.63, and sold a total of 423,457 shares, thereby
recouping a total of $2,287,618.82. (See Dkt. No. 24-3 at 11.) When
the dust had settled by the end of the class period, Remer was left
holding 100,000 shares, which were worth $622,248.66 less than he
had paid for them.

In comparing the Grahams and Remer, the Court observes that two of
the first three factors used to assess the size of a would-be lead
plaintiff's financial stake in the litigation favor the Grahams.
Although Remer purchased more total shares during the class period
511,517 shares, to the Grahams' 301,286 the Grahams acquired a
greater net total 301,286 shares, to Remer's 88,060.4 And by
forking out a total of $1,008,289.69 during the class period, the
Grahams spent more than the net $869,928.81 that Remer went out of
pocket. But because these factors favor the Grahams only
marginally, the Court focuses its attention on the final factor,
i.e., the parties' respective losses.  

As noted above, the Grahams' claimed losses are easily calculated.
The Grahams spent $1,008,289.69 on Revolution shares from July 26,
2018, to September 28, 2018, but after a subsequent series of
corrective disclosures alleged to have occurred from October 17,
2018, to November 14, 2018, the value of those shares had dropped
to $177,860.87. Accordingly, the Grahams' claimed losses are
$830,428.82.

Remer's calculations are trickier. In particular, because Remer
both bought and sold Revolution shares during the class period, he
not only suffered losses as a result of the hit Revolution's share
prices took after the alleged fraud was revealed to the investing
public, but also potentially enjoyed gains as a result of sales he
made during the time that Revolution's stock was artificially
overvalued. Remer's total losses, then, must be offset by any such
gains.

The Court has evaluated Remer's submissions and determined that he
has, within a trivial margin of error, correctly calculated the
losses associated with the identified sales when those losses are
assessed on a LIFO basis. The remaining question, then, is whether
those sales, and their corresponding losses, can plausibly be tied
to the alleged fraud. And the answer to that question, in turn,
depends on whether the September 22, 2017, and August 2, 2018
disclosures to which Remer seeks to tie the $623,687.34 in losses
derived from these sales were sufficiently revelatory of the
alleged fraud to establish a causal link between the fraud and the
losses.

Critically, though, the Grahams themselves accept the September 22,
2017, and August 2, 2018 disclosures as corrective disclosures for
purposes of loss calculation.  And even though it may turn out,
upon development of the facts, that not all of Remer's claimed
share-sale losses were indeed causally linked to the alleged fraud,
the record at this early stage in the litigation offers the Court
no reason to believe any portion of the claimed $623,687.34 figure
is clearly not recoverable.

The Court therefore accepts Remer's claimed figure of $1,245,936
($622,248.66 from shares Remer bought during the class period and
held through the end of the class period, plus $623,687.34 from
shares Remer bought and sold during the class period) as the
measure of Remer's total potentially recoverable financial loss.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Remer is the movant with the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class.

Because the Court has no reason to doubt that he otherwise
satisfies the PSLRA's requirements, the Court appoints him as lead
plaintiff in this action.

Lead Counsel

Under the PSLRA, the lead plaintiff is entitled, subject to the
approval of the court, to select and retain counsel to represent
the class. Remer, whom the Court has now appointed lead plaintiff,
has chosen Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (Faruqi) to serve as lead counsel.
Faruqi has extensive experience in securities fraud litigation and
no class member has offered any reason why Faruqi would be
ill-equipped to act as lead counsel in this consolidated action.
This Court therefore concludes, as have other courts in this
District, that Faruqi has the requisite experience necessary to
serve as lead counsel, and thus will be able to effectively
prosecute the consolidated action.

Fred Remer's motion to consolidate these three related cases, to be
appointed as lead plaintiff, and to have Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
approved as lead counsel is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyxndn3q from Leagle.com.

James Glavan, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Bob Bishop, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Frank
Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Xinying Gong, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.
Patrick Graham & Wendy Graham, Movants, represented by Phillip C.
Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A.

Russell Hopewell & Craig Holman, Movants, represented by Thomas
James McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna &
Egleston.

Chris Hubner, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman  --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Movant,
represented by Peter S. Linden -- plinden@kmllp.com -- Kirby
McInerney LLP.

Fred Remer, Movant, represented by Richard William Gonnello --
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Megan Marie
Sullivan -- msullivan@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP &
Sherief Morsy -- smorsy@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.


RITE AID: Howell Suit Moved to District of Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------
The case, John Howell, Individually and on Behlaf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Rite Aid of Connecticut,
Inc. and Maxi Drug Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
HHD-CV-19-6114418-S, was removed from Connecticut Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New
Haven) on Aug. 2, 2019. The District of Connecticut Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01196 to the proceeding.

Rite Aid of Connecticut, Inc. provides healthcare services. The
Company offers pharmacy services, wellness programs, and other
related services, as well as renders retail sale of prescription
and proprietary drugs, beauty and personal care products, and
vitamins and supplements.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Cody Nolan Guarnieri, Esq.
          BROWN PAINDIRIS & SCOTT LLP - HTFD
          100 Pearl Street, Suite 1100
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 522-3343
          Facsimile: (860) 533-2490
          E-mail: cguarnieri@bpslawyers.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Elizabeth R. McKenna, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.- NH, CT
          One Century Tower, Suite 300
          265 Church Street
          New Haven, CT 06510
          Telephone: (203) 974-8714
          Facsimile: (203) 974-8799
          E-mail: Emckenna@littler.com

RUBY RECEPTIONISTS: Law Firms Lose Bid for Summary Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon issued
an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment in the case captioned MCKENZIE LAW FIRM, P.A., and OLIVER
LAW OFFICES, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. RUBY RECEPTIONISTS, INC., Defendant. Case
No. 3:18-cv-01921-SI. (D. Or.).

The Plaintiffs are two relatively small law firms. They bring this
putative class action lawsuit against Ruby Receptionists, Inc.
(Ruby), a company that provides virtual receptionist services to
small businesses, including law firms. The Plaintiffs are former
clients of Ruby. They assert claims of breach of contract, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and money had and received accounting.

The Plaintiffs move for summary judgment only on the issue of
liability on their claim of breach of contract. They argue that the
standard form integration agreements, here, the Service Agreement
and the Terms and Conditions, are plain and unambiguous about
Ruby's obligation to provide a fixed amount of monthly receptionist
time at a fixed price. They also argue that there is no genuine
dispute of fact that Ruby's practices involve rounding up to the
nearest 30-second increment when billing.

This practice, the Plaintiffs argue, breaches the contract and
shortchanges the Plaintiffs for the amount of receptionist time for
which they contracted. So too, the Plaintiffs argue, does the
Defendant's practice of billing for time that a receptionist has
placed a call on hold. The Defendant responds that the contract is
ambiguous about how receptionist minutes are calculated and billed,
and points to extrinsic evidence and prevailing industry standards
as evidence that its method of calculating minutes and billing
clients is not a breach of the contract terms.

In a diversity case, although federal law governs the procedures
followed, including the summary judgment standard, state law
provides the relevant substantive law. The Terms and Conditions of
the contract provides: The laws and jurisdiction of the state of
Oregon shall govern any and all matters of dispute between Ruby and
Client. Accordingly, the Court looks to Oregon law for guidance in
interpreting the relevant contract provisions.

Contract Interpretation Under Oregon Law

Under Oregon law, the primary objective for any Court interpreting
a contract is to give effect to the parties' agreed-upon
intentions. Oregon courts have established a three-step process for
interpreting contracts.  

First, a court must determine whether the relevant contract
provision is ambiguous.In considering whether a contractual
provision is ambiguous, a court is limited to considering only the
plain meaning of the words used by the parties in their contract
and any extrinsic evidence showing the circumstances under which
the contract was made. If the wording of a contractual provision
can, in context, reasonably be given more than one plausible
interpretation," it is ambiguous as a matter of law.
  
When a contractual provision is ambiguous, however, the court
proceeds to the second step in the Yogman (Yogman v. Parrott, 325
Or. 358, 361 (1997)) analysis.

At the second step, the trier of fact must look beyond the four
corners of the agreement to determine the parties' mutual
intention, if a mutual and common intention in fact existed. At the
second step, the trier of fact examines extrinsic evidence of the
contracting parties' intent and construes the disputed contractual
provision consistent with that intent, if such a resolution can be
determined.

Absent evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to aid the trier
of fact in determining the parties' intent, or if the contract
remains ambiguous even after considering that evidence, the third
step is to apply any relevant maxims of construction.When a
contractual provision is ambiguous, determining its meaning at
steps two and three of the Yogman analysis is generally a question
of fact not appropriate for resolution at summary judgment. Oregon
courts have emphasized that it is not the ambiguity of a contract
per se that makes summary judgment inappropriate, but that the
ambiguity represents a dispute over a genuine issue of material
fact.  

The Service Agreement

Based on the text of the Service Agreement and the Terms and
Conditions, the Court finds that the contract is ambiguous. The
parties agree that receptionist minute is a term of art  but
nowhere is that term explicitly defined in the contract. Although
the parties contracted for a certain number of receptionist minutes
every month, most telephone calls do not last an exact number of
minutes, and the contract is silent on what happens when a
telephone call lasts, for example, for ten seconds, thirty seconds,
or one minute and fifteen seconds. Similarly, the per-minute fee
for additional receptionist minutes does not specify how that
additional time is calculated or billed when a call lasts more or
less than exactly 60.00 seconds.

The Plaintiffs contend that by only rounding up, and never rounding
down, Ruby has breached the contract and artificially inflated the
time a receptionist spends on each call and this practice makes it
impossible for customers to receive the exact number of
receptionist minutes each month for which they contracted and paid.
Plaintiffs also argue that only rounding upnecessarily means that
Ruby overcharges customers for minutes beyond the monthly package
of receptionist minutes because a receptionist minute for Ruby's
billing purposes can last fewer than 60 seconds. As stated
previously, the contract is silent on Ruby's rounding practices,
and nothing in the contract expressly prohibits or authorizes
rounding up in 30-second increments.

The Plaintiffs argue that Ruby should have simply charged for the
actual time a receptionist is involved in a call. In doing so, the
Plaintiffs appear to argue that Ruby should have counted to at
least the hundredth of a second level of measurement. But the
contract speaks only in broad terms of "receptionist minutes" and
there is no unambiguous reading of the contract that would make
clear exactly to what level of specificity Ruby must bill. For
example, it is unclear whether the Plaintiffs would still argue
that Ruby had breached the contract if Ruby rounded up to the
nearest second, nearest tenth of a second, or nearest millisecond.
Because the contract does not specify a level of exactitude,
rounding up to the nearest 30-second interval is no more expressly
prohibited by the contract than rounding up to the nearest tenth or
hundredth of a second. Further, Ruby's customers likely would have
noticed that every call on their monthly bill ended in a unit of
exactly 30 seconds and thus could not reasonably have believed that
they were being billed only for the actual time that each call
lasted. Even if Ruby's clients would have noticed that every call
was being billed in 30-second increments, however, the clients
would not have been able to determine from any given billing entry
whether call duration was being regularly rounded up, rounded down,
or rounded to the nearest 30-second increment.

Because the contract is ambiguous on how to calculate both hold
time and partial minute increments, its final interpretation is not
appropriate for summary judgment. Genuine issues of fact remain
about the parties' intent and mutual understanding, if any. Thus,
the analyses under steps two and three of Yogman should be
conducted by the trier of fact at trial.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5ydbjsc from
Leagle.com.

McKenzie Law Firm, P.A., on Behalf of Themselves and All others
Similarly Situated & Oliver Law Offices, Inc., on Behalf of
Themselves and All others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
represented b yCody O. Berne -- cberne@stollberne.com -- Stoll
Berne, Gregory J. Brod -- greg@willbrod.com -- Brod Law Firm, PC,
pro hac vice, Jon M. Herskowitz , Baron & Herskowitz, 9100 S
Dadeland Blvd #1704, Miami, FL 33156, pro hac vice, Keith S.
Dubanevich -- kdubanevich@stollberne.com -- Stoll Stoll Berne
Lokting & Shlachter P.C., Laurence D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com
-- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, pro hac vice, Mario M. Choi --
MChoi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, pro hac vice,
Matthew B. George -- mgeorge@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, pro hac vice & Robert I. Lax --
rgrand@laxneville.com -- Lax LLP, pro hac vice.

Ruby Receptionists, Inc., Defendant, represented by Austin
Rainwater -- austin.rainwater@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP &
Andrew R. Escobar -- andrew.escobar@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper,
LLP.


RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Birmingham Funds' Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryanair Holdings plc  said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company has sought
dismissal of a class action suit headed by the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System and City of Birmingham Firemen's and
Policemen's Supplemental Pension System (the "Birmingham Funds").

In November 2018, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed against Ryanair and Michael O'Leary in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District
Court").

The District Court appointed the Birmingham Funds as lead
plaintiffs in January 2019.

The Birmingham Funds filed an amended complaint in April 2019 that
purports to be on behalf of purchasers of Ryanair American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between May 30, 2017 and September 28,
2018.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that in filings
with the SEC, investor calls, interviews, and other communications,
Ryanair and/or Mr. O'Leary made materially false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding employment and financial data,
employee negotiation processes, the September 2017 pilot rostering
management issue, and the likelihood and financial impact of
unionization, which allegedly artificially inflated the market
value of Ryanair's securities.

In June 2019, Ryanair and Mr. O'Leary filed a motion to dismiss.

Ryanair Holdings plc (Ryanair Holdings) is a holding company for
Ryanair Limited (Ryanair). Ryanair operates an ultra-low fare,
scheduled-passenger airline serving short-haul, point-to-point
routes between Ireland, the United Kingdom, Continental Europe,
Morocco and Israel. The company is based in Dublin, Ireland.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Hadin, et al. Seek Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ALEXIS BRONSON AND CRYSTAL
HADIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., the Defendants, Case 3:18-cv-02300-WHA (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on behalf of the
putative class to ensure Samsung's compliance with Cal. Civ. Code
section 1793.03(b).  The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the
proposed class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and appoint the
Plaintiff as class representative and their lead counsel as class
counsel.

Crystal Hardin and the class she seeks to represent purchased and
own a Samsung plasma television manufactured since 2013.

Samsung is under a current obligation to comply with Cal. Civ. Code
section 1793.03(b) for its plasma televisions manufactured since
2013. The Plaintiff was unable to repair her television by an
Authorized Service Center (ASC) in California within the seven
years from the date the product was last manufactured: a direct
violation of Section 1793.03(b).

The Court already ruled that Samsung violated this statutory
section in the instant case regarding named class member Alexis
Bronson. Samsung has inadequate business practices in place to
ensure compliance with California law.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Paul S. Rothstein, Esq.
          Kyla V. Alexander, Esq.
          626 N.E. First Street
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 376-7650
          Facsimile: (352) 374-7133
          E-mail: PSR@Rothsteinforjustice.com
                  Kyla.tm@rothsteinforjustice.com

               - and -

          Alan J. Sherwood, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALAN J. SHERWOOD
          26755 Contessa Street
          Hayward, CA 94545
          E-mail: alansherwood@earthlink.net
          Telephone: (510) 409-6199

SUPERIOR ENERGY: Underpays Equipment Operators, Algeribiya Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN ALGERIBIYA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC.;
and PUMPCO ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-02863 (S.D. Tex., August 2, 2019) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Algeribiya was employed by the Defendants as
equipment operator.

Superior Energy Services, Inc. provides the drilling, completion
and production related needs of oil and gas companies. The Company
plans and designs solutions specialized in oilfield services and
equipment that are used throughout the life cycle of oil and gas
wells. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Oct. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK
SECURITIES LITIGATION

1:17-cv-01665 (NLH/JS)
Class Action

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO:    ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE U.S.-TRADED COMMON STOCK OF THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK ("TD")
(TD) BETWEEN DECEMBER 3, 2015 AND MARCH 9, 2017, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing will be held on
October 3, 2019, at 3:30 p.m. before the Honorable Noel L. Hillman,
United States District Judge, at the courthouse for the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey, Mitchell H. Cohen
Building & United States Courthouse, 4th & Cooper Streets, Court
Room 3A, Camden, New Jersey 08101 for the purpose of determining:
(1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned Action for consideration in the amount of thirteen
million two hundred fifty thousand dollars U.S. (USD
$13,250,000.00) should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is
fair and reasonable, and should be approved; (3) whether Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to
thirty-three and 1/3 percent (33.3%), and reimbursement of
out-of-pocket expenses of not more than two hundred seventy-five
thousand U.S. dollars (USD $275,000.00) plus interest on such fees
and expenses, and a compensatory award for Plaintiffs of not more
than fifteen thousand U.S. dollars (USD $15,000.00) each, all to be
paid from the Settlement Fund, should be approved; and (4) whether
this Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the
Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated June
20, 2019 (the "Stipulation") filed with the Court.

The Court has certified a class of investors for settlement
purposes only ("Settlement Class") and you may be a member of the
Settlement Class ("Settlement Class Member").  The proposed
Settlement Class will consist of all persons or entities who
purchased, or otherwise acquired, the U.S.-traded common stock of
TD (TD) between December 3, 2015 and March 9, 2017, both dates
inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period").  Excluded from the
Settlement Class are the Defendants; members of their immediate
families and their affiliates; any executive officer or director of
TD during the Settlement Class Period; any entity in which any
Defendants had a controlling or partnership interest during the
Settlement Class Period; the judges presiding over the Action and
their immediate family members; counsel of record in this Action;
and the successors, heirs, and assigns of any excluded persons
and/or entities referenced above.

If you purchased U.S.-traded TD common stock during the Settlement
Class Period, your rights may be affected by this Action and the
Settlement thereof, including the release and extinguishment of
claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in
U.S.-traded TD common stock.  If you have not received a
more-detailed, long-form Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Settlement
Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and the Proof of Claim and Release
Form, you may obtain copies of these documents and the Stipulation
by downloading them at the Claims Administrator's website at:
www.TorontoDominionSecuritiesSettlement.com.  If you are unable to
do so, you may contact the Claims Administrator to obtain copies:


Toronto-Dominion Securities Litigation Settlement
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
PO Box 3207
Portland, OR 97208-3207
info@TorontoDominionSecuritiesSettlement.com
www.TorontoDominionSecuritiesSettlement.com
877-830-7922

The case has been litigated since March 12, 2017.  Plaintiffs
allege that, in violation of the U.S. federal securities laws,
Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions, with
scienter, concerning TD's risk management and internal controls,
business operations, and reported results, causing TD's stock price
to be inflated during the Settlement Class Period.  Plaintiffs
further allege that revelation of Defendants' fraud and caused a
statistically significant stock decline, thereby injuring
Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class of investors.  Defendants have
denied and continue to deny these allegations and that they
committed any act or omission giving rise to any liability or
violation of the law.  The Settlement will resolve the lawsuit and
the Released Claims as to the Defendants and other Released
Parties.  Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class are represented by
Lead Counsel who may be reached by contacting: Matthew L. Tuccillo,
Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10016,
(212) 661-1100.

If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim and Release Form received no later than September 19, 2019,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  Unless you submit
a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any Judgment
rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim.

If you want to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the long-form Notice,
so that it is received no later than September 12, 2019.  If you
decide to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, and wish to
file your own individual lawsuit based on the Released Settlement
Class Claims, Defendants may argue that you face a time bar under
applicable statutes of limitation or repose, risks that you should
discuss with an appropriate legal advisor.  All members of the
Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the
Settlement Class will be bound by any Judgment entered in the
Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude yourself,
you can object to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and compensatory award to Plaintiffs in the manner and
form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than
September 12, 2019.

Any questions regarding the Settlement should be directed to Lead
Counsel for the Settlement Class.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE
DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

Dated: August 1, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY [GN]


TOYOTA MOTOR: Australia's Top Selling Hilux Hit in Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! News Australia reports that the makers of Australia's
top-selling car are facing a class action lawsuit over claims their
vehicles were fitted with defective parts.

Toyota Motor Corp's Hilux, Prado and Fortuner are alleged as the
models with faulty parts in a suit filed by Banister Law, together
with Gilbert + Tobin, in the Federal Court.

It's alleged the defective parts are diesel particulate filters,
which are meant to trap and burn soot from the engine.

"The affected vehicles... require time consuming and costly
repairs, including repeated vehicle servicing and repeated
replacement of the (diesel filters) in its entirety," Bannister Law
said in the statement.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of customers who purchased the cars
between October 1, 2015 and July 26, 2019, seeks compensation for
the alleged loss and damage suffered by the group, the statement
said, without giving any details on the amount.

The lawsuit also alleges Toyota made misleading statements because
the vehicles "could not, and did not deliver the advertised
combination of durability, reliability, quality, comfort and
convenience, and the (diesel filter) in the affected vehicles was
not durable, reliable and of good quality".

Toyota's Hilux is Australia's top selling car, according to
comparison website Canstar.

In June, Toyota Motor Corporation Australia posted a 50 per cent
increase in after-tax profit to $206 million for the year ended
March 31, 2019, according to its website. The company sold 223,096
vehicles in the country over period.

Toyota, Japan's biggest automaker, sold 10.6 million vehicles
globally in the same period.

Representatives from Toyota's Australian unit did not return
Reuters' attempts for comment.

Yahoo News Australia has contacted the manufacturer. [GN]


TOYOTA MOTOR: Australian Law Firms File Filter Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paulina Duran, writing for Reuters, reports that Australian lawyers
filed a class action lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corp's  local
unit on Aug. 1, claiming some models of the carmaker's top-selling
vehicles Hilux, Prado and Fortuner were fitted with defective
parts.

According to a statement on its website, Banister Law, together
with Gilbert + Tobin, filed the suit in the Federal Court alleging
some vehicles were fitted with defective diesel particulate filters
meant to trap and burn soot from the engine.

"The affected vehicles . . . require time consuming and costly
repairs, including repeated vehicle servicing and repeated
replacement of the (diesel filters) in its entirety," Bannister Law
said in the statement.

Representatives from Toyota's Australian unit did not immediately
return emails seeking comment.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of customers who purchased the cars
between Oct. 1, 2015 and July 26 2019, seeks compensation for the
alleged loss and damage suffered by the group, the statement said,
without giving any details on the amount.

The lawsuit also alleges Toyota made misleading statements because
the vehicles "could not, and did not, deliver the advertised
combination of durability, reliability, quality, comfort and
convenience, and the (diesel filter) in the affected vehicles was
not durable, reliable and of good quality".

Toyota's Hilux is Australia's top selling car, according to
comparison website Canstar.

In June, Toyota Motor Corporation Australia posted a 50% increase
in after-tax profit to A$206 million ($141.21 million) for the year
ended March 31, 2019, according to its website. The company sold
223,096 vehicles in the country over period.

Toyota, Japan's biggest automaker, sold 10.6 million vehicles
globally in the same period. [GN]


UNITED PARCEL: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Granted in Hughes
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court in Hughes v.
UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc.,
granted the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in state
and federal courts containing various class action allegations
under state wage-and-hour laws.

At this time, the company does not believe that any loss associated
with any matter would have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. and United Parcel
Service, Inc. had previously been certified as a class action in
Kentucky state court.

In this action, plaintiffs alleged that they were not properly
compensated for time entering and exiting security checkpoints and
getting to their work areas at UPS's facilities. Plaintiffs were
seeking compensatory damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
and interest.

In the second quarter of 2019, the court granted the company's
motion for judgment on the pleadings.

United Parcel Service, Inc. provides letter and package delivery,
specialized transportation, logistics, and financial services. It
operates through three segments: U.S. Domestic Package,
International Package, and Supply Chain & Freight. United Parcel
Service, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


UNITED STATES: Auningputri Appeals Ruling in Probodanu Suit v. DOJ
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Daniella Auningputri, Adelena Palar and Albert Palar
filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Jeremiah
Michael Probodanu, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al.,
Case No. 8:18-cv-00888-CJC-KS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The nature of suit is stated as other immigration actions.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on May 22, 2018, and assigned to Judge Cormac J. Carney and
referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson.

The appellate case is captioned as Daniella Auningputri, et al. v.
USDOJ, et al., Case No. 19-55869, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 27, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on September 26, 2019;

   -- Appellants Daniella Auningputri, Adelena Palar and Albert
      Palar's opening brief is due on November 5, 2019;

   -- Appellees William P. Barr, Attorney General, Thomas P.
      Giles, Thomas D. Homan, David A. Marin, U.S. Department of
      Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs
      Enforcement, United States Citizenship and Immigration
      Services and United States Department of Justice's
      answering brief is due on December 5, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DANIELLA AUNINGPUTRI, ADELENA PALAR and
ALBERT PALAR, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals are represented by:

          Nicolette Glazer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R GLAZER
          1875 Century Park East
          Century City, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 407-5353
          E-mail: nicolette@glazerandglazer.com

Defendants-Appellees UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,
are represented by:

          Victor Matthew Lawrence, I, Esq.
          Papu Sandhu, Esq.
          Steven Kiyoto Uejio, Esq.
          DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice
          P.O. Box 878, Benjamin Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 616-9357
          E-mail: victor.lawrence@usdoj.gov
                  papu.sandhu@usdoj.gov


VARIETY WHOLESALERS: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Miles Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LATANYA MILES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. VARIETY WHOLESALERS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01714-PAB
(N.D. Ohio, July 29, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff and other
Retail Employees were not paid for all the overtime compensation
they earned pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as
Ohio wage and hour law.

Variety Wholesalers is a foreign corporation that conducts business
in this district and division.  The Defendant is "one of the
largest privately-owned companies in the United States," and "is
based in Henderson, North Carolina," according to the Roses Web
site.

The Defendant "operates nearly 400 retail stores throughout the
Southeast [United States], primarily under the Roses and Roses
Express banners."  The Defendant also advertises the business names
of "Maxway," "Super 10," "Bargain Town," "Bill's dollar store," and
"Super Dollar."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER, LLC
          34 N. High St., Suite 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 824-5770
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER, LLC
          7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


VOORTMAN COOKIES: Court Compels Arbitration in Cervantes
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration in the case captioned ANTONIA CERVANTES, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. VOORTMAN COOKIES LTD., Defendant. Case No.
3:19-cv-00700-H-BGS. (S.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs are California residents who work as distributors
for the Defendant. The Plaintiffs allege that they should be
categorized as employees rather than independent contractors due to
the extent of control Defendant exerts over its distributors. The
Plaintiffs allege that numerous California law violations arise out
of this miscategorization.

Arbitration Agreement

The Defendant argues that the parties agreed to a valid and
enforceable arbitration agreement, and that agreement encompasses
the Plaintiffs' claims.  The Court must first determine whether the
Defendant has met its burden of showing a valid, written agreement
to arbitrate.  Each Plaintiff agreed to be bound by the arbitration
provision, Cervantes and Flores by agreeing to the 2012 Agreement,
and Virissimo by agreeing to 2014 Agreement.  

The Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration provision is invalid
because it is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Under
California law, the party attacking the arbitration agreement as
unconscionable bears the burden of proof.  To succeed, a party must
show that the arbitration agreement is both procedurally and
substantively unconscionable.  Plaintiffs argue that the
arbitration provision is procedurally unconscionable because it was
a contract of adhesion, and the provision was on the last page of
the Agreement, did not explicitly state that it waived right to a
jury trial, is not referenced on the acknowledgment page.  

The Court concludes that the arbitration provision is not
procedurally unconscionable because it was neither oppressive or
surprising. Plaintiffs had a meaningful choice as to whether they
entered into the Agreement with Defendant, choosing to sign and
become distributors for Defendant.

The Plaintiffs also were given the opportunity to enter the 2018
Agreement, but refused, continuing to operate as independent
contractors under the prior Agreements. Even assuming some level of
oppressiveness, any procedural unconscionability is minimal because
there was no surprise. The arbitration provision was in the same
size text as the rest of the document, in a separate paragraph that
is clearly labeled in bold Dispute Resolution Clause. The
arbitration provision was not surprising because it was not buried
in fine print, but instead was in its own section, with a bolded,
clear label.

The Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration provision is
substantively unconscionable because it is vague and ambiguous in
that it does not state which rules apply to the arbitration and
does not provide the details necessary for an employment
take-it-or-leave-it arbitration agreement. A contract is
substantively unconscionable when it is unjustifiably one-sided to
such an extent that it 'shocks the conscience.' A mandatory
employment arbitration agreement is not unconscionable if it (1)
provides for neutral arbitrators (2) provides for more than minimal
discovery (3) requires a written award, (4) provides for all of the
types of relief that would otherwise be available in court and (5)
does not require employees to pay either unreasonable costs or any
arbitrators' fees or expenses as a condition of access to the
arbitration forum.

Here, the Agreement states that the arbitration must be conducted
with an American Arbitration Association Office in a city nearest
the territory of the Voortman Consignee/Distributor, which
indicates that the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules
apply. Under California law, parties to an agreement may
incorporate by reference into their contract the terms of some
other document. The parties' Agreement incorporates by reference
the AAA rules.  

The Plaintiffs argue that the AAA Commercial and Labor Rules are
substantively unconscionable because the initial filing fees are
unreasonable.  However, the Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently show
that the applicable initial filing fee is unreasonable. The
Plaintiffs state that the initial filing fee is $7,700, which is
based on the claims being worth between $1,000,000 and $10,000,000.
The Plaintiffs fail to show how they arrived at this range. The
Plaintiffs' complaint does not allege the amount of damages.
Plaintiffs may be including in this number the class claims from
the complaint, not just the individual Plaintiffs' claims.

The Defendants show that an arguably more reasonable estimate of
Plaintiffs' damages corresponds to an initial filing fee that
approximates filing fees in this Court and San Diego Superior
Court. The arbitration provision is not substantively
unconscionable because it indicates that the AAA rules apply and
such rules are sufficient under Armendariz. Therefore, the Court
concludes the arbitration provision is valid and enforceable
because Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing
procedural and substantive unconscionability.

Next, the Court turns to whether Plaintiffs' claims are subject to
the parties' agreements. Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendant
for violations of California Labor Code Sections 201-204, 221-223,
226, 226.2, 226.7, 510, 2802, and violation of California Business
& Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.  The claims arise from
Defendant's categorization of Plaintiffs as independent contractors
rather than as employees. The arbitration provision from the 2012
and 2014 Agreements states that All disputes between Voortman
Cookies Limited and the Voortman Consignee/Distributor will be
settled by arbitration including any and all disputes relating to
this agreement and the enforceability of any or all of its
provisions.

Therefore, Plaintiffs' claims fall within the scope of the
arbitration provision agreed to by Plaintiffs. Thus, the Court
orders the parties to proceed to arbitration because Defendant has
met its burden of showing that each Plaintiff is subject to a valid
and enforceable arbitration agreement, and that Plaintiffs' claims
are subject to that agreement.  

California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act Claims

In addition to other claims, Plaintiffs bring claims for
enforcement of the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA). Plaintiffs argue that their PAGA claims are
non-arbitrable and therefore should be stayed pending arbitration.
Defendant does not specifically address Plaintiffs' PAGA claims in
either its motion or reply in support of its motion.  

PAGA authorizes an employee to bring an action for civil penalties
on behalf of the state against his or her employer for Labor Code
violations committed against the employee and fellow employees,
with most of the proceeds of that litigation going to the state.

Here, the arbitration provision does not entirely waive the right
to bring representative PAGA claims rather, it requires that such
claims be arbitrated. Because PAGA claims are eligible for
arbitration, the Court must only decide whether Plaintiffs' PAGA
claims fall within the scope of the valid and enforceable
arbitration provision from the 2012 and 2014 Agreements. The
parties mutually agreed that All disputes between Voortman Cookies
Limited and the Voortman.

Consignee/Distributor will be settled by arbitration including any
and all disputes relating to this agreement and the enforceability
of any or all of its provisions. Thus, like Plaintiffs' other
claims, Plaintiffs' PAGA claims are covered by the arbitration
provision and must proceed to arbitration.

Class Claims

The Plaintiffs not only bring California law claims on their own
behalf, but also on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
California distributors who were not classified as employees.
Defendant argues that the class claims should be dismissed pursuant
to Lamps Plus because the Agreement does not permit class-wide
arbitration. Plaintiffs argue that whether an arbitration agreement
permits class-wide arbitration is a question for the arbitrator,
not the Court.
  
Unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise, the
question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be
decided by the court, not the arbitrator. Clear and unmistakable
evidence of an agreement to arbitrate arbitrability might include a
course of conduct demonstrating assent or an express agreement to
do so.

Therefore, the Court here concludes that availability of class
arbitration is a gateway question of arbitrability presumptively
for the Court to decide. There is no evidence here that the parties
have clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of
arbitrability of class claims to the arbitrator rather than the
Court. The arbitration provision of the 2012 and 2014 Agreements
contains no specific language delegating any question of
arbitrability to the arbitrator and does not contain any reference
to arbitration rules that do so. The parties' conduct does not
demonstrate assent to arbitrate whether class arbitration is
permitted. Accordingly, it is up to the Court to determine whether
the Agreement permits class arbitration.

Here, the 2012 and 2014 Agreements are silent on whether class-wide
arbitration is permitted. Thus, there is no affirmative contractual
basis for concluding that the parties agreed to class-wide
arbitration. The 2018 Agreement goes so far as to prohibit
class-wide arbitration and arbitration agreements must be enforced
as written. Therefore, class-wide arbitration is not permitted
under any version of the Agreement, and the Court dismisses
Plaintiffs' class claims.

The Court grants Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and
dismiss Plaintiffs' class claims.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 29, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3jwet4k from Leagle.com.

Antonia Cervantes, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Raquel Flores, individuals, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated & Ronnie Virissimo,
individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic --
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org --, Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, Craig
McKenzie Nicholas -- cnicholas@nblaw.org -- Nicholas and Tomasevic
& Jake W. Schulte -- JSchulte@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas &
Tomasevic, LLP.

Voortman Cookies LTD., a Canadian Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Ashley Rene Wedding, Fabozzi & Miller, APC, 8975 Sky
Canyon Dr Ste 104, Murrieta, CA 92563-2676, Joel Leroy Lennen --
jlennen@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin and Mellot, pro
hac vice, Sarah Morrissey -- smorrissey@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, pro hac vice & Timothy P. Coon --
tpcoon@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.


WAITR HOLDINGS: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Halley Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as HALLEY, ET AL., the
Plaintiffs, vs. WAITR HOLDINGS INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01800-EEF-JCW (E.D. La.), the Court entered an order July
31, 2019, denying without prejudice as premature -- reserving the
rights of the parties to re-file, if necessary, at a later date --
the two motions:

   1. Defendants' motion to compel arbitration; and

   2. Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class.[CC]

WAITR HOLDINGS: Montgomery Bid to Certify Class Denied
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as AUTUMN MONTGOMERY, the
Plaintiff, vs. WAITR HOLDINGS INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02208-EEF-DMD (E.D. La.), the Court entered an order July
31, 2019, denying without prejudice as premature --  reserving the
rights of the parties to re-file, if necessary, at a later date --
the two motions:

   1. Defendants' motion to compel arbitration; and

   2. Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class.[CC]

WAWA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Employee Stock Ownership Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Convenience Store News reports that less than a year after settling
a lawsuit related to its employee stock ownership program, Wawa
Inc. may be in for another legal challenge around the program.

With a recent judicial ruling, Wawa is now facing a class action
lawsuit by more than 1,000 former employees who say they were
forced to trade the Wawa stock in their retirement plan at an
unfair price.

In early July, Judge Paul S. Diamond of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted class status after the
convenience store agreed that portions of the case were appropriate
for class treatment, according to Bloomberg Law.

Diamond also granted class status on the employees' claim of
fiduciary breach based on misrepresentation, which accused Wawa of
wrongly telling them they could continue to hold company stock
until age 68, the news outlet reported.

The new challenge comes on the heels of Wawa's September agreement
to pay $25 million to settle a similar lawsuit accusing the c-store
chain of forcing employees to sell their company stock at an unfair
price. In that case, former Wawa employees forced to sell their
company stock in 2015 split the settlement, minus $5 million in
fees for lawyers, as Convenience Store News previously reported.

Pennsylvania-based Wawa operates more than 840 c-stores in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Florida and
Washington, D.C. Wawa ranks No. 15 on the 2019 Convenience Store
News Top 100 list. [GN]


WE CARE HOMES: Migues Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NELLIE MIGUES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. WE CARE HOMES, INCORPORATED, And KYLE JONES, Case No.
6:19-cv-00976 (W.D. La., July 29, 2019), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation.

We Care Homes, Incorporated is a Louisiana corporation with its
principal place of business located in Lafayette, Louisiana.  The
Individual Defendant is an officer, manager or employee of the
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com


WELLCARE HEALTH: Stein and Kent Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in Stein
v. WellCare and Kent v. WellCare filed notices of voluntary
dismissal.

On March 26, 2019, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Centene Corporation
("Centene") under which Centene will acquire the company for a
combination of cash and stock (the "Centene Transaction"). Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, the company's shareholders will
receive $120.00 in cash and 3.38 shares of Centene common stock for
each share of 'the company's common stock. On June 24, 2019,
stockholders of both companies approved all proposals regarding the
Centene Transaction.

Between May 7 and May 9, 2019, three putative class action lawsuits
were filed by purported stockholders of WellCare against WellCare
and members of the WellCare Board in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware (Stein v. WellCare Health Plans,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00855-LPS ("Stein v. WellCare");
Kent v. WellCare Health Plans, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00865-LPS ("Kent v. WellCare"); and Clarke v. WellCare
Health Plans, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00873-LPS "Clark v.
WellCare").

The complaint in Kent v. WellCare also names Centene, Merger Sub I
and Merger Sub II as defendants.

The complaints in Stein v. WellCare, Kent v. WellCare and Clark v.
WellCare purport to assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allege that the Joint Proxy
Statement filed with the SEC on May 23, 2019 contained certain
material omissions.

In addition, on May 10, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was
filed by a purported stockholder of WellCare against WellCare,
members of the WellCare Board, Centene, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub
2 in the Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for
Hillsborough County, Florida (Seabaugh v. WellCare Health Plans,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2019CA004942 ("Seabaugh v. WellCare" and,
together with Stein v. WellCare, Kent v. WellCare and Clark v.
WellCare, the "Lawsuits").

The complaint in Seabaugh v. WellCare alleges that members of the
WellCare Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, agreeing to an allegedly unfair and inadequate price,
agreeing to deal protection devices that allegedly impede their
ability to investigate or obtain higher offers, allegedly failing
to protect against certain purported conflicts of interest, and
allegedly failing to disclose material information in the Joint
Proxy Statement.

The complaint further alleges that WellCare, Centene, Merger Sub 1
and Merger Sub 2 aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to enjoin or rescind the
mergers and requests an award of attorneys' fees and damages in an
unspecified amount.

On July 1, 2019, the plaintiffs in Stein v. WellCare and Kent v.
WellCare filed notices of voluntary dismissal.

WellCare Health Plans, Inc., incorporated on February 5, 2004, is a
managed care company. The Company focuses on government-sponsored
managed care services, primarily through Medicaid, Medicare
Advantage (MA) and Medicare Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs), to
families, children, seniors and individuals with medical needs. The
Company operates in three segments: Medicaid Health Plans, Medicare
Health Plans and Medicare PDPs. The company is based in Tampa,
Florida.


WELLS FARGO: Oct. 9 Auto Insurance Settlement Fairness Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE WELLS FARGO & COMPANY AUTO INSURANCE DERIVATIVE LITIGATION,
LEAD CASE NO. CGC-17-561118 (S.F. SUPER. CT.)

TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
COMMON STOCK AS OF JUNE 21, 2019 (THE "RECORD DATE"), WHO CONTINUE
TO OWN SUCH SHARES ("WELLS FARGO SHAREHOLDERS")

A proposed settlement (the "Settlement") has been reached in the
above-titled shareholder derivative action pending in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco
(the "Court"). The Action has been brought derivatively on behalf
of Wells Fargo to remedy the harm allegedly caused to the Company
by the defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and
violations of law concerning, among other things, the placement of
automobile collateral protection insurance ("CPI"). A hearing on
approval of the Settlement will be held on October 9, 2019 at 2:00
p.m. Pacific Standard Time, before the Honorable Teri L. Jackson at
the San Francisco Superior Courthouse, Department 613, 400
McAllister Street, San Francisco, California 94102 (the "Settlement
Hearing"), to determine whether (i) the Settlement of the Action on
the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable and adequate to Wells Fargo and its shareholders and
should be approved by the Court; (ii) Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee
Applications and Plaintiffs' Reimbursement Awards should be
granted; and (iii) a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal should
be entered herein. Because this is a shareholder derivative action
brought for the benefit of Wells Fargo, no individual Wells Fargo
shareholder has the right to receive any individual compensation as
a result of the settlement of this action.

The benefits to the Company of the proposed Settlement, which is
subject to Court approval, include certain corporate governance
changes by Wells Fargo (the "Corporate Governance Reforms") (see
Stipulation Ex. A). The Plaintiffs and Wells Fargo agree that the
Corporate Governance Reforms set forth in Exhibit A to the
Stipulation have significant value to Wells Fargo.

IF YOU ARE AN OWNER OF WELLS FARGOCOMMON STOCK, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT. A more detailed form of notice
describing the Settlement has been published as a Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, has
been published on Wells Fargo's company website at
www.wellsfargo.com, and is also available at
www.wellsfargoautoderivativesettlement.com. More information is
also available by calling (888) 952-9086.

Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed form of notice, may
be made to a representative of Plaintiffs' Counsel. Should you have
any other questions regarding the proposed Settlement or the
Action, please contact Plaintiffs' Counsel:

In re Wells Fargo & Co. Auto Insurance Derivative Action

         Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
         840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, California 94010

         Berman Tabacco
         1 Liberty Square, Suite 800
         Boston, Massachusetts 02109

         Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie
         112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, New York 10016

Wells Fargo shareholders who have no objection to the Settlement do
not need to appear at the final approval hearing or take any
action.

If you wish to object to any aspect of the Settlement, the Fee
Application, the Reimbursement Awards, or the Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal, you must provide in writing your full name,
appropriate proof of your Wells Fargo stock ownership as of the
Record Date, the basis for your objection, and your signature or
your attorney's signature. You may not ask the Court to order a
larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the
Settlement. You may also appear at the Settlement Hearing, either
in person or through your own attorney. If you appear through your
own attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney. All
objections to the Settlement, the Fee Applications and the
Reimbursement Awards must be either (1) submitted to the Court
either by mailing them to the Clerk of the Court, or by filing them
in person at any location of the Court, OR (2) mailed to CPI
Plaintiffs' Counsel, c/o In re Wells Fargo & Co. Auto Insurance
Derivative Action, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, 840 Malcolm Road,
Suite 200, Burlingame, California 94010 (in which case, Plaintiffs'
Counsel shall then file the objections with the Court on your
behalf). The deadline to submit objection is September 17, 2019 and
any objections must be filed or postmarked no later than that date.
All written objections and supporting papers must clearly identify
the case name and number (In re Wells Fargo & Company Auto
Insurance Derivative Litigation, CGC-17-516118 (S.F. Super.)).

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: July 12, 2019      

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO


WELLS FARGO: Oct. 9 Derivative Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE WELLS FARGO & COMPANY DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, LEAD CASE NO.
CGC-16-554407 (S.F. SUPER CT.)

TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
COMMON STOCK AS OF JUNE 14, 2019 (THE "RECORD DATE"), WHO CONTINUE
TO OWN SUCH SHARES ("WELLS FARGO SHAREHOLDERS")

A proposed settlement (the "Settlement") has been reached in the
above-titled shareholder derivative action (the "Action") that is
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Francisco (the "Court"). The Action has been brought
derivatively on behalf of Wells Fargo by certain Wells Fargo
shareholders to remedy the harm allegedly caused to the
Company by the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and violations
of law by certain Wells Fargo current or former officers and
directors concerning, among other things, the alleged opening of
accounts without customer knowledge or authorization at Wells Fargo
as well as other related fraudulent, improper, or unethical acts or
practices alleged in the complaints in the Action ("Improper Sales
Practices"). A hearing on the Settlement will be held on October 9,
2019 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, before the Honorable Teri
L. Jackson, at the San Francisco Superior Courthouse, Department
613, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California 94102 (the
"Settlement Hearing"), to determine whether (i) the Settlement of
the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to Wells Fargo and its
shareholders and should be approved by the Court; (ii) Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel's and Plaintiff Joan Herron's Counsel's Fee
Applications and Plaintiffs' and Herron's Reimbursement Awards
should be granted; and (iii) a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal should be entered herein. Because this is a shareholder
derivative action brought for the benefit of Wells Fargo, no
individual Wells Fargo shareholder has the right to receive any
individual compensation as a result of the settlement of this
action.

The benefits to the Company of the proposed Settlement, which is
subject to Court approval, include stock grant forfeitures
("Clawbacks") realized by Wells Fargo and certain corporate
governance changes by Wells Fargo (the "Corporate Governance
Reforms") (see Stipulation Ex. A). Plaintiffs and Wells Fargo agree
that the Clawbacks set forth in the Stipulation and the Corporate
Governance Reforms set forth in Exhibit A to the Stipulation have
significant value to Wells Fargo.

IF YOU ARE AN OWNER OF WELLS FARGOCOMMON STOCK, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT. A more detailed form of notice
describing the Settlement has been published as a Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, has
been published on Wells Fargo's company website at
www.wellsfargo.com, and is also available at
www.wellsfargosalesderivativesettlement.com. More information is
also available by calling (877) 865-5287.

Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed form of notice, may
be made to a representative of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. Should you
have any other questions regarding the proposed Settlement or the
Action, please contact Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel:

         In re Wells Fargo & Co. Derivative Action
         Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
         840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
         Burlingame, California 94010

Wells Fargo shareholders who have no objection to the Settlement do
not need to appear at the final approval hearing or take any
action.

If you wish to object to any aspect of the Settlement, the Fee
Applications, the Reimbursement Awards, or the Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal, you must provide in writing your full name,
appropriate proof of your Wells Fargo stock ownership as of the
Record Date, the basis of your objection, and your signature or
your attorney's signature. You may not ask the Court to order a
larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the
Settlement. You may also appear at the Settlement Hearing, either
in person or through your own attorney. If you appear through your
own attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney. All
objections to the Settlement, the Fee Applications and the
Reimbursement Awards must be either (1) submitted to the Court
either by mailing them to the Clerk of the Court, or by filing them
in person at any location of the Court, OR (2) mailed to Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel, c/o In re Wells Fargo & Co. Improper Sales
Practices Derivative Action, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, 840
Malcolm Road, Suite 200, Burlingame, California 94010 (in which
case, Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel shall then file the objections with
the Court on your behalf). The deadline to submit objections is
September 17, 2019 and any objections must be filed or postmarked
no later than that date. All written objections and supporting
papers must clearly identify the case name and number (In re Wells
Fargo & Company Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. CGC-16-554407
(S.F. Super.)).

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED:  July 12, 2019     

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO


WEST SHORE: Bader Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------
Jamie Bader and Jeffrey Mikula on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. William BJ Werzyn, and West Shore Window &
Door, Inc. dba West Shore Home, Case No. 2:19-cv-00558 (W.D. Pa.,
May 10, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violations of
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Wage Payment Collection Law and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants had a rule, policy, practice, and/or communications
applicable to its overtime exempt employees that if they charged an
expense to a Company Credit Card but failed to provide a receipt
for the expense, the amount of that expense would be deducted from
the involved employee's salary. The threatened salary deduction
does not comply with the salary basis requirements for exempt
employees under FLSA, PMWA and WPCL, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff Bader whose present address in 5705 Glen Hill Drive,
Bethel Park, PA 15102, was hired by the Defendants in September
2017, first as trainee and then as Field Sales Manager until her
employment ended in April 2018.  

The Plaintiff Mikula was hired by the Defendant on May 2, 2017,
first as trainee, then as Field Sales Manager and then was assigned
for a training program for his promotion as In-Home Sales
Representative/Design Consultant position on October 10, 2017. Two
weeks later, on October 24, 2017, during his training program, the
Defendants separated Plaintiff Mikula from its employment.

The Defendant West Shore is a home remodeling company specializing
in window replacement, bathroom remodeling, and door replacements,
with a headquarters at 5024 Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, PA
17050, and a local office at 140 Pennsylvania Avenue, Building 4,
Oakmont, PA 15139.

The Defendant Werzyn is the owner and Chief Executive Officer of
the Defendant West Shore. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Craig M. Brooks, Esq.
      HOUSTON HARBAUGH, P.C.
      Three Gateway Center, 22nd Floor
      401 Liberty Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 281-5060


[*] Class Action Mulled Over Bike Helmets Lacking MIPS or WaveCel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Frothingham, writing for BRAIN, reports that a Knoxville
lawfirm is investigating a potential class-action lawsuit against
companies that sell bike helmets lacking new anti-concussion
technology like MIPS.

Greg Coleman Law is advertising on TopClassActions.com, trying to
find people who have suffered head injuries while using helmets
lacking the new technologies. The potential lawsuit was first
reported by the Bicycle Helmet Safety Insitute in its Helmet Update
email newsletter.

MIPS and similar technology promise to reduce the likelihood of
brain injury from angular impacts. The legal advertisement notes
that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission does not require
helmets to use technology like MIPS. The CPSC's standard doesn't
specifically measure a helmet's ability to reduce the chance of
concussion from low speed and angular impacts. Yet, the ad notes,
Virginia Tech has recently conducted independent testing that finds
the technology effective.

"As newer technologies are developed that have been proven to be
safer and provide better protection against head injuries for
cyclists, companies should also be updating their products to
provide the ultimate safety for their customers," the ad reads. "If
you purchased a bike helmet in the last couple of years that you
believe did not offer the injury protection you expected, you may
qualify to join this bicycle helmet safety class action lawsuit
investigation."

The ad mentions MIPS, which a Swedish company licenses to a
multitude of brands, and WaveCel, Trek Bicycle's exclusive new
helmet liner material.

Helmets with MIPS and WaveCel have performed well in Virginia
Tech's studies. The ad doesn't mention other technologies that make
similar claims, like Louis Garneau's Rotexx, POC's Spin, and 6D's
ODS.

The ad includes a form for members of the public to fill out to see
if they could participate in the class action investigation.

The BHSI newsletter said, "Whether or not the lawsuit is ever
filed, it points the way for plaintiff's attorneys to attack
manufacturers in the future when a cyclist is injured in a helmet,"
the newsletter read.

"The defense will try to prove that the manufacturer's product met
all applicable safety standards, and there is no consensus in the
industry or injury prevention community that the Virginia Tech
ratings are valid, so no current standards use the Virginia Tech
tests or call out the performance that results in a five star
helmet in their ratings," it continued.

BHSI's director, Randy Swart, told BRAIN, "I would hate to see the
lawyers take advantage of this situation, but it may push ASTM and
CPSC to add rotational energy management testing and low impact
testing to our standard."

MIPS recently reported first half revenues of $13.5 million, a 61%
increase over the same period last year. Last year, MIPS was used
by 78 helmet brands on 448 helmet models. [GN]


[*] Securities Fraud Case Filings Up in First Half of 2019
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs continued the rapid pace of securities fraud case
filings with 198 new federal class actions in the first half of
2019. According to a new report, Securities Class Action
Filings—2019 Midyear Assessment, released on July 31 by
Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse, plaintiffs have filed more than 1,000
securities class actions in the last two and a half years,
accounting for more than 20% of the total number of cases filed
since 1997.

The 126 core filings (those excluding M&A claims) were just one shy
of the record set in the first half of 2017. The number of filings
involving M&A transactions, however, dropped below 90 for the first
time since the second half of 2016. In the first half of 2019,
M&A-related filings declined more than 20% to 72 from 91 in the
second half of 2018.

"We have seen yet another strong half-year of filing activity in
2019," said Sasha Aganin, a vice president at Cornerstone Research
and one of the report's authors. "Core filings rose from 108 to 126
between H2 2018 and H1 2019. This increase is largely attributable
to a delayed effect of market volatility in the last quarter of
2018 and to an uptick in filings in the consumer non-cyclical
sector (which includes biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and
healthcare companies) and against internet and high-tech firms."

Six mega dollar disclosure loss (DDL) filings (at least $5 billion)
and 11 mega maximum dollar loss (MDL) filings (at least $10
billion) propelled aggregate market capitalization losses to the
highest and fourth-highest levels on record, respectively. The
total $180 billion DDL during the first half of 2019 was the
highest on record. Total MDL increased by 17% to $781 billion, a
level more than double the historical average.

"In addition to large overall litigation volume, plaintiffs
continue to shift securities fraud claims against IPOs from federal
to state court," observed Joseph A. Grundfest, Stanford Law
Professor, former SEC Commissioner, and founder of Stanford's
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. "Other data show that state
courts dismiss fewer of these claims than do federal courts,
suggesting that plaintiffs can successfully file weaker claims in
state rather than federal court."

Key Trends

Non-U.S. companies: In the first half of 2019, core filings against
non-U.S. issuers as a percentage of all core filings remained
relatively stable at 23 percent—the third-highest percentage on
record. The number of core filings against European firms increased
to its second-highest level on record for a semiannual period, with
13 filings.

State and federal courts: In March 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court
issued a unanimous opinion in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees
Retirement Fund allowing plaintiffs to assert 1933 Act claims in
state court. To date, 61 new 1933 Act filings have appeared
post-Cyan: 23 parallel filings, 12 filings in federal courts only,
and 26 filings in state courts only.

Industries: The Consumer Non-Cyclical sector again had the greatest
number of filings with 47. Of these, 32 were against biotechnology,
pharmaceutical, and healthcare companies. The 19 filings in the
Communications sector were all against internet and
telecommunications companies.

S&P 500 firms: Core filings against S&P 500 firms in the first half
of 2019 occurred at an annualized rate of 6.4%.

Cryptocurrencies: There were three core filings involving initial
coin offerings (ICOs) or cryptocurrencies in the first half of
2019. There was only one such filing in the second half of 2018,
after a flurry of ICO and cryptocurrency filings at the end of 2017
and beginning of 2018.

                    About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides
economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all
phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings. The firm
works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry
practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each
assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for
consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous,
state-of-the-art analysis for thirty years. The firm has 700 staff
and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, San
Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington.

        About the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse

The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (SCAC) is an
authoritative source of data and analysis on the financial and
economic characteristics of federal securities fraud class action
litigation. The SCAC maintains a database of more than 5,300
securities class action lawsuits filed since passage of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database also
contains copies of complaints, briefs, filings, and other
litigation-related materials filed in these cases. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 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 ***