CAR_Public/190904.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, September 4, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 177

                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: San Juan Regional Medical's Suit Moved to New Mexico
ABIOMED INC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
ADAMAS PHARMA: Alameda Securities Class Action Ongoing
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Keryx Merger Suit Underway
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Discovery in Karth Class Suit Ongoing

ALIERA COMPANIES: Jackson Sues Over Illegal Health Insurance
ALLEN EDMONDS: Haggar et al. Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
ALTRIA GROUP: Missouri Family Joins Class-Action Lawsuit
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Dismiss NY Consolidated Suit Pending
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Lao Class Action Underway in Delaware

APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Discovery to be Completed by June 2020
AVEO PHARMA: Continues to Defend Hackel Class Action
BLACKROCK INC: Appeal in iShares ETFs Investors Suit Still Pending
BLACKROCK INC: Class Cert. Bid in ERISA Suit Pending

BOEING COMPANY: Pilot H Sues Over Grounding of MAX Aircrafts
BUCCELLATI INC: Diaz Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
BURFORD CAPITAL: Class Suit Filed After Muddy Waters Dustup
BURFORD CAPITAL: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
C.R. ENGLAND: Stephens Seeks Minimum Wages for Truck Drivers

CANCUN MEXICAN: Campos Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Workers
CARBONITE INC: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
CENGAGE LEARNING: Bernstein Seeks Full Payment of Royalties
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Appeal in Naylor Farms Class Suit Denied
CHIASMA INC: Settlement in Gerneth Suit Finally Approved

CHOWNOW INC: Walker Sues Over Web Site Not Accessible by Blinds
CJ MAHAN: Seeks Eighth Circuit Review of Ruling in Betzner Suit
CLEVELAND, OH: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Kozma Suit Says
COMPASSIONATE FRIENDS: Linn Seeks OT Wages for Nurses
CORECIVIC, INC: Huff et al. Seek to Certify Settlement Class

CORELOGIC VALUATION: Mitchell Seeks to Certify Class of Appraisers
CSC SERVICEWORKS: Court OKs Counterclaims Dismissal in RBB2 Suit
CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Schall Law Probing Investors Claims
DEL FRISCO'S: Palestino Suit Challenges Harlan Merger Deal

DMSD FOODS: Licea Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Soda Dispensers
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Ott Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
EAGLE BANCORP: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
ECHOSTAR CORP: Faces DISH Merger-Related Class Action
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: 9th Cir. Vacates Class Certification in Reyes

EHEALTH INC: Discovery Ongoing in Gonzalez Class Suit
EHEALTH INC: Le'Vias Class Suit Stayed Until Oct. 16
EHEALTH INC: TCPA Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
EL CAJON, CA: Court OKs $91K Class Settlement in Murphy Suit
EMMUT PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Quito Alleges

ENERGY TRANSFER: December Trial in Suit over Regency Merger
EQT CORP: Franklin D. Azar Files Class Action Lawsuit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Carpenter Suit in D. Minnesota
EROS INTERNATIONAL: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
EROS INTERNATIONAL: Opus Chartered Hits Share Price Drop

EROS INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Dougherty Class Suit
EXPRESS ENERGY: Salgado Seeks Overtime Pay for Workers
FIELDWORK INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Alleges
FOUR SEASONS: Truss Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data

GOLDEN STATE: Court Narrows Documents Production in Trevino
GREATLAND HOME: Dennis Seeks OT Pay for Home Health Clinicians
GRECO ROMAN DESIGN: Denied Bonahora Overtime Wages, Pay Slips
GTT COMMS: Misleading Reports Inflate Stock Price, Plymouth Says
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Suit

GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES: Kawahara Sues Over HDD Assembly Price-fixing
HEALTH CARE: Briscoe et al. Seek to Certify Two Classes
HEALTH INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Fla. Consolidated Class Suit
HEALTH INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Parker and Belin Suits

IDEANOMICS INC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
INDIANA: Court Terminates Private Agreement in Mast Prisoners Suit
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Bid to Dismiss Connecticut Class Suit Pending
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Liu & Fu Suit in New York Ongoing
INTERMOLECULAR INC: Najafi Class Action Now Closed

IRELAND: State Faces Class Suits Over Data Breach
IRONCLAD ENERGY: Court Certifies Class of Supervisors & Operators
JOSEPH PIGOTT: H.W. Barr Suit Remanded to Wash. State Court
KITCHENAID INC: Nathan Suit Challenges Marketing of Blenders
LABORATORY CORP: Faces Aponte, et al. Suit in North Carolina

LABORATORY CORP: Jan Wage & Hour Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif.
LANDAU REAL ESTATE: Another J-51 Suit Granted Class Action Status
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Faces Kammer Suit Over Wage and Hour Violations
LHC GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Rosenblatt Suit Pending
LIBERTY TAX: Asbestos Workers' Pension Fund Balks at Acquisitions

LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Can Compel Arbitration in Core FLSA Suit
LVNV FUNDING: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Elliott Suit
MALAYSIA AIRLINES: Lawyer Moots Putrajaya-Backed Class Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: 2,153 Suits Filed Over Opioid Sales at Aug. 6
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated D.C. Suit Narrowed

MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Suit Still Ongoing
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces Plumbers & Pipefitters Union Class Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces Steamfitters Local Union Class Suit
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends MSP Recovery Claims Suit
MARYLAND TRANSIT: Johnson Appeals D. Md. Ruling to Fourth Circuit

MAS-SAR-O INC: Denied Guevara Overtime Pay, Minimum Wages
MASON MGT: New York Sup. Dismisses FAC in Mahmood Suit
MASTEC NETWORK: Cavins Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
MDL 02641: Court Suggests Remand of Bard IVC Filters Litigation
MDL 2885: Camacho Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated

MDL 2903: Black Suit over Rock 'N Play Sleeper Consolidated
MDL 2903: Mundy Suit over Rock 'N Play Sleeper Consolidated
MDL 2904: Hayhurst et al v. LabCorp. over Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2904: Lanouette v. Quest et al over Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2904: Molina Suit v. Quest et al over Data Breach Consolidated

MENARD, INC: Rikkers Seeks Class Certification
MIDLAND CREDIT: Berbert Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Giuliano Suit in N.D. Illinois
MIDLAND CREDIT: Torres Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
MIDSOUTH BANCORP: Raul Files Suit Over Sale to Hancock Whitney

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Sitzer Suit Remains in Missouri Court
NATIONAL VEHICLE: Calusinski et al. Seek to Certify Classes
NCB MANAGEMENT: Cal. App. Flips Timlick Suit Dismissal w/ Prejudice
NCL CORP: Plaintiffs in Phillips Suit Appeal Arbitration Ruling
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Suit

NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Suit
NEVRO CORP: Bid to Dismiss Oklahoma Police Fund Suit Granted
NEWLINK GENETICS: Oral Argument in Nguyen Appeal to Begin Oct. 21
NEXCAR FINANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Alzoubi Suit Alleges
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Costas Class Suit Ongoing

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Riche Class Action
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks to Stay Tel Aviv Class Action
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: ADA-Related Class Suit in New York Ongoing
PAR TECHNOLOGY: Neals Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois
PBF HOLDING: Hearing on Renewed Class Cert. Bid on Sept. 23

PCM INC: Breyer to Halt Merger Deal, Seeks Financials
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Dismissal of TX Consolidated Suit Affirmed
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Suits Related to Line 901 Incident Ongoing
PLURALSIGHT INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Suit
PLURALSIGHT INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit

POLARITYTE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation Underway
POTBELLY CORP: Assistant Managers Class Suit Resolved
PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Continues to Defend Patel Class Suit in Cal.
REALOGY GROUP: Appointment of Lead Counsel in Moehrl Suit Pending
REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Sitzer Class Suit Pending

REALOGY GROUP: Faces Tanaskovic Class Action
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Files Class Action Lawsuit
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Polat Class Action Underway in Calif.
RINGCENTRAL INC: Discovery in Hurley TCPA Class Action Underway
RINGCENTRAL INC: Dismissal in Supply Pro Sorbents Suit Final

RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Wins More Time to File Motion to Dismiss
SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Rosen Continues Probing Securities Claims
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Court Certifies Two Classes

SEG CORT: Thomas Sues Over School Closure, Seeks Tuition Refund
SHANGHAI DUMPLING: Yu Alleges Employment Discrimination
SONIC OF TEXAS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Meba Says
SPRINT CORPORATION: Mingo Seeks to Certify Class of Sales Farmers
STAMPS.COM INC: Continues to Defend Karinski Class Suit

STAMPS.COM INC: Lopez-Dixon Settlement Wins Final Approval
STEEL PARTNERS: Settlement Reached in Sciabacucchi Class Suit
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Hamilton Sues Over Violation of FDCPA
SYNGENTA MASS: Court Partly Adopts Fees Allocation in Tort Suits
TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in IGNITE 3 Class Suit

TEXTRON INC: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
TEXTRON INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
TEXTRON INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action Lawsuit
TEXTRON INC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
TOWER INTERNATIONAL: Thompson Sues Over Autokiniton Merger Deal

UI HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Pay Disputes
UNDER ARMOUR: Maryland Court Dismisses Securities Suit
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Court OKs Derivative Litigation Dismissal Bid
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Court OKs Dismissal of Securities Suit
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Recordings in Class Suit Not Lost in Vault Fire

UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: Court Flips Dismissal of Cummings Suit
US PREMIUM: National Beef Packing Continues to Defend Minn. Suit
US PREMIUM: NBP Faces Cattle Antitrust Litigation in Illinois
VERSUM MATERIALS: Class Suits Challenge Entegris Merger Deal
VIP KIDZ: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Azucar Suit Claims

VIZIO INC: Compelled to Produce Docs in Converse Suit
WAGEWORKS INC: Class Suits Challenge HealthEquity Merger
WAGEWORKS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal.
WAL-MART STORES: Court Denies Bid to Amend Evans Labor Suit
WELLS FARGO: Court Allows Amendment to MCPA Claims

WHOLE FOODS: John Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
WOOD GROUP: Accused by Kitterman FLSA Suit of Not Paying Overtime
WR CAPITAL: Court Dismisses J. Urdan Derivative Suit
WRIGHT MEDICAL: 73 Unresolved Suits over PROFEMUR Pending
WYNN RESORTS: Bid to Dismiss Ferris Securities Class Suit Pending

[*] Medical Debt Collector to Pay $1.2MM Class-Action Settlement

                            *********

21ST CENTURY: San Juan Regional Medical's Suit Moved to New Mexico
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, San Juan Regional Medical Center, the Plaintiff, vs. 21st
Century Centennial Insurance Company, The Law Offices of James P.
Lyle, P.C., and Judy Lynn Parker, the Defendant, Case No.
D-202-CV-2019-0579 (Filed by), was removed from the Second Judicial
District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico (Albuquerque) on Aug. 12, 2019. The District of New Mexico
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00734-KK-JFR to the
proceeding. The suit alleges violation of Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Kirtan Khalsa.

21st Century Insurance is an American auto insurance company and is
wholly owned by the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Barbara J. Koenig, Esq.
          Travis G Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON LOMAN STANFORD & DOWNEY, P.C.
          201 Third Street NW, Suite 1500
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 767-0577
          Facsimile: (505) 242-9944
          E-mail: barbara@jacksonlomanlaw.com
                  travis@jacksonlomanlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants are:

          James P. Lyle, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES P. LYLE P.C.
          1116 2nd St. NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 843-8000
          Facsimile: (505) 843-8043
          E-mail: pennname@prodigy.net

ABIOMED INC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against ABIOMED, Inc. (ABMD) and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Southern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-07319, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
ABIOMED between Jan. 31, 2019 through July 31, 2019, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased ABIOMED securities during
the class period, you have until, October 7, 2019, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

ABIOMED was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Danvers,
Massachusetts. The Company engages in the research, development,
and sale of medical devices to assist or replace the pumping
function of the failing heart, and also provides continuum of care
to heart failure patients.

ABIOMED offers, among other things, catheters and micro heart pumps
under the Impella brand with integrated motors and sensors for use
in interventional cardiology. The Company sells its products
through direct sales and clinical support personnel in the United
States, Canada, Europe, and Asia.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ABIOMED's revenue growth was in
decline; (ii) the Company did not have a sufficient plan in place
to stem its declining revenue growth; (iii) the Company was
unlikely to restore its revenue growth over the next several fiscal
quarters; (iv) consequently, ABIOMED was reasonably likely to
revise its full-year 2020 guidance in a way that would fall short
of the Company's prior projections and market expectations; and (v)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On Aug. 1, 2019, pre-market, Defendants issued a press release
announcing ABIOMED's financial and operating results for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2020 (the "1Q 2020 Press Release"). Among
other results, the 1Q 2020 Press Release disclosed ABIOMED's third
consecutive quarter of slowing revenue growth, reporting
"first-quarter fiscal 2020 revenue of $207.7 million, an increase
of 15.4% compared to revenue of $180.0 million for the same period
of fiscal 2019". This represented a significant decrease in revenue
growth from 2Q 2019. Commenting on the Company's surprising
financial result disappointment, the Company's Chairman, President,
and CEO, Defendant Michael R. Minogue, revealed that the Company's
"new training programs, organizational changes in distribution, and
[] external initiatives… will require time to drive more growth
in the future".

The Company also slashed its previously issued full-year 2020
guidance from total revenues in the range of $900-945 million to
total revenues in the range of $885-925 million, which fell roughly
$22 million short of market expectations.

Following the Company's disclosure of its 1Q 2020 financial
performance and revised guidance, Investor's Business Daily
published an article raising concern with Defendant Minogue's prior
public statements, titled: "This Medtech's CEO Promised To 'Correct
The Course' -- That Didn't Happen".

On this news, ABIOMED's stock price fell $73.69 per share, or
26.45%, to close at $204.87 per share on August 1, 2019.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/-- is acknowledged as one
of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and
antitrust class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L.
Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz
Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions.  Today, more
than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition
he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate
misconduct.  The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar
damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN]


ADAMAS PHARMA: Alameda Securities Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit in the California
Superior Court for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG1901875).

On May 13, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed in California
Superior Court for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG1901875),
naming as defendants the Company and certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers.

Other similar cases may be filed in the future.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1933 by the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers for allegedly making false statements and
omissions in the registration statement and prospectus filed by the
Company in connection with the company's January 24, 2018,
secondary public offering of common stock. The Plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages and other relief. This action is
ongoing.

The Company believes it has strong factual and legal defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorporated on November 15, 2000, is
a pharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in developing
medicines to manage the daily lives of those affected by chronic
neurologic disorders. The Company offers a platform based on an
understanding of time dependent biologic effects of disease
activity and drug response to achieve relief without tolerability
issues. The company is based in Emeryville, California.


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Keryx Merger Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that briefing on the
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Consolidated
Action, is expected to be completed by November 15, 2019.

On June 28, 2018, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, and Alpha
Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the Merger Sub, pursuant to which
the Merger Sub would merge with and into Keryx, with Keryx becoming
a wholly owned subsidiary of the company, or the Merger. On
December 12, 2018, the company completed the Merger.

In October and November 2018, four purported shareholders of Keryx
filed four separate putative class actions, or the Merger
Securities Actions, against Keryx, a former officer and director of
Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison, who is now a director of the company),
former directors of Keryx (Kevin J. Cameron, Mark J. Enyedy, Steven
C. Gilman, Michael T. Heffernan, Daniel P. Regan and Michael
Rogers, some of whom are current members of the company's Board of
Directors), and, with respect to the Rosenblatt action, the Merger
Sub and Akebia, challenging the disclosures made in connection with
the Merger.

Three of the Merger Securities Actions were filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, or the Delaware
District Court: Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(filed October 16, 2018); Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. (filed October 24, 2018); and Andreula v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed November 1, 2018).   

The fourth Merger Securities Action was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the
Massachusetts District Court: Rosenblatt v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 23, 2018). On
February 19, 2019, the plaintiff in the Rosenblatt action filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. On
March 27, 2019, the plaintiff in the Van Hulst action filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.

On April 2, 2019, the Delaware District Court granted Abraham
Kiswani, a member of the putative class in both the Andreula and
Corwin actions, and plaintiff John Andreula's motion to consolidate
the remaining two Merger Securities Actions pending in the Delaware
District Court and consolidated the Corwin and Andreula cases under
the caption In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or the
Consolidated Action.

The Delaware District Court also appointed Kiswani and plaintiff
Andreula as lead plaintiffs for the Consolidated Action. On June 3,
2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in
the Consolidated Action, or the Consolidated Complaint.

The Consolidated Complaint generally alleges that the registration
statement filed in connection with the Merger contained allegedly
false and misleading statements or failed to disclose certain
allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The alleged misstatements or omissions relate to (i) certain
financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial
analyses performed by our advisors and (ii) any alleged
negotiations that may have taken place regarding the conversion of
certain convertible notes of Keryx in connection with the Merger.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks compensatory and/or rescissory
damages, a declaration that the defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and an
award of lead plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

The defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint in its entirety on August 2, 2019. Under the
scheduling order applicable to the Consolidated Action, briefing on
the defendants' motion to dismiss will be completed by November 15,
2019.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Discovery in Karth Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the parties in Karth v.
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., are presently engaged in
discovery.

Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Keryx
and certain of its former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A.
Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James Oliviero) and consolidated in the
Massachusetts District Court, captioned Karth v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 26, 2016, with an
amended complaint filed on February 27, 2017).

Plaintiff seeks to represent all stockholders who purchased shares
of Keryx common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016. The
complaint alleges that Keryx and the named individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or
misleading statements concerning Keryx, its supplier relationships,
and future prospects, and that the allegedly misleading statements
were not made known to the market until Keryx's August 1, 2016
announcement of an interruption in its supply of Auryxia.

By order dated July 19, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint. On February 27, 2019, defendants filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings. On April 30, 2019, plaintiff
filed a motion to further amend his complaint, and also moved for
class certification.  

The Massachusetts District Court heard oral argument on the motions
for judgment on the pleadings and class certification on June 19,
2019. The court took the motions (as well as plaintiff's motion to
further amend the complaint) under advisement. The parties are
presently engaged in discovery. No trial date has been set.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


ALIERA COMPANIES: Jackson Sues Over Illegal Health Insurance
------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD JACKSON, ROSLYN JACKSON and DEAN MELLOM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE ALIERA
COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; ALIERA HEALTHCARE, INC., a
Delaware corporation; TRINITY HEALTHSHARE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01281 (W.D. Wash., Aug.
14, 2019) seeks to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief to
prevent Defendants from continuing to market, sell and administer
unauthorized and illegal health insurance plans in Washington
state.

According to the complaint, the Defendants unfairly and deceptively
marketed, sold and administered unauthorized insurance plans to
Washington residents without having obtained the required approval
for insurance plan(s) from the Washington state Insurance
Commissioner. The unauthorized insurance plans marketed, sold, and
administered by Defendants did not meet the minimum benefits,
coverage and other requirements for health insurance in Washington
state. As a result, the insurance plans sold to Plaintiffs and
class members were illegal contracts.

On behalf of the proposed class and on their own behalf, Plaintiffs
also seek damages related to uncovered health care expenses,
premiums paid and other losses due to Defendants' marketing, sale
and administration of unauthorized health insurance plans, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs were enrolled in Aliera Healthcare/Trinity Healthshare.

Aliera markets, sells, and administers insurance plans for
Trinity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
     Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
     SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
     3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
     Seattle, WA 98121
     Phone: (206) 223-0303
     Fax: (206) 223-0246
     Email: rspoonemore@sylaw.com
            ehamburger@sylaw.com

          - and -

     Michael David Myers, Esq.
     MYERS & COMPANY, PLLC
     1530 Eastlake Avenue East
     Seattle, WA 98102
     Phone: (206) 398-1188
     Fax (206) 400-1115
     Email: mmyers@myers-company.com


ALLEN EDMONDS: Haggar et al. Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Elia Haggar, Kyo Hak Chu, and Valerie Brooks,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Allen Edmonds, LLC, a Wisconsin
corporation; and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01686 (Filed Mar. 7, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 23,
2019. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 0:19-cv-62129-KMM to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation
of Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Chief Judge K. Michael Moore.

Allen Edmonds is an American upscale shoe manufacturing and retail
company based in Port Washington, Wisconsin. The company was
established in Belgium, Wisconsin in 1922.[BN]

ALTRIA GROUP: Missouri Family Joins Class-Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Matt Flener, writing for KMBC News, reports that a Missouri family
is joining people across the country in suing e-cigarette company
Altria Group.

A Clay County mother and her teenage daughter have commenced a
class action lawsuit over the Juul e-cigarette.  The lawsuit states
the teen began vaping at 14 years old thinking it was a cool, fun
thing to do but became hooked.  The complaint says the teen now
suffers from more sicknesses and is uncharacteristically irritable
and anxious, as well as frequent headaches.  The class suit says
Juul designed their cigarettes to target youth and used social
media to hoping to gain customers for life.

Altria released this statement in response to the lawsuit:

"We believe the claims against Altria are meritless and will move
to dismiss the case at the appropriate time.  Virtually all of the
conduct alleged in the complaint occurred before Altria had any
economic interest in Juul.  Altria's minority stake in Juul
provides no basis for liability against Altria." [GN]



AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Bid to Dismiss NY Consolidated Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action in New
York remains pending.

On January 12, 2018 and January 19, 2018, two putative federal
securities class actions, captioned Hawaii Structural Ironworkers
Pension Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN (the "Hawaii Action"), and Nichols v.
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00510-AJN (the "Nichols Action," and together with the
Hawaii Action, the "Actions"), respectively, were filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  

The Actions, which name certain of the Company's officers and
directors and, in the case of the Hawaii Action, the underwriters
of the Company's February 8, 2017 secondary public offering, as
defendants, asserted claims under some or all of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to
alleged material misstatements and omissions in the registration
statement for the secondary public offering and in certain other
public disclosures.

On May 30, 2018, the court consolidated the Actions and appointed
the International Union of Operating Engineers Pension Fund of
Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware as lead plaintiff.

On August 13, 2018, lead plaintiff and additional named plaintiff
Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust Fund ("Plaintiffs")
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint. On November 21, 2018,
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On
January 22, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Class Action Complaint.

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

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
involved in the theatrical exhibition business. The company owns,
operates, or has interests in theatres. The company was founded in
1920 and is headquartered in Leawood, Kansas. AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Lao Class Action Underway in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company faces a
putative class and derivative complaint entitled, Lao v. Dalian
Wanda Group Co., Ltd., et al.

On April 22, 2019, a putative stockholder class and derivative
complaint, captioned Lao v. Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd., et al.,
C.A. No. 2019-0303-JRS (the "Lao Action"), was filed against
certain of the Company's directors, Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd.
("Wanda"), two of Wanda's affiliates, Silver Lake Group, L.L.C.
("Silver Lake"), and one of Silver Lake's affiliates in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

The Lao Action asserts claims directly, on behalf of a putative
class of Company stockholders, and derivatively, on behalf of the
Company, for breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty with respect to transactions that the
Company entered into with affiliates of Wanda and Silver Lake on
September 14, 2018, and the special cash dividend of $1.55 per
share of common stock that was payable on September 28, 2018 to the
Company's stockholders of record as of September 25, 2018.

On July 18, 2019, the Company's Board of Directors formed a Special
Litigation Committee to investigate and evaluate the claims and
allegations asserted in the Lao Action and make a determination as
to how the Company should proceed with respect to the Lao Action.

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
involved in the theatrical exhibition business. The company owns,
operates, or has interests in theatres. The company was founded in
1920 and is headquartered in Leawood, Kansas. AMC Entertainment
Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of Dalian Wanda Group Co., Ltd.


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action suit in Texas remains pending.

On October 1, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of
its officers in Gaurav Taneja v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Thompson Lin, and Stefan Murry, Case No. 4:18-cv-03544.

The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of
its announcement on September 28, 2018 that it was revising its
third quarter revenue guidance due to "an issue with a small
percentage of 25G lasers within a specific customer environment."

This case was consolidated with two identical cases styled Davin
Pokoik v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang Lin, and
Stefan J. Murry, Case No. 4:18-cv-3722 and Stephen McGrath v.
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc., Chih-Hsiang Lin, and Stefan J.
Murry.

Mark Naglich was appointed as Lead Plaintiff on the consolidated
matter on January 4, 2019. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint on March 5, 2019, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on May 6,
2019.

On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the
motion to dismiss. The deadline for the Company's reply brief in
support of the motion to dismiss is August 5, 2019.

Applied Optoelectronics said, "The Company disputes the allegations
and intends to vigorously contest the matter.

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.


APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS: Discovery to be Completed by June 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that fact discovery in
the consolidated "Abouzied" and "Ludwig" class action suit is
scheduled to be completed by June 1, 2020.

On August 5, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and two of
its officers in Mona Abouzied v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.,
Chih-Hsiang (Thompson) Lin, and Stefan J. Murry, et al., Case No.
4:17-cv-02399.

The complaint in this matter seeks class action status on behalf of
the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its chief
executive officer, and its chief financial officer, arising out of
its announcement on August 3, 2017 that "we see softer than
expected demand for the company's 40G solutions with one of its
large customers that will offset the sequential growth and
increased demand the company expects in 100G."

A second, related action was filed by Plaintiff Chad Ludwig on
August 16, 2017 (Case No. 4:17-cv-02512) in the Southern District
of Texas. The two cases were consolidated before Judge Vanessa D.
Gilmore.

On January 22, 2018, the court appointed Lawrence Rougier as Lead
Plaintiff and Levi & Korinsky LLP as Lead Counsel.

Lead Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action complaint
on March 6, 2018. The amended complaint requests unspecified
damages and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on
April 4, 2018, which was denied on March 28, 2019.  

The Company disputes the allegations, and intends to continue to
vigorously defend against these claims.  

On May 15, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
the consolidated class action complaint for the purpose of adding
named Plaintiffs Richard Hamilton, Kenneth X. Luthy, Roy H. Cetlin,
and John Kugel (together with Lead Plaintiff Lawrence Rougier,
"Plaintiffs") to the case.

The court granted the motion on May 16, 2019. The substantive
allegations in the Plaintiffs' operative second amended
consolidated class action complaint remain unchanged. On May 28,
2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify the case as a
class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and
seeking appointment of Plaintiffs as class representatives and Levi
& Korsinsky as class counsel.

On July 12, 2019, the Company filed a response in opposition to the
motion for class certification. The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply
brief is August 26, 2019.  

Applied Optoelectronics said, "The case is currently in the early
stages of discovery, and fact discovery is scheduled to be
completed by June 1, 2020. At this early stage, we are not yet able
to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this
matter."

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
various fiber-optic networking products worldwide. It offers
optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and
turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution
equipment. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.


AVEO PHARMA: Continues to Defend Hackel Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend the class action suit initiated by David Hackel.

On February 25, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and certain of its present officers and a former officer,
Michael Bailey, Matthew Dallas, and Keith Ehrlich, in the Southern
District of New York for the District of New York, captioned David
Hackel v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, No. 1:19-cv-01722-AT.


On April 12, 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to
transfer the action to the District of Massachusetts (Case No.
1:19-cv-10783-JCB). On May 6, 2019, the court appointed Andrej
Hornak as lead plaintiff and approved Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel
and Andrews DeValerio LLP as liaison counsel.

On July 24, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint also names Michael Needle as a defendant. The
amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the companys's common stock between May 4, 2017
through January 31, 2019.  

It generally alleges that the company and its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose and/or
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements about the
estimated dates by which the company would report the topline
results from the TIVO-3 trial, the preliminary overall survival
results from the TIVO-3 trial, the sufficiency of the overall
survival data from the TIVO-3 trial, the timing of the NDA
submission, and the risk of FDA approval.  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.

AVEO Pharmaceuticals said, "We deny any allegations of wrongdoing
and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However,
there is no assurance that we will be successful in our defense or
that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement
or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, we are
unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss at this time."

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

AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops
and commercializes a portfolio of targeted medicines for oncology
and other areas of unmet medical need. The company was formerly
known as GenPath Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in March 2005. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was
incorporated in 2001 and is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


BLACKROCK INC: Appeal in iShares ETFs Investors Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
BlackRock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that plaintiffs' appeal from
the court's order of dismissal in the iShares ETF-related suit is
still pending.

On June 16, 2016, iShares Trust, BlackRock, Inc. and certain of its
advisory subsidiaries, and the directors and certain officers of
the iShares ETFs were named as defendants in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in California state court.

The lawsuit was filed by investors in certain iShares ETFs (the
"ETFs"), and alleges the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses issued by
the ETFs the risks to the ETFs' shareholders in the event of a
"flash crash."

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and rescission damages.
The plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in December 2016 and on
January 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On April 27, 2017, the court partially granted the defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing certain of the
plaintiffs' claims. On September 18, 2017, the court issued a
decision dismissing the remainder of the lawsuit after a one-day
bench trial.

On December 1, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their
lawsuit, which is pending.

The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit.

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

BlackRock, Inc. provides investment management services to
institutional clients and to retail investors through various
investment vehicles. The Company manages funds, as well as offers
risk management services. BlackRock serves governments, companies,
and foundations worldwide. The company is based in New York, New
York.


BLACKROCK INC: Class Cert. Bid in ERISA Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
BlackRock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint and plaintiffs' motion to to
certify both the 401(k) Plan class and the Collective Trust Fund
class are pending.

On April 5, 2017, BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock Institutional Trust
Company, N.A. ("BTC"), the BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee and
various sub-committees, and a BlackRock employee were named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California by a former
employee on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries in the
BlackRock employee 401(k) Plan (the "Plan") from April 5, 2011 to
the present.

The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants breached their
duties towards Plan participants in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by, among other things,
offering investment options that were overly expensive,
underperformed peer funds, focused disproportionately on active
versus passive strategies, and were unduly concentrated in
investment options managed by BlackRock.

On October 18, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
which, among other things, added as defendants certain current and
former members of the BlackRock Retirement and Investment
Committees. The Amended Complaint also included a new purported
class claim on behalf of investors in certain Collective Trust
Funds ("CTFs") managed by BTC.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that BTC, as fiduciary to the
CTFs, engaged in self-dealing by, most significantly, selecting
itself as the securities lending agent on terms that the plaintiffs
claim were excessive.

The Amended Complaint also alleged that BlackRock took undue risks
in its management of securities lending cash reinvestment vehicles
during the financial crisis. On August 23, 2018, the court granted
permission to the plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC") which added as defendants the BlackRock, Inc. Management
Development and Compensation Committee, the Plan's independent
investment consultant and the Plan's Administrative Committee and
its members.

On October 22, 2018, BlackRock filed a motion to dismiss the SAC,
and on June 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
certify both the Plan and the CTF classes.

Both motions are pending. The defendants believe the claims in this
lawsuit are without merit.

BlackRock, Inc. provides investment management services to
institutional clients and to retail investors through various
investment vehicles. The Company manages funds, as well as offers
risk management services. BlackRock serves governments, companies,
and foundations worldwide. The company is based in New York, New
York.


BOEING COMPANY: Pilot H Sues Over Grounding of MAX Aircrafts
------------------------------------------------------------
PILOT H, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated
v. THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:19-cv-05517 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 15, 2019), seeks compensation on
behalf of the Plaintiff and approximately 100 other pilots
qualified to fly the Boeing 737 MAX series of aircraft as employees
of an international airline ("Airline H").

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's personal and
professional life was disrupted when Boeing and the Federal
Aviation Administration engaged in an unprecedented cover-up of
known design flaws of the MAX, which predictably resulted in the
crashes of two MAX aircraft and grounding of all MAX aircraft
worldwide.  The Plaintiff relied on BOEING's representations that
the MAX was safe when the Plaintiff chose to qualify to fly the
MAX, and the Plaintiff suffered significant lost wages, among other
economic and non-economic damages, when the MAX was grounded with
no end in sight, the Plaintiff contends.

Boeing is a Delaware corporation registered with the Illinois
Secretary of State as doing business in Illinois, with its
corporate headquarters and principal place of business located in
Chicago, Illinois.

BOEING and Airbus SE maintain a global duopoly of the commercial
aircraft manufacturing industry with the two companies making up
99% of commercial jet orders worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick M. Jones, Esq.
          Sarah M. Beaujour, Esq.
          PMJ PLLC
          100 South State Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 255-7976
          E-mail: pmj@patjonespllc.com
                  smb@patjonespllc.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Wheeler, Esq.
          IALPG PTY LTD (T/AS INTERNATIONAL AEROSPACE LAW
          & POLICY GROUP)
          1D, 7/139 Junction Road
          Clayfield, Queensland
          Australia 4011
          Telephone: +61 7 3040 1099
          E-mail: jwheeler@ialpg.com


BUCCELLATI INC: Diaz Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Buccellati, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-07348,
(S.D. N.Y., August 6, 2019), seeks preliminary and permanent
injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this
action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such
other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights
Law.

Defendant is a jewelry retailer that owns and operates the website,
us.buccellati.com. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that
Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com

             - and -

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, New York 11201
      Tel: (929) 575-4175
      Fax: (929) 575-4195
      Email: Joseph@cml.legal


BURFORD CAPITAL: Class Suit Filed After Muddy Waters Dustup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alaina Lancaster, writing for Law.com, reports that litigation
funder Burford Capital is facing a shareholder class action lawsuit
after it was accused of being insolvent and of doctoring its
returns.

The Rosen Law Firm is representing Burford securities investor
Stephen Merz in the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.  Merz accuses the funder of
misrepresenting or failing to disclose signs of adverse business
conditions, citing Burford's annual reports going back to 2014 and
a report released by Muddy Waters on Aug. 7.

The lawsuit regurgitates key charges levied in the Muddy Waters
report, including that Burford has manipulated its metrics to
conceal that the company is "arguably insolvent."

"Had plaintiff and the other members of the class been aware that
the market price of Burford securities had been artificially and
falsely inflated by defendants' misleading statements and by the
material[ly] adverse information which defendants did not disclose,
they would not have purchased Burford securities at the
artificially inflated prices that they did, or at all," the Rosen
Law Firm's Phillip Kim, Esq. -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- and Laurence
Rosen, Esq. -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- wrote.

Burford declined to comment on the ongoing litigation. Kim and
Rosen did not immediately respond to a request for comment at the
time of publication.

The complaint asserts that the truth began to emerge after the
Muddy Waters report was published, causing Burford's ordinary
shares to dip 42% to $5.90 a share.

The following day, Burford called the the report "false and
misleading," and jumped on a shareholder call to answer investors'
questions about the allegations.

In addition to the company, the lawsuit names Burford chairman
Peter Middleton, CEO Christopher Bogart, Chief Investment Officer
Jonathan Molot and board director Charles Parkinson. Merz's lawyers
allege that the individual defendants were aware or involved with
the dissemination of false and misleading statements.

"The Individual defendants, who are the senior officers and/or
directors of the company, had actual knowledge of the material
omissions and/or the falsity of the material statements set forth
above, and intended to deceive Plaintiff and the other members of
the class, or, in the alternative, acted with reckless disregard
for the truth when they failed to ascertain and disclose the true
facts in the statements made by them or other Burford personnel to
members of the investing public, including Plaintiff and the
Class," the lawsuit said.

The complaint seeks damages, and counsel and expert fees.

The Rosen Law Firm has had a series of high-profile securities
litigation wins and appointments.  This month, the firm was tapped
to investigate Uber shareholders' securities claims against the
ride-hailing company and an investigation for shareholders of
pharmaceutical company Novartis AG.  In April, the firm secured a
$250 million settlement for investors of online retailer Alibaba,
as well as a $110 million settlement for Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
N.V. Investors. [GN]


BURFORD CAPITAL: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Burford Capital Limited (OTC: BRFRF, BRFRY) from
March 18, 2015 through August 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Burford
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Burford class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1647.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) Burford has been manipulating its metrics, including ROIC
and IRR, to create a misleading picture of investment returns to
investors; (2) these manipulations hid the fact that the Company is
at high risk for a liquidity crunch and is already arguably
insolvent; and (3) as a result of the aforementioned misconduct,
Defendants' statements about Burford'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 October
21, 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-1647.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 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.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY  10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com [GN]


C.R. ENGLAND: Stephens Seeks Minimum Wages for Truck Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Stephens, Jr. and Harold Johnson, on Behalf of Themselves and
all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. C.R. England,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03627-AT (N.D. Ga., Aug. 12,
2019), seeks damages for Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages
to Plaintiffs and similarly situated long-haul over-the-road truck
driver employees of Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Portal-to-Portal Act.

The Defendant paid Plaintiffs for their work on a per-mile basis.
The Plaintiffs were paid as little as .14 cents per mile, and at
other times, up to .28 per mile. However, Defendant failed to
ensure that the weekly wages Plaintiffs received on this per-mile
basis were equaled at least the applicable minimum hourly wage for
all hours that Plaintiffs worked per week.

In many instances Plaintiffs did not receive the applicable minimum
wage for all of their hours of work per seven day workweek because
the weekly mileage pay they received, when divided by the weekly
hours considered worked under the FLSA, was less than the
applicable minimum hourly wage rate, the lawsuit says.

C.R. England, Inc. amongst other business activities, provides
long-haul trucking services to its customers, with locations in
Georgia, Texas, Arizona, San Diego, Utah, as well as additional
locations across the United States. In connection with these
services, C.R. England employs truck drivers like Plaintiffs to
drive its trucks.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
          DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS,
          FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
          3100 Centennial Tower
          101 Marietta Street
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 979-3150
          Facsimile: (404) 979-3170
          E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com

               - and -

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          Rebecca Currier, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
          E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com
                  marbuckl@baronbudd.com

CANCUN MEXICAN: Campos Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO MATA CAMPOS, et al. on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated person, the Plaintiffs, vs. CANCUN MEXICAN
RESTAURANT OF SNEADS FERRY, LLC, CAMINO REAL, LLC, TAQUERIA LA
TAPATIA, LLC, AND JORGE VILLASENOR, the Defendants, Case No.
7:19-cv-00152-BO (E.D.N.C., Aug. 14, 2019), seeks minimum and
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and his coworkers perform various tasks in
Defendants'restaurants in North Carolina. Mata Campos and many of
his co-workers worked pursuant to temporary foreign worker visas,
called H-2B visas.

Defendants are related Mexican restaurants located in Sneads Ferry,
Onslow County; Surf City, Pender County; and Wilmington, New
Hanover County (all in North Carolina).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Carol L. Brooke, Esq.
          Clermont F. Ripley, Esq.
          NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
          P.O. Box 28068
          Raleigh, NC 27611
          Telephone: 919 856 2165
          Facsimile: 919 856 2175
          E-mail: carol@ncjustice.org
                  clermont@ncjustice.org.

CARBONITE INC: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Carbonite, Inc. (NASDAQ: CARB) in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Carbonite
between February 7, 2019 and July 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' alleged
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued a series of false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material 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, the Complaint alleges that 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 on several larger deals during fiscal
2019. As a result of this information being withheld from the
market,  the Complaint alleges the price of Carbonite common stock
was artificially inflated to more than $29 per share during the
Class Period.

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.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the September 30,
2019 lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


CENGAGE LEARNING: Bernstein Seeks Full Payment of Royalties
------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS BERNSTEIN; ELAINE INGULLI; TERRY HALBERT; EDWARD ROY; LOUIS
PENNER; and ROSS PARKE, as personal representative of THE ESTATE OF
ALISON CLARKE-STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07541 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2019) alleges
that the Defendant failed to pay proper royalties on revenue
received from sales of the Plaintiff's academic textbooks.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and members of the
putative class are professors and leading academics who authored
academic textbooks and entered into contracts with Cengage to
publish, sell, and distribute Plaintiffs' textbooks.  The
Publishing Agreements each require that Cengage pay the Plaintiffs
royalties on the net receipts from the sale of their works.
However, Cengage has adopted a class-wide policy of diluting the
net receipts from which royalties are calculated and paid to
Plaintiffs simply because the sale at issue happened to occur
digitally. Cengage's digital-sale financial alchemy violates the
plain language of the Publishing Agreements.

Cengage has recently introduced two new digital sales channels to
increase its revenues from the sale of the Plaintiffs' works, and
those digital platforms are called (i) MindTap and (ii) Cengage
Unlimited. These two digital offerings have been wildly successful,
so much so that Cengage attributes them to causing Cengage to have
"outperformed our competitors and improved the performance of our
Higher Ed business. We were able to make significant investments in
our strategic priorities while also generating positive free cash
flow.

The Publishing Agreements require that Cengage calculate royalties
for any sale of the Plaintiffs' works by applying the contractually
specified royalty rate to the net receipts from sales of their
works. However, Cengage has treated the sale of the Plaintiffs'
works on MindTap differently, with no authorization to do so under
the Publishing Agreements.

Rather than following the net-receipts-of-sales contractual
requirement, Cengage has unilaterally diminished the amount of
revenue from MindTap that should be royalty-bearing by applying
haircuts. The Publishing Agreements require payment of royalties on
the net receipts from sales. However, for sales that occur through
Cengage Unlimited, Cengage applies a different formula found
nowhere in its contracts with the Plaintiffs. Cengage looks to what
it deems, apparently by its mere say-so, the "relative value" to
Cengage Unlimited subscribers of a particular work and the weighted
average of the number of uses of that work, and then pays a royalty
off that manufactured calculation. The Publishing Agreements,
however, do not provide for the application of this made-up formula
that serves to enrich Cengage and reduce the royalty-bearing
revenue of its authors.

Cengage Learning, Inc. develops learning solutions. The Company
offers courses for instructor and trainer development,
supplementary information, certifications, and online training
services. Cengage Learning operates worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Rohit D. Nath, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
                  rnath@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Chanler A. Langham, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002-5096
          Telephone: (713) 651-9366
          Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
          E-mail: clangham@susmangodfrey.com


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Appeal in Naylor Farms Class Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's appeal of
the order granting class certification in Naylor Farms, Inc.,
individually and as class representative on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C (the "Naylor Farms
case"), has been denied by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was filed against the
company in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma ("Naylor Trial Court") alleging that the
company improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties
paid to plaintiffs and other non-governmental Royalty Interest
owners from crude oil and natural gas wells the company operates in
Oklahoma.
.
The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including breach of
contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
other claims and seek termination of leases, recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees
on behalf of the alleged class.

Plaintiffs indicated they seek damages in excess of $5,000, the
majority of which would be comprised of interest and may increase
with the passage of time.

The company responded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the
allegations and raised arguments and defenses. Plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification in October 2015. In addition, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment asking the Naylor
Trial Court to determine as a matter of law that natural gas is not
marketable until it is in the condition and location to enter an
interstate pipeline.

On May 20, 2016, the company filed a Notice of Suggestion of
Bankruptcy with the Naylor Trial Court. Subsequently the bankruptcy
stay was lifted for the limited purpose of determining the class
certification issue.

On January 17, 2017, the Naylor Trial Court certified a modified
class of plaintiffs with oil and gas leases containing specific
language. The modified class constitutes less than 60% of the
leases the plaintiffs originally sought to certify.

After additional briefing on the subject, on April 18, 2017, the
Naylor Trial Court issued an order certifying the class to include
only claims relating back to June 1, 2006.

On May 3, 2019, the company's appeal of that class certification
was denied by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Tenth
Circuit”).

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

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, production, and operation of onshore oil and natural
gas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. The
company sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids
primarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company was
founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


CHIASMA INC: Settlement in Gerneth Suit Finally Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
Chiasma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a court has issued an
order granting final approval to the settlement in the case,
Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc., et al.

On June 9, 2016, Chiasma, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers were named as defendants in a purported federal
securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, styled Gerneth v. Chiasma,
Inc., et al.

An amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff on February
10, 2017 challenging the company's statements regarding its first
Phase 3 clinical trial methodology and results, and its ability to
obtain the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for
octreotide capsules, in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The amended complaint added as defendants current and former
members of our board of directors, as well as the investment banks
that underwrote our initial public offering on July 15, 2015.

The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
on behalf of himself and members of a putative shareholder class,
including interest and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
litigating the action, and any other relief the court determines is
appropriate.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 27, 2017 and on February 15, 2018, the court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants filed an answer to
the amended complaint on March 30, 2018.

On February 27, 2019, the parties agreed to a settlement of all
legal claims in which defendants expressly denied that they have
committed any act or omission giving rise to any liability under
Sections 11 or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On March 14, 2019,
the court issued an order of preliminary approval of the
settlement.

Chiasma said, "As a result of this settlement agreement, we have
recorded a litigation settlement liability of $18.8 million as of
December 31, 2018. Additionally, we have recorded a litigation
insurance settlement recovery receivable of $18.3 million as of
December 31, 2018 which represents the estimated insurance claim
proceeds from our insurance carriers."

On June 27, 2019, the court issued an order of final approval of
the settlement. The litigation insurance settlement recovery and
litigation settlement liability were settled during the three
months ended June 30, 2019.

Chiasma, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on developing oral medications using transient permeability
enhancer technology platform for the treatment of rare and serious
chronic disease in the United States, Europe, and internationally.
Chiasma, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Waltham,
Massachusetts.


CHOWNOW INC: Walker Sues Over Web Site Not Accessible by Blinds
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CHOWNOW INC., Case No. 712874/2019 (N.Y., Queens Cty.,
July 25, 2019),  arises from the Defendant's failure to design,
construct, own or operate its Web site --
https://www.eat.chownow.com/ -- that is fully accessible to, and
independently usable by, the Plaintiff and other blind people.

The Defendant is an American for-profit corporation under the laws
of Delaware, with a principal address in Playa Vista, California.
The Web site provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, restaurant delivery and pickup reservations, and other
programs offered by the Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Brandon Sherr, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


CJ MAHAN: Seeks Eighth Circuit Review of Ruling in Betzner Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants C.J. Mahan Construction Company, LLC, Parsons
Construction Group, Inc. and Parsons-Mahan Joint Venture filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Calvin Fred
Betzner Rev. Trust, et al. v. C.J. Mahan Construction Co., et al.,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00778-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed in the Prairie County Circuit Court (assigned Case No.
59SCV-17-00038).  The lawsuit was removed to the District Court on
November 27, 2017, and assigned to the Hon. Judge Billy Roy
Wilson.

The appellate case is captioned as Calvin Fred Betzner Rev. Trust,
et al. v. C.J. Mahan Construction Co., et al., Case No. 19-8017, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents Calvin Fred Betzner Revocable Trust, et al.,
are represented by:

          Randall I. Hall, Esq.
          Mattie A. Taylor, Esq.
          HALL & TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS
          Post Office Box 242055
          Little Rock, AR 72223
          Telephone: (501) 404-2333
          Facsimile: (501) 404-2336
          E-mail: randy@littlerocktriallawyers.com

               - and -

          John Doyle Nalley, Esq.
          LOVELL, NALLEY & NALLEY
          Post Office Box 606
          Benton, AR 72015-0606
          Telephone: (501) 315-7491
          Facsimile: (501) 778-4979
          E-mail: johndoylenalley@hotmail.com

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

          Stephen Reese Lancaster, Esq.
          Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq.
          Jaimie G. Moss, Esq.
          Kyle R. Wilson, Esq.
          WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS
          200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Telephone: (501) 371-0808
          E-mail: slancaster@wlj.com
                  gmarts@wlj.com
                  jmoss@wlj.com
                  kwilson@wlj.com


CLEVELAND, OH: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Kozma Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY KOZMA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. THE CITY OF CLEVELAND, Case No. 1:19-cv-01867 (N.D. Ohio, Aug.
15, 2019), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant has operated and controlled the Cleveland Police
Department.

The Plaintiff is employed and has been employed by the Defendant as
a non-exempt, hourly police officer for approximately 20
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 West Superior Avenue, Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          E-mail: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          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


COMPASSIONATE FRIENDS: Linn Seeks OT Wages for Nurses
-----------------------------------------------------
Kayla Linn, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Compassionate Friends Homecare, LLC,
an Ohio corporation, and Daniel Kopronica, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01783 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 8, 2019), alleges that Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff Linn and other similarly-situated employees
all earned overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio Revised Code.

The Plaintiffs are all current and former State Tested Nurse's
Aides, Home Health Aides, Certified Nurse's Aides and nurses who
were employed by Defendants at any time starting three years before
this complaint was filed, up to the present.

Under the FLSA and ORC, employers must pay all non-exempt employees
an overtime wage premium of pay one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for all time they spend working in excess of
40 hours in a given workweek. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all time they
spent working in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com

               - and -

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          6000 Freedom Square Dr.
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 525-8890
          Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
          E-mail: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com

CORECIVIC, INC: Huff et al. Seek to Certify Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CoreCivic, Inc.,
f/k/a Corrections Corporation of America, and Securus Technologies,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02320-JAR-JPO (D. Kan.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order:

   1. certifying proposed Settlement Class pursuant to Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23 for settlement purposes only;

   2. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement and Release

      as fair, reasonable and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
      subject to a final determination by the Court;

   3. approving the appointment of the Plaintiffs as
      representatives of the Settlement Class for settlement
      purposes;

   4. approving the appointment of Class Counsel for the
      Settlement Class for settlement purposes;

   5. approving the form of mailed notice to be sent to the
      members of the Settlement Class;

   6. directing the Settlement Administrator to, promptly after
      entry by the Court of the Preliminary Approval Order, mail
      the Class Notice to the Class Members by first-class mail to

      the last known address of such persons;

   7. establishing a procedure for members of the Settlement Class

      to opt out and setting a date, 45 after mailing of the Class

      Notice, after which no member of the Settlement Class shall
      be allowed to opt out of the Settlement Class;

   8. establishing a procedure for the members of the Settlement
      Class to object to the Settlement and setting a date, 45
      days after mailing of the Class Mail Notice, after which no
      member of the Settlement Class shall be allowed to object;

   9. scheduling a hearing on final approval of this Agreement and

      establishing a procedure for the members of the Settlement
      Class to appear at the hearing; and

  10. staying this case until further order of the Court, other
      than as may be necessary to effectuate the Settlement and
      carry out the terms of the Agreement or the
      responsibilities related or incidental thereto.[CC]

Attorneys for Ashley Huff and Gregory Rapp are:

          Robert A. Horn, Esq.
          Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
          HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone 816-421-0700
          Facsimile 816-421-0899
          E-mail: rhorn@hab-law.com
                  jkronawitter@hab-law.com

               - and -

          Brian Timothy Meyers, Esq.
          Brian C. McCart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN TIMOTHY MEYERS
          1044 Main Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MI 64105
          Telephone: (816) 842-0006
          E-mail: btmeyers@btm-law.com
                  bmccart@btm-law.com

CORELOGIC VALUATION: Mitchell Seeks to Certify Class of Appraisers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as HARRIETT MITCHELL and JASON
behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public, the Plaintiffs, vs. CORELOGIC VALUATION SOLUTIONS, INC.,
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-02274-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2019), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court on November 18, 2019, for an order certifying a
class of:

   "all persons who are or have been employed by CoreLogic under
   the titles Appraiser, Staff Appraiser, Valuation Solutions
   Appraiser, or Residential Appraiser in the State of California
   within four years prior to this action’s filing date through
   the final disposition of this action, but excluding those
   compelled to arbitration by this Court's order."[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the Collective, and Putative Class Action
Members are:

          Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
          Rachel M. Terp, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-9300
          Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
          E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
                  rachel@bryanschwarzlaw.com

               - and -

          Nichols kaster, Esq.
          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 277-7234
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
          E-mail: helland@nka.com
                  dbrome@nka.com

CSC SERVICEWORKS: Court OKs Counterclaims Dismissal in RBB2 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss
Counterclaims in the case captioned RBB2, LLC, a California limited
liability company, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CSC SERVICEWORKS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation Defendant. No. 1:18-cv-00915-LJO-JLT. (E.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff RBB2, LLC filed a putative class action suit against
Defendant CSC ServiceWorks, Inc., initially asserting claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from a 9.75%
administrative fee   Defendant unilaterally charged RBB2 and the
putative class.  

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and the Court granted the
motion in part, dismissing without prejudice the unjust enrichment
claim.  Plaintiff then filed the First Amended Complaint  
asserting claims for breach of contract, and in the alternative, a
quasi-contract claim for restitution, answered the FAC and asserted
the following counterclaims: (1) breach of contract (2)
quasi-contract claim for restitution in the alternative of breach
of contract and (3) for declaratory relief.

Sufficiency of Plaintiff's Claims under Rule 12(b)(6)

CSC's allegations that RBB2 failed to refund putative overpayments
does not state a plausible claim for breach of contract.

CSC's breach of contract counterclaim essentially avers that
because CSC has not historically deducted all of the allowable
shared expenses and costs associated with its laundry services, it
has consistently overpaid RBB2 in the form of rent.  

In its counterclaim, CSC now seeks to be made whole by these
overpayments. Under California law, which governs the parties'
Agreement, a plaintiff must plead four elements to adequately state
a claim for breach of contract: (1) the existence of a contract (2)
plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance (3) the
defendant's breach and (4) damages to the plaintiff as a result of
the breach.  

CSC alleges that RBB2 breached the contract by failing to pay,
remit, or return all amounts to which CSC is contractually
entitled.  

RBB2 argues that CSC's counterclaims are an attempt to
retroactively charge the Administrative Fee.  RBB2 contends that
CSC is responsible for calculating the amount of rent it owes RBB2
and RBB2 takes no role in calculating this amount. RBB2 further
contends that CSC has never complained that it has overpaid RBB2.
Essentially, CSC asserts breach of contract by RBB2 failing to
refund CSC for an unspecified amount for overpayments of rent. The
plaint terms of the contract are not reasonably susceptible to
CSC's interpretation. CSC has not alleged that it requested a
refund from RBB2 or that it ever notified RBB2 of the alleged
overpayments.

CSC fails to explain how its conduct of undercalculating the rent
constituted a breach of contract by RBB2.

CSC has not alleged that RBB2 has breached the plain terms of the
lease agreement
First, CSC acknowledges that RBB2's alleged breach does not violate
the terms of the laundry lease agreement, but instead claims that
RBB2 violated the parties' contract evidenced by their course of
dealing. Thus, by CSC's implicit admission, the written laundry
lease agreement does not impose a duty on RBB2 to pay, remit, or
return amounts that CSC had allegedly overpaid.  

The written lease agreement states that CSC is the party
responsible for calculating and paying the rent to RBB2 after
deducting allowable expenditures. The lease agreement does not
impose a duty on RBB2 to calculate the rent or to calculate the
taxes and fees CSC is allowed to deduct when calculating the rent
payment.  Accordingly, RBB2's failure to refund CSC for amounts
that it allegedly overpaid is not a breach of the plain terms of
the written lease. The remaining question is whether the parties'
course of dealing created a duty for RBB2 to refund CSC's alleged
overpayments for rent.

Course of Dealing

Under California law, the terms of a written contract may be
explained or supplemented by course of dealing or course of
performance. Course of dealing is defined as a sequence of previous
conduct between the parties to a particular transaction which is
fairly to be regarded as establishing a common basis of
understanding for interpreting their expressions and other
conduct.

In the present case, although CSC avers that the parties' course of
dealing demonstrates that RBB2 breached the contract, CSC alleges
no facts to support this assertion. CSC claims that RBB2 knew that
CSC was entitled to payment for certain costs and expenses and that
RBB2 breached the contract by not paying it those amounts.

However, it is undisputed that CSC collected the laundry service
revenue, calculated applicable deductions, and paid RBB2 the
appropriate percentage of adjusted revenue. Nowhere in the parties'
course of dealing has RBB2 been responsible for remitting payments
to CSC. Rather than the parties' course of dealing demonstrating
that RBB2 breached the contract, if anything, the alleged course of
dealing shows that CSC was solely responsible for calculating and
submitting rent payments to RBB2.

CSC has not sufficiently pled that it has performed under the
contract

Under California law, to state a claim for a relief for breach of
contract, the party alleging breach must plead that she performed
or was excused from performing. CSC makes only a conclusory
statement of the performance element of the breach of contract
claim: CSC has performed its duties under the lease agreement by
providing the laundry services as described therein. This
threadbare recital of performance element does not meet the
pleading requirements to survive a motion to dismiss.

For these reasons, the contract is not reasonably susceptible to
CSC's interpretation that RBB2 breached the contract by failing to
remit the alleged overpayments, and CSC's breach of contract claim
is dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief.

The Court cannot conclude it is impossible for CSC to cure the
counterclaim's defects by amendment. Thus, the breach of contract
counterclaim is dismissed with leave to amend.

CSC's Quasi-Contract Claim for Restitution Fails to State a
Plausible Claim for Relief
Next, Defendant CSC brings a quasi-contract counterclaim for
restitution as an alternative to its breach of contract claim. CSC
avers that it conferred a benefit on RBB2 by paying more rent than
was contractually due. This occurred by CSC not deducting the full
amount that it was legally entitled and by not collecting certain
guaranteed minimum payments from RBB2 prior to May 2017.

Common law principles of restitution require a party to return a
benefit when the retention of such benefit would unjustly enrich
the recipient. A quasi-contract claim for restitution may be
available when a party has been unjustly conferred a benefit as
through mistake, fraud, coercion, or request, such that it would be
unjust for the recipient to retain the benefit.
  
Existence of a Binding Agreement

An action based on an implied-in-fact or quasi-contract cannot lie
where there exists between the parties a valid express contract
covering the same subject matter. When parties have an actual
contract covering a subject, a court cannot substitute its own
concept of fairness regarding that subject in place of the parties'
contract. However, restitution may be awarded in lieu of breach of
contract damages when the parties had an express contract, but it
was procured by fraud or is unenforceable or ineffective for some
reason.

In the present case, CSC's quasi-contract counterclaim fails to
allege the absence of a binding agreement between the parties or
that the contract was otherwise unenforceable. CSC alleges that
RBB2 had knowledge of and enjoyed the benefits conferred upon it by
CSC, including receipt of more money and greater value than CSC
contractually owed RBB2.

Here, CSC acknowledges the existence of a valid contract which
forecloses the possibility of recovery under a quasi-contract claim
for restitution. In CSC's quasi-contract claim, it essentially
complains that the contract between the parties was unfair to CSC
and CSC paid more in rent than required. This is not the type of
allegation suitable for a quasi-contract claim for restitution.
This Court will not substitute its concept of fairness for
contractual terms agreed-upon by the parties.  

Accordingly, CSC's quasi-contract counterclaim is improperly pled,
and it is dismissed with leave to amend.

CSC's Claim for Declaratory Relief

CSC also requests that the Court declare that CSC was entitled to
implement the Administrative Fee and that CSC was entitled to
deduct additional costs from the rent even prior to instituting the
Administrative Fee. RBB2 argues that this general request serves no
useful purpose and should be denied.

Injunctive relief is a remedy and not in itself a cause of action.
A cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be
granted. A claim for declaratory relief becomes duplicative and
unnecessary when it is commensurate with the relief sought through
other causes of action.

Declaratory relief is appropriate (1) when the judgment will serve
a useful purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations at
issue and (2) when it will terminate and afford relief from the
uncertainty, insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the
proceeding.

CSC's claim for declaratory relief is remedial in nature rather
than a stand-alone cause of action. Therefore, CSC's counterclaim
for declaratory relief fails to state a cause of action.

CSC's cause of action for declaratory relief is dismissed as
unnecessary and duplicative of the remaining counterclaims. The
remaining counterclaim for breach of contract and, in the
alternative, the quasi-contract counterclaim for restitution, are
dismissed with leave to amend.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019 Memorandum
Decision and Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y4c5lecy
from Leagle.com.

RBB2, LLC, a California limited liability company, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented
by Benjamin H. Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -
Edelson PC, pro hac vice, Michael Ovca -- movca@edelson.com --
Edelson PC, pro hac vice, Todd Michael Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com
-- Edelson PC & Rafey Sarkis Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com
-- Edelson PC, pro hac vice.

CSC Serviceworks, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Paul La Scala  -plascala@shb.com -- Shook Hardy &
Bacon LLP, Paul A. Williams -- pwilliams@shb.com -- Shook Hardy &
Bacon, L.L.P., pro hac vice & Matthew F. Williams --
mfwilliams@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.

CSC Serviceworks, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Counter Claimant,
represented by Paul La Scala, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Paul A.
Williams, Shook Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P.

RBB2, LLC, a California limited liability company, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Counter Defendant,
represented by Benjamin H. Richman, Edelson PC, pro hac vice,
Michael Ovca, Edelson PC, pro hac vice, Todd Michael Logan, Edelson
PC & Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Edelson PC, pro hac vice.


CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (OTCMKTS: CURLF) and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District Court,
for the Eastern District of New York, and indexed under
19-cv-04640, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Curaleaf securities between November 21, 2018 and
July 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Plaintiff seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Curaleaf securities during
the class period, you have until Oct. 4, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Curaleaf purports to operate as an integrated medical and wellness
cannabis operator in the United States.  Curaleaf is incorporated
in Canada and has headquarters in Massachusetts.  Curaleaf operates
within this judicial district.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
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, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that:  (i) Curaleaf, on
its website and social media pages, marketed its CBD products to be
used as drugs and dietary supplements, contrary to law; (ii)
Curaleaf also sold unapproved animal drugs on its website; (iii)
such conduct would result in a warning letter from the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA"); and (iv) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

On July 22, 2019, the FDA sent a warning letter to Curaleaf
regarding several CBD products sold at http://curaleafhemp.com(the
"Warning Letter").  The Warning Letter noted that Curaleaf was
selling unapproved new and misbranded drugs, improperly marketing
its CBD products as dietary supplements, and selling unapproved new
animal drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act.  

On this news, shares of Curaleaf fell $0.58 per share, or 7.27%, to
close at $7.40 per share on July 23, 2019, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.

Contact:

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Schall Law Probing Investors Claims
------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (OTCQX:CURLF) for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. The FDA sent a warning letter to Curaleaf
on July 22, 2019. The FDA letter stated that the Company was
selling several CBD products on its website that were "misbranded
drugs," a violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Based on this news, shares of Curaleaf fell more than 7% on July
23, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         Tel.: 310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         E-mail: info@schallfirm.com
                 brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


DEL FRISCO'S: Palestino Suit Challenges Harlan Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Del Frisco's Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August 8,
2019, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a
putative class action suit entitled, Benjamin Palestino v. DFRG,
Inc., et al.

On June 23, 2019, Del Frisco's Restaurant Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("DFRG" or the "Company") entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company,
Harlan Parent, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Harlan
Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub
will be merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the
Company surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent.

On July 23, 2019, the Company filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a preliminary proxy statement (the
"Proxy Statement") related to a special meeting of the Company's
stockholders to be held for the purpose of, among other things,
voting on the Merger.

In connection with the Merger, after the Proxy Statement was filed,
a putative class action complaint was filed in the District Court
of Dallas County, Texas, captioned Benjamin Palestino v. DFRG,
Inc., et al., Case No. DC-19-10726 (the "Complaint").

The Complaint was filed by a purported Company stockholder and is
pending in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas against the
Company and the members of its Board of Directors. The Complaint
alleges generally that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties, including their duties of loyalty, good faith, candor, and
due care, by, among other things, failing to obtain adequate, fair
or maximum value for Company stockholders in connection with the
proposed Merger.

The Complaint seeks, among other things, for the court to (i)
declare that the action is properly maintainable as a class action,
certify plaintiff as class representative and certify his counsel
as class counsel, (ii) declare that the Merger Agreement was
entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the members of
the Company's Board of Directors and is therefore unlawful and
unenforceable, and rescind and invalidate the Merger Agreement and
any other agreements that defendants entered into in connection
with, or in furtherance of, the Merger, (iii) preliminarily and
permanently enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger, (iv)
direct the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain
a transaction that is in the best interests of the Company's
shareholders, (v) impose a constructive trust, in favor of the
plaintiff and the class, upon any benefits improperly received by
the defendants as a result of their alleged wrongful conduct, and
(vi) award costs and disbursements of this action (including
attorneys' and experts' fees).

Although the Complaint requests injunctive relief, the plaintiff
has not filed a motion to enjoin the Merger at this time.

Irving, Texas-based Del Frisco's Restaurant Group, Inc., owns and
operates three contemporary, high-end, complementary restaurants:
Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steak House, or Double Eagle, Sullivan's
Steakhouse, or Sullivan's, and Del Frisco's Grille, or the Grille.
Currently, the Company operated 73 restaurants in 16 states and the
District of Columbia. Of these 73, there were 16 Double Eagle
restaurants, 15 Barcelona restaurants, 18 bartaco restaurants and
24 Grille restaurants.


DMSD FOODS: Licea Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Soda Dispensers
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DMSD FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-01564-DMS-AGS (S.D. Cal., Aug. 20, 2019) is a suit brought
in
federal court so as to compel compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") seeking: (i) a declaration that
Defendant's unlawful business practice of not offering assistance
with Defendant's inaccessible soda fountain dispensers violate
federal law as described; and (ii) an injunction requiring
Defendant to either (a) implement a policy of affirmatively
offering assistance to individuals with visual disabilities or (b)
update or replace its fountain soda machines so that they are fully
accessible by the blind or other vision-impaired individuals.

Plaintiff regularly has occasion to dine at fast food restaurants.
Federal law and California law require that such restaurants be
fully accessible to sight-impaired individuals, including those
such as Plaintiff who are blind and/or have a visual disability
that requires the use of a white cane or guide dog for mobility.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff was denied full access to
Defendant's facilities due to its use of inaccessible soda fountain
dispensers and its failure to affirmatively offer or provide
assistance to Plaintiff with the otherwise inaccessible soda
fountain dispensers. As such, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, and its implementing
regulations (and consequently California state law) as Plaintiff
was denied the full and equal access to and enjoyment of
Defendant's goods, services, and facilities, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a legally blind individual.

Defendant owns, operates, leases, and/or maintains 36 fast food
hamburger restaurants under the trade name Jack in the Box in
California, including facilities located at 7810 Limonite Avenue,
Riverside, California and 27410 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
     CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
     2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275
     King of Prussia, PA 19406
     Phone: 610-822-3700
     Facsimile: 610-822-3800
     Email: gwells@cwg-law.com

          - and -

     Eric D. Zard, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1350 Columbia St., Suite 603
     San Diego, CA, 92101
     Phone: 619-762-1905
     Fax: 619-756-6991
     Email: ezard@carlsonlynch.com


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Ott Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
COLLIN OTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-02745 (S.D. Tex.,
July 25, 2019), seeks to recover back pay, unpaid overtime wages,
lost wages, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorney's
fees for claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Domino's Pizza, LLC is a company primarily engaged in the sale of
food (pizza), and also provides equipment and supplies to
company-owned and franchised stores through its distribution
centers.  Among other States, the Defendant transacts business and
provides services in the State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terrence B. Robinson, Esq.
          Romin Tamanna, Esq.
          TB ROBINSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
          7500 San Felipe St., Suite 800
          Houston, TX 77063
          Telephone: (713) 568-1723
          Facsimile: (713) 965-4288
          E-mail: TRobinson@TBRobinsonlaw.com
                  RTamanna@TBRobinsonlaw.com


EAGLE BANCORP: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Eagle Bancorp, Inc. (EGBN) and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Southern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-06873, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Eagle Bancorp
securities between March 2, 2015 and July 17, 2019, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Eagle Bancorp securities
during the class period, you have until September 23, 2019, to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Eagle Bancorp was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Bethesda,
Maryland. Eagle Bancorp operates as the bank holding company for
EagleBank, Inc. ("EagleBank"), which provides commercial and
consumer banking services primarily in the United States.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Eagle Bancorp's internal
controls and procedures and compliance policies were inadequate;
(ii) the foregoing shortcoming created a foreseeable risk of
heightened regulatory scrutiny and the need for the Company
undertake its own internal investigations; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 17, 2019, Eagle Bancorp disclosed rising legal costs
stemming from ongoing internal and government investigations of
"the Company's identification, classification and disclosure of
related party transactions; the retirement of certain former
officers and directors; and the relationship of the Company and
certain of its former officers and directors with a local public
official."

On this news, Eagle Bancorp's stock price fell $14.30 per share, or
26.75%, to close at $39.15 per share on July 18, 2019.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.
[GN]


ECHOSTAR CORP: Faces DISH Merger-Related Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
EchoStar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company is defending
against a class action suit related to its merger with DISH Network
Corporation (DISH).

In May 2019, the company and one of its subsidiaries, EchoStar BSS
Corporation ("BSS Corp."), entered into a master transaction
agreement (the "Master Transaction Agreement") with DISH and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH ("Merger Sub").

EchoStar said, "Pursuant to the terms of the Master Transaction
Agreement; (i) the company will transfer to BSS Corp. certain real
property and the various businesses, products, licenses,
technology, revenues, billings, operating activities, assets and
liabilities primarily relating to the portion of the company's ESS
satellite services business that manages, markets and provides (1)
broadcast satellite services primarily to DISH Network and Dish
Mexico and its subsidiaries and (2) telemetry, tracking and control
("TT&C") services for satellites owned by DISH Network and a
portion of the company's other businesses (collectively, the "BSS
Business"); (ii) the company will distribute to each holder of
shares of the company's Class A and Class B common stock an amount
of shares of common stock of BSS Corp., par value $0.001 per share
("BSS Common Stock"), equal to one share of BSS Common Stock for
each share of our Class A and Class B common stock owned by such
EchoStar stockholder on the record date for the distribution (the
"Distribution"), which date has not yet been determined; and (iii)
immediately after the Distribution, (1) Merger Sub will merge with
and into BSS Corp. (the "Merger"), such that, at the effective time
of the Merger (the "Effective Time"), BSS Corp. will become a
wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH and DISH will own and operate the
BSS Business, and (2) each issued and outstanding share of BSS
Common Stock owned by EchoStar stockholders will be converted into
a number of shares of DISH Class A common stock, par value $0.001
per share ("DISH Common Stock"), equal to 22,937,188 divided by the
total number of shares of the company's Class A and Class B common
stock outstanding on the record date for the Distribution ((i) -
(iii) collectively, the "BSS Transaction"). If the BSS Transaction
is consummated, we will no longer operate a substantial portion of
our ESS segment."

In July 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported EchoStar stockholder naming as defendants the members of
the company's board of directors, EchoStar Corporation, certain of
its officers, DISH and certain of DISH Network's and the company's
affiliates.

If the plaintiff obtains an injunction or order prohibiting or
delaying the completion of the BSS Transaction, then such
injunction or order may prevent the BSS Transaction from being
completed, or from being completed within the expected timeframe or
on the terms provided for in the Master Transaction Agreement.

If the litigation delays the BSS Transaction or prevents the BSS
Transaction from closing, the company's  business, financial
position and results of operation could be adversely affected.

Further, the defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that
remains unresolved at the time the BSS Transaction is consummated,
or any adverse final disposition, may adversely affect our
respective business, financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows.

EchoStar Corporation, incorporated on October 12, 2007, is a
holding company. The Company is a provider of satellite operations,
video delivery solutions, digital set-top boxes, and broadband
satellite technologies and services for home and office, delivering
network technologies, managed services, and solutions for
enterprises and governments. The Company operates through three
segments: Hughes, EchoStar Technologies (ETC) and EchoStar
Satellite Services (ESS). The company is based in Englewood,
Colorado.


EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: 9th Cir. Vacates Class Certification in Reyes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, A. J. REYES, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDUCATIONAL CREDIT
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 17-56930 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the
district court's order certifying a class action brought by named
Plaintiff Reyes.

Reyes alleges that ECMC unlawfully recorded some of his and the
other class members' cellular telephone conversations with ECMC in
violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Court holds that the district court abused its discretion in
certifying the class without resolving whether Reyes heard ECMC's
warning that his call would be recorded and thus consented to such
recording.  The district court certified a class of callers who
were recorded by ECMC without consent.  It then did not decide
whether Reyes heard the warning that the call was being recorded,
which, under state law, plainly would constitute consent to
recording.  Consequently, it is not clear that Reyes is a member of
the class he seeks to represent or has a CIPA claim at all.

The Court therefore vacated and remanded so the district court may
determine whether Reyes has met his burden of proving that he did
not hear the recording warning.  If he did hear the warning, he
cannot be a member of the class as currently defined and the
lawsuit should be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/FPLbdG from Leagle.com.


EHEALTH INC: Discovery Ongoing in Gonzalez Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit initiated by Lupita Gonzalez.

On April 6, 2018, a former Company employee, Lupita Gonzalez, filed
a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Sacramento (the "Gonzalez
Complaint").

The Gonzalez Complaint is brought under the California Private
Attorney General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of all current and former
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who work or have worked for the
company in California.

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

Discovery is ongoing, and a trial date has been set for April 13,
2020.

eHealth said, "Given the early stage of the litigation, we cannot
estimate the likelihood of liability or the amount of potential
damages."

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


EHEALTH INC: Le'Vias Class Suit Stayed Until Oct. 16
----------------------------------------------------
eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that plaintiffs Michael
Le'Vias and Ramona Meadows have agreed to stay the proceedings in
their case until October 16, 2019.

On July 1, 2019, two former Company employees, Michael Le'Vias and
Ramona Meadows, filed a similar complaint against the Company and
eHealth Ins. Serv. Co., in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara (the "Le'Vias Complaint").


There is substantial overlap between the facts and circumstances
alleged in the Gonzalez Complaint filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Sacramento and the
Le'Vias Complaint.

Specifically, the Le'Vias Complaint is also brought under the
California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) on behalf of all
current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who work or
have worked for the company in California.

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

The Le'Vias Complaint seeks unpaid wages, civil penalties and
costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs in the Le'Vias Complaint have agreed to stay the Le'Vias
case until October 16, 2019. No trial date has been set for the
Le'Vias Complaint and discovery has not yet commenced.

eHealth said, "Given the early stage of the litigation, we cannot
estimate the likelihood of liability or the amount of potential
damages."

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


EHEALTH INC: TCPA Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the plaintiff in a class
action lawsuit alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act has voluntarily dismissed the complaint without
prejudice.

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

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

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

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

In May 2019, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint
without prejudice.

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


EL CAJON, CA: Court OKs $91K Class Settlement in Murphy Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Parties' Joint Motion for
Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Dismissal of Case with
Prejudice in the case captioned MIKE MURPHY and JOSEPH PITTSLEY, on
behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF EL CAJON, Defendant, Case No. 18cv0698
JM(NLS). (S.D. Cal.).

Defendant El Cajon  is a charter city and municipal corporation
that employed Plaintiffs as sworn police officers. The lawsuit
arises out of the City's alleged failure to correctly pay overtime
to Plaintiffs as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). Plaintiffs Mike Murphy and Joshua Pittsley filed a
collective action complaint against the City. The complaint alleged
the City failed to correctly pay overtime to Plaintiffs as required
by the FLSA because it failed to include all remuneration for
employment paid to, or on behalf of, the plaintiffs in the regular
rate calculation.

The settlement results in a total payment amount of $61,000, with
the City paying an additional $30,000 in attorney's fees and costs
to the Law Offices of Michael A. Conger for a total settlement
amount of $91,000. Each of the 33 Plaintiffs have signed an
Individual Settlement Agreement and Release.

The joint motion seeks approval of the proposed settlement
agreement that provides individual awards to each opt-in Plaintiff
ranging from $500.00 to $7,037.28 for a collective amount of
$61,000.00 and an award of attorney's fees and costs in the amount
of $35,000.00.

Bona Fide Dispute

A district court may approve a settlement in an employee FLSA suit
that reflects a reasonable compromise over disputed issues, such as
minimum wages or overtime compensation, to promote the policy of
encouraging settlement of litigation.

Here, the parties have two substantive disagreements regarding the
claim. First, the parties dispute which is the applicable overtime
hour threshold under the FLSA. Plaintiffs assert the overtime
threshold is 160 hours based on the language in the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the City and the El Cajon Police
Officers Association. The City asserts contractual overtime and
FLSA overtime are not the same and, for purposes of an FLSA claim,
all hours worked under the 171-hour statutory maximum pursuant to
29 C.F.R. Section 553.230(c) are non-overtime labor.  

Second, the parties dispute the proper methodology used to
calculate overtime owed under the FLSA.  The City has articulated,
as it has maintained throughout this lawsuit, that the Plaintiffs
are hourly, non-exempt employees, and that the proper method for
calculating their overtime is the method set forth in 29 C.F.R.
Section 778.109 and 29 C.F.R. Section 778.110(b) and other
authorities that use the actual hours works as the divisor.

The court concludes that a bona fide dispute exists between the
parties.

Proposed Settlement is Fair and Reasonable

Having found a bona fide dispute, the court will turn to the second
step of the analysis.
First, the court considers whether the settlement bears a
reasonable relationship to the value of the claims.  

Under the terms of the settlement, the City will pay $61,000 to
settle the overtime claims, and as set forth in the table above,
each Plaintiff will receive awards ranging from $500.00 to
$7,037.28. The parties reached the $61,000 settlement amount after
exchanging significant quantities of payroll and timekeeping data
and after agreeing to a method for calculating each award.

The amount owed to each Plaintiff was based on the following
calculation: (1) the number of FLSA overtime hours each Plaintiff
worked from April 9, 2015 to June 15, 2018 (time period), was
determined based on the total number of statutory, overtime hours
(171 hours) (2) the $61,000 was divided by the total number of
hours worked by all Plaintiffs during the time period to determine
a pro-rated value for each FLSA overtime hour worked (3) each
individual Plaintiff's number of FLSA overtime hours worked during
the time period was multiplied by the pro-rated value to determine
the individual settlement payment for each Plaintiff and (5) any
Plaintiff whose individual settlement amount was calculated to be
below $500 would receive a minimum payment of $500, maximum
settlement amounts of $3,200 were applied to any Plaintiff whose
individual settlement was above $3,200.

After applying the minimum and maximum caps, the parties agreed
that the remaining settlement funds would be divided between the
three Plaintiffs who had been subject to the maximum cap. Notably,
under the City's calculation which uses the 171 hours as the
overtime threshold for potential FLSA liability, Plaintiffs' would
have been entitled to $442.40 for unpaid wages over a three-year
period, or $884.80 if liquidated damages were to be added.  

Based on the calculations and on the City's estimate, and the
certainty of recovery, the court concludes this factor weighs in
favor of FLSA settlement approval.

Second, the court considers the stage of proceedings and the amount
of discovery conducted to ensure that the parties have an adequate
appreciation of the merits of the case before reaching a
settlement.

Here, the parties have litigated this case for a year, have
formally been engaged in discovery since July 2018, and have
obtained the payroll and employment records of the City which were
used to calculate the overtime damages awards to each Plaintiff.
Thus, the court is comfortable concluding that the parties have
sufficient information to make an informed decision about
settlement.

Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approval of the
settlement.

Third, in evaluating the serious risks of ongoing litigation, the
court is mindful that settlement is favored where there is a
significant risk that litigation might result in a lessor recoveryy
for the class or no recovery at all. The parties dispute key issues
in this litigation, including the damages calculation, and if the
litigation were to continue and the City prevailed on its argument
regarding how FLSA overtime should be counted and calculated,
Plaintiffs' recovery would be significantly diminished.

Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approval of the
settlement.

Fourth, the court considers the opinions of counsel and opinions of
participating plaintiffs. The opinions of counsel should be given
considerable weight both because of counsel's familiarity with the
litigation and previous experience with cases. Plaintiffs' counsel,
Mr. Conger, has over 25 years of experience litigating wage and
hour and employment claims.

Similarly, the City is represented by experienced counsel in Mr.
Meyerhoff. Mr. Conger declares that based on his experience, the
terms are fair, just, and reasonable, and the settlement amount
reflects the maximum amount that Plaintiffs could expect to recover
if this matter were to proceed to trial.

Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approval of the
settlement.

Fifth, the court must consider the scope of the settlement
agreement's release provision to ensure that it does not go beyond
the specific FLSA claims at issue in the lawsuit itself.
Here, the court has reviewed the Release of All Claims clause of
the settlement and notes that it specifically contains the proviso
that it does not include claims relating to conduct or activity
which does not arise from nor is not attributable to PLAINTIFFS'
FLSA claims or to any conduct or activity which occurs after the
Effective Date of the AGREEMENT.

Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approval of the
settlement.

Finally, the court must consider if the settlement resulted from,
or was influenced by, fraud or collusion. A review of the
settlement terms and reward being sought by Plaintiffs' counsel
does not provide any indication of collusion. Here, each individual
opt-in member will receive an amount based on the reasonable
formula agreed on by the parties which was based on an analysis of
employee time records. The result being that Plaintiffs Murphy and
Pittsley each receive an award in the mid-range of all those
awarded to the 33 members and neither is seeking incentive awards
on their own behalves. Additionally, not only were the damages
awarded to each Plaintiff based on a formula, there is nothing in
the record to suggest that plaintiffs' counsel has allowed pursuit
of [his] own self-interests and that of certain class members to
infect the negotiations.

Accordingly, finding the settlement to be the result of arms-length
negotiations, with no evidence of fraud or collusion, this factor
weighs in favor of approval.

In accordance with the above, the court concludes that the
settlement agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona
fide dispute regarding FLSA liability.

Attorney's Fees and Costs

Where a proposed settlement of FLSA claims includes the payment of
attorney's fees, the court must also assess the reasonableness of
the fee award.

Here, the settlement agreement provides for an attorney's fee and
costs award of $30,000 equaling 32.96% of the fund, or $35,000 in
the event that Mr. Conger expends more that 20 billable hours
working on this litigation after April 11, 2019. Plaintiffs'
counsel seeks the higher amount, which represents approximately
36.46% of the total settlement amount.

The court acknowledges the factors support the fee request. The
settlement amount confers benefits upon the plaintiffs, which when
viewed considering the risks associated with continuing this
litigation and the City's Rule 68 offer, weighs in favor of the fee
amount.

The court GRANTS approval of the Settlement Agreement. The court
GRANTS the motion for attorney's fees and awards Michael A. Conger
$35,000 in attorney's fees and costs.

A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxcqy8nv from Leagle.com.

Mike Murphy, on behalf of themself and all other employees
similarly situated & Joshua Pittsley, on behalf of themself and all
other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Michael Anthony Conger -- congermike@aol.com -- Law Offices of
Michael A Conger.

City of El Cajon, Defendant, represented by Stephanie June Lowe --
slowe@lcwlegal.com -- Liebert Cassidy Whitmore.


EMMUT PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Quito Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEGUNDO QUITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EMMUT PROPERTIES CORP., BEST POINT MANAGEMENT CORP.,
PROPERTY LINK MGMT., LLC, JOHN YOUNG, and RACHEL YOUNG, in their
individual capacities, Case No. 1:19-cv-06956 (S.D.N.Y., July 25,
2019), have systematically and repeatedly ignored the requirements
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by
failing to pay the Plaintiff the overtime rate of one-and-one half
times the regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40
per week.

Emmut Properties was and is a domestic business corporation
organized and existing under the laws of New York, with its
principal place of business located in New York City.  Emmut
Properties is a property management company and real estate
development firm.

Best Point provides general contracting services for residential
and commercial properties, including renovation and demolition of
buildings.  Best Point was and is a domestic business corporation
organized and existing under the laws of New York, with its
principal place of business located in New York City.

Property Link was and is a domestic limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of New York, with its
principal place of business located in New York City.  Property
Link Mgmt., LLC, is a furnished housing provider which offers
apartments for rent throughout New York City.  The Individual
Defendants are officers and managers of the Defendant
Corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Ames, Esq.
          Zafer Akin, Esq.
          AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 1420
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 825-1400
          E-mail: zafer@akinlaws.com


ENERGY TRANSFER: December Trial in Suit over Regency Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the trial in the Regency
Merger Litigation has been set for December 10-16, 2019.

Purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal
courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the
Regency-Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. ETO) merger (the "Regency
Merger").

All but one Regency Merger-related lawsuits have been dismissed. On
June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purported Regency
unitholder, filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware (the "Regency Merger Litigation"), on
behalf of Regency's common unitholders against Regency GP LP,
Regency GP LLC, Energy Transfer LP (ET), ETO, Energy Transfer
Partners GP, L.P. (ETP GP), and the members of Regency's board of
directors ("Defendants").

The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger
breached the Regency partnership agreement because Regency's
conflicts committee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger
was not approved in good faith or fair to Regency.

On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety.
Dieckman appealed. On January 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court
reversed the judgment of the Court of Chancery.

On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Verified Class Action
Complaint. Defendants then filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint and a Motion to Stay Discovery on May 19, 2017.

On February 20, 2018, the Court of Chancery issued an Order
granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss,
dismissing the claims against all defendants other than Regency GP
LP and Regency GP LLC (the "Regency Defendants").

On March 6, 2018, the Regency Defendants filed their Answer to
Plaintiff's Verified Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 26,
2019, the Court of Chancery granted Dieckman's unopposed motion for
class certification.

On May 14, 2019, the Regency Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment arguing that Dieckman's claims fail because the Regency
Defendants relied on the advice of their financial advisor in
approving the Regency Merger.

Also on May 14, 2019, Dieckman filed a motion for partial summary
judgment arguing, among other things, that Regency's conflicts
committee was not properly formed. Trial is currently set for
December 10-16, 2019.

Energy Transfer Operating, L.P. engages in the natural gas
midstream, and intrastate transportation and storage businesses in
the United States. The company was formerly known as Energy
Transfer Partners, L.P. and changed its name to Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P. in October 2018. Energy Transfer Operating, L.P.
was founded in 1995 and is based in Dallas, Texas. Energy Transfer
Operating, L.P. operates as a subsidiary of Energy Transfer LP.


EQT CORP: Franklin D. Azar Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has
been filed against EQT Corporation on behalf of EQT shareholders
(EQT). EQT investors who have purchased at least 500 shares of EQT
stock between June 19, 2017 and October 24, 2018, and are
interested to learn more about the case are encouraged to contact
Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C. at securities@fdazar.com, or
call 1-844-241-9475. The lawsuit also alleges claims on behalf of
EQT and Rice Energy Inc. shareholders who held stock on September
21, 2017 and September 25, 2017.

Interested EQT shareholders have until August 26, 2019 to apply to
be lead plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws, and the class has not yet been certified. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

The lawsuit alleges that EQT made false statements regarding their
acquisition of Rice, a rival gas producer, claiming that it would
result in billions of dollars in synergies. Specifically, it is
alleged that EQT represented the acquisition as an opportunity for
EQT to achieve "a 50% increase in average lateral lengths" as Rice
was portrayed as having an acreage footprint largely continuous to
their existing acreage. As a result, EQT shareholders allegedly
were led to believe this acquisition would result in $2.5 billion
dollars in synergies. The lawsuit alleges Defendants failed to
disclose issues related to the acreage to be acquired. It is
alleged that EQT shares traded at artificially inflated prices, as
a result of these false statements, before falling 13 percent when
EQT reported surprisingly bad third-quarter financial results on
October 24, 2018. The lawsuit seeks to recover this loss for
shareholders who purchased during the Class Period.

If you have purchased at least 500 shares of EQT stock (EQT), you
may have a claim for damages, and you may be eligible to seek a
position in the case as a lead plaintiff. Please contact Franklin
D. Azar & Associates, P.C.'s shareholder rights team at
securities@fdazar.com, or call 1-844-241-9475.

Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C.'s securities attorneys are
highly experienced in representing individual shareholders and
institutional investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of shareholders. Franklin
D. Azar & Associates, P.C. is working with the Thornton Law Firm in
investigating this case.

Contact:

         Ivy Ngo, Esq.
         Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C.
         14426 E. Evans Avenue
         Aurora, Colorado 80014
         Tel: 1-844-241-9475
         Email: ngoi@fdazar.com [GN]


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces Carpenter Suit in D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services, LLC  et al. The case is captioned as Dustin Carpenter and
Jasmine Dennis, all other persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. Equifax Information Services, LLC and Equifax Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02218-ECT-DTS (D. Minnesota, Aug.
12, 2019). The suit alleges violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Eric C. Tostrud.

Equifax provides data solutions. The company offers financial,
consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          David J.S. Madgett, Esq.
          MADGETT LAW, LLC
          619 S. 10th St. Suite 301
          Minneapolis, MN 55404
          Telephone: (612) 419-0589
          Email: dmadgett@madgettlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant are:

          Christopher J. Haugen, Esq.
          Joseph W Lawver, Esq.
          MESSERLI & KRAMER P.A.
          100 South Fifth Street
          1400 Fifth Street Towers
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 672-3730
          Facsimile: (612) 672-3777
          E-mail: chaugen@messerlikramer.com
                  jlawver@MesserliKramer.com

EROS INTERNATIONAL: 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 District
of New Jersey on behalf of all investors that purchased Eros
International Plc securities between July 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019
(the "Class Period").  Investors have until August 20, 2019 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The complaint, filed on June 21, 2019, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Eros and its executives engaged
in a scheme to use related-party transactions to fabricate
receivables that they reported in Eros's public financial
disclosures; (2) because of this scheme, Eros's financial position
was weaker than what the Company disclosed; (3) consequently, the
Company's Indian subsidiary, Eros International Media Ltd, missed
loan payments and had its credit downgraded; and (4) due to the
foregoing, defendants' statements about Eros's receivables,
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
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.

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

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation.  For
additional information concerning the Eros lawsuit, please go to
https://bespc.com/eros-2 For additional information about Bragar
Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com [GN]


EROS INTERNATIONAL: Opus Chartered Hits Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
OPUS CHARTERED ISSUANCES S.A., COMPARTMENT 127 and AI UNDERTAKING
IV, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. EROS INTERNATIONAL PLC, KISHORE LULLA, PREM
PARAMESWARAN, and JYOTI DESHPANDE, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-07242 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 20, 2019) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Eros securities between July 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On June 5, 2019, EIML's credit rating was downgraded to "default"
by India's largest credit ratings agency, CARE ratings, over
concerns of "ongoing delays/default in debt servicing due to
slowdown in collection from debtors, leading to cash flow issues in
the company." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.59
per share, nearly 50%, to close at $3.71 per share on June 6, 2019,
on unusually heavy trading volume. On June 6, 2019, Hindenburg
Research published a report alleging that the Company "has been
persistently unable to collect receivables from its debtors because
a significant portion of the receivables don't actually exist" and
that multiple undisclosed related party transactions were designed
to hide receivables. On this news, the Company's share price fell
$0.41 per share, or 11%, to close at $3.30 per share on June 7,
2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint alleges that the 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, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company and its executives used related
party transactions to fabricate reported receivables; (2) that, as
a result, the Company's financial position was weaker than it had
disclosed; (3) that, as a result, EIML missed loan payments and had
its credit downgraded; 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/or 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, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Opus Chartered Issuances, S.A., Compartment 127 purchased
Eros securities during the Class Period,.

Eros is a global company in the Indian film entertainment industry
that co-produces, acquires, and distributes Indian language films
in multiple formats worldwide. Eros International Media Limited
("EIML") is the Company's majority owned subsidiary.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
     Email: info@glancylaw.com


EROS INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Eros
International Plc (NYSE:EROS) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between July 28, 2017
and June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the firm before August 20, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Eros and its executives conspired in a
scheme to fabricate receivables using related-party transactions
that were reported in the Company's public financial disclosures.
Due to this scheme, the Company's financial health was
significantly weaker than it appeared. The scheme resulted in the
Company's Indian subsidiary, Eros International Media Ltd, missing
loan payments, which in turn led to a credit downgrade. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about Eros, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation. [GN]


ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Dougherty Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion
Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089).

On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and Tim
Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics,
Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089).

The lawsuit alleges that the Company and Mr. Mayleben violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17,
2015, public statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular
outcomes trial before approving the Company's lead product
candidate.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in
connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August
18, 2015, and September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys'  fees and
costs.

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

On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion
to alter or amend the judgment.  In May 2017, the court denied the
plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. On June 19,
2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals and on September 14, 2017, they filed their
opening brief in support of the appeal. The appeal was fully
briefed on December 7, 2017, and it was argued before the Sixth
Circuit on March 15, 2018. On September 27, 2018, the Sixth Circuit
issued an opinion in which it reversed the district court's
dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

On October 11, 2018, the Company filed a petition for rehearing en
banc and, on October 23, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
directed plaintiffs to respond to that petition. On December 3,
2018, the Sixth Circuit denied the Company's petition for en banc
rehearing, and on December 11, 2018, the case was returned to the
federal district court by mandate from the Sixth Circuit.

On December 26, 2018, the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint, and on March 28, 2019, the Company filed its amended
answer to the amended complaint.

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

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


EXPRESS ENERGY: Salgado Seeks Overtime Pay for Workers
------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM SALGADO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EXPRESS ENERGY SERVICES OPERATING, LP,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-03170 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 23, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from Defendant under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendant has employed Salgado as a pusher from approximately
April 2013 to the present at their El Campo location. During
Plaintiff's employment with Express Energy, he regularly worked in
excess of 40 hour per week. Express Energy knew or reasonably
should have known that Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Express Energy did not pay Plaintiff the entirety of his regular
wages or his overtime "at a rate not less than one and one-half
times the regular rate at which [he was] employed."

Express Energy is an oilfield services company.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

FIELDWORK INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIELDWORK, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:19-cv-01828-JRA (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 12, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Fieldwork, Inc. provides marketing research services. The Company
provides online, ethnographic, usability, and convention research,
as well as project management and recruiting services. Fieldwork
serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          Michael L. Berler, Esq.
          Michael L. Fine, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
          767 East 185th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Telephone: (216) 502-1055
          Facsimile: (216) 566-9400
          E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                  michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


FOUR SEASONS: Truss Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN TRUSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOUR SEASONS HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019CH09633 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty.,
Ill., Aug. 20, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against Defendant
to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive,
private, and personal biometric data.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens, Illinois enacted the
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), specifically to
regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens'
biometrics. As an employee/worker of Defendant, Plaintiff was
required to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having his
hand scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified each
employee. Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of
the law, Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected
privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses employees'
biometric data in violation of BIPA, says the complaint.

Specifically, Defendant has violated and continues to violate BIPA
because it did not and, continues not to properly inform Plaintiff
and others similarly situated in writing of the specific purpose
and length of time for which their hand scan(s) were being
collected, stored, disseminated and used, as required by BIPA;
provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for
permanently destroying Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated
individuals' hand scan(s), as required by BIPA; receive a written
release from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to collect,
store, disseminate or otherwise use their hand scan(s), as required
by BIPA; and obtain consent from Plaintiff and others similarly
situated to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their
biometric identifiers and/ or biometric information to a third
party as required by BIPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Illinois.

Four Seasons Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. is an Illinois
corporation with places of business in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
     Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
     PEIFFER WOLFCARR & KANE, APLC
     818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
     St. Louis, MO 63104
     Phone: 314-833-4825
     Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
            plesko@pwcklegal.com


GOLDEN STATE: Court Narrows Documents Production in Trevino
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendants' Motion to Compel Production in the case captioned JUAN
TREVINO, CHRISTOPHER WARD, LINDA QUINTEROS, ROMEO PALMA, BRITTANY
HAGMAN, ALBERTO GIANNINI and JUAN C. AVALOS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOLDEN
STATE FC LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; AMAZON.COM,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, AMAZON FULFILLMENT CENTERS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
Lead Case No. 1:18-cv-00120-DAD-BAM, Member Case No.
1:18-cv-00121-DAD-BAM., 1:18-cv-00567-DAD-BAM,
1:18-cv-01176-DAD-BAM, 1:17-cv-01300-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.).

This matter is a consolidated action comprised of five wage and
hour lawsuits originally filed in the Central and Eastern Districts
of California. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint alleging the following wage and hour violations:
(1) failure to pay wages for all hours worked (2) failure to pay
overtime (3) meal period violations (4) rest period violations (5)
wage statement violations, (6) failure to pay waiting time wages
under Labor Code Section 203, and (7) violations of the California
Business and Professions Code.

Summary of Defendants' Position

Defendants generally contend that Requests 21-24 are relevant to
the allegations that Plaintiffs were repeatedly deprived of, or
failed to take, statutorily required rest and meal break periods.
Defendants assert that records of Plaintiffs' activities on their
personal phones such as email, text messaging, social media
activity, and phone calls could establish the amount of time they
spent on personal communications on break after passing through
security because Amazon's hourly associates are generally required
to keep their personal phones in lockers or in their cars on the
external side of the security screening.

Defendants also assert that these records are highly probative with
respect to Plaintiffs' rest break claims because Plaintiffs do not
clock in or out for rest breaks.  

In sum, Defendants contend that Requests 21-24 seek documentary
evidence solely in Plaintiffs' possession that will help to
establish, with contemporaneously created records: (1) how long it
may have taken each individual Plaintiff to reach his or her phone
after beginning their meal or rest breaks on a given workday and
(2) how long each Plaintiff took a break on a given workday.  

As to Plaintiffs' remaining objections, Defendants contend that
Plaintiffs have failed to articulate why producing cell phone
records and records of sent emails, text messages, or social media
activity is unduly burdensome. Indeed, Defendants fault Plaintiffs
for failing to offer any evidence to support their contention that
production would be burdensome and by failing to quantify any
purported burden. Defendants urge that most cell phone companies
provide customers with monthly statements that itemize all calls to
and from the customer's cell phone.

Defendants similarly claim that Plaintiffs should have no
difficulty providing records of sent emails, text messages or
social media activity because these services automatically generate
records specific to a users' activity over time. Defendants also
contend that because the requests expressly authorize Plaintiffs to
redact any confidential information from the records, such as phone
numbers, there can be no real objection based on privacy.

Summary of Plaintiffs' Position

Plaintiffs' argue that Requests 21-24 are irrelevant, substantially
burdensome and intrusive. Plaintiffs point out that cases cited by
Defendants compelling production of these types of records involve
single plaintiffs, not class proceedings encompassing numerous
facilities and thousands of employees.Plaintiffs also argue that
Defendants' need for these records is based purely on speculation
that the records will establish that Plaintiffs were taking breaks
and the time and duration of those breaks. Plaintiffs urge that the
better source of such information is Defendants' own time-keeping
records for Plaintiffs and the putative class members.  Plaintiff
believe that these timekeeping records, in conjunction with
evidence of Defendants' policies and practices both written and
unwritten, are the best evidence of whether the claimed violations
as alleged in the Consolidated Complaint occurred or can be
adjudicated on a class basis.  

Analysis and Ruling

Defendants seek access to records of Plaintiffs' activities on
their personal phones (such as email, text messaging, social media
activity, and phone calls) to assess Plaintiffs' claim that they
were denied meal and rest breaks and worked hours for which they
were not paid throughout their entire employment. Courts have
compelled production of such documents in similar circumstances,
finding this evidence relevant to allegations of rest and meal
break violations.  The Court finds no basis to deviate from these
decisions. Records establishing whether and for how long Plaintiffs
engaged in personal activities, such as telephone calls, texts or
internet use, during the working day are relevant to whether
Plaintiffs were provided with compliant meal and rest breaks.

Plaintiffs' objection regarding the burden of production is not
persuasive. On a motion to compel discovery, the burden is on the
responding party to show that the electronically-stored information
is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. In
this instance, Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to support
their contention that production is burdensome, nor have they
quantified any purported burden. Further, the Requests are not
seeking responses from all potential class members and are instead
limited to the seven named Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff's objection that the requested documents are available to
Defendants in their own files or are otherwise in Defendants'
possession, custody or control or are readily available to
Defendants through their own reasonable search and investigation
also is not persuasive. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(2)(C)(i) requires a court to limit a responding party's
obligation to produce discovery if the information sought is
available from some other source that is more convenient, less
burdensome, or less expensive.

Here, however, Plaintiffs have not provided a cogent explanation as
to how the requested documents are equally available to Defendants,
in Defendants' possession, custody or control, or readily available
through some other source, such as Defendants' files or publicly
available documents. Although Plaintiffs have urged that
Defendants' own time-keeping records are the best evidence
regarding meal and rest breaks, Defendants have expressly indicated
that employees do not clock in or out for rest breaks. Thus,
Defendants do not appear to have readily available electronic
records demonstrating the timing and duration of any rest breaks.

Because the Court finds that the records are relevant to
Plaintiffs' claims and that Plaintiffs' objections to the discovery
are not persuasive, Defendants' motion to compel further responses
to RFP Nos. 21-24 is GRANTED.  

Request for Production No. 41

RFP 41: All DOCUMENTS that RELATE TO any COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO
the allegations set forth in the COMPLAINT that YOU or anyone
acting on YOUR behalf had with any attorney(s) at any time before
an attorney-client relationship was formed.

Responses to Request for Production No. 41

Plaintiffs Avalos, Gianini, Hagman, Palma, and Trevino served
objection-only response to Request 41. Plaintiffs Quinteros and
Ward indicated that they have produced non-privileged documents
responsive to this request.

Summary of Defendants' Position

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs cannot assert a blanket claim of
privilege in response to a discovery request, and that Plaintiffs
have improperly asserted privilege without ever actually searching
for potentially responsive documents. Defendants further contend
that Plaintiffs' position regarding the attorney-client privilege
is contrary to California law, arguing that parties only may assert
attorney-client privilege over confidential communications made in
furtherance of the attorney-client relationship, suggesting there
was no such relationship if the attorney was not retained.

Defendants believe the Court should compel Plaintiffs to adhere to
their obligation under the Federal Rules to conduct a reasonable
investigation as to the existence of any responsive documents.
Following that investigation, Plaintiffs can either indicate that
they have discovered no responsive documents or prepare a privilege
log.

Summary of Plaintiffs' Position

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are overreaching, claiming that
they are entitled to communications between Plaintiffs and any
other attorneys besides those in the present case and before the
attorney-client relationship was formed with present counsel.
Plaintiffs asserts that it is the client that holds the privilege,
whether or not that communication is with a current or former
attorney. Plaintiffs do not desire to waive their privilege as to
communications with current or former attorneys regarding their
claims.

Since this court's subject matter jurisdiction is based on
diversity of citizenship, California law governs disposition of
issues about the attorney-client privilege.  

Under California law, evidentiary privileges such as the
attorney-client privilege are governed by statute. The
attorney-client privilege allows a client to refuse to disclose,
and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential
communication between client and lawyer. The attorney-client
privilege attaches to a confidential communication between client
and lawyer during the course of the attorney-client relationship.


Here, Defendants' position appears to be that communications with
attorneys who were not subsequently retained are not protected by
the privilege. However, an attorney-client relationship exists for
purposes of the privilege whenever a person consults an attorney
for the purpose of obtaining the attorney's legal service or
advice.

Insofar as Defendants seek production of documents relating to
communications that Plaintiffs had with any prospective attorneys
regarding the allegations in the Complaint, those communications
appear to be privileged. The Court will not require Plaintiffs to
produce any such documents. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to
compel Plaintiffs to produce documents in response to RFP No. 41 is
DENIED.

A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019 Order
is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y5mhyexa from Leagle.com.

Juan Trevino, Plaintiff, represented by Lonnie C. Blanchard, III --
lonnieblanchard@gmail.com -- The Blanchard Law Group, APC, Peter R.
Dion-Kindem -- peter@dion-kindemlaw.com -- Peter R. Dion-Kindem,
P.C. & James Ross Hawkins -- James@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- James
Hawkins APLC.

Romeo Palma, Plaintiff, represented by Graham Lambert --
GL@Haffnerlawyers.com -- Haffner Law PC, Joshua H. Haffner --
jhh@Haffnerlawyers.com -- Haffner Law, PC & James Ross Hawkins,
James Hawkins APLC.

Golden State FC LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Amazon.com Inc., a Delaware Corporation & Amazon Fulfillment
Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by
Helen Ofelia Avunjian -- havunjian@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn
and Crutcher LLP, Jason C. Schwartz -jschwartz@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Katherine V.A. Smith
-ksmith@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Michele Leigh
Maryott -- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP &
Ashley Louise Allyn -- aallyn@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP.

Amazon, Defendant, represented by Barbara J. Miller --
barbara.miller@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis nd Bockius LLP.


GREATLAND HOME: Dennis Seeks OT Pay for Home Health Clinicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER DENNIS, on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GREATLAND HOME
HEALTH SERVICES, INC., and MONSURU HASSAN, the Defendants,  Case
No. 1:19-cv-05427 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 13, 2019), seeks to redress
Defendants' systematic, companywide violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act by knowingly misclassifying Plaintiff
and other similarly situated home health clinicians as exempt from
the overtime compensation requirements of the FLSA and IMWL and
failing to reimburse their expenses incurred within the scope of
their employment as required by the IWPCA.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly failed to pay
their home health clinicians proper overtime premium wages for
overtime work they performed and reimburse them for expenses
incurred despite knowingly paying them pursuant to a hybrid "per
visit" and hourly pay scheme that does not comport with the
requirements of the FLSA, IMWL, or the IWPCA.

Greatland Home is a home health agency in Naperville,
Illinois.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective and Class
are:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com

GRECO ROMAN DESIGN: Denied Bonahora Overtime Wages, Pay Slips
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sebastian Bonahora and Alejandro Bonahora, on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Greco
Roman Design Corp., BJB Group LLC, Nicolaos Kourtis and Angelo
Kambitsis, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04520 (E.D. N.Y., August 6,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
non-overtime wages, and damages for failure to provide wage notice
at the time of hiring and wage statements with each wage payment
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws.

Greco Roman Design is a full-service construction business owned
and operated by Nicolaos Kourtis and Angelo Kambitsis where
Plaintiffs worked as construction workers. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
      Garrett Kaske, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      534 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 275
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 499-9100

             - and -

      Jerry Boies, Esq.
      THE BOIES LAW FIRM, PLLC
      535 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 274-1400


GTT COMMS: Misleading Reports Inflate Stock Price, Plymouth Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GTT
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., RICHARD D. CALDER, JR., CHRIS MCKEE, and
MICHAEL SICOLI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00982 (E.D. Va.,
July 30, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by publishing false and misleading statements
to artificially inflate the Company's stock price.

The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired GTT
common stock from February 26, 2018 through July 1, 2019,
inclusive.

GTT provides cloud networking services to multinational
enterprises. Since 2015, the Company pursued growth through an
aggressive 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 a transformational, $2.3
billion deal that essentially doubled GTT's size, namely the
acquisition of Interoute Communications Holdings S.A., a
telecommunications company that operated Europe's largest cloud
services platform.

From the announcement of the deal on February 26, 2018, and
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 businesses we've integrated." In
truth, the Interoute acquisition was a disaster from day one.

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. In addition, GTT disclosed that
shortly before the acquisition, Interoute had made a strategic
shift to sell cloud services that deviated from GTT's strategy of
focusing exclusively on cloud networking. In response to these
disclosures, GTT's stock price plummeted 17.5% or over $7.00 per
share, to close at $33.25 on May 8, 2019. The stock price continued
to fall the following day, closing at only $29.91 per share, for a
two-day decline of over 25%.

GTT's stock price continued to decline over the next two months, as
analysts questioned the Company's business model, appropriateness
and timeliness of its disclosures regarding the Interoute
integration, and whether the Company utilized aggressive accounting
to mask slowing revenue growth. Since the Company's May 8
disclosures and in reaction to the new information disclosed in the
analyst reports, GTT's stock price has declined by more than 65% --
from over $40 on May 7, 2019 to a recent low of under $13 per share
-- wiping out over $1.5 billion in shareholder value.

On July 2, 2019, KeyBanc downgraded GTT and highlighted how
internal data on GTT suggested hiring activity remained slow,
indicating the increase in employee representatives necessary to
achieve revenue targets might be lower than expected. KeyBanc also
reported on recent leadership changes in the Americas division,
noting that they were "an indication that organizational health is
not great. GTT's stock price fell in response to the news. On July
2, 2019, GTT's stock price fell $0.50 per share, or 3%, to close at
$18.30 per share.

As a result of Defendants' false and misleading statements and
omissions, and the precipitous declines in the market value of the
Company's common stock, Plaintiff and the other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Steven j. Toll., Esq.
          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsommers@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Jopseph E. White, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          Steven B. Singer, Esq.
          David R. Kaplan, Esq.
          150 East Palmeto Park Road, Suite 600
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561 394 3399
          Facsimile: 561 394 3382
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenwhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenwhite.com
                  ssinger@saxenwhite.com
                  dkaplan@saxenwhite.com

GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until September 30, 2019 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against GTT
Communications, Inc. (NYSE: GTT), if they purchased the Company's
shares between February 26, 2018 and July 1, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of GTT and would like to discuss your legal
rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover
for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you,
contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850
or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-gtt/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by September 30, 2019.

About the Lawsuit

GTT and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On May 8, 2019, the Company disclosed that losses for 1Q2019,
including revenues, were larger than expected due to a multitude of
problems relating to the integration of Interoute Communications
Holdings S.A., a substantial acquisition by the Company announced
in February 2018.

On this news, the price of GTT's shares plummeted and continued to
decline over the following two months.

The case is Plymouth County Retirement System V. GTT
Communications, Inc., 1:19cv982.

KSF, whose partners include the former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in
New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com

Contact:

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Tel.: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against GTT
Communications, Inc. (NYSE:GTT) for violations of §§10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
26, 2018 and July 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 30, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. GTT experienced significant delays in
integrating Interoute Communications Holdings S.A.'s ("Interoute")
systems and legacy processes into the Company's client management
database. Interoute had made selling cloud services a strategic
priority, but a considerable percentage of Interoute sales reps
were not able to effectively sell GTT's cloud networking services.
In fact, Interoute had allowed underperforming sales reps to remain
on staff. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about GTT, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Office: 310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES: Kawahara Sues Over HDD Assembly Price-fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN A. KAWAHARA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HEADWAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUTCHINSON
TECHNOLOGY INC., MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD.,
NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO., LTD., NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.) CO.,
LTD., NHK SPRING CO. LTD., NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, NHK
SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-04828-DMR (N.D. Cal.,
Aug. 14, 2019) is an action against manufacturers of hard disk
drive ("HDD") suspension assemblies for engaging in an
anticompetitive conspiracy from at least 2008 to 2016 that
artificially raised the price of external hard drives and other
end-products that Plaintiff and millions of other Americans
purchased.

According to the complaint, the Defendants and their subsidiaries
collectively control over 95 percent of the worldwide market for
HDD suspension assemblies. Defendants were motivated to--and
did--conspire to fix, maintain, and stabilize the prices of HDD
suspension assemblies because prices otherwise would have fallen,
reducing Defendants' profits, due to declining demand for these
products over the course of the Class Period. Defendants also
entered into illegal agreements to allocate HDD suspension assembly
markets and customers. Defendants' anticompetitive agreements
injured Plaintiff and other indirect purchasers of products
containing these components, and they seek relief through this
action.

The complaint further notes that United States Department of
Justice has been investigating Defendants' illegal conspiracy since
2016. On July 29, 2019, NHK agreed to plead guilty and pay a $28.5
million fine for its participation in the conspiracy that underlies
Plaintiff's claims. The Japanese Fair Trade Commission, after
raiding offices of NHK and TDK, also issued a cease-and-desist
order, fining them nearly $10 million and finding that they
restrained competition in the market for HDD suspension assemblies
through a horizontal agreement to maintain sales prices, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Brian A. Kawahara is a citizen and resident of Santa
Cruz, California. He purchased a finished product containing an HDD
suspension assembly on September 30, 2010 from Newegg.com.

NHK Spring manufactured, marketed, sold and/or distributed HDD
suspension assemblies, either directly or indirectly through its
subsidiaries or affiliates, to customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christina C. Sharp, Esq.
     Jordan Elias, Esq.
     Adam E. Polk, Esq.
     GIRARD SHARP LLP
     601 California Street, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Phone: (415) 981-4800
     Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
     Email: dsharp@girardsharp.com
            jelias@girardsharp.com
            apolk@girardsharp.com


HEALTH CARE: Briscoe et al. Seek to Certify Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as LAURA BRISCOE, KRISTIN
MAGIERSKI, and EMILY ADAMS on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HEALTH CARE SERVICE
CORPORATION and BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10294 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court for an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
      certifying two Classes of:

      The ERISA Plan Class (Lactation Services Class):

      "all individuals who on or after August 1, 2012 (i) were or
      are participants in or beneficiaries of any non-
      grandfathered , ERISA employee welfare benefit plan sold,
      underwritten or administered by HCSC in the United States in

      its capacity as insurer or administrator; (ii) received
      Comprehensive Lactation Services (“CLS”); and (iii)
incurred
      costs for a CLS claim unreimbursed by HCSC"; and

      The Non-ERISA Plan Class (ACA Class):

      "all individuals who on or after August 1, 2012 (i) were or
      are participants in or beneficiaries of any non-
      grandfathered, non-federal health benefit plan sold,
      underwritten or administered by HCSC in the United States in

      its capacity as insurer or administrator, and (ii) received
      CLS for which HCSC did not provide coverage without cost-
      sharing; and (iii) incurred costs for a CLS claim
      unreimbursed by HCSC"

      Excluded from the Classes are Defendant, its subsidiaries or

      affiliate companies, its legal representatives, assigns,
      successors and employees.

   2. appointing Briscoe as Class Representative for the ERISA
      Plan;

   3. appointing Magierski and Adams as Class Representatives for
      the Non-ERISA Plan Class;

   4. appointing Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP
      as Class Counsel; and

   5. granting such other relief as the Court deems appropriate
      under the circumstances.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
          Kimberly Donaldson Smith, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Saunders, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER &
          DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: NEC@Chimicles.com
                  KMD@Chimicles.com
                  SES@Chimicles.com

               - and -

          Paul D. Malmfeldt, Esq.
          BLAU & MALMFELDT
          566 West Adams Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60661-3632
          Telephone: (312) 443-1600
          Facsimile: (312) 443-1665

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Pamela B. Gilbert, Esq.
          Monica E. Miller, Esq.
          Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813

HEALTH INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Fla. Consolidated Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in
Florida.

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

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

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

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

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

On May 13, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiff Oklahoma
Municipal Retirement Fund and City of Birmingham Retirement and
Relief System and lead counsel Saxena White P.A. The lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint on July 19, 2019.

The consolidated complaint incorporated the allegations from the
first complaint and added allegations of alleged materially false
or misleading statements or material omissions relating to alleged
deficiencies in the Company's compliance and customer service
programs and the number of complaints the Company received from
consumers relating to third parties, particularly Health Benefits
One LLC/Simple Health and affiliates. The complaint also adds
allegations regarding insider stock sales by Messrs. Southwell and
Hershberger.

The plaintiffs are seeking an undetermined amount of damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of putative classes
of individuals and entities that acquired shares of the Company's
common stock during a purported class period of September 25, 2017
through April 11, 2019.

The Company intends to move to dismiss the action and to vigorously
defend against these claims.

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


HEALTH INSURANCE: Continues to Defend Parker and Belin Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend two class action suits entitled,
Patricia Parker, et al. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., et
al. and Belin et. al. v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., et.
al.

On November 1, 2018, the Company received notice that a lawsuit
styled as Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Simple Health Plans, et
al. was filed against an independent third-party distributor and
its principal, along with their related companies. The Company is
not a party to this case.

A temporary restraining order ("TRO") was granted by the United
States District Court, Southern District of Florida, against Simple
Health Plans, LLC and certain of its affiliates, appointing a
receiver (the "Receiver") and imposing other restrictions against
the defendants in this case.

On November 1, 2018, the Company terminated its relationship with
all of the defendants, has been in communication and working
cooperatively with the appointed Receiver and the FTC.

The Company is not a party to this lawsuit and there is no
indication from the FTC that it seeks to add the Company to the
lawsuit.

Separate from the FTC case against Simple Health, two lawsuits
styled as Patricia Parker, et al. v. Health Insurance Innovations,
Inc., et al. and Belin et. al. v. Health Insurance Innovations,
Inc., et. al. were filed in Florida state and federal courts,
respectively.

The Parker state-court action was removed to federal court. The
lawsuits, styled as class actions, but not yet certified, allege
the Company conspired with Simple Health, and brings causes of
action under the state and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Acts, conspiracy, fraud, and other claims.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims.

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


IDEANOMICS INC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Ideanomics, Inc. f/k/a Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc. f/k/a
Wecast Network Inc. (IDEX) and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern
District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-06741, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Ideanomics
securities between May 15, 2017 and November 13, 2018, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff asserts claims against
Ideanomics and certain of Ideanomics' officers and directors
(collectively, "Defendants") under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ideanomics securities during
the class period, you have until September 17, 2019, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Ideanomics purports to operate as a financial technology and asset
digitization services company. The Company asserts that its
"business model is to become a next-generation [fintech] company,
with the intention of offering both traditional financing solutions
and digital financing solutions based on the emergence of trading
systems that utilize blockchain and artificial intelligence
technologies." Historically, however, Ideanomics' purported
business activities have varied widely and changed with some
frequency.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
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, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) costs
associated with building out Ideanomics' U.S. infrastructure and
hiring its new executive team were negatively impacting the
Company's bottom line performance; (ii) as a result, Ideanomics was
highly unlikely to meet its 2018 EBITDA guidance; (iii) Ideanomics'
margins in its oil trading and consumer electronics businesses were
too low for those businesses to remain viable; and (iv) as a
result, Ideanomics' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 14, 2018, the Company issued a press release, filed as
an exhibit to a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing
the Company's financial and operating results for the third quarter
of 2018 (the "Q3 2018 Press Release"). In the Q3 2018 Press
Release, Ideanomics reported that "we intend to phase out our oil
trading and consumer electronics businesses, with the intention to
fully divest these assets in the near future," citing "low margins
in relation to top line sales." Ideanomics further reported that
"[c]osts associated with building out our U.S. infrastructure and
hiring our new executive team have put a strain on our bottom line
performance, resulting in our increased net loss for the third
quarter of 2018 as compared to the third quarter of 2017," and that
accordingly, "we do not anticipate meeting our EBITDA guidance of
$35 million for fiscal year 2018."

On this news, Ideanomics' stock price fell $1.59 per share, or
48.77%, to close at $1.67 per share on November 14, 2018, damaging
investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.
[GN]


INDIANA: Court Terminates Private Agreement in Mast Prisoners Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN MAST, MICHAEL WOODS, EUGENE WELLS on their own
behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. J. DAVID DONAHUE in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction, CRAIG HANKS
in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Wabash Valley
Correctional Facility, Defendants, Case No. 2:05-cv-00037-JPH-DLP
(S.D. Ind.), Judge James Patrick Hanlon of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division,
approved the parties' Stipulation to Terminate the Private
Settlement Agreement Following Notice to the Class and Approval by
the Court.

The Plaintiffs are a class of prisoners who were housed in the
Secured Housing Unit ("SHU") at the Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility.  Their complaint sought to enjoin the Defendants from
housing mentally ill prisoners in the SHU under the conditions
described in the Complaint.

On Jan. 30, 2007, the parties filed their Private Settlement
Agreement ("Mast Agreement"), which the Court found to be fair,
reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23.  The Mast Agreement
prohibits, among other things, seriously mentally ill prisoners
from being housed in the SHU (now called the Secured Confinement
Unit "SCU") at Wabash Valley.  The Mast Agreement defines
"seriously mentally ill" as: (1) prisoners who have a current
diagnosis, or evidence, of any Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV
(DSM-IV) Axis I diagnosis or who are receiving treatment for such a
diagnosis; or (2) prisoners who have been diagnosed with a mental
disorder that is worsened by confinement in the SCU.

On Dec. 31, 2009, the case was dismissed without prejudice, subject
to reinstatement by the Plaintiffs or the class members pursuant to
the Mast Agreement. Since being dismissed, the Mast Agreement has
remained in full force and effect.

In 2008, the Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission
sued the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC") alleging that the
continued confinement of mentally ill prisoners in segregation and
segregation-ike settings without appropriate mental health care and
treatment violated prisoners' constitutional rights.  Following a
bench trial, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs have prevailed
as to their Eighth Amendment Claim.

The Court did not enter final judgment.  Rather, in 2016, the
parties in IPAS entered into a private settlement agreement, which
the Court found to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.  The
definition of "seriously mentally ill" in the IPAS Agreement is
different from the definition used in the Mast Agreement as it does
not include every Axis I DMS-IV diagnosis.

The IPAS Agreement prohibits housing seriously mentally ill
prisoners from being housed in segregation/restrictive housing
(including protective custody) if they are known to be seriously
mentally ill for more than 30 days.  Additionally, the IPAS
Agreement requires the DOC to remove prisoners from
segregation/restrictive housing (including protective custody) if
they are found to be or become seriously mentally ill subsequent to
such housing.  There are two exceptions to this for prisoners who:
(1) are deemed too dangerous to move out of the segregation units,
or (2) desire to stay in the segregation units.  The Plaintiffs can
reinstate the case if they believe that the DOC is not complying
with terms in the IPAS Agreement.

The IPAS Agreement was scheduled to expire on March 25, 2019.  On
March 18, 2019, the parties stipulated to extend the IPAS Agreement
to the later of: a) one year from the date of the Mast Agreement's
termination; or b) the date the Court prevents the Mast Agreement
from terminating.

On March 18, 2019, the parties filed the Stipulated Agreement.  On
March 20, 2019, the Court approved the parties' proposed class
notice. D After the Court approved the proposed class notice,
notice to the class was given as required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e).  The class originally certified does not appear to
have any members because all seriously mentally ill prisoners have
been removed from the SCU at Wabash Valley.  The class notice
therefore went to numerous prisoners who are not class members.  On
June 10, 2019, the Class Counsel filed his report concerning
comments and objections received about the proposed termination of
the Mast Agreement.

On June 20, 2019, the Court held a fairness hearing to determine
whether termination of the Mast Agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.  During the hearing, the counsel described the steps that
were taken to give notice to the class, including broadcasting the
notice through the DOC's in-house television system to all
offenders, posting notice in segregation units for at least 30
days, and handing copies of the notice to individuals currently in
adult segregation units.  The Court found that notice was given
consistent with its prior Order, and consistent with the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1).

Judge Hanlon finds that extending the operation of the IPAS
Agreement will bring immediate, concrete benefits to many current
and future DOC prisoners with serious mental illness.  In contrast,
the continued existence of the Mast Agreement would likely bring
very little benefit to very few, if any, DOC prisoners.  Hence, the
agreement to terminate the Mast Agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.  The parties' Stipulated Agreement is acknowledged and
allowed to take effect.  A separate order closing the case will now
issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/BTzYou from Leagle.com.

BRIAN MAST, MICHAEL WOODS & EUGENE WELLS, on their own behalf and
on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Elizabeth Alexander -- director.npap@nlg.org. --
NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT OF THE ACLU, pro hac vice & Kenneth J.
Falk, ACLU OF INDIANA.

J. DAVID DONAHUE, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
Indiana Department of Correction & CRAIG HANKS, in his official
capacity as Superintendent of the Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility, Defendants, represented by David A. Arthur, INDIANA
ATTORNEY GENERAL.


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Bid to Dismiss Connecticut Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company is
awaiting the court's decision on its motion to dismiss the new
complaint in a class action suit in Connecticut.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against Interactive Brokers LLC
(IB LLC), Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. (IBG, Inc.), and Thomas
Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

The complaint alleges that the purported class of IB LLC's
customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system
used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage
accounts that have margin deficiencies.

The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and
without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On September 28, 2017,
plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially
unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the
District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence. On November 30,
2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January
15, 2019 requesting that the District Court dismiss the remaining
negligence claims.

Interactive Brokers said, "Regardless of the ultimate outcome of
the motion to dismiss, the Company does not believe that a
purported class action is appropriate given the great differences
in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding the
liquidation of any particular customer's margin-deficient account.
IB LLC and the related defendants intend to continue to defend
themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past
practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any
potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in
defending the case may be fully pursued against the plaintiff."

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

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic
broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades
in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and
mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977
and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Liu & Fu Suit in New York Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit in New York entitled, Hou
Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action,
initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.

The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on June 1, 2018,
and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31,
2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants.

The lead plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017.

This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public
disclosures during the period from June 9, 2016 to September 20,
2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding
Ocaliva dosing, use and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well
as the Company's operations, financial performance and prospects.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, and rescissory damages. On September 14, 2018, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

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

Intercept said, "While the Company believes that it has a number of
valid defenses to the claims described above and intends to
vigorously defend itself, the matters are in the early stages of
litigation and no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome
of the matters or whether they will be material to the Company.
Accordingly, an estimate of the potential loss, or range of loss,
if any, to the Company relating to the matters is not possible at
this time."

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

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


INTERMOLECULAR INC: Najafi Class Action Now Closed
--------------------------------------------------
Intermolecular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Najafi v. Intermolecular, Inc. et al., C.A. No.
1:19-cv-05438, has been closed.

On May 6, 2019, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the Merger Agreement) with EMD Group Holding II, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (Parent) and EMD Performance Materials
Semiconductor Services Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent (Merger Sub), providing for the merger
of Merger Sub with and into the Intermolecular, Inc. (the Merger),
with Intermolecular, Inc. surviving the Merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent.

On June 6, 2019, a putative shareholder class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware against the company and each member of its board of
directors, captioned Franchi v. Intermolecular, Inc. et al., C.A.
No. 1:19-cv-01054.

On June 11, 2019, two additional complaints were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
and the Northern District of California, respectively, against the
company and each member of its board of directors, captioned Najafi
v. Intermolecular, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 1:19-cv-05438 and Stein v.
Intermolecular, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 5:19-cv-03307.

On June 12, 2019, a second putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and each member
of its  board, captioned Morgan v. Intermolecular, Inc. et al.,
C.A. No. 1:19-cv-05489.

On June 13, 2019, an additional complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the company and each member of its board, captioned Bedeian
v. Intermolecular, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 3:19-cv-03359.  

Each of the complaints alleges, among other things, that the
company and each member of its board violated certain provisions of
the federal securities laws and regulations by soliciting
stockholder votes in connection with the Merger through a proxy
statement that purportedly omits material information necessary to
make the statements therein not false or misleading.

The complaints seek, among other things, to require the company to
disseminate a proxy statement that does not contain any untrue
statements of material fact and that states all material facts
required to make the statements contained therein not misleading,
damages, and certain other equitable and injunctive relief.  

On July 9, 2019, the court in the Najafi action ordered the case
closed having been notified by plaintiff's counsel that the action
is now moot.  

Intermolecular said, "We believe the complaints are without merit,
and we will vigorously defend against the complaints. However,
litigation is inherently uncertain and there can be no assurance
regarding the likelihood that our defense of the actions will be
successful."

Intermolecular, Inc., incorporated on June 16, 2004, provides
solutions for the evaluation and development of engineered
thin-film materials for next generation technology products. The
Company is a partner for the innovation of advanced materials using
high throughput experimentation. The company is based in San Jose,
California.


IRELAND: State Faces Class Suits Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Ireland-based Today FM reports that the State could face class
action court cases after the Data Protection Commissioner found the
Public Services Card breached data protection laws.

The Commissioner says there's no legal basis for any state agency,
other than the Department of Social Protection, to insist someone
has the card.

The state has been given 21 days to stop breaching the rules.

Associate Professor of Law at Trinity College Dublin, Eoin O'Dell,
says GDPR regulations introduced in May specifically allow
class-action case.

He says the legislation added the possibility of class action cases
which, while not a feature yet of Irish law, have been introduced
for European law reasons in the specific context of a data breach
of this nature. [GN]


IRONCLAD ENERGY: Court Certifies Class of Supervisors & Operators
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DEXTER HINES, NICK NOLES,
JEREMY MARTIN, JOSEPH SMITH, and REGINALD VANZANDT, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. IRONCLAD ENERGY, LLC, JAMES C. DONNAN and STEVEN
CLOY GANTT, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00155-OLG (W.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge Orlando L. Garcia entered an order on August 23,
2019:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for
      conditional certification of collective action;

   2. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all Pumpdown Supervisors and Operators of Defendants since
      September 15,2017";

   3. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for
      approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of
      contact information;

   4. directing Defendants' to provide Plaintiffs' with a list in
      electronic format of the contact information, including
      names, last known physical and email addresses, and cell
      phone numbers, of all potential class members within 14 days

      of this Order; and

   5. directing Plaintiffs to send to potential class members the
      notice of this action in accordance with this Order. The
      deadline for opting-in shall be 60 days from the date of the

      mailing of the notices.[CC]

JOSEPH PIGOTT: H.W. Barr Suit Remanded to Wash. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, remanded the case, HEATHER
WINSLOW BARR, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH STANLEY PIGOTT, Respondent,
Case No. C19-682RSM (W.D. Wash.), to the Superior Court of
Washington in and for King County.

The matter is currently before the Court on its own Order to Show
Cause and the Petitioner's response and motion for remand.  The
Respondent has not substantively responded.

On May 7, 2019, the Respondent filed a notice of removal in the
Court, attaching a Petition for Divorce (Dissolution) that was
filed in 2017 in King County Superior Court.  The Respondent's
notice of removal indicated that he demanded to have the class
action case removed to the federal court, on the grounds of
treason, the Moorish American Treaty Of Peace & Friendship Of 1787
and the U.S. Constitution of 1789, judicial misconduct, human
trafficking, Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organizations, money
laundering, antitrust, monopoly, civil rights, consumer protection
act, bank fraud, home owners being defrauded (by banks), false
imprisonment, fraudulent state judges, obstruction of justice,
Ethics In Government Act & Private U.S. Attorney General Act et al.
The notice also indicated that the case is worth over $5 million
and there are too many people to give notices to, by joinder and
will need to send notice to all people of the class action.

The Respondent subsequently made two "supplemental" filings in
support of his notice of removal.  The filings include a variety of
legal documents from the state-court divorce proceeding and several
other possibly related state court actions.  Beyond that, the Court
is unable to discern the intended purpose of the filings.

Finding that the Respondent had not clearly identified a basis
supporting the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, the Court
ordered the Respondent to show cause, by June 12, 2019, why the
action should not be remanded.  On June 5, 2019, the Petitioner
responded to the Court's Order to Show Cause and included her own
Motion for Remand.  The Petitioner noted the Motion for Remand for
consideration on June 12, 2019.  The Court, however, re-noted the
Petitioner's Motion for Remand for June 28, 2019, to assure that
the Respondent was afforded a full opportunity to respond.  The
Respondent did not respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause, and
did not timely respond to the Petitioner's Motion for Remand.

The Court treats the Respondent's failure to respond to the Motion
for Remand as an admission that the Petitioner's motion has merit.
For this, and the reasons articulated in the Motion for Remand, the
Court will grant the Motion for Remand.

The Petitioner also requests that the Court "imposes terms."  The
Court will also grant this request.  The Respondent removed the
case without any comprehensible basis in law and has not
substantively defended the decision to do so.  The Court cannot
guess at the Respondent's intent but considering the facts and the
absence of any defense, the removal appears to be taken in bad
faith.  Accordingly, the Respondent will pay to the Petitioner the
costs associated with defending the action in the Court.

Accordingly, and having reviewed the motions, briefing, and record
in the matter, the Court granted the Petitioner's Response to Show
Cause Order in Support of Remand and Motion to Remand/Return This
Matter to King County Superior Court.  He remanded the case to the
Superior Court of Washington in and for King County.

The Petitioner is entitled to fees and costs under 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1447(c). No later than fourteen (14) days from the date of
this Order, Petitioner may file a Supplemental Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, noted pursuant to LCR 7(d), and limited to six
pages and supported by documentary evidence reflecting the amount
of fees and costs sought.  The Respondent may file a Response
addressing only the reasonableness of the fees and costs requested.
The Response is also limited to six pages.  No Reply is permitted.
The matter is now closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Fm1nkf from Leagle.com.

Heather Winslow Barr, Petitioner, represented by Mathew J. Cunanan,
DC LAW GROUP NW LLC.

Joseph Stanley Pigott, also known as King Abdul Mumin El,
Respondent, pro se.


KITCHENAID INC: Nathan Suit Challenges Marketing of Blenders
------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC NATHAN, CHRIS SMITH, WILLIAM JOHNSON, RICHARD TSCHERNJAWSKI
and JUDITH ANDERSON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. KITCHENAID, INC., WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION and
WHIRLPOOL PROPERTIES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00609-SJD (S.D. Ohio,
July 25, 2019), is brought on behalf of purchasers of KitchenAid
blenders challenging the conduct of the Defendants in the marketing
and sale of two series of blenders, KitchenAid Pro Line Series
Blenders and High Performance Series Blenders, which are intended
for household use only.

The Blenders are incapable of reaching Whirlpool's horsepower
representations for the Blenders, the Plaintiffs allege.  They add
that the Defendants charge a premium for the Blenders based on the
misrepresented horsepower capabilities during household usage.

KitchenAid, Inc. has been a registered Ohio corporation for over 80
years, and has manufactured and sold goods out of its Greenville,
Ohio manufacturing factory and offices since 1946.

Whirlpool Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Benton Harbor, Michigan.  Whirlpool
Properties, Inc., is a Michigan corporation having its principal
place of business in Saint Joseph, Michigan.

Whirlpool, doing business as and using the trade name KitchenAid,
manufactures, markets, and sells a variety of blenders, including
the Blenders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W.B. Markovits, Esq.
          Paul M. De Marco, Esq.
          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
                  pdemarco@msdlegal.com
                  tcoates@msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
          8050 West 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941-4005
          Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
          E-mail: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Schirmer, Esq.
          STRAUS & BOIES, LLP
          1355 Lynnfield Road, Suite 245
          Memphis, TN 38119
          Telephone: (901) 683-4522
          E-mail: mschirmer@straus-boies.com


LABORATORY CORP: Faces Aponte, et al. Suit in North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings et al. The case is captioned as
JOANN APONTE, PAMELA DRISKELL, LEO GALLAGHER-KOWIT, JEFFREY
GRUSHKA, KIMMIE MARTIN, KIM PARROTT, GARY SCHWALL, CATLIN STANFORD,
KERRY STEED, and TODD STONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. LABORATORY
CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, doing business as: LABCORP;
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, doing business as: LABCORP; and
AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00824-WO-LPA (NCMD, Aug 12, 2019). The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge William l. Osteen, Jr.

LabCorp. is an American S&P 500 company headquartered in
Burlington, North Carolina. It operates one of the largest clinical
laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of
36 primary laboratories.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Daniel Kent Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 WEST MORGAN STREET
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: Dan@wbmllp.com

LABORATORY CORP: Jan Wage & Hour Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MEER JAN, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01459 (Filed July 30, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California, to U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on  Aug 22, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-07310-CAS-RAO to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder.

The Plaintiff alleges she and the class are entitled to recover
restitution of all amounts owed; statutory penalties pursuant to
California Labor Code Sections 203, etc.; premium wages for meal
periods and rest periods that were never provided; and attorneys'
fees.

LabCorp, is an American S&P 500 company headquartered in
Burlington, North Carolina. It operates one of the largest clinical
laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of
36 primary laboratories.[BN]

Attorneys for Meer Jan are:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

Attorneys for Laboratory Corporation of America are:

          Irene Scholl Tatevosyan, Esq.
          Andrea Chavez, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue Suite 4100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 629-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 629-6001
          E-mail: itatevosyan@nixonpeabody.com
                  andrea.chavez@nixonpeabody.com

LANDAU REAL ESTATE: Another J-51 Suit Granted Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Small, writing for The Real Deal, reports that tenants at a
building in Forest Hills, in Queens, NY, in the midst of a J-51
lawsuit have been granted class action status as they move forward
with their case.

Queens County Supreme Court Judge Timothy J. Dufficy handed down
the ruling in favor of tenants at 111-32 76th Avenue, a rental
building owned by landlord Landau Real Estate. The suit claims that
the company destabilized units in the 73-unit apartment building
while still getting tax breaks under New York's J-51 program.

More than 40 tenants were overcharged for rent, according to the
suit, which was initially filed last May. It requests that those
tenants get reimbursed for overcharges and that any illegally
deregulated apartments be put back in the rent stabilization
program.

A representative for Landau Real Estate -- which paid $21 million
for the property in 2014 -- declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The tenant watchdog group Housing Rights Initiative initiated the
suit, and maintains that the tenants could be collectively owed
hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent refunds.

"It's time for New York State to have a serious conversation about
the enforcement of our rent stabilization system," HRI executive
director Aaron Carr said in a statement. "The customary
indifference to fraud is beyond comprehension and belief."

Tenants Gary and Helen Sczesnik, Liana Lindenberg and Joseph
Polacik originally filed the suit. They are represented by attorney
Lucas Ferrara, Esq.

"This case sends a clear message to outer borough landlords that
they are not immune from suit should they skirt the requirements of
the rent laws," Ferrara said.

Ferrara is also representing tenants in a J-51 lawsuit at 28-30
34th Street in Astoria, who won class action status against their
landlord the Mycak family earlier this summer. The Mycaks are one
of the landlords suing to dismantle the strict new rent laws the
state passed this year. [GN]


LEAFFILTER NORTH: Faces Kammer Suit Over Wage and Hour Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINEKER KAMMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LEAFFILTER NORTH, LLC and LEAFFILTER NORTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01861-DAP (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 15,
2019), is an action for independent contractor misclassification
and related wage and hour claims alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, including failure to pay overtime
compensation.

LeafFilter North, LLC is a limited liability company, organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, and maintains a
physical presence in Broadview Heights, Ohio.  LeafFilter North of
Massachusetts, LLC is a limited liability company, organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, and maintains its
principal place of business in Hopkinton, Massachusetts.

According to its Web site, LeafFilter "is the largest gutter
protection company in the nation," and that it "provide[s] the most
effective debris-blocking gutter protection system on the market .
. . [f]rom coast to coast."  LeafFilter operates throughout the
United States through LLCs like LeafFilter Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
          RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
          92 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 723-7700
          Facsimile: (617) 227-0313
          E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com


LHC GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Rosenblatt Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
LHC Group, Inc. said in its Form  10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint and motion to strike the
affidavit attached to the consolidated complaint, are pending.

On April 1, 2018, the Company completed the Merger with Almost
Family. At the effective time of the Merger on April 1, 2018, each
outstanding share of common stock of Almost Family, other than
certain canceled shares, was converted into the right to receive
0.9150 shares of the Company's common stock and cash in lieu of any
fractional shares of any Company common stock that Almost Family
shareholders would otherwise have been entitled to receive.

On January 18, 2018, Jordan Rosenblatt, a purported shareholder of
Almost Family filed a complaint for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, styled Rosenblatt v. Almost Family,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-40-TBR (the "Rosenblatt Action").

The Rosenblatt Action was filed against the Company, Almost Family,
Almost Family's board of directors, and Merger Sub. The complaint
in the Rosenblatt Action ("Rosenblatt Complaint") asserts, among
other things, that the Form S-4 Registration Statement
("Registration Statement") filed on December 21, 2017 in connection
with the Merger contained false and misleading statements with
respect to the Merger.

The Rosenblatt Action sought, among other things, an injunction
enjoining the Merger from closing and an award of attorneys' fees
and costs.

In addition to the Rosenblatt Action, two additional complaints
were filed against Almost Family in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Actions")
alleging similar violations as the Rosenblatt Action. These
Delaware Actions also sought, among other things, to enjoin both
the vote of the Almost Family stockholders with respect to the
Merger and the closing of the Merger, monetary damages, and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs from Almost Family.

On February 22, 2018, plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions moved for
a preliminary injunction to enjoin the merger of Almost Family and
Merger Sub. Then, on March 2, 2018, the Delaware Actions were
transferred to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky.

Shortly thereafter, on March 12, 2018, Almost Family, the Company,
and Merger Sub opposed the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction, and the court heard oral argument on the plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction on March 19, 2018. On March 22,
2018, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction.

The next day, on March 23, 2018, one of the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Actions moved to consolidate the Delaware Actions with the
Rosenblatt Action and for the appointment of a lead plaintiff. On
December 19, 2018, the Court granted the motion to consolidate,
appointed Leonard Stein, a purported Almost Family shareholder, as
the Lead Plaintiff, and approved Stein's selection of Lead
Counsel.

On February 1, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The
Consolidated Complaint asserts claims against Almost Family, the
Company and Almost Family's board of directors for violations of
Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act in connection with the dissemination
of the Company's and Almost Family's Proxy Statement concerning the
Merger, and asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims and claims for
violations of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against Almost Family's
former board of directors.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary
damages and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On April 12,
2019, the Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint and
filed a motion to strike an affidavit attached to the Consolidated
Complaint. Lead Plaintiff opposed the Company's motions on May 28,
2019, and the Company submitted reply briefs in support of its
motions on June 19, 2019. The Company's motions are currently
pending before the court.

LHC Group said, "We believe that the claims asserted in these
lawsuits are entirely without merit and intend to defend these
lawsuits vigorously."

LHC Group, Inc., a health care provider, specializes in the
post-acute continuum of care primarily for Medicare beneficiaries
in the United States. The company was founded in 1994 and is based
in Lafayette, Louisiana.


LIBERTY TAX: Asbestos Workers' Pension Fund Balks at Acquisitions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASBESTOS WORKERS' PHILADELPHIA PENSION FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATTHEW
AVRIL; PATRICK A. COZZA; THOMAS HERSKOVITS; BRIAN R. KAHN; ANDREW
M. LAURENCE; LAWRENCE MILLER; G. WILLIAM MINNER JR.; BRYANT R.
RILEY; KENNETH M. YOUNG; VINTAGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; and B.
RILEY FINANCIAL, INC.; and LIBERTY TAX, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2019-0633 (Del. Ch., Aug. 12, 2019) is an action arising from a
series of conflicted transactions through which Vintage and B.
Riley have been able to radically transform Liberty Tax's core
business model, dramatically increase their equity stake in Liberty
Tax at a discount to the Company's fair value, and acquire majority
control of Liberty Tax without paying a control premium.

According to the complaint, on May 3, 2019, Vintage proposed the
exploration of a recapitalization of Liberty Tax that would include
a mechanism for all Company stockholders to receive $12 per share
in cash for any or all of their shares. The following day, the
Board formed a special committee to review and evaluate Vintage's
proposal.

On May 22, 2019, Vintage delivered to the Special Committee a term
sheet contemplating, among other things, that (a) Liberty Tax would
acquire Buddy's Newco, LLC, a retail furniture rental business
majority-owned by Vintage, at an enterprise value of $122 million;
(b) Liberty Tax would offer to purchase any and all shares of
Company common stock not owned by Vintage for $12 per share; and
(c) Vintage would purchase at least $25 million in additional
Liberty Tax stock at a per share price of $12.

Almost immediately after delivering the Term Sheet, Vintage began
pressuring the Special Committee to approve the deal. The Special
Committee caved and failed to negotiate for any meaningful changes
to the economic terms initially proposed by Vintage in the Term
Sheet.

On July 10, 2019, the Special Committee and Board agreed to, among
other things: (a) acquire Buddy's at an enterprise value of $122
million, (b) launch a tender offer to acquire any and all shares of
Liberty Tax common stock not owned by Vintage and B. Riley for $12
per share, (c) sell Vintage $25 million in Liberty Tax common stock
at a price of $12 per share and potentially sell Vintage an
additional $25 million in Company common stock if needed to finance
the Tender Offer, and (d) enter into a tax receivable agreement
with Buddy's former owners (i.e., primarily Vintage) pursuant to
which Vintage and Buddy's other former stockholders received the
right to payments from Liberty Tax equal to 40% of the Company's
realized tax benefits resulting from the redemption of certain
units and preferred stock issued in connection with the Buddy's
Merger.

The dramatic Vintage-led transformation of the Company continued
when, less than one month after agreeing to the Transactions and in
the middle of the Tender Offer, Liberty Tax announced that it would
(i) acquire another Vintage portfolio company, Vitamin Shoppe, Inc.
for $208 million; and (ii) fund the purchase, in part, by selling
$70 million in Company additional common stock to Vintage at a
price of $12 per share.

The conflicted Transactions and Vitamin Shoppe Acquisition are
unfair to Liberty Tax and its unaffiliated stockholders. The
Transactions, among other things, have caused and/or will cause:
(a) the radical transformation of Liberty Tax's business model and
the Company's acquisition of Buddy's (and potentially Vitamin
Shoppe) likely at an inflated price, (b) the transfer of control of
the Company to Vintage and B. Riley for no premium and without a
stockholder vote, (c) the allowance of Vintage and Buddy's other
former stockholders to unfairly extract additional value from
Liberty Tax by virtue of the TRA, (d) the offering to Liberty Tax's
non-Vintage and non-B. Riley stockholders of an inadequate price
for their shares of Company common stock, and (e) the issuance of
at least $95 million in additional shares of Liberty Tax common
stock to Vintage at a price below the fair value of the shares.

On August 1, 2019, Liberty Tax launched the Tender Offer. That same
day, the Company filed an offer to purchase and certain other
documents with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Tender Offer. The Tender Offer Documents are
materially misleading and/or omissive and prevent Liberty Tax
stockholders from making a fully-informed decision on whether to
tender their shares. Among other deficiencies, the Tender Offer
Documents fail to disclose: (a) Liberty Tax's standalone financial
projections, Buddy's standalone projections or Liberty Tax's pro
forma financial projections for the Buddy's Merger; (b) the myriad
business ties between Vintage and B. Riley, and that Vintage and B.
Riley's combined ownership stakes in Liberty Tax now give them
majority voting control over the Company; (c) material facts
regarding how the Special Committee determined that $122 million
was an appropriate implied enterprise value for Buddy's; (d)
material facts regarding the process culminating in the
Transactions; (e) all material facts regarding the potential
conflicts of interest plaguing the Special Committee's financial
advisor; (f) the estimated value of the future payments to Buddy's
former stockholders under the TRA; (g) why the Transaction
Committee rejected as unacceptable a $12 per share offer (i.e., the
same price offered in the Tender Offer); and (h) any of the process
or negotiations that culminated in the conflicted Vitamin Shoppe
Acquisition.

Liberty Tax, Inc. is a tax services firm. The Company provides tax
preparation services. Liberty Tax provides its customers with
federal and state tax preparation services and related financial
products both in retail offices and online. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan A. Cook, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000

               - and -

          Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
          David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
          493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
          Bedford Hills, NY 10507
          Telephone: (888) 529-1108


LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Can Compel Arbitration in Core FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL CORE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LIGHTHOUSE INS.
GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19 CV 1186 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Dan
Aaron Polster of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Stay
Pending Arbitration.

The Plaintiffs bring the action to collect allegedly unpaid
overtime compensation from their employer Lighthouse Insurance
Group ("LIG").  Named Plaintiffs Core and D'Angelo Williams were
employed by LIG as sales agents from June and September of 2018,
respectively, through January 2019.  The Plaintiffs allege that
during their employment, LIG did not properly calculate overtime
wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA") and that this miscalculation resulted in unpaid overtime
wages.

As part of their employment with LIG, both Core and Williams signed
identical Agreements to Arbitrate.

On May 23, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed collective and class action
allegations asserting unpaid overtime claims under both federal and
state law.  On June 21, 2019, LIG filed its Motion to Compel or
Stay Pending Arbitration.  On July 8, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their
Response.  On July 10, 2019, LIG filed its Reply.

The Plaintiffs do not dispute that they are bound by LIG's
Agreement.  They instead argue that the Agreement is unenforceable
due to its provisions on cost-splitting and attorney fees.

Judge Polster finds the Plaintiffs' arguments unavailing.  The
Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence from which a court could
find that the fee-splitting provisions are likely to deter
employees from vindicating their statutory rights. As LIG notes in
its Reply, the Agreement does not impose any more costs or fees on
the Plaintiffs than they would be responsible for in court.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the
challenged cost-splitting provisions of the Agreement are
unenforceable.

The Judge aso finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to show that
the attorneys' fees provisions under the arbitration agreement are
unenforceable.  The Plaintiffs failed to suggest why an arbitrator
would not award attorneys' fees were they to prevail.  In fact, the
Wilks v. Pep Boys court went so far as to hold that because
attorneys' fees are mandated, and because the arbitrator has the
authority to award them, it is the court's interpretation of Rule
34(e) that a AAA arbitrator would be required to award attorney's
fees and costs to a prevailing FLSA plaintiff.

Lastly, the Plaintiffs argue that LIG inappropriately requests that
the Court dismisses the case with prejudice.  They state that the
Court should "at most dismiss the claims without prejudice."  The
Judge agrees.  Because all of the Plaintiffs claims will be
arbitrated, he finds that a dismissal without prejudice is most
appropriate in the case.

Accordingly, Judge Polster granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration, and dismissed the case without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/B0K5KO from Leagle.com.

Daniel Core & D'Angelo Williams, On behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter A. Contreras
-- peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com -- & Matthew J.P. Coffman --
mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com -- Coffman Legal.

Lighthouse Insurance Group, LLC, On behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Defendant, represented by Evelyn P. Schonberg
-- lynns@rbslaw.com -- Ross, Brittain & Schonberg & Sean S. Kelly
-- skelly@rbslaw.com -- Ross, Brittain & Schonberg.


LVNV FUNDING: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Elliott Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANTHONY ELLIOTT, the
Plaintiff, vs. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-00675-RGJ-LLK (W.D. Ken.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Gray
Jennings entered an order on August 23, 2019:

   1. preliminarily approving a Revised Settlement Agreement
      as fair, reasonable and adequate;

   2. preliminarily certifying the case as a class action for
      settlement purposes only;

   3. conditionally certifying classes of persons for settlement
      purposes only, described in the Revised Settlement Agreement

      and defined as:

      Class I: "Prejudgment Court Costs Class"

      all consumers against whom LVNV or its respective
      predecessors in interest, agents, employees, attorneys, or
      representatives (collectively, "LVNV"), filed a lawsuit in
      Kentucky, obtained a judgment against the consumer, and
      attempted to collect or did collect via a post-judgment
      garnishment between October 27, 2015, and the date the Court
      signs the order preliminarily approving the Revised
      Settlement Agreement, prejudgment court costs from the
      consumer without filing a bill of costs itemizing the
      prejudgment court costs LVNV attempted to recover, or
      actually recovered. Members of Class I include consumers
      against whom LVNV actually collected prejudgment court costs

      without filing a bill of costs itemizing the costs recovered

      from the consumer and those consumers whom LVNV attempted
      to, but did not collect prejudgment court costs without
      filing a bill of costs itemizing the costs sought to be
      recovered from the consumer"; and

      Class II: "Judgment Lien Filing Fee and Garnishment Fee
      Class"

      "all consumers against whom LVNV or its respective
      predecessors in interest, agents, employees, attorneys, or
      representatives (collectively, "LVNV"), filed a lawsuit in
      Kentucky, obtained a judgment against the consumer, and
      attempted to collect or did collect via a post-judgment
      garnishment between October 27, 2015, and the date the Court

      signs the order preliminarily approving the Revised
      Settlement Agreement, a post-judgment filing fee paid by
      LVNV to file a "Notice of Judgment Lien Upon Real Estate"
      pursuant to a judgment entered against the consumer. Members

      of Class II include consumers against whom LVNV actually
      collected a post-judgment filing fee paid by LVNV to file a
      "Notice of Judgment Lien Upon Real Estate" pursuant to a
      judgment entered against the consumer and those consumers
      against whom LVNV attempted to, but did not collect a post-
      judgment filing fee paid by LVNV to file a "Notice of
      Judgment Lien Upon Real Estate" pursuant to a judgment
      entered against the consumer. Members of Class II also
      include all consumers against whom LVNV filed a lawsuit in
      Kentucky, obtained a judgment against the consumer, and
      attempted to collect or did collect via a post- judgment
      garnishment between October 27, 2015, and the date the Court

      signs the order preliminarily approving the Revised
      Settlement Agreement, a post-judgment garnishment fee paid
      by LVNV to either a garnishee or a clerk of court to file a
      garnishment to enforce a judgment entered against a
      consumer. This includes consumers against whom LVNV actually

      collected a post- judgment garnishment fee paid by LVNV to
      file a garnishment to enforce a judgment entered against the

      consumer and those consumers against whom LVNV attempted to,

      but did not collect a post-judgment garnishment fee paid by
      LVNV to file a garnishment to enforce a judgment entered
      against the consumer";

   4. defining a "Settlement Class Member" which includes any
      person falling within the definition of any one or more of
      the two Settlement Classes and if such person filed a
      petition in bankruptcy after the issuance of a Statutory
      Notice, the bankruptcy trustee for such person;

   5. designating Anthony Elliott as representative of the
      conditionally certified Classes.

   6. appointing James Hays Lawson, of Lawson at Law, PLLC, and
      James McKenzie, of James R. McKenzie Attorney, PLLC, as
      Class Counsel;

   7. setting a Fairness Hearing be held on January 28, 2020 at
      9:30 AM, at the United States District Court for the Western

      District of Kentucky, 601 West Broadway, Louisville,
      Kentucky 40202–2227;

   8. directing that Fairness Hearing may be postponed, adjourned,

      transferred, or continued by order of the Court without
      further notice to the Settlement Classes except to those
      Class Members who file timely objections to the Settlement.
      After the Fairness Hearing, the Court may enter a Settlement

      Approval Order and Final Judgment in accordance with the
      Revised Settlement Agreement that will adjudicate the rights

      of all Class Members.;

   9. authorizing LVNV to establish the means necessary to
      administer the proposed settlement and implement the claim
      process, in accordance with the terms of the Revised
      Settlement Agreemen, in consultation with and with the
      approval of Plaintiff;

  10. directing LVNV to provide the Class List to Class Counsel
      within 30 days from the date of the entry of this Order;

  11. conditionally approving Revised Notice and the notice
      methodology described in the Revised Settlement Agreement
      are in accordance with the Court's analysis;

  12. directing Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel to file
      with the Court a notice of mailing the Revised Notice to the

      Class Members at least 10 days prior to the Fairness
      Hearing, after mailing;

  13. directing any member of the Settlement Classes who desires
      to be excluded from the Settlement Classes, no later than 45

      days before the date of the Fairness Hearing, to file a
      written request for exclusion with the Court and mail the
      written request for exclusion addressed to Class Counsel and

      LVNV's Counsel as follows:

      Class Counsel:

      James H. Lawson, Esq.
      Lawson at Law, PLLC
      115 S. Sherrin Ave., Suite 5
      Louisville, KY 40207

           - and -

      James R. McKenzie, Esq.
      James R. McKenzie Attorney, PLLC
      115 S. Sherrin Ave., Suite 5
      Louisville, KY 40207

      LVNV's Counsel:

      Gregory S. Berman
      Jordan M. White
      WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
      500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 2800
      Louisville, KY 40202-2898

  14. directing Class Counsel to file with the Court and serve a
      copy upon LVNV's Counsel of all timely and valid requests
      for exclusion or a list identifying those who submitted
      timely and valid requests for exclusion no later than 35  
      days before the Fairness Hearing;  

  15. staying all proceedings in the Action, other than
      proceedings relating to the approval of the class action
      settlement. Class Members who do not timely and validly
      exclude themselves from the Revised Settlement Agreement are

      enjoined from prosecuting any non-filed or pending
      individual or class claims asserting any claim(s)
      encompassed by the claims described in the Revised
      Settlement Agreement;

  16. directing any Class Member who timely and properly elects
      to exclude themselves from this Settlement may proceed with
      his or her own action;

  17. directing any Class Member or counsel hired at any Class
      Member's own expense who complies with the requirements of
      this paragraph may object to any aspect of the proposed
      settlement;

  18. directing Class Counsel and LVNV to promptly furnish to
      each other copies of any and all objections or written
      requests for exclusion that might come into their
      possession; and

  19. authorizing Class Counsel and LVNV to use and disclose such
      information as is contemplated and necessary to effectuate
      the terms and conditions of this Settlement, and to protect
      the confidentiality of the names and addresses of Class
      Members or other confidential or proprietary information
      pursuant to the terms of the Revised Settlement Agreement.
      [CC]

MALAYSIA AIRLINES: Lawyer Moots Putrajaya-Backed Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ida Lim, writing for Malay Mail, reports that getting a group of
family members of those aboard Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 to
launch a lawsuit together against Ukraine can be considered as an
alternative to a criminal trial against four men suspected of being
responsible for the plane's 2014 downing, a lawyer has said.

Lawyer Gurdial Singh Nijar, Esq., noted that the problem would lie
in collecting evidence to show liability, but suggested that there
was sufficient basis to sue Ukraine such as over their alleged
failure to close their airspace amid a conflict with rebels.

"I think if we can initiate a class action that is being supported
by our government itself, I think that may be basis to maybe have
an alternative route to having a trial in which our lawyers will be
in charge of the kind and nature of evidence.

"Whether we succeed or not is a different matter but at least there
will be enough blaze of publicity that will bring out the
alternative narrative," he said at a conference, alluding to
alternative theories on MH17's fate.

Gurdial suggested that such a class action lawsuit be filed in
Ukraine as the allegations of negligence is against the country,
but also noted that there could be an arrangement for a neutral
venue like in the Lockerbie, Scotland case where Pan Am Flight 103
was downed.

In the Lockerbie case, Netherlands was selected as a neutral
country along with protective measures for witnesses where the law
in Netherlands would not be used against them, he said.

"It is possible also to work out diplomatically on alternative
forum applying a given choice of law, I think this will be a very
useful line to go, but we must do it via class action, supported by
the government," he said.

Gurdial highlighted that the new federal government had used this
approach, where it had via the attorney general's chambers itself
acted on behalf of indigenous people in Kelantan to launch a class
action suit against the Kelantan state government over alleged
failure to address Orang Asli issues.

"So I think this will be a good initiative and maybe Tun Mahathir,
knowing his penchant for ensuring this kind of activities, he has
come out very openly to condemn this whole process, maybe that's
one useful avenue to explore with his backing," Gurdial said.

Gurdial was speaking at a full-day conference titled "MH17: The
Quest for Justice" held yesterday at the International Islamic
University of Malaysia's main auditorium.

Several other speakers at the same event had disputed and even
accused the multinational Joint Investigation Team's (JIT) findings
of MH17 being downed by an anti-aircraft BUK missile fired from the
ground from rebel-held eastern Ukraine as "lies", while also
presenting their own alternative theories of what they believed
happened to the plane.

Gurdial addressed various legal aspects and possible legal
scenarios for the MH17 case, including how attempts can be made to
present "alternative evidence" at a planned trial next year in the
Netherlands against four individuals suspected of being responsible
for MH17.

"The fact is so many areas are being considered as speculative but
it is during the trial process that you test your theories and you
test the veracity of these through cross-examination and so on,
that's the normal trial process," he said.

Gurdial said there is another option if efforts to present the
"alternative evidence" at the trial are relatively unsuccessful,
saying: "Then you can have an alternative commission of inquiry at
the same venue or same country where this is held."

Gurdial said the commission of inquiry could be like the Kuala
Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal which had featured an international
panel of judges in the past. (Gurdial had also acted as prosecutor
in the symbolic tribunal.)

A Canadian lawyer, John Philpot, also suggested at the conference
that it could be possible to hold a "more or less formal"
commission of inquiry on MH17, but described the idea as a
"delicate political question".

"I'm not saying it's all feasible but Malaysia has held trials of
opinion of which I was a judge and my colleague here was a
prosecutor, but there's a potential here having a commission of
inquiry," he said.

Philpot was one of seven judges at the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes
Tribunal which convened on November 20, 2013 and decided a few days
later to symbolically pass a guilty verdict on Israel and Israel's
general Amos Yaron for genocide in September 1982.

Philpot was also one of the speakers at the MH17 conference
jointly-organised by JUST, the Perdana Global Peace Foundation
(PGPF), and the Canada-based Centre for Research on Globalisation
(CRG) with the collaboration of the International Islamic
University of Malaysia. [GN]


MALLINCKRODT PLC: 2,153 Suits Filed Over Opioid Sales at Aug. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that as of August 6, 2019,
the Company is aware of approximately 2,153 cases related to Opioid
sales.

Since 2017, multiple U.S. states, counties, other governmental
persons or entities and private plaintiffs have filed lawsuits
against certain entities of the Company, as well as various other
manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers,
individual doctors and/or others, asserting claims relating to
defendants' alleged sales, marketing, distribution, reimbursement,
prescribing, dispensing and/or other practices with respect to
prescription opioid medications, including certain of the Company's
products.

As of August 6, 2019, the cases the Company is aware of include,
but are not limited to, approximately 2,153 cases filed by
counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other
government-related persons or entities; approximately 140 cases
filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare
funds or other third-party payers; approximately 103 cases filed by
individuals and 10 cases filed by the Attorneys General for New
Mexico, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Georgia, Florida, Alaska, New York,
Hawaii, Nevada and Idaho, with Idaho being the only state Attorney
General to file in federal as opposed to state court. Certain of
the lawsuits have been filed as putative class actions.

Most pending federal lawsuits have been coordinated in a federal
multi-district litigation ("MDL") pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The MDL court has issued a series of case management orders
permitting motion practice addressing threshold legal issues in
certain cases, allowing discovery, setting pre-trial deadlines and
setting a trial date on October 21, 2019 for two cases originally
filed in the Northern District of Ohio by Summit County and
Cuyahoga County against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and
pharmacies.

The counties claim that opioid manufacturers' marketing activities
changed the medical standard of care for treating both chronic and
acute pain, which led to increases in the sales of their
prescription opioid products.

They also allege that opioid manufacturers' and distributors'
failure to maintain effective controls against diversion was a
substantial cause of the opioid crisis.

Other lawsuits remain pending in various state courts. In some
jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New
York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia,
certain of the 235 state lawsuits have been coordinated for
pre-trial proceedings before a single court within their respective
state court systems. State cases are generally at the pleading
and/or discovery stage.

The lawsuits assert a variety of claims, including, but not limited
to, public nuisance, negligence, civil conspiracy, fraud,
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO") or similar state laws, violations of state Controlled
Substances Acts or state False Claims Acts, product liability,
consumer fraud, unfair or deceptive trade practices, false
advertising, insurance fraud, unjust enrichment and other common
law and statutory claims arising from defendants' manufacturing,
distribution, marketing and promotion of opioids and seek
restitution, damages, injunctive and other relief and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The claims generally are based on alleged misrepresentations and/or
omissions in connection with the sale and marketing of prescription
opioid medications and/or an alleged failure to take adequate steps
to prevent abuse and diversion.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against all of
these lawsuits as detailed above and similar lawsuits that may be
brought by others. Since these lawsuits are in early stages, the
Company is unable to predict outcomes or estimate a range of
reasonably possible losses.

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated D.C. Suit Narrowed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that the court has granted in
part, and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed in the
consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.  

On January 23, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its CEO in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt
plc, et al.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased Mallinckrodt's publicly traded securities on a domestic
exchange between November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017.

The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company made false or
misleading statements related to Acthar Gel and Synacthen to
artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock.

In particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the Company to
provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term
sustainability of Acthar Gel revenues, and the exposure of Acthar
Gel to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Patel complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in
the Shenk lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in
the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 13, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit, captioned
Amy T. Schwartz, et al., v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed
against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Schwartz complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the Company between July 14,
2014 and January 18, 2017 and asserts claims similar to those set
forth in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 23, 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Fulton County Employees' Retirement System v.
Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the Company, its CEO
and former CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

The Fulton County complaint purports to be brought on behalf of
shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in
the Schwartz lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth
in the Shenk lawsuit.

On March 27, 2017, four separate plaintiff groups moved to
consolidate the pending cases and to be appointed as lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated case.

Since that time, two of the plaintiff groups have withdrawn their
motions. Lead plaintiff was designated by the court on March 9,
2018.

Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May 18, 2018,
alleging a class period from July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017, the
Company, its CEO, its former CFO, and Executive Vice President,
Hugh O'Neill, as defendants, and containing similar claims, but
further alleging misstatements regarding payer reimbursement
restrictions for Acthar Gel.

On August 30, 2018, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
claims against Mr. O'Neill without prejudice.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was
granted in part, and denied in part by the court on July 30, 2019.


The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, City of Rockford v.
Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

On April 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and United BioSource Corporation (UBC) in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The case is captioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc.,
et al. The complaint was subsequently amended, most recently on
December 8, 2017, to include an additional named plaintiff and
additional defendants.

As amended, the complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories, excluding any
Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entities and certain
others, that paid for Acthar Gel from August 2007 to the present.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was
granted in part by the court on January 25, 2019, dismissing one of
two named plaintiffs and all claims with the exception of federal
and state antitrust claims.

The remaining allegation in the case is that the Company engaged in
anti-competitive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price
of Acthar Gel.

To this end, the suit alleges that the Company unlawfully
maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by
acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen; and conspired with the
other named defendants by selling Acthar Gel through an exclusive
distributor.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

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

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces Plumbers & Pipefitters Union Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a class action suit entitled, United Assoc.
of Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 322 of Southern New Jersey v.
Mallinckrodt ARD, LLC.  

On July 19, 2019, Pipefitters Local 322 filed a putative state
class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Camden County, proceeding as United Assoc. of Plumbers
& Pipefitters Local 322 of Southern New Jersey v. Mallinckrodt ARD,
LLC.  

The complaint makes similar allegations as alleged in related state
and federal actions filed by the same plaintiff law firm filed in
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Maryland, including
references to pending qui tam allegations within the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  

In particular, the complaint alleges violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Antitrust Act, violation of
state RICO statutes, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy and
unjust enrichment associated with the commercialization of Acthar
Gel.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces Steamfitters Local Union Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a class action suit entitled, Steamfitters
Local Union No. 420 v. Mallinckrodt ARD, LLC et al.

On July 12, 2019, Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company and various pharmaceutical
distributors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, proceeding as Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 v.
Mallinckrodt ARD, LLC et al.  

The complaint makes similar allegations as alleged in related state
and federal actions filed by the same plaintiff law firm filed in
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Maryland.   

In particular, the Complaint alleges claims of RICO violations
under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c); conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(c); violations of the Pennsylvania (and other states)
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection laws; negligent
misrepresentation; aiding and abetting/conspiracy; and unjust
enrichment. The complaint also seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Still Defends MSP Recovery Claims Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, MSP Recovery Claims,
Series II LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

On October 30, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and United BioSource Corporation ("UBC") in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Pursuant to a motion filed by the defendants, the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, and is currently proceeding as MSP Recovery Claims,
Series II LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 23, 2018. The
motion to dismiss was granted on January 25, 2019.

MSP was provided with leave to amend its complaint, and filed the
operative First Amended Class Action Complaint on April 10, 2019
asserting claims under federal antitrust law, state antitrust laws
and state consumer protection laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company unlawfully maintained a
monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S.
rights to Synacthen(R) Depot ("Synacthen") and reaching
anti-competitive agreements with the other defendants by selling
Acthar Gel through an exclusive distribution network.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all third-party
payers, or their assignees, in the U.S. and its territories, who
have, as indirect purchasers, in whole or in part, paid for,
provided reimbursement for, and/or possess the recovery rights to
reimbursement for the indirect purchase of Acthar Gel from August
1, 2007 to present.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company
was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United
Kingdom.


MARYLAND TRANSIT: Johnson Appeals D. Md. Ruling to Fourth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joseph Johnson, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling issued in their lawsuit entitled Joseph Johnson, et al. v.
MD Transit Administration, Case No. 1:18-cv-03768-CCB, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, six bus
drivers sued the Maryland Transit Administration claiming they have
been denied overtime pay since October 2015.

The drivers say their class-action suit, initially filed in in
Baltimore City Circuit Court late last month, could apply to as
many as 200 current drivers. The state moved the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland on Dec. 10, 2018.

Each driver is seeking more than $75,000, and they are collectively
seeking a court order to require the MTA to pay overtime as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Johnson, et al. v. MD
Transit Administration, Case No. 19-1885, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on September 25, 2019;
      and

   -- Response Brief is due on October 25, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSEPH JOHNSON, JOHN C. POTEAT, LYNNETTE
EVERETT, MARSHALL E. GWYNN, ERIKA BANNISTER and LAMONT D. JACKSON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
are represented by:

          James Martin Ray, II, Esq.
          MALLON & MCCOOL, LLC
          300 East Lombard Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 727-7887
          Facsimile: (410) 727-4770
          E-mail: jray@mallonandmccool.com

               - and -

          Andrew James Toland, III, Esq.
          TOLAND LAW, LLC
          P. O. Box 1130
          Sparks, MD 21152
          Telephone: (410) 499-5656
          E-mail: andytoland@msn.com

Defendant-Appellee MARYLAND TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION is represented
by:

          Eric Scott Hartwig, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
          6 St. Paul Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 767-3904
          Facsimile: (410) 333-2584
          E-mail: ehartwig@mta.maryland.gov


MAS-SAR-O INC: Denied Guevara Overtime Pay, Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Guevara, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
individuals, Petitioner, v. Mas-Sar-O Inc. and Peter Massaro,
Respondents Case No. 19-cv-04440, (E.D. N.Y., August 1, 2019),
seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages as mandated by New York
labor law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate as Cobblestones Pop and Biergarten where Guevara
worked as a server. He claims to be denied overtime pay and paid
below the mandatory minimum wage rate. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN PC
     52 Duane St., 7th Floor
     New York, NY 11702
     Tel. (212) 374-0009
     Fax: (212) 374-9931
     Email: ls@jfslaw.net


MASON MGT: New York Sup. Dismisses FAC in Mahmood Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAYRA MAHMOOD, ANTHONY CIMINO, RALPH PORR, C.E.
MONDEN, MARK TADROS, MARGOT ROSS, KIMBERLEY GARRETT, P.G. LYNE,
J.M. LUMPKIN, LARRY BENNETT, WENDY BENNETT, LUNA ALARCON, ALEXIS
BARBER-DAVIS, ALEX DRYDEN, STEPHENIE FUTCH, FILOMENA REYES, MELISSA
ABLER, RAMA NDIAYE, ERIC ROCHMAN, SHELLEY OHMES, ERIC FRANKLIN,
FRAKSHELL MACHUA, GIOVANNI ANDOLLO, NICOLE AUGSTEIN, CALI HERSH,
LEN GUTMAN, KAREN SCHROEDER, DAN DAVENPORT, RUYI JIAO, EMILY
HOCHBERG, MICHELLE COURSEY, MATTHEW GALE, WILLIAM GRUBBS, YURIY
VASKEVICH, BENJAMIN BROWN, KRISTINA CAPPUCCILLI, SYED RIZVI, EOGHAN
McNULTY, ROISIN McNULTY, CATHERINE HATTEN, DENISE AQUINO,
ALESSANDRA SIMEONE, JILLIAN CHASE, CASSONDRA PULS, NEHA SAVANT,
SAMUEL GOODSPEED, JON WILLIAMS, ROBERT CARR, GIOVANNI CASSINELLI,
OUSMAN LAAST, ANDREW MARTIN, NARI BOWIE, FADIA QADAR, JOSE VALDEZ,
AMANDA WATERMEYER, RACHEL WILLOUGHBY, JORDAN SHIPLEY, YANA
ANJUDINOVA, IGOR BORODYANSKY, JASON GALLAGHER, ROBIN MINITER
Plaintiffs, v. MASON MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORP., D/B/A STELLAR
MANAGEMENT, LAURENCE GLUCK, XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-99, Defendants,
Docket No. 153574/2017, Motion Seq. No. 002 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Joel
M. Cohen of the New York County Supreme Court dismissed the
Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint.

The case is a putative class action alleging that Defendants Mason
Management Co. Inc., doing business as Stellar Management, Laurence
Gluck, and other unknown "XYZ" entities, have been systematically
inflating rents in contravention of the city's rent regulation
laws.

The Plaintiffs -- 61 individuals residing in 49 apartment units
located in 18 different apartment buildings throughout New York
City -- allege that the Defendants have pursued (and continue to
pursue) a scheme designed to inflate rents over and above the
amounts which they are legally permitted to charge.  

The scheme allegedly comprised two distinct tactics for
overcharging rent: (1) misrepresenting and obfuscating the costs of
Individual Apartment Improvements ("IAIs") performed on the
Plaintiffs' apartments and those of similarly situated tenants in
order to justify inflated rents on those apartments; and (2)
failing to treat certain apartments as rent-stabilized as required
under the terms of the J-51 tax benefits program.  These actions,
the Plaintiffs say, violate provisions of the Rent Stabilization
Law ("RSL") and the Rent Stabilization Code ("RSC").

The actual owners of the apartment buildings at issue are not named
as Defendants in the Amended Complaint.  Rather, the Plaintiffs
bring the action against two known Defendants: Stellar Management,
the indirect owner and operator of the buildings that make up the
Stellar Portfolio, and Laurence Gluck, a co-owner, operator, and
principal of Stellar Management.  In addition, the Amended
Complaint names Defendants XYZ Corporation 1-99, a placeholder for
"numerous legal entities that have done business as Stellar
Management" but which are currently "unknown to the Plaintiffs.

To vindicate their rights as well as those of other
similarly-situated tenants, the Plaintiffs propose the following
class: Current and former tenants of Stellar Portfolio buildings
who, between April 18, 2013 and the present date, resided in
rent-stabilized or unlawfully deregulated apartments, and who paid
rent in excess of the legal limit based on misrepresentations by
the Defendants, or any predecessor in interest, concerning legal
regulated rents and improvement.

In addition, the Plaintiffs propose a Sub-Class consisting of all
current tenants of Stellar Portfolio buildings, who currently
reside in a rent-stabilized apartment or unlawfully deregulated
apartment.

The Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint on July 28, 2017,
alleging six causes of action on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated: (1) violation of RSL Section 26-512 (on
behalf of the Class); (2) violation of RSL Section 26-512 (on
behalf of the Sub-Class); (3) declaratory relief (on behalf of the
Sub-Class) adjudging and determining, inter alia, that the
apartments of the Plaintiffs and members of the Sub-Class are
subject to the RSL and RSC and any purported deregulation by teh
Defendants was invalid as a matter of law"; (4) violation of
General Business Law ("GBL") Section 349 (on behalf of the Class);
(5) illegality and mistake of contract (on behalf of the Class);
and (6) illegality and mistake of contract (on behalf of the
Sub-Class).

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on Feb. 2,
2018, arguing, among other things, that the Plaintiffs' purported
class action could not go forward because none of the "actual
'direct' owners of the buildings" at issue had been named in the
action.  Also in that motion, tge Defendants contended that te
Plaintiffs' class allegations fail to meet the statutory
prerequisites for a class action under CPLR 901 (a).

After the briefing on the Defendants' motion was completed, the
First Department issued its decision in Maddicks v. Big City
Properties, LLC.  Maddicks held that pre-answer motions to dismiss
class allegations—such as Defendants' motion in the case -- are
"premature," and that "engaging in a detailed analysis of whether
the requirements of class certification" was inappropriate prior to
the class certification phase. Further, the court noted, it does
not appear conclusively from the complaint that, as a matter of
law, there is no basis for class action relief.  The case is
currently pending in the Court of Appeals

At oral argument on this motion, held shortly after Maddicks was
decided, Justice Bransten indicated she was dismissing the
Plaintiffs' fifth and sixth causes of action and dismissing the
case as a whole against Gluck.  The Plaintiffs also advised at the
hearing that they were withdrawing their fourth cause of action.
Following the hearing, final disposition of the motion was deferred
pending the Court of Appeals' ruling in Maddicks.  On March 27,
2019, the Court determined that it would proceed with the instant
motion based on the law as it currently stands.

At this point, the remaining claims in the case are the Plaintiffs'
first, second, and third causes of action against Stellar
Management.  Given that the Plaintiffs fail to state any viable
claims against the Defendants, the Court need not reach the
question of whether the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' class allegations is foreclosed by Maddicks.

As a threshold matter, Judge Cohen finds that the Plaintiffs have
not alleged sufficient facts to show that Stellar Management is the
proper party against whom the claims can be brought.  The statutory
and regulatory framework which governs rent regulation in New York
City -- as well as the case law interpreting that framework --
indicates that the proper parties to defend the action are the
owners of the subject apartment buildings.  The Plaintiffs
characterize Stellar Management as, variously, the "indirect owner"
of the subject apartment buildings, the "operator" of those
buildings, and the "agent" of the actual, direct owners.  None of
these Appellations, however, support Stellar Management's liability
on the Plaintiffs' first three causes of action as alleged in the
Amended Complaint.  Stellar Management is not alleged in the
Amended Complaint to fall within the statutory definition of
"owner."

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs' agency theory of
liability fails under New York common law.  The Plaintiffs'
argument also fails as a matter of statutory interpretation.  When
read as a whole, RSC Section 2520.6(i) does not support the
Plaintiffs' position.  In fact, New York courts have rejected their
statutory argument.  In Siguencia, for example, the court rejected
the argument that "a rent overcharge claim may be imposed upon
managing agents because they qualify as owners, as the term is
defined in the Rent Stabilization Code, noting that the Appellate
Division, First Department has expressly rejected this position.
Most recently in Chang v. Bronstein Properties, LLC, the court
dismissed a putative class action against "indirect owners and
operators" of apartment buildings, requiring that the actual owners
of the apartment buildings be named as defendants.

For these reasons, the Judge therefore dismissed the Plaintiffs'
first, second, and third causes of action against Stellar
Management.  He granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  His
constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/yqytkp from Leagle.com.


MASTEC NETWORK: Cavins Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
David Lee Cavins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MasTec Network Solutions, LLC and
MasTec Renewables Puerto Rico, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-23227 (S.D. Fla., August 2, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute.

MasTec is a full service infrastructure, construction company
centering on most facets of the utility industry where Cavins
worked as a lineman. Throughout his employment with MasTec, he was
paid a day-rate with no overtime compensation. He claims that he
was paid a salary regardless of the number of hours he worked that
day without any overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty
hours in a workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

             - and -

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
      Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com


MDL 02641: Court Suggests Remand of Bard IVC Filters Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued
an Order suggesting remand and transfer of cases in the case
captioned IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation.
No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC. (D. Ariz.).

This multidistrict litigation proceeding (MDL) involves personal
injury cases brought against Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard
Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (Bard). Bard manufactures and markets
medical devices, including inferior vena cava (IVC) filters. The
MDL Plaintiffs have received implants of Bard IVC filters and claim
they are defective and have caused Plaintiffs to suffer serious
injury or death.

The MDL was transferred to this Court in August 2015 when 22 cases
had been filed. More than 8,000 cases had been filed when the MDL
closed to new cases on May 31, 2019. Thousands of cases pending in
the MDL have settled in principle or are near settlement. The
remaining cases no longer benefit from centralized proceedings and
are subject to remand or transfer.

Suggestion of Remand

Remand Standard

The power to remand MDL cases rests solely with the Panel. The
Panel typically relies on the transferee court to suggest when
remand should be ordered. J.P.M.L. The transferee court may suggest
remand when cases are ready for trial, or would no longer benefit
from inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The Panel Should Remand the Cases Listed on Schedule A.

The primary purposes of this MDL, coordinated pretrial discovery
and resolution of common issues have been fulfilled.  

The MDL cases listed on Schedule A are not likely to settle soon
and no longer benefit from centralized proceedings. The remaining
case-specific issues in these cases are best left to the transferor
courts to resolve. The Court therefore suggests that the Panel
remand the cases on Schedule A to the transferor courts for further
proceedings.  

Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a)

Transfer Standard

Section 1404(a) provides that for the convenience of parties and
witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may
transfer any civil action to any other district or division where
it might have been brought or to any district or division to which
all parties have consented.

The Direct-Filed Cases Listed on Schedule B Will Be Transferred

Not all MDL cases were transferred to the Court by the Panel.
Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 4 (CMO 4), many cases were
filed directly in the MDL through use of a short form complaint.
Plaintiffs were required to identify in the short form complaint
the district where venue would be proper absent direct filing in
the MDL. CMO 4 provides that, upon the MDL's closure, each pending
direct-filed case shall be transferred pursuant Section 1404(a) to
the district identified in the short form complaint.  

Cases Where the Parties Agree to Venue

The parties have provided a list of the direct-filed cases in which
they agree to the venue identified in the short form complaint. The
parties also agree that certain other cases should be transferred
to the venue where the plaintiff was implanted with the filter and
not to the venue identified in the short form complaint. Pursuant
to Section 1404(a), the Court will transfer these cases to the
agreed-upon districts.  

Cases Where the Parties Disagree on Venue or Jurisdiction

CMO 4 provides that, prior to transfer, Defendants may object to
the district specified in the short form complaint based on venue
or personal jurisdiction. Defendants have identified cases where
they intend to raise venue or jurisdiction objections to
Plaintiffs' chosen forums. Defendants do not oppose transfer of
these cases to the forums chosen by Plaintiffs, but seek to
preserve their right to object to venue and personal jurisdiction
upon transfer.
  
Plaintiffs oppose this approach, asserting that the resolution of
venue and jurisdictional challenges after transfer would be
inefficient. But more than a dozen cases involve potential venue or
personal jurisdictional challenges. Resolving such disputes
generally involves consideration of case-specific factors,
including the law for the forum. The best approach is to transfer
the cases to Plaintiffs' chosen forum and allow the receiving
courts to address any potential venue and personal jurisdictional
issues. Defendants' right to object to venue and personal
jurisdiction upon transfer is preserved.

Plaintiffs assert that, depending on the various state savings
statutes, dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction after
transfer could result in timely-filed cases being barred from
re-filing in an appropriate district based on the statute of
limitations. Plaintiffs are free to argue in the receiving courts
that the interests of justice favor transfer rather than dismissal
of any timely-filed case that would be barred from re-filing if
dismissed.  

The MDL Proceedings

A summary of the MDL proceedings to date is provided below to
assist courts on remand, if ordered by the Panel, and courts
receiving transfers under Section 1404(a). CMOs, discovery orders,
and other significant rulings are listed in Exhibit 1. The status
of the remaining case-specific discovery and other pretrial issues
for these cases, and the estimated time needed to resolve such
issues and make the cases ready for trial, will be determined by
the parties and reported to the district courts on remand or
transfer.

Plaintiffs' Claims and the Pleadings.

The MDL Plaintiffs allege that Bard filters are more dangerous than
other IVC filters because they have higher risks of tilting,
perforating the IVC, or fracturing and migrating to vital organs.
Plaintiffs further allege that Bard failed to warn patients and
physicians about these higher risks. Defendants dispute these
allegations, contending that Bard filters are safe and effective,
that their complication rates are low and comparable to those of
other IVC filters, and that the medical community is aware of the
risks associated with IVC filters.

CMO 2, entered October 30, 2015, required the creation of a master
complaint, a master answer, and templates of short-form complaints
and answers. The master complaint and answer were filed December
12, 2015. They are the operative pleadings for most of the cases in
this MDL.

The master complaint gives notice, pursuant to Rule 8, of the
allegations that Plaintiffs assert generally. The master complaint
asserts seventeen state law claims: manufacturing defect (Counts I
and V) failure to warn (Counts II and VII) design defect (Counts
III and IV) failure to recall (Count VI) misrepresentation (Counts
VIII and XII) negligence per se (Count IX) breach of warranty
(Counts X and XI) concealment (Count XIII) consumer fraud and
deceptive trade practices (Count XIV) loss of consortium (Count XV)
and wrongful death and survival (Counts XVI and XVII).  Plaintiffs
seek both compensatory and punitive damages.
  
Plaintiff-specific allegations are contained in individual
short-form complaints or certain complaints served on Defendants
before the filing of the master complaint. Plaintiffs also provided
Defendants with profile forms and fact sheets that describe their
individual claims and conditions.  

Pursuant to J.P.M.L. Rule 10.1(b)(i), the Court suggests that the
Panel remand the cases listed on Schedule A to their transferor
districts for further proceedings. The Clerk shall forward a
certified copy of this order to the Panel.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the Clerk of this District
is directed to transfer the cases listed on Schedule B to
appropriate districts for further proceedings.

A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6qjc72t from Leagle.com.

Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, In Re, represented
by Kristine Lucille Gallardo -
kgallardo@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP, Mark Stephen O'Connor,
Beus Gilbert PLLC, 701 N 44th St., Phoenix, Arizona, Ramon Rossi
Lopez -- rlopez@lopezmchugh.com -- Lopez McHugh LLP & Richard B.
North, Jr., Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLC, 201 17th Street
NW, Suite 1700, Atlanta, GA 30363

Marina Corodemus, Special Master, pro se.

George Leus, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Montee, Montee Law
Firm, James P. Cannon, Montee Law Firm, James Albert Montee, Montee
Law Firm, 800 W 47th Street, Suite 525, Kansas City, MO 64112,
Joseph R. Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, 1641 Worthington Road
Suite 100 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 & Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez
McHugh LLP.

Gary Milton & Emily Landress, Plaintiffs, represented by Ben C.
Martin, Martin Baughman PLLC, 3710 Rawlins Street, Suite #1230,
Dallas, Texas 75219, Robert M. Hammers, Jr., Schneider Hammers LLC,
5555 Glenridge Connector, Suite 975, Atlanta, GA 30342, Thomas
William Arbon, Law Offices of Ben C. Martin, 3710 Rawlins Street,
Suite #1230, Dallas, Texas 75219,& Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh
LLP.

C R. Bard Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Aaron A. Clark,
McGrath North Law Firm, First National Tower, Suite 3700, 1601
Dodge Street, Omaha, NE 68102, Alex Cameron Walker, Modrall
Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA, 500 4th Street NW, Suite 1000,
Albuquerque, NM 87102,  Andrew J. Rosenzweig, Nelson Mullins Riley
& Scarborough LLC, 201 17th Street North West Suite 1700, Atlanta,
GA 30363, Andrew J. Trevelise -- abluebond@reedsmith.com -- Reed
Smith LLP, Angela M. Higgins -- higgins@bscr-law.com -- Baker
Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC, Brandee J. Kowalzyk, Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough LLC, 201 17th Street North West Suite 1700,
Atlanta, GA 30363, Catherine A. Faught Pollard --
catherine.faught@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP, Christopher
Brian Watt -- cwatt@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Courtland
Carter Chillingworth  -- cchillingworth@reedsmith.com --  Reed
Smith LLP, Daniel K. Winters -dwinterfeldt@reedsmith.com -- Reed
Smith LLP, David J. Cooner -- dcooner@mccarter.com -- McCarter &
English LLP, David W. Ledyard -- dledyard@strongpipkin.com --
Strong Pipkin Bissell & Ledyard,David Michael Melancon, Irwin
Fritchie Urquhart & Moore LLC,400 Poydras St Ste 2700, New Orleans,
LA, 70130-3280


MDL 2885: Camacho Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jaime Camacho, Jason Bushey,
Richard, Breckenridge, Jason Brandle, Jason Bowers, Derek Bourque,
Michael Bouldin, Douglas Bizjak, Kyle Belk, Daniel Batiste, David
Barterl, Johnnie Barker, Thomas Babb, Tim Atkinson, Gary Armstrong,
Jamea Acuff, Steven Dillman, Mason Salzwedel, Catherine Rainey,
Jonathan Tate, Jonathan Foti, Troy Davis, James Sneed, Sean
Leytham, Jason Traxler, Dennis Piercy, Jeremy Loiselle, Willie
Cade, Christopher Dean, Jesse Griffith, Michel Buterbaugh, Lee
Tucker, Colvin John, Babineauz Brye, King Brian, Moncibaiz David,
Larsen Andrew, Marrero Angel, Michael Briggs, Lewis Darin, Hanks
Jeffrey, Spoon Jonathan, Justin Casdorph, James Burke, Josiah
Coburn, Timothy Core, Demetrius Davis, Nicolas Dipota, Daniel
Garcia, and Justin Horn, the Plaintiffs, v. 3M Company and Aearo
Technologies LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-02228, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
innesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida (Pensacola) on Aug. 23, 2019. The Northern District of
Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03279-MCR-GRJ to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage
Plaintiffs allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S.
military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff
contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2")
manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed
to provide adequate hearing protection.

3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close
collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary
breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2
helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g.,
to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some
protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds.  3M claims
CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the
military provide hearing protection to service members.

The Camacho case is being consolidated with MDL 2885 in re: 3M
Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on April 3, 2019. These actions share
common factual questions and centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
Daubert issues and other pretrial matters; and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

In the April 3, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common questions arising out of allegations that
the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing
plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues
concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat
Arms earplugs are common to all actions. Presiding Judge in the MDL
is Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The lead case is
3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Jacob R Jagdfeld, Esq.
          Stacy Kathryn Hauer, Esq.
          Timothy J Becker, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1810
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: jjagdfeld@johnsonbecker.com
                  shauer@johnsonbecker.com
                  tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

Counsel for Defendant 3M Company are:

          Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq.
          Jerry W. Blackwell, Esq.
          S. Jamal Faleel, Esq.
          BLACKWELL BURKE P.A.
          431 South Seventh Street, Suite 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 343-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 343-3205
          E-mail: blackwell@blackwellburke.com
                  bhulse@blackwellburke.com
                  jfaleel@blackwellburke.com

MDL 2903: Black Suit over Rock 'N Play Sleeper Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, LINDA BLACK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs. vs. Fisher-Price, Inc. and
Mattel, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03209 (Filed April
23, 2019) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York (Buffalo) on Aug. 15, 2019. The
Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01083-GWC to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Geoffrey
Crawford.

The Black case is being consolidated with MDL 2903 in re:
FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on August
1, 2019. These actions share factual questions arising from
allegations that FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is
unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled design does not
allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which allegedly
increases the risk that infants will suffer from positional
asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly
allege that defendants’ advertising and marketing for the RNPS
was false and misleading, and that FisherPrice's April 2019 recall
of the RNPS was deficient. In its  August 1, 2019 Order, the MDL
Panel found that the Western District of New York is an appropriate
transferee district for this litigation. This district has a strong
connection to these cases. Fisher-Price is headquartered in East
Aurora, New York, and the critical events and decisions underlying
plaintiffs' claims regarding the RNPS occurred there. The Western
District of New York thus presents a convenient and relatively
accessible forum for this litigation. Centralization in the Western
District of New York therefore allows us to assign this litigation
to an able jurist who has not yet had the opportunity to preside
over an MDL. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Geoffrey W.
Crawford. The lead case is Case No. 1:19-md-02903-GWC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Blair E. Reed, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com
                  breed@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com

MDL 2903: Mundy Suit over Rock 'N Play Sleeper Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Samantha Drover-Mundy, Zachary Mundy, Cassandra Mulvey,
Katharine Shaffer, Mark Nabong, Emily Barton, Candace Kimmel, Luke
Cuddy, Joshua Nadel, Jessie Poppe, Renee Wray, and Daniel
Pasternacki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs. vs. Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc.,
the Defendants, was transferred to U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York (Buffalo) on Aug. 12, 2019. The
Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-md-02903-GWC to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Geoffrey
Crawford.

The Mundy case is being consolidated with MDL 2903 in re:
FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on August
1, 2019. These actions share factual questions arising from
allegations that FisherPrice's Rock 'n Play Sleeper (RNPS) is
unsafe because, among other reasons, its angled design does not
allow infants to sleep in a supine position, which allegedly
increases the risk that infants will suffer from positional
asphyxia, plagiocephaly, and torticollis. Plaintiffs uniformly
allege that defendants' advertising and marketing for the RNPS was
false and misleading, and that FisherPrice's April 2019 recall of
the RNPS was deficient. In its  August 1, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel
found that the Western District of New York is an appropriate
transferee district for this litigation. This district has a strong
connection to these cases. Fisher-Price is headquartered in East
Aurora, New York, and the critical events and decisions underlying
plaintiffs' claims regarding the RNPS occurred there. The Western
District of New York thus presents a convenient and relatively
accessible forum for this litigation. Centralization in the Western
District of New York therefore allows us to assign this litigation
to an able jurist who has not yet had the opportunity to preside
over an MDL. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Geoffrey W.
Crawford. The lead case is Case No. 1:19-md-02903-GWC.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Andrew J. Lorin, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Sorkowitz, Esq.
          Kristin Darr, Esq.
          Melody Lynn McGowin, Esq.
          PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT, LLP
          20 W. 23rd Street, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 484-9866
          Facsimile: (646) 968-4125
          E-mail: alorin@piercebainbridge.com
                  jsorkowitz@piercebainbridge.com
                  kdarr@piercebainbridge.com
                  mmcgowin@piercebainbridge.com

               - and -

          Caitlin M Higgins, Esq.
          Kate G. Howard, Esq.
          Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
          CONNORS LLP
          1000 Liberty Building
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 852-5533
          Facsimile: (716) 852-5649
          E-mail: cmh@connorsllp.com
                  kgh@connorsllp.com
                  tmc@connorsllp.com

               - and -

          Daniel Tepper, Esq.
          Demet Basar, Esq.
          Kate M McGuire, Esq.
          Carl V. Malmstrom
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: tepper@whafh.com
                  basar@whafh.com
                  mcguire@whafh.com
                  malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          Elbert F. Nasis, Esq.
          FORCHELLI DEEGAN TERRANA LLP
          333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 1010
          Uniondale, NY 11553
          Telephone: (516) 248-1700
          Facsimile: (516) 248-1729
          E-mail: enasis@forchellilaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          5 Greentree Centre
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony Calbert Savastano, Esq.
          DUTHIE SAVASTANO BRUNGARD, PLLC
          P.O. Box 219
          1010 Main Avenue
          Durango, CO 81302
          Telephone: (970) 247-4545
          Facsimile: (970) 247-4546

               - and -

          Mark Allen Smith, Esq.
          CARUSO LAW FIRM PC
          1325 East Fifteenth Street, Suite 201
          Tulsa, OK 74120
          Telephone: (918) 583-5900
          Facsimile: (918) 583-5902

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Adrianne Elizabeth Marshack, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 371-2500
          Facsimile: (714) 371-2550
          E-mail: amarshack@manatt.com

               - and -

          Cheryl A. Possenti, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          665 Main Street, Suite 400
          Buffalo, NY 14203
          Telephone: (716) 566-5400
          Facsimile: (716) 566-5401
          E-mail: cpossenti@goldbergsegalla.com

               - and -

          Matthew Paul Kanny, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 W. Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4225
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: mkanny@manatt.com

MDL 2904: Hayhurst et al v. LabCorp. over Data Breach Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Amanda Hayhurst and Donnetta Huffman, and All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF
AMERICA HOLDINGS, doing business as: LABCORP, the Defendants, Case
No. 5:19-cv-00590, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District for West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 23, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-17163
to the proceeding.

The Hayhurst case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re:
AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY
BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019.
These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly
compromised patient data that various medical diagnostic testing
companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes,
including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
(Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference
publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative
class actions now before the Panel soon followed.

In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions
unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of
AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which
an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal
and financial information, including social security numbers and
credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical
information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data
security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the
investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all
actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in
over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on
the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending.
Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there,
and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this
district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-1386
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110

               - and -

          Ruperto Yongque Dumapit, Esq.
          Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
          HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
          P. O. Box 959
          Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
          Telephone: (304) 574-2727

MDL 2904: Lanouette v. Quest et al over Data Breach Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Brian Lanouette and Jane Doe, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., Optum360, LLC and Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated, the Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-05216
(Filed June 4, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Aug. 22, 2019. The Northern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-17046-MCA-MAH to the proceeding.

The Lanouette case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re:
AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY
BREACH LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019.
These actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly
compromised patient data that various medical diagnostic testing
companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes,
including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
(Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference
publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative
class actions now before the Panel soon followed.

In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions
unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of
AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which
an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal
and financial information, including social security numbers and
credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical
information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data
security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the
investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all
actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in
over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on
the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending.
Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there,
and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this
district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

MDL 2904: Molina Suit v. Quest et al over Data Breach Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOHN CARROLL and GABRIEL MOLINA, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC
doing business as: Quest Health Inc., AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION
AGENCY, Optum360, Optum Inc., and UNITED HEALTH GROUP, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07100 (Filed July 30, 2019), was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Newark) on Aug. 22, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-17038 to the proceeding.

The Molina case is being consolidated with MDL 2904 in re: AMERICAN
MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 31, 2019. These
actions arise out of a data security breach on the systems of
American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), a breach that reportedly
compromised patient data that various medical diagnostic testing
companies had provided to AMCA for billing and collection purposes,
including Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (Quest), Laboratory Corporation
of America Holdings (LabCorp), Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
(Bio-Reference), and others. Quest, LabCorp, and Bio-Reference
publicly announced the breach in early June 2019, and the putative
class actions now before the Panel soon followed.

In its July 31,2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common factual questions in all actions
unquestionably arise from the same recently-disclosed breach of
AMCA's systems from August 2018 through March 2019, through which
an unauthorized user allegedly gained access to patients' personal
and financial information, including social security numbers and
credit card and bank account information, and patients' medical
information. Thus, discovery and motions concerning AMCA's data
security practices, how the unauthorized access occurred, and the
investigation into the breach will be substantially the same in all
actions. The Panel conclude that the District of New Jersey is an
appropriate transferee district. All defendants and plaintiffs in
over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on
the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending.
Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there,
and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this
district. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Madeline Cox
Arleo. The lead case is 2:19-md-02904-MCA-MAH.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Leigh Smith, Esq.
          MILBERG PHILIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1920
          New York, NY 1119-0165
          Telephone: (212) 594 5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868 1229
          E-mail: lsmith@milberg.com

MENARD, INC: Rikkers Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TIMOTHY RIKKERS, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
MENARD, INC., the Defendant, Case No.: 17 CV 1208 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   1. granting class certification;

   2. naming Plaintiff Rikkers as class representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's law firms as Class Counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the proposed Class are:

          Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
          Erin K. Dickinson, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Kaplan, Esq.
          CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
          4532 N Oakland Ave.
          Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
          Direct: 414-210-3868
          E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
                  ekd@cruegerdickinson.com
                  bak@cruegerdickinson.com

               - and -

          Luke Hudock, Esq.
          HUDOCK LAW GROUP. S.C.
          P.O. Box 83
          Muskego, WI 53150
          Telephone: (414)526-4906
          Facsimile: (262)436-2400
          E-mail: lphudock@law-hlg.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: 608 273-1775
          E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Berbert Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Patrick Berbert on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 606575/2019, was removed from the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central
Islip) on Aug 23, 2019. The Eastern District of New York Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-04856 to the proceeding. The suit
demands $501 M alleging 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.
          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

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces Giuliano Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Jennifer Giuliano,
individually and on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05435 (N.D. Ill., Aug 12,
2019). The suit alleges violation of Fair Debt Collection Act. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo.

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8181
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Torres Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Edna Torres, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 605585/2019, was removed from the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central
Islip) on Aug 22, 2019. The Eastern District of New York Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-04824 to the proceeding. the Suit
demands $501 M worth of damages in violation of Fair Debt
Collection Act.

Midland Credit is a company that helps consumers resolve past-due
financial obligations.[BN]

The Plaintiff appear pro se.

Attorneys for Midland Credit 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

MIDSOUTH BANCORP: Raul Files Suit Over Sale to Hancock Whitney
--------------------------------------------------------------
PINCHAS ELIYAHU RAUL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDSOUTH BANCORP, INC., JAMES
MCLEMORE, LEONARD Q. ABINGTON, JAMES R. DAVIS, JR., JAKE DELHOMME,
MILTON B. KIDD III, TIMOTHY J. LEMOINE, DAVID MICHAEL KRAMER,
ANDREW G. HARGRODER, and WILLIAM F. GRANT III, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-07757 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 19, 2019) is a class action on
behalf of the public shareholders of MidSouth Bancorp against the
Company's Board of Directors for their violations of Section 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection
with the proposed sale of the Company to Hancock Whitney
Corporation.

On April 30, 2019, MidSouth Bancorp entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Hancock Whitney, whereby MidSouth Bancorp will
merge with and into Hancock Whitney, with Hancock Whitney as the
sole surviving corporation in the merger. Immediately following the
completion of the Merger or at such later time as Hancock Whitney
may determine in its sole discretion, MidSouth Bank, N.A., a wholly
owned bank subsidiary of MidSouth ("Merger Sub"), will merge with
and into Hancock Whitney Bank, a wholly owned bank subsidiary of
Hancock Whitney (referred to as the "Bank Merger"), with Hancock
Whitney Bank as the surviving entity in the Bank Merger. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, MidSouth Bancorp shareholders
will receive 0.2952 shares of Hancock Whitney per share of MidSouth
Bancorp in a stock-for stock transaction. The consummation of the
Proposed Transaction is subject to certain closing conditions,
including the approval of the stockholders of MidSouth Bancorp.

On August 13, 2019, in order to convince MidSouth Bancorp's
stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the
Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading proxy statement with the SEC, in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, asserts the complaint. For
this reason, Plaintiff asserts claims against MidSouth Bancorp and
the Board for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants
from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless
and until the material information is disclosed to MidSouth Bancorp
stockholders before the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the
event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff is the owner of MidSouth Bancorp common stock.

MidSouth Bancorp is a bank holding company that, through its
subsidiary MidSouth Bank, N.A., provides community banking products
and services to commercial and retail customers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
     LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
     821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 493-9780
     Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
     Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Sitzer Suit Remains in Missouri Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, issued an Order denying Defendant's
Motion Transfer to the Northern District of Illinois the case
captioned JOSHUA SITZER AND AMY WINGER, SCOTT AND RHONDA BURNETT,
and RYAN HENDRICKSON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC.,
BHH AFFILIATES, LLC, HSF AFFILIATES, LLC, THE LONG & FOSTER
COMPANIES, INC., RE/MAX LLC, and KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC.,
Defendants. Case No. 4:19-cv-00332-SRB. (W.D. Mo.).

The Defendants are the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and
the four largest national real estate broker franchisors, each of
which has a significant presence in the Kansas City metropolitan
area. The Plaintiffs allege that together, Defendants have
conspired to require home sellers to pay the broker representing
the buyer of their homes, and to pay an inflated amount, in
violation of federal antitrust law, the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act (MMPA) and the Missouri Antitrust Law.
  
Personal Jurisdiction Under the Missouri Long-Arm Statute

NAR argues this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over NAR under
the Missouri long-arm statute. Plaintiffs do not rely on the
Missouri long-arm statute to argue this Court's personal
jurisdiction over Defendants. Plaintiffs rely solely on the Clayton
Act's personal jurisdiction and venue rules. Accordingly, the Court
will not entertain NAR's argument relating to personal jurisdiction
under Missouri's long-arm statute, and NAR's motion to transfer
pursuant to Section 1631 is denied.

Personal Jurisdiction Under the Clayton Act

Section 12 of the Clayton Act provides special venue and service of
process rules for private antitrust actions brought against
corporate defendants. Section 12 provides:

Any suit, action, or proceeding under the antitrust laws against a
corporation may be brought not only in the judicial district
whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it
may be found or transacts business; and all process in such cases
may be served in the district of which it is an inhabitant, or
wherever it may be found.

Defendants urge the Court to adopt the narrow reading of Section 12
and forbid Plaintiff from combining the general venue statute with
the nationwide service of process clause of Section 12 in order to
establish this Court's personal jurisdiction over NAR. Defendants
argue venue is improper in this District under the narrow reading
of Section 12 because plaintiffs do not allege any facts to support
the conclusion that NAR transacts business' in this District within
the meaning of Section 12.

Defendants also argue that sporadic contact with this District does
not rise to the level of transacting business within the District
in a substantial way. Defendants argue that because venue is
improper under Section 12, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over NAR under the nationwide service of process provisions of
Section 12. Defendants also argue that NAR has insufficient minimum
contacts with Missouri to support a finding of personal
jurisdiction over NAR that satisfies Due Process.

Plaintiffs argue that venue is proper in the Western District of
Missouri, and thus this Court has personal jurisdiction over NAR in
this District, under both the broad and narrow interpretations of
Section 12's personal jurisdiction provision. Plaintiffs argue
venue is proper under the broad approach because a substantial part
of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District.
Section 1391.

Plaintiffs argue four of the five named class representative
Plaintiffs sold homes located in this District, where they were
injured because Defendants implemented and enforced NAR's Adversary
Commission Rule on the Heartland or the Kansas City] MLS.
Plaintiffs argue venue is proper under the stricter approach
because NAR transacts business in this District as contemplated by
the Clayton Act. Plaintiffs argue that NAR has sufficient contacts
with the United States, as is required by Section 12, to support a
finding of personal jurisdiction that satisfies Due Process.

The Court need not adopt an interpretation of Section 12 because
this Court has personal jurisdiction over NAR in accordance with
both the broad and narrow reading. Defendants urge the Court to
adopt the narrow reading, but do not argue that personal
jurisdiction is not satisfied under the broad reading. The broad
reading allows Plaintiffs to establish venue by showing that a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in
this District.

Section 1391.

Here, four of the five named plaintiffs sold homes located in this
District, where they were injured because Defendants allegedly
implemented and enforced NAR's Adversary Commission Rule on the
Heartland MLS, which corresponds with the Kansas City area within
this District.  A substantial part of NAR's alleged implementation
and enforcement of the Adversary Commission Rule against the
sellers' brokers occurred in the District, given that three of the
four Subject MLSs3 correspond with cities within this District.

Accordingly, venue is proper in the Western District of Missouri
under Section 1391.
NAR collects "substantial revenues and fee from its members located
in this District. NAR's affidavit filed as an exhibit to the
instant motion confirms that approximately 22,600 of its members
are located in Missouri but fails to specify how many of those
members are located within the Western District of Missouri. Even
assuming 10,000 of the Missouri members are located within the
Western District of Missouri, which evidence supports and
Defendants do not refute, with annual membership dues near $150 per
member, NAR receives nearly $1.5 million in dues yearly from
members in this District.  

In addition to collecting membership dues, evidence supports and
NAR does not deny that NAR requires its member associations to
incorporate mandatory provisions verbatim into their bylaws.
Membership associations must certify that their bylaws include such
provisions, and the MLS Rules and Regulations of member
associations and MLSs must also be reviewed and approved by NAR.
Member associations and MLSs must also adopt new or amended NAR
policies. The above demonstrates that NAR not only transacts
substantial business in a monetary sense, but also exerts
substantial power and control over its members in this District.  

Accordingly, because venue is proper under Section 12's special
venue provision, nationwide service of process is authorized, and
this Court has personal jurisdiction over NAR. The Court will not
certify its decision to the Eighth Circuit, as NAR's request that
this Court do so relies on a mistaken interpretation of the law, as
this Court addressed in footnote 4 above.

A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5q6d487 from Leagle.com.

Joshua Sitzer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Amy Winger, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Ryan Hendrickson, Plaintiffs, represented
byAmy R. Jackson -- amy@williamsdirks.com -- Williams Dirks Dameron
LLC, Eric L. Dirks -- dirks@williamsdirks.com -- Williams Dirks
Dameron LLC, Erin D. Lawrence -- erin@boulware-law.com -- Boulware
Law LLC, Jeremy M. Suhr, Boulware Law LLC, 1600 Genessee Suite 416
Kansas City, MO 64102, Matthew Lee Dameron --
matt@williamsdirks.com -- Williams Dirks Dameron LLC & Brandon J.B.
Boulware -- brandon@boulware-law.com -- Boulware Law LLC.

Scott Burnett & Rhonda Burnett, Plaintiffs, represented by Amy R.
Jackson, Williams Dirks Dameron LLC, Eric L. Dirks, Williams Dirks
Dameron LLC, Erin D. Lawrence, Boulware Law LLC,Jeremy M. Suhr,
Boulware Law LLC & Brandon J.B. Boulware, Boulware Law LLC.

National Association of Realtors, Defendant, represented by Charles
W. Hatfield -- chuck.hatfield@stinson.com -- Stinson LLP, Gregory
Dickinson- gdickinson@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, pro
hac vice, Jack R. Bierig -- jbierig@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff
Hardin LLP, pro hac vice & Alex Barrett --
alexander.barrett@stinson.com -- Stinson LLP.

HomeServices of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian C.
Fries -- bfries@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop Gage LLP, Jay N. Varon
-- jvaron@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, pro hac vice --
jkeas@foley.com, Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew B.
Barr, Barnes & Thornburg, 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis,
IN 46204-3535, pro hac vice, Matthew T. Ciulla, Barnes & Thornburg,
11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535, pro hac vice
& Robert D. MacGill, Barnes & Thornburg, 11 South Meridian Street,
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535, pro hac vice.


NATIONAL VEHICLE: Calusinski et al. Seek to Certify Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as PAUL CALUSINSKI and CHERYL
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL VEHICLE PROTECTION SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05680 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court for an order:

   1. certifying these classes and subclass:

      Do Not Call List Class:

      "all persons within the United States to whom: (a) Defendant
      and/or a third party acting on their behalf, made at least
      two telephone solicitation calls during a 12-month period;
      (b) to a residential telephone number; (c) at any time in
      the period that begins four years before the date of filing
      this Complaint to trial";

      Autodialed Telephone Consumer Protection Act Class:

      "all persons within the United States to whom: (a) Defendant

      and/or a third party acting on their behalf, made one or
      more non-emergency telephone calls; (b) to a residential
      telephone number; (c) through the use of a prerecorded
      voice; and (d) at any time in the period that begins four
      years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial";
      and

      Automatic Telephone Dialers Act Subclass:

      "all Illinois residents to whom: (a) Defendant and/or a
      third party acting on their behalf, made one or more non-
      emergency telephone calls; (b) to a residential telephone
      number; (c) through the use of a prerecorded voice; and (d)
      at any time in the period that begins four years before the
      date of filing this Complaint to trial";

   2. naming Plaintiffs as class representatives;

   3. appointing their lawyers as counsel for the classes; and

   4. allowing Plaintiffs to file a memorandum in support of this
      motion after further class discovery.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com

NCB MANAGEMENT: Cal. App. Flips Timlick Suit Dismissal w/ Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki of the Court of Appeals of California for
the First District, Division Three, reversed the trial court's
judgment of dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend in
the case, ROBERT LOUIS TIMLICK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NCB
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
A152467 (Cal. App.).

After defaulting on a loan issued by Bank of America, N.A., the
Plaintiff received a collection letter dated Nov. 7, 2016, from
third-party debt collector NCB.  It was the first written
communication from NCB to plaintiff regarding the subject debt.
The letter did not comply with section 1812.701, subdivision (b),
of the Consumer Collection Notice law because certain
statutorily-required language was not in a type-size that was at
least the same as that used to inform the Plaintiff of the debt, or
12-point type.

The Plaintiff pleaded a single cause of action against NCB for
violation of section 1812.701(b) and sought to recover statutory
damages, costs, and attorney's fees.  He also sought to represent a
class of persons in California who received similar noncomplying
consumer debt collection letters from NCB during the one-year
period prior to the complaint's filing date.

NCB moved for summary judgment on the ground that, given the
undisputed material facts, the Plaintiff could not prevail on his
section 1812.701(b) claim because NCB had timely cured the
type-size violation pursuant to section 1788.30(d).  NCB submitted
evidence that on Jan. 17, 2017, eight days after it was served with
plaintiff's complaint, NCB sent a letter to the Plaintiff, in care
of his counsel of record, enclosing a revised collection letter
which set forth the required language in the same type-size as that
used to inform him of his specific debt.

The Plaintiff did not dispute NCB's evidence or material facts.
Rather, he argued the inapplicability of section 1788.30(d)'s cure
provision to type-size violations of section 1812.701(b).

The trial court disagreed with the Plaintiff and instructed NCB's
counsel to draft an order granting its summary judgment motion.
The order that was entered not only granted NCB's motion but also
dismissed the complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend.

The Plaintiff appealed.  On appeal, he reiterates his contentions
that section 1788.30(d)'s cure provision is unavailable for
violations of section 1812.701(b)'s type-size requirement.  The
Plaintiff additionally contends the trial court erroneously
dismissed the entire putative class action, as this allowed NCB to
pick him off as the named Plaintiff.

Judge Fujisaki concludes that section 1788.30(d) allowed NCB to
cure its violation of section 1812.701(b).  The Plaintiff did not
allege in his complaint or submit evidence in opposition to the
summary judgment motion that he suffered any harm resulting from
the type-size violation in NCB's initial collection letter, and he
likewise disclaimed any consequent harm at oral argument.  He does
not claim, for example, that he was unable to enforce his rights as
a debtor due to the illegibility of the disclosures in the initial
collection letter.  On the record, then, the type-size violation
did not cause a harm or ill effect that could not be undone, and
the violation was therefore one that was curable by a timely and
type-size-compliant follow-up letter.

The Plaintiff acknowledges he did not proffer the pick off
contention but attributes this to the fact that NCB did not seek
dismissal of the entire putative class action in its motion for
summary judgment.  The Judge finds this point to be well-taken.
The record shows that NCB moved for summary judgment based on an
affirmative defense that applied only against the Plaintiff's
individual claim, not against the claim brought on behalf of the
putative class.  There was no mention of dismissing the entire
putative class action in the notice, briefing, or arguments at the
hearing.  It was only in NCB's post-hearing proposed order that
dismissal of the entire putative class was first mentioned.  Under
these circumstances, it appears the trial court granted relief to
NCB that exceeded the scope of its motion.

The Judge will reverse the judgment of dismissal, observing that
the dismissal appears to have exceeded the scope of NCB's motion,
and remand the matter for the trial court's reconsideration of
dismissal in light of Timlick v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc.,
and La Sala v. American Sav. & Loan Assn.

In closing, the Judge notes that NCB claims to have cured the
type-size violation as to all members of the putative class.  NCB,
however, concedes there is no evidence supporting its cure claim in
the record on appeal.  The Court may not give any consideration to
alleged facts that are outside the record on appeal, and the Judge
expresses no opinion as to how NCB's claim might be appropriately
considered by the trial court.

For these reasons, Judge Fujisaki reversed the judgment, and
remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with his
Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/NAClgu from Leagle.com.


NCL CORP: Plaintiffs in Phillips Suit Appeal Arbitration Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
NCL Corporation Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a notice of appeal has
been filed in the class action suit initiated by Marta and Jerry
Phillips.

On September 21, 2018, a proposed class-action lawsuit was filed by
Marta and Jerry Phillips and others against NCL Corporation Ltd. in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida relating to the marketing and sales of the company's
Booksafe Travel Protection Plan.

The plaintiffs purport to represent an alleged class of passengers
who purchased Booksafe Travel Protection Plans.

The complaint alleged that the Company concealed that it received
proceeds on the sale of the travel insurance portion of the plan.
The complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, fees and
costs.

The Company moved to invoke the arbitration clause of the ticket
contract to move the case out of Federal Court.

On May 29, 2019, the Court granted the motion and compelled the
plaintiffs to submit their claims to arbitration on an individual
basis, dismissing the claims before the Court with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.

NCL Corp. said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses to the
claim and that any liability which may arise as a result of this
action will not have a material impact on our consolidated
financial statements."

NCL Corporation Ltd. operates as a cruise line operator. The
company was founded in 2013 and is based in Miami, Florida. NCL
Corporation Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of Norwegian Cruise Line
Holdings Ltd.


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Nektar Therapeutics  (NASDAQ:
NKTR) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Nektar securities between February
15, 2019 through August 8, 2019, both dates inclusive. Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/nktr

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) that the Company did not comply with current good
manufacturing practices; (2) that, as a result, batches of NKTR-214
were not produced consistently and differed meaningfully; (3) that
clinical results from PIVOT-02 differed based on the batch of
NKTR-214 used in the study; (4) that, as a result, the PIVOT-02
study did not produce statistically significant results to support
a finding of clinical benefit; and (5) as a result, Nektar's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/nktr or you may contact Peretz
Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Nektar you have until October 18, 2019 to request that
the Court appoint you 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. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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

Contact:

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com
                peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Nektar Therapeutics (Nasdaq: NKTR) in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Nektar
between February 15, 2019 through August 8, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company did
not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) that, as
a result, batches of NKTR-214 were not produced consistently and
differed meaningfully; (3) that clinical results from PIVOT-02
differed based on the batch of NKTR-214 used in the study; (4)
that, as a result, the PIVOT-02 study did not produce statistically
significant results to support a finding of clinical benefit; and
(5) as a result, Nektar's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the October 18, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


NEVRO CORP: Bid to Dismiss Oklahoma Police Fund Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Nevro Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the court has granted the company's
motion to dismiss the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System
securities class action complaint, with leave to file an amended
complaint.

On August 23, 2018, the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System filed a putative securities class action complaint against
the Company and certain individual officers alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act.  

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, seeks unspecified damages and attorneys'
fees based on alleged misleading statements or omissions by the
Company and the individual officers regarding the Company's rights
in technology underlying the Senza SCS systems and the termination
of the Company’s former Vice President of Worldwide Sales.

On November 3, 2018, a related shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California seeking unspecified damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees based on alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duties,
unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets.

On August 1, 2019, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the pending securities class action
complaint, with leave to file an amended complaint within 21 days
of the order.

Nevro said, "As of this time, the Company is unable to determine an
outcome or potential range of loss in either litigation."

Nevro Corp., a medical device company, provides products for the
patients suffering from chronic pain in the United States and
internationally. Nevro Corp. was founded in 2006 and is
headquartered in Redwood City, California.


NEWLINK GENETICS: Oral Argument in Nguyen Appeal to Begin Oct. 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NewLink Genetics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals has scheduled the oral argument in the appeal of
the Nguyen class action suit for October 21, 2019.

On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the Court), captioned
Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545 (the
Securities Action).

Subsequently, the Court appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead
plaintiffs and approved their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC
as lead counsel in the Securities Action. On October 31, 2016, the
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under
the federal securities laws against the Company, the Company's
Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link, Jr., and the Company's
Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas Vahanian,
(collectively, the Defendants).

The amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false
and/or misleading statements that caused losses to the Company's
investors. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on July 14, 2017. On March 29, 2018, the Court dismissed
the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, without
prejudice, and gave the lead plaintiffs until May 4, 2018 to file
any amended complaint attempting to remedy the defects in their
claims.

On May 4, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws
against the Defendants. Like the first amended complaint, the
second amended complaint alleges that the Defendants made material
false and/or misleading statements or omissions relating to the
Phase 2 and 3 trials and efficacy of the product candidate
algenpantucel-L that caused losses to the Company's investors. The
lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the second
amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs,
they sought to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock
during the putative class period of September 17, 2013 through May
9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly
suffered financial harm as a result.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on July 31, 2018.

On February 13, 2019, the Court dismissed the second amended
complaint for failure to state a claim, with prejudice, and closed
the case. On March 14, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal. The briefing on lead plaintiffs' appeal was completed in
early July 2019 and oral argument before the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals is currently scheduled for the week of October 21, 2019.


NewLink said, "The Company intends to continue defending the
Securities Action vigorously."

NewLink Genetics Corporation, a late clinical-stage immuno-oncology
company, focuses on discovering and developing novel
immunotherapeutic products for the treatment of patients with
cancer. NewLink Genetics Corporation was founded in 1999 and is
headquartered in Ames, Iowa.


NEXCAR FINANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Alzoubi Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMAD ALZOUBI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXCAR FINANCE & LEASING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02989 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 12, 2019) seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Nexcar Finance & Leasing, LLC a Texas limited liability provides
credit auto loan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss Costas Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Company's motion to
dismiss the class action suit initiated by Mac Costas is ongoing
and the company must file their reply by September 25, 2019.

On June 11, 2018, a putative class action was filed by Mac Costas
on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or acquired the
Company's ordinary shares between August 8, 2017 and May 15, 2018
was commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer.  The complaint asserts claim against all
defendants pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and against its officers
pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

The complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-K for the years
ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and Form 10-Qs for each of the
quarters in the nine months ended September 30, 2017 contained
material misstatements or omissions, among other things, with
respect to the Company's tax provisions and the effectiveness of
its internal control over financial reporting, and that, as a
result of such alleged misstatements and omissions, the plaintiffs
suffered damages.

Following the Mac Costas filing and in accordance with the terms of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), a
number of law firms filed applications on behalf of entities
purporting to hold shares in the Company, seeking to be appointed
as lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the action.

On March 12, 2019 the court appointed Phoenix Insurance Company
Ltd. ("Phoenix Insurance") as lead plaintiff and approved their
selection of lead counsel.

Pursuant to a scheduling stipulation entered between the parties,
Phoenix Insurance timely filed its consolidated amended complaint,
and the Company has timely filed its motion to dismiss. Under the
scheduling stipulation, Phoenix Insurance must file their
Opposition by August 26, 2019, and the Company must file their
reply by September 25, 2019.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,
Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The
company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and
Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in
Reno, Nevada.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Riche Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action suit entitled, Riche v. Pappas, et
al., Case No. 2018-0177.

Following the announcement of the Company's acquisition of U.S.
Geothermal Inc. ("USG"), a number of putative shareholder class
action complaints were initially filed on behalf of USG
shareholders between March 8, 2018 and March 30, 2018 against USG
and the individual members of the USG board of directors.  All of
the purported class action suits filed in Federal Court in Idaho
have been voluntarily dismissed.  

The single remaining class action complaint is a purported class
action filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, entitled Riche v.
Pappas, et al., Case No. 2018-0177 (Del. Ch., Mar. 12, 2018).

An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 2018 under seal, under a
confidentiality agreement that was executed by plaintiff.   

The amended Riche complaint alleges state law claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against former US Geothermal directors and seeks
post-closing damages.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and
intends to defend itself vigorously.

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

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,
Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The
company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and
Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in
Reno, Nevada.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks to Stay Tel Aviv Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has filed an
agreed motion asking the Tel Aviv District Court to stay class
action proceedings in Israel until a final decision in the class
action suit initiated by Mac Costas, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada is adjudicated.

On May 21, 2018, a motion to certify a class action was filed in
Tel Aviv District Court against Ormat Technologies, Inc. and 11
officers and directors.  

The alleged class is defined as "All persons who purchased Ormat
shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between August 3, 2017 and
May 13, 2018".

The motion alleges that the Company violated  Sections 31(a)(1) and
38C of the Israeli Securities Law because it allegedly: (1) misled
investors by stating in its financial statements that it maintains
effective internal controls over its accounting policies and
procedures, however the Company's internal controls had material
weaknesses which led to erroneous accounting in its 2017 unaudited
quarterly reports that had to be restated, including adjustments to
the Company's net income and shareholders’ equity; and (2) failed
to issue an immediate report in Israel until May 16, 2018,
analogous to the report that was released in the United States on
May 11, 2018 stating, inter alia, that the errors in its financial
reports affected its balance sheet and would be remedied in its
2017 annual report.

The Company filed an agreed motion to the Tel Aviv District Court
to stay the proceedings in Israel until a final decision in the US
case (Mac Costas) is adjudicated.

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

Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered
energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,
Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The
company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and
Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in
Reno, Nevada.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: ADA-Related Class Suit in New York Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") related class
action suit in New York.

On January 31, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the company in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, alleging that the Company's website violates
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") in addition to other
New York specific laws, because it is not accessible to blind and
visually impaired people.

No estimate of the possible loss or range of loss can be made.

Overstock.com said, "We intend to vigorously defend this action."

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

Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United
States and internationally. It operates through Retail and tZERO
segments. The company was formerly known as D2-Discounts Direct and
changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in October 1999.
Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in
Midvale, Utah.

PAR TECHNOLOGY: Neals Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Kandice Neals, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PAR Technology Corp., a
Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019-CH-03701, was
removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) on Aug. 22, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05660 to the proceeding. The suit
demands $75 M worth of damages.

PAR Technology is a leading global provider of software, systems,
and service solutions to the restaurant and retail industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff appear pro se.

Attorneys for PAR Technology are:

          Richard Henry Tilghman, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          70 W. Madison St., Suite 3500
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 977-4881
          E-mail: rhtilghman@nixonpeabody.com

PBF HOLDING: Hearing on Renewed Class Cert. Bid on Sept. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------
PBF Holding Company LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the hearing on
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class
certification is scheduled for September 23, 2019.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy Company LLC, and
its subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and Torrance
Refining Company LLC and the manager of the company's Torrance
refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.


The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in
the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the
ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for any
liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination.

With the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added
an additional plaintiff. On March 18, 2019, the class certification
hearing was held and the judge took the matter under submission.

On April 1, 2019, the judge issued an order denying class
certification. On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Petition with
the Ninth Circuit for Permission to Appeal the Order Denying Motion
for Class Certification. The appeal is currently pending with the
Ninth Circuit.

On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District
Court for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
On May 22, 2019, the judge granted Plaintiffs' motion.

The company's opposition to the motion was filed on July 29, 2019.
The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion is currently scheduled for
September 23, 2019.

PBF Holding said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC refines and supplies unbranded
transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks,
lubricants, and other petroleum products in the United States and
internationally. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey. PBF Holding Company LLC is a subsidiary of
PBF Energy Company LLC.


PCM INC: Breyer to Halt Merger Deal, Seeks Financials
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Breyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PCM, Inc., Frank F. Khulusi, Paul C.
Heeschen, Thomas A. Maloof and Ronald B. Reck, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-06808 (C.D. Cal., August 6, 2019) seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the proposed merger between PCMI and
Insight Enterprises, Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants
consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

PCM shareholders stand to receive $35.00 in cash for each share of
stock they own.

The registration statement for the merger failed to include
critical financial analysis performed by B. Riley FBR, Inc.
including a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics that
support the fairness opinions in order to make a fully informed
decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction or
seek appraisal needed by the shareholders to make an informed
decision on the merger deal

PCM is a multi-vendor provider of technology products and
solutions, primarily selling servers, storage products, networks,
printers and related accessories and devices. The company also
provides software asset management, hardware sales and services as
well as software value-added reseller services, managed services,
cloud-based services, consulting, and IT management and related
services.  [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (424) 256-2884
      Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
      E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com

              - and -

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Dismissal of TX Consolidated Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of the
consolidated class action suit in Texas.

There were two securities law class action lawsuits filed on behalf
of certain purported investors in the Partnership and/or Plains GP
Holdings, L.P. (PAGP) against the Partnership, PAGP and/or certain
of their respective officers, directors and underwriters. Both of
these lawsuits were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

In general, these lawsuits alleged that the various defendants
violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the
integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities
through false and misleading statements, omission of material facts
and concealing of the true extent of the spill.

The plaintiffs claimed unspecified damages as a result of the
reduction in value of their investments in the Partnership and
PAGP, which they attributed to the alleged wrongful acts of the
defendants. The Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants,
denied the allegations in, and moved to dismiss these lawsuits.

On March 29, 2017, the Court ruled in the company's favor
dismissing all claims against all defendants. Plaintiffs refiled
their complaint. On April 2, 2018, the Court dismissed all of the
refiled claims against all defendants with prejudice. Plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal, and on July 16, 2019 the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

Consistent with and subject to the terms of the company's governing
organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance
policies), the company indemnified and funded the defense costs of
its officers and directors in connection with this lawsuit; the
company also indemnified and funded the defense costs of its
underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements
it previously entered into with such underwriters.

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries,
engages in the transportation, storage, terminalling, and marketing
of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the
United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments:
Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. The company
was founded in 1998 and is based in Houston, Texas.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Suits Related to Line 901 Incident Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend several class action suits related to
the Line 901 incident.

In May 2015, the company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific
Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following
the release, the company shut down the pipeline and initiated its
emergency response plan.

A Unified Command, which included the United States Coast Guard,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Office of
Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of
Emergency Management, was established for the response effort.
Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted
shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified
Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been
dissolved.

The company's estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on
relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,934
barrels; of this amount, the company estimate that 598 barrels
reached the Pacific Ocean.

Shortly following the Line 901 incident, the company established a
claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the
release to contact the company to discuss their damage claims. The
company have received a number of claims through the claims line
and the company have been processing those claims and making
payments as appropriate.

In addition, the company have also had nine class action lawsuits
filed against it, six of which have been administratively
consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different
classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the
release.

To date, the court has certified three sub-classes of claimants and
denied certification of the other proposed sub-class. On appeal,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the certification of
the oil-industry sub-class, so the remaining sub-classes that have
been certified include (i) commercial fishermen who landed fish in
certain specified fishing blocks in the waters adjacent to Santa
Barbara County or persons or businesses who resold commercial
seafood landed in such areas; and (ii) beachfront property and
easement owners whose properties were oiled.

The company is also defending a separate class action lawsuit
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line
903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well as
compensatory damages.

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries,
engages in the transportation, storage, terminalling, and marketing
of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the
United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments:
Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. The company
was founded in 1998 and is based in Houston, Texas.


PLURALSIGHT INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until October 15, 2019 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
Pluralsight, Inc. (NasdaqGS: PS), if they purchased the Company's
shares between August 2, 2018 and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Pluralsight and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right
to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ps/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by October 15, 2019.

About the Lawsuit

Pluralsight and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On July 31, 2019, the Company disclosed disappointing 2Q2019
financial results including a sharply-deteriorating billings growth
rate, due to salesforce issues, as well as the resignation of its
Chief Revenue Officer.

On this news, the price of Pluralsight's shares plummeted.

The case is City Of Birmingham Firemen's And Policemen's
Supplemental Pension System V. Pluralsight, Inc., 1:19cv7563.

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include the former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on
securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger
& acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in
New York, California and Louisiana.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:
   
         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
         Tel.: 1-877-515-1850 [GN]


PLURALSIGHT INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Pluralsight,
Inc. (NASDAQ:PS) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between August 2, 2018
and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged
to contact the firm before October 15, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Pluralsight failed to execute on its
sales strategies, which impacted its billing to customers. The
Company also suffered from delays in hiring and training an
effective salesforce to meet its financial projections. Pluralsight
fell behind in onboarding new sales reps, which compounded the
execution problems already plaguing the organization. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about Pluralsight, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.,
         Rina Restaino, Esq.,
         The Schall Law Firm
         Office: 310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com
                rina@schallfirm.com [GN]


POLARITYTE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
PolarityTE, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the reply to the
opposition to the motion to dismiss in the consolidated class
action suit entitled, In re PolarityTE, Inc. Securities Litigation,
is due September 13, 2019.

On June 26, 2018, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States District
Court, District of Utah, by Jose Moreno against the Company and two
directors of the Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00510-JNP (the "Moreno
Complaint").

On July 6, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in the same court
against the same defendants by Yedid Lawi, Case No.
2:18-cv-00541-PMW (the "Lawi Complaint").

Both the Moreno Complaint and Lawi Complaint allege that the
defendants made or were responsible for, disseminating information
to the public through reports filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and other channels that contained material
misstatements or omissions in violation of Sections 10 and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder.

Specifically, both complaints allege that the defendants
misrepresented the status of one of the Company's patent
applications while touting the unique nature of the Company's
technology and its effectiveness.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages suffered by them and the class
consisting of the persons who acquired the publicly-traded
securities of the Company between March 31, 2017, and June 22,
2018.

Plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate and for appointment as
lead plaintiff. On November 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the
Moreno and Lawi cases under the caption In re PolarityTE, Inc.
Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Litigation"),
and requested the appointment of the plaintiff in Lawi as the lead
plaintiff.

On January 16, 2019, the Court granted the motion of Yedid Lawi for
appointment as lead plaintiff, and on February 1, 2019, the Court
granted the lead plaintiff's motion for approval of lead counsel
and liaison counsel. The Court ordered that the lead plaintiff file
and serve a consolidated complaint no later than 60 days after
February 1, 2019, the defendants shall have 60 days after filing
and service of the consolidated complaint to answer or otherwise
respond, and the lead plaintiff must file a motion for class
certification within 90 days of service of the consolidated
complaint.

The Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 2, 2019
and asserted essentially the same violations of Federal securities
laws recited in the original complaints.

The Company believes the allegations in the consolidated complaint
are without merit, and intends to defend the litigation,
vigorously.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
June 3, 2019. Plaintiffs' opposition to the Company's motion to
dismiss was filed on August 2, 2019, and the Company expects to
file a reply to the opposition on or about September 13, 2019.

PolarityTE said, "At this early stage of the proceedings the
Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of
the litigation."

PolarityTE, Inc., a biotechnology and regenerative biomaterials
company, focuses on discovering, designing, and developing a range
of regenerative tissue products and biomaterials for the fields of
medicine, biomedical engineering, and material sciences in the
United States. The company operates in two segments, Regenerative
Medicine and Contract Services. PolarityTE, Inc. is headquartered
in Salt Lake City, Utah.


POTBELLY CORP: Assistant Managers Class Suit Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------
Potbelly Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the parties in the class
action initiated by the company's assistant managers, participated
in a mediation and resolved the claims, subject to court approval.


In October 2017, plaintiffs filed a purported collective and class
action lawsuit (the "Complaint") in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law (NYLL).

The plaintiffs allege that the Company violated the FLSA and NYLL
by not paying overtime compensation to the company's assistant
managers and violated NYLL by not paying spread-of-hours pay.

The Complaint was brought as a nationwide "collective action" under
the FLSA and as a "class action" under NYLL.

Since the filing of the Complaint, the plaintiffs filed a proposed
amended complaint removing the NYLL class claim, but adding a
proposed Illinois state law class action.

In May 2019, the parties participated in a mediation and resolved
the claims, subject to court approval.

Potbelly said, "All charges related to the claims are reflected in
the statement of operations."

Potbelly Corporation, through its subsidiaries, owns, operates, and
franchises Potbelly Sandwich Works sandwich shops in the United
States. The company was formerly known as Potbelly Sandwich Works,
Inc. and changed its name to Potbelly Corporation in 2002. Potbelly
Corporation was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Continues to Defend Patel Class Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Meher
Patel.

On March 1, 2019, Meher Patel filed suit against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Tuolumne County, on
behalf of herself and as a class action on behalf of others
similarly situated, asserting violations under the California Labor
Code relating to the alleged failure by LogistiCare to comply with
certain applicable state wage and related employment requirements,
as well as claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  

The plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties, as well as certification as a class action.  

Providence Service said, "No amounts have been accrued for any
potential losses under this matter, as management cannot reasonably
predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential losses.  The
Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously and believes
that the case will not have a material adverse effect on its
business, financial condition or results of operations."

The Providence Service Corporation provides healthcare services in
the United States. It operates through Non-Emergency Transportation
Services (NET Services) and Matrix Investment segments. The company
was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.


REALOGY GROUP: Appointment of Lead Counsel in Moehrl Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to appoint
lead counsel in the class action suit entitled, Moehrl, Cole,
Darnell, Nager, Ramey, Sawbill Strategic, Inc., Umpa and Ruh v. The
National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp.,
Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, The Long &
Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty,
Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois),
is still pending.

This amended putative class action complaint (the "amended Moehler
complaint"), filed on June 14, 2019, (i) consolidates the Moehrl
and Sawbill litigation reported in our Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2019, (ii) adds certain plaintiffs and defendants,
and (iii) serves as a response to the separate motions to dismiss
filed on May 17, 2019 in the prior Moehrl litigation by each of NAR
and the Company (along with the other defendants named in the prior
Moehrl complaint).

In the amended Moehrl complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or
conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly
established mandatory anticompetitive policies for the multiple
listing services and its member brokers that require brokers to
make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property.


The plaintiffs further allege that the defendant franchisors
conspired with NAR by requiring their respective franchisees to
comply with NAR's policies and Code of Ethics. The plaintiffs seek
a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from requiring home
sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or to otherwise restrict
competition among buyer brokers, an award of damages and/or
restitution, attorneys fees and costs of suit.

Plaintiffs' counsel has filed a motion to appoint lead counsel in
the case, which has yet to be decided by the court.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Sitzer Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the case, Sitzer and Winger v. The National Association of
Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc.,
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri), remains
pending.

This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 29, 2019
and amended on June 21, 2019 by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and Amy
Winger against NAR, the Company, Homeservices of America, Inc.,
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.

The complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks
the same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Sawbill and Moehrl
litigations.

The Sitzer litigation is limited both in allegations and relief
sought to the State of Missouri, and includes an additional cause
of action for alleged violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, or MMPA. On July 10, 2019, defendants filed motions
to transfer the Sitzer matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On August 5, 2019, NAR and the Company (together with the other
defendants named in the Sitzer complaint) each filed separate
motions to dismiss this litigation.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


REALOGY GROUP: Faces Tanaskovic Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company is defending
against a class action suit entitled, Tanaskovic v. Realogy
Holdings Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey).

This is a putative class action complaint filed on July 11, 2019 by
plaintiff Sasa Tanaskovic against the Company and certain of its
current and former executive officers. The lawsuit alleges
violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements
made by the Company about its business, operations, and prospects.


The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages for
purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 24, 2017
through May 22, 2019, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the
United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate
Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate
brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21,
Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's
International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The
company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey.
Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings
LLC.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Realogy Holdings Corp. (RLGY)
from February 24, 2017 through May 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Realogy
investors under the federal securities laws.

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 obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff. If you wish to join the
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=realogy-holdings-corp&id=1936
  or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or Spencer Lee toll-free
at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com,
slee@zhanginvestorlaw.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) 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. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         tel: (800) 991-3756
         Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN]


REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Polat Class Action Underway in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regulus Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit initiated by Baran Polat
and Li Jin.

On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Baran Polat in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, or District Court, against the company,
Paul C. Grint (the company's former Chief Executive Officer), and
Joseph P. Hagan (then the company's Chief Operating Officer and
currently the company's President and Chief Executive Officer).

The complaint includes claims asserted, on behalf of certain
purchasers of the company's securities, under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

In general, the complaint alleges that, between January 21, 2016,
and June 27, 2016, the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding
the company's business and the prospects for RG-101, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its securities. The plaintiff
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint was
filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company, Mr.
Hagan, Dr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company's Chief Research
and Development Officer. The Complaint alleges claims similar to
those asserted by Mr. Polat. The actions have been related.

On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order stating
that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the
District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the District
Court for the filing of an amended or consolidated complaint and
the timing of defendants' answer or response.

On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two actions,
appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of counsel were filed in
the actions, or the Consolidation and Lead Plaintiff Motions. On
October 26, 2017, the District Court entered an order consolidating
the cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and appointing lead counsel
for lead plaintiffs.

On December 22, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint against the Company, Dr. Grint, Mr. Hagan, and Michael
Huang (our former Vice President of Clinical Development). The
consolidated complaint alleges that between February 17, 2016 and
June 12, 2017, the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding RG-101.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 6, 2018, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint. On March 23, 2018, plaintiff filed their
opposition to the motion and on April 24, 2018, defendants filed
their response. No hearing date has been set.

Regulus said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter."

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

Regulus Therapeutics Inc. operates within the biopharmaceutical
industry. The Company's products aim to treat and prevent hepatitis
C infections, cardiovascular, fibrosis, oncology, immuno-
inflammatory, and metabolic diseases. Regulas Therapeutics offers
its services worldwide. Regulus Therapeutics Inc. was founded in
2007 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.


RINGCENTRAL INC: Discovery in Hurley TCPA Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit initiated by Joann Hurley.

On November 17, 2017, Joann Hurley ("Hurley"), filed a second
amended complaint in an ongoing putative class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, adding the Company as a named defendant
and alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and regulations
promulgated thereunder by allegedly using an automated telephone
dialing system to deliver prerecorded political messages to Hurley,
an incumbent running for reelection, and others.  

Hurley alternatively alleged that the Company was vicariously
liable for the actions of the other co-defendants. Hurley seeks
statutory, compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees in connection with her claims.


The Company was served with the second amended complaint on January
4, 2018. On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for lack of standing and failure to sufficiently
state a claim on which relief may be granted. Hurley filed her
opposition brief on April 6, 2018, and the Company filed its reply
brief on April 13, 2018.

On October 4, 2018, the district court issued its memorandum and
opinion order granting in part and denying in part the Company's
motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed Hurley's vicarious
liability claim but allowed Hurley's TCPA claim to proceed.  

The Company filed its answer and affirmatives defenses to the
second amended complaint on October 18, 2018.  Plaintiff filed a
petition to certify a class on July 9, 2019. The Company's
opposition to the petition is due August 9, 2019. Discovery is
ongoing.  

RingCentral said, "It is too early to predict the outcome of this
lawsuit. Based on the information known to the Company as of the
date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the
preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of
any such loss or range of loss that may occur."

RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that
enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect
primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999
and is headquartered in Belmont, California.


RINGCENTRAL INC: Dismissal in Supply Pro Sorbents Suit Final
------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the judgment in favor of
the Company dismissing the Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC's (SPS's)
lawsuit is now final.

On April 21, 2016, Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC ("SPS") filed a
putative class action against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
common law conversion and violations of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") arising from fax cover sheets used
by the Company's customers when sending facsimile transmissions
over the Company's system ("SPS Lawsuit").  

SPS seeks statutory damages, costs, attorneys' fees and an
injunction in connection with its TCPA claim, and unspecified
damages and punitive damages in connection with its conversion
claim.  

On July 6, 2016, the Company filed a Petition for Expedited
Declaratory Ruling before the Federal Communications Commission
("FCC"), requesting that the FCC issue a ruling clarifying certain
portions of its regulations promulgated under TCPA at issue in the
SPS Lawsuit ("Petition").  The Petition remains pending.  

On July 8, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the SPS
Lawsuit in its entirety, along with a collateral motion to dismiss
or stay the SPS Lawsuit pending a ruling by the FCC on the
Company's Petition.  On October 7, 2016, the district court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss. The district court concurrently
dismissed the Company"s motion to dismiss or stay as moot.  

Plaintiff filed its amended complaint on October 27, 2016, alleging
essentially the same theories and claims. On November 21, 2016, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, along with
a renewed motion to dismiss or stay the case pending resolution of
the FCC Petition.  

On July 17, 2017, the district court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss with prejudice and concurrently dismissed the Company's
motion to dismiss or stay as moot.

SPS filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
on July 28, 2017. SPS's opening brief on appeal was filed on
December 20, 2017; asking that the dismissal be reversed and the
case be returned to the district court for the Lawsuit to proceed.
The Company's answering brief was filed on February 20, 2018;
asking that the dismissal be affirmed. SPS filed its reply brief on
April 12, 2018. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
decision on November 20, 2018, affirming the order of the district
court and finding in RingCentral's favor.

On December 4, 2018, SPS filed a petition for panel rehearing,
which RingCentral responded to on January 9, 2019. On January 28,
2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied SPS' petition for
rehearing.  

On April 29, 2019, SPS filed a petition in the Supreme Court for a
writ of certiorari. On June 17, 2019, the Supreme Court denied
SPS's certiorari. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari means
that the judgment in favor of the Company, dismissing the SPS
lawsuit, is now final.

RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that
enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect
primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999
and is headquartered in Belmont, California.


RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Wins More Time to File Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated case captioned as, Takata v. Riot Blockchain,
Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-02293 (D.N.J.), Magistrate Judge
Zahid N. Quraishi entered a letter order granting the request of
counsel for Defendant Mike Dai to extend the time to submit a
Motion to Dismiss the Corrected Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint to September 30, 2019.

Riot Blockchain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants in the
consolidated Takata and Klapper class action suit intended to file
motions to dismiss the amended complaint on September 3, 2019.

On February 17, 2018, Creighton Takata filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
stockholders in the United District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3:
18-cv-02293.

The complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws under
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of a putative class of stockholders that purchased
stock from November 13, 2017 through February 15, 2018.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
and directors made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false
and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings
regarding its business plan in connection with its cryptocurrency
business.

The complaint requests damages in unspecified amounts, costs and
fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief.

Two additional, nearly identical complaints were subsequently filed
by Richard Roys and Bruce Greenawalt in the United District States
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Roys v. Riot Blockchain
Inc., et al., Case No. 9:18-cv-80225) and the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado (Greenawalt v. Riot
Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00440), respectively.

On March 27, 2018, the court closed the Roys case for
administrative purposes. On April 2, 2018, Mr. Greenawalt filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal of his action, which the court
entered on the same date.

On April 18, 2018, Joseph J. Klapper, Jr., filed a complaint
against Riot Blockchain, Inc., and certain of its officers and
directors in the United District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Klapper v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3:
18-cv-8031). The complaint contained substantially similar
allegations and the same claims as those filed by Mr. Takata, and
requests damages in unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing
the action, and other unspecified relief.

On November 6, 2018, the court in the Takata action issued an order
consolidating Takata with Klapper into a single putative class
action. The court also appointed Dr. Golovac as Lead Plaintiff and
Motely Rice as Lead Counsel of the consolidated class action.

Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on January 15, 2019.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 18, 2019. In lieu of
opposing defendants' motions to dismiss, Lead Plaintiff filed
another amended complaint on May 9, 2019.

Defendants intend to file motions to dismiss the amended complaint
on September 3, 2019. Briefing on the motions to dismiss is
expected to be completed on October 22, 2019.

Riot Blockchain said, "Subject to the outcome of the pending
motions, defendants intend to continue to vigorously contest Lead
Plaintiff’s allegations. Because this litigation is still at this
early stage, we cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or the magnitude of such an outcome, if any."

Riot Blockchain, Inc. focuses on building, supporting, and
operating blockchain technologies, primarily through its
cryptocurrency mining operations and other developed businesses, as
well as joint ventures, acquisitions, and targeted investments in
the sector. The company was formerly known as Bioptix, Inc. and
changed its name to Riot Blockchain, Inc. in October 2017. Riot
Blockchain, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Castle Rock,
Colorado.


SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman notifies investors in SAExploration Holdings, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SAEX) of the class action, Bodin v. SAExploration
Holdings, Inc. et al., No. 4:19-cv-03089, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

If you invested in SAEX between March 15, 2016 and August 15, 2019
(the "Class Period") and suffered significant losses you may
qualify to be a lead plaintiff -- one who selects and oversees the
attorneys prosecuting the case.  The deadline to move for lead
plaintiff is October 17, 2019.  Contact Hagens Berman immediately
to learn more about the case and being a lead plaintiff:
https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/SAEX or contact Reed
Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling
510-725-3000 or emailing SAEX@hbsslaw.com

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, SAEX and
its senior executives presented false and misleading financial
statements by failing to consolidate the results of Alaska Seismic
Ventures, LLC ("ASV"), an entity in which the Company had a
controlling financial interest, in its financial statements.  These
accounting abuses led to the Company disclosing: (i) the existence
of SEC and internal investigations into the Company's financial
reporting; (ii) the need for SAEX to restate all of its financial
statements covering 2015 through 2018; (iii)  CEO Jeffrey Hastings
had been placed on administrative leave; and (iv) CFO and General
Counsel Brent Whitely had been fired.

When this news entered the market, the lawsuit alleges that
investors suffered damages.

"We're focused on investors' losses and whether SAEX's management
was cooking the books," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding SAEX
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 SAEX@hbsslaw.com

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law 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.
         Tel: 510-725-3000
         Email: reed@hbsslaw.com [GN]


SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
October 17, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased
SAExploration Holdings, Inc. ("SAExploration" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: SAEX) securities between March 15, 2016 and August 15,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On August 15, 2019, SAExploration revealed that certain accounting
matters that arose in 2015-2016 were under investigation by the
SEC. The Company stated that they would restate its previously
issued financial statements for fiscal years 2015 through 2018 and
delay filing its 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2019. The
Company's Chief Executive Officer was placed on administrative
leave, and its Chief Financial Officer was terminated from his
position.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.13 per share, or
over 34%, to close at $2.14 per share on August 16, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, 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) that the Company improperly did not classify Alaska
Seismic Ventures, LLC ("ASV") as a variable interest entity; (2)
that the Company had a controlling financial interest in ASV, which
required the Company to consolidate ASV in its financial
statements; (3) that the Company had deficient internal controls
over financial reporting; (4) that these practices were likely to
lead to an investigation of the Company by the SEC; (5) that
SAExploration would be forced to delay the filing of its quarterly
report for the quarter ended June 30, 2019; and (6) that as a
result, Defendants' statements about SAExploration's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased SAExploration securities during the Class Period
you may move the Court no later than October 17, 2019 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Rosen Continues Probing Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of SAExploration Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: SAEX) resulting from
allegations that SAExploration may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

On August 15, 2019, SAExploration announced that the SEC was
conducting an investigation into certain accounting matters that
arose in 2015-2016. The Company also announced that, due to a
re-evaluation of its relationship with Alaska Seismic Ventures,
LLC, it would restate its previously issued financial statements
for fiscal years 2015 through 2018 and delay filing its 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2019.

On this news, shares of SAExploration fell sharply during intraday
trading on August 16, 2019.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered SAExploration investors. If you purchased shares of
SAExploration please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1657.htmlto join the
class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm 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.

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com/
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Court Certifies Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMES D. SULLNAN, LESLIE
ADDISON, MLLIAM S. SUMNER, JR., RONALD S. HAUSTHOR, GORDON
GARRISON, LINDA CRAWFORD, TED CRAWFORD, and BILLY J. KNIGHT,
individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00125-gwc (D. Vt.),
the Hon. Judge Geoffrey Crawford entered an order on August 23,
2019, granting a motion to certify the exposure class under
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2) and the property class for purposes of
liability only under Rule 23(c)(4):

   Exposure Class:

   "all persons, whether minor or adult, including any person
   claiming by, through, or under a Class Member, who, as of the
   time a class is certified in this case, have resided in the
   Zone of Contamination and have ingested PFOA-contaminated water

   in the Zone of Contamination and who have suffered accumulation

   of PFOA in the bodies as demonstrated by blood serum tests
   disclosing a PFOA level in their blood above the recognized
   background levels";  and

   Property Class:

   "all natural persons, whether minor or adult, including any
   person claiming by, through or under a Class Member, who has
   interests in real property within the Zone of Contamination,
   including, but not limited to, those persons whose private
   water supply wells have been found to be contaminated with PFOA

   above 20 ppt."

The next step in the litigation is to resolve by motion whether the
proposed remedy of medical monitoring is available as a matter of
Vermont law in general and in particular on the of actual record in
this case. The court will convene a pre-trial conference to address
a briefing schedule and to plan for the remaining stages of the
case.[CC]


SEG CORT: Thomas Sues Over School Closure, Seeks Tuition Refund
---------------------------------------------------------------
LANETIA M. THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SEG CORT LLC, a Florida limited
liability Corporation, d/b/a CORTIVA INSTITUTE, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH09587 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., Aug. 20, 2019) is a
consumer class action lawsuit, brought individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons throughout Illinois and
the United States, from 2009 until the date of judgment, who
enrolled and paid tuition at a Cortiva Institute location which
subsequently closed on or about June 2019, and who were denied a
refund of paid tuition in accordance with the Private Business and
Vocational Schools Act of 2012 and/or CORTIVA's enrollment
agreement.

On December 27, 2018, Plaintiff THOMAS entered into an Enrollment
Agreement to attend CORTIVA's Chicago Loop campus as a full time
student enrolled in CORTIVA's Professional Massage Therapy diploma
program consisting of 720 clock hours/36 quarter credits. Pursuant
to the Agreement, THOMAS was provided with a Program Start Date of
January 22, 2019. THOMAS' Expected Graduation Date was August 18,
2019. In order to finance the course of study at CORTIVA, THOMAS
applied for and received Direct Subsidized Stafford Loans with the
U.S. Department of Education, totaling $17,250.00. THOMAS' program
commenced in January, 2019 and THOMAS regularly attended classes as
scheduled and required.

However, in March 2019, CORTIVA failed to provide the services
necessary to implement the program of study including: failing to
provide full time instructors for scheduled classes and routinely
providing substitute teachers instead; canceling and/or
rescheduling classes without advance notice; and, providing
clinical instruction to students related to providing massage
therapy in accord with medical orders, aka "soap notes"
instruction. On April 16, 2019, THOMAS received an email from
"Cortiva Administration" that stated all Cortiva Institutes located
in Illinois, including the Chicago Loop campus THOMAS was currently
attending, would be closing on June 30, 2019. Further, the email
informed students of the following options: (i) to expedite their
education so that it would be complete by June 30, 2019; (ii)
withdraw and transfer to another school; or (iii) withdraw and
receive a full refund.

THOMAS selected the option to withdraw and transfer to another
school. By May 15, 2019, THOMAS had attempted to transfer her
credits to Chicago State School ("CSU"), however CSU informed
THOMAS that it would not accept the credits THOMAS earned at
CORTIVA.

The complaint alleges that CORTIVA misrepresented that THOMAS could
expect to graduate from its Chicago Loop location in August of
2019, in order to influence and/or induce THOMAS to enroll in the
program, because at the time the Agreement was executed, CORTIVA
knew that it would close its Chicago Loop location before THOMAS'
expected graduation date.

As a result of CORTIVA's illegal acts and conduct THOMAS and the
Class have suffered, and continue to suffer damages including but
not limited to: federal loan debt to pay CORTIVA; diminished
academic and economic value of credits earned at CORTIVA; time and
by work expended THOMAS and the Class in taking CORTIVA's classes
to earn credits of diminished academic and economic value; denial
of a refund of paid tuition in accordance with the Private Business
and Vocational Schools Act of 2012, including loss of interest
thereon, and CORTIVA's enrollment agreement; and incurring
additional costs associated with continued education at a new
school, college, or private business or vocational school, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff resides in Cook County, Illinois, and is a citizen of the
State of Illinois.

CORTIVA owned and operated massage therapy schools in Chicago
Illinois, Crystal Lake Illinois, Joliet, Illinois, as well as
various other locations throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by

     LARRY D. DRURY, ESQ.
     THOMAS M. REBHOLZ, ESQ.
     LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
     100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 346-7950
     Email: ldd@larrydrury.com


SHANGHAI DUMPLING: Yu Alleges Employment Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------
SU PING YU a/k/a Amy Yu, on her own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SHANGHAI DUMPLING INC d/b/a
Shanghai Dumpling; SHANGHAI SOUP DUMPLING INC d/b/a Shanghai
Dumpling; and SHANGHAI CAFe DELUXE, INC. d/b/a Shanghai Cafe
Deluxe; YILI WENG a/k/a Eileen Weng, PING LIN, and XINSHENG GU
a/k/a John Gu, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07601 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 14, 2019), alleges employment discrimination on the basis of
age, pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  The
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated current and former employees of Defendants who are over
the age of 40. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory
relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, and other appropriate
legal and equitable relief.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and proposed Collective are:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com

SONIC OF TEXAS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Meba Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DESIRE MEBA; individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. Sonic of Texas, Inc.; Sonic - LS Chevrolet, LP d/b/a
Lone Star Chevrolet; Sonic Houston JLR LP d/b/a Jaguar Houston
North; Gulfgate Dodge Inc. d/b/a Gulfgate Dodge Chrysler Jeep Inc.;
Sonic Momentum VWA, L.P. d/b/a Audi Central Houston; Joe Beneke;
Jason Baisden; Johnnie Smith; Ellen Johnson; James Davis; Michael
Machauer; Does 1-50, Case No. 4:19-cv-02740 (S.D. Tex., July 25,
2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the
Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum wage and overtime wages
for all hours of work performed by their employees.

Sonic of Texas, Inc. is a domestic corporation doing business in
Texas.  Sonic of Texas, Inc. is the General Partner of Defendants
Sonic - LS Chevrolet, LP, Sonic Houston JLR, LP, and Sonic Momentum
VWA, LP.  Sonic - LS Chevrolet, LP d/b/a Lone Star Chevrolet is a
domestic corporation doing business in Texas.  Sonic Houston JLR,
LP d/b/a Jaguar Houston North is a domestic corporation doing
business in Texas.

Gulfgate Dodge Inc. d/b/a Gulfgate Dodge Chrysler Jeep Inc. is a
foreign corporation doing business in Texas.  Sonic Momentum VWA,
L.P. d/b/a Audi Central Houston is a domestic corporation doing
business in Texas.  The Individual Defendants are/were supervisors
or managers of Plaintiff during his employment with the Dealer
Defendants.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
in a variety of capacities including valet services, car washing
services, maintenance work on the vehicles, Show Me services,
providing shuttle service, and parts delivery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Estes, Esq.
          John Cruickshank, Esq.
          THE ESTES LAW FIRM
          716 S. Union St.
          Richmond, TX 77469
          Telephone: (281) 238-5400
          Facsimile: (281) 238-5015
          E-mail: joshuaestes@estespc.net
                  john@cruickshank.attorney


SPRINT CORPORATION: Mingo Seeks to Certify Class of Sales Farmers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as TIJUANA MINGO on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SPRINT
CORPORATION and SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02688-JAR-KGG (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff moves the
Court for an order granting conditional class certification under
section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act:

   "all persons who worked as a BISO Inside Sales Farmers (or
   persons with similar job duties) for Sprint within three years
   prior to the filing of this Complaint, but excluding any person

   who participated via consent in the FLSA collective action
   McGlon, et al. v. Sprint Corporation, et al., Case No.:
   2:16-cv-2099-JAR (D.Kan.)."

Attorneys for Plaintiff ate:

          Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
          DONELON PC
          4600 Madison, Suite 810
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 221-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
          E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com

               - and -

          R. Brent Hankins, Esq.
          R. BRENT HANKINS, P.C.
          117 West 20 th Street, Ste. 201
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 471-8419
          Facsimile: (816) 531-3600
          E-mail: brent@hankinslaw-pc.com

               - and -

          Daniel B. Boatright, Esq.
          Curtis R. Summers, Esq.
          Robert J. Rojas, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1201 Walnut, Suite 1450
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: 816.627.4400
          Facsimile: 816.627.4444
          E-mail: dboatright@littler.com
                  csummers@littler.com
                  rrojas@littler.com

STAMPS.COM INC: Continues to Defend Karinski Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Stamps.com Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Karinski v. Stamps.com, Inc.
et al.

On February 28, 2019 and March 13, 2019, two putative class action
complaints were filed against the company in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division.

Both cases alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 purportedly on behalf of all those who purchased, or otherwise
acquired, Stamps.com common stock between May 3, 2017 and February
21, 2019, and seek class certification, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

One of the two putative class actions was dismissed without
prejudice, and in the other case, styled as Karinski v. Stamps.com,
Inc. et al, Case 2:19-cv-01828 (the "Securities Class Action"), the
Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead plaintiff’s
selection of lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on August 5, 2019.

Stamps.com said, "We believe that the case is without merit and
intend to defend it vigorously. Due to the recent filing date of
the case, neither the likelihood that a loss, if any, will be
realized, nor an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, can be determined."

Stamps.com Inc. provides Internet-based mailing and shipping
solutions in the United States and Europe. The company offers
mailing and shipping solutions to mail and ship various mail pieces
and packages through the United States Postal Service (USPS) under
the Stamps.com and Endicia brands. The company was formerly known
as StampMaster, Inc. and changed its name to Stamps.com Inc. in
December 1998. Stamps.com Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in El Segundo, California.


STAMPS.COM INC: Lopez-Dixon Settlement Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Stamps.com Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a court has granted
final approval to the settlement in the class action suit entitled,
Juan Lopez and Nicholas Dixon v. Stamps.com, Inc.

On February 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company in a case entitled Juan Lopez and Nicholas
Dixon v. Stamps.com, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-01101, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
Western Division, alleging wage and hour claims on behalf of the
company's current and former "non-exempt" hourly call center
employees.

The complaint sought class certification, unspecified damages,
unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

On July 24, 2018, the company entered into a preliminary settlement
that would resolve this matter for a non-material payment to be
distributed to the participating class members.

On May 20, 2019, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.

Stamps.com Inc. provides Internet-based mailing and shipping
solutions in the United States and Europe. The company offers
mailing and shipping solutions to mail and ship various mail pieces
and packages through the United States Postal Service (USPS) under
the Stamps.com and Endicia brands. The company was formerly known
as StampMaster, Inc. and changed its name to Stamps.com Inc. in
December 1998. Stamps.com Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in El Segundo, California.


STEEL PARTNERS: Settlement Reached in Sciabacucchi Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a settlement has
been entered by the parties in the class action suit entitled,
Sciabacucchi v. DeMarco, et al.

On December 8, 2017, a stockholder class action, captioned
Sciabacucchi v. DeMarco, et al., was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware by a purported former stockholder of Handy
& Harman Ltd. (HNH) challenging the Company's acquisition, through
a subsidiary, of all of the outstanding shares of common stock of
HNH not already owned by the Company or any of its affiliates.

The action names as defendants the former members of the HNH board
of directors, the Company and Steel Partners Holdings GP Inc. (SPH
GP), and alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the former public stockholders of HNH in
connection with the aforementioned acquisition. The complaint
sought, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 9, 2019, the Company entered into a settlement of the case,
solely to avoid the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and
distraction of continued litigation and to resolve each of the
plaintiff's claims as against the defendant parties.

In the settlement, the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff class
$30,000, but denied that they engaged in any wrongdoing or
committed any violation of law or breach of duty and stated that
they believe they acted properly, in good faith, and in a manner
consistent with their legal duties. The settlement is subject to
court approval.

Steel Partners said, "Our insurance carriers have agreed to
contribute an aggregate of $17,500 toward the settlement amount.
The Company recorded a charge of $12,500 in Selling, general and
administrative expenses in the consolidated statement of income for
the three months ended June 30, 2019, which consisted of the legal
settlement of $30,000 (included in Accrued liabilities at June 30,
2019), reduced by $17,500 of insurance recoveries (included in
Trade and other receivables) at June 30, 2019. The Company made a
demand of an aggregate of $10,000 in further contributions from two
insurance carriers, which the carriers declined, and we are
pursuing claims in court to endeavor to recover this sum, although
there can be no assurance as to the outcome of this litigation."

Steel Partners Holdings L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages in
industrial products, energy, defense, supply chain management,
logistics, banking, and sports businesses worldwide. It operates
through Diversified Industrial, Energy, and Financial Services
segments. Steel Partners Holdings GP Inc. serves as the general
partner of the company. The company was founded in 1990 and is
based in New York, New York.


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Hamilton Sues Over Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Hamilton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-04702 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2019), seeks to recover for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Synergetic Communication, Inc., is a Texas Corporation with a
principal place of business in Harris County, Texas.

The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect debts
asserted to be owed to others.  The Defendant is regularly engaged,
for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by
consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNGENTA MASS: Court Partly Adopts Fees Allocation in Tort Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois adopted in part and rejected in part the Report and
Recommendation of Special Master Daniel J. Stack on Allocation of
Attorney's Fees in the case captioned IN RE SYNGENTA MASS TORT
ACTIONS. This Document Relates to Tweet et al. v. Syngenta AG et
al., No. 3:16-cv-00255-NJR; and Poletti et al. v. Syngenta AG et
al., No. 3:15-cv-01221-NJR Case No. 3:16-cv-00255-NJR. (S.D.
Ill.).

In 2014, corn farmers around the country filed suit against
Syngenta for its commercialization of genetically-modified corn
seed products that contained the trait MIR 162. In February 2018,
after years of vigorous and complex litigation, the parties
executed an agreement that provided for a global settlement of $1.5
billion. Judge Lungstrum issued his final approval of the
settlement in December 2018 and allocated one-third of the gross
settlement ($503,333,333.33) to attorneys' fees.

Judge Lungstrum assigned attorneys' fees applicants to one of the
three common benefit pools based primarily on where they performed
their work. He then designated a percentage of the fees to each
pool, based on the pool's contribution to the settlement. Judge
Lungstrum also created an individually retained private attorneys
(IRPA) pool.

In sum:

   IRPA Pool                    (12%)  $60,400,000
  
   Kansas MDL Common
   Benefit Pool                 (49%) $246,633,333
   
   Minnesota State Court
   Common Benefit Pool        (23.5%) $118,283,333
   
   Illinois Federal Court
   Common Benefit Pool        (15.5%)  $78,016,666

Total Attorney Fee Award       (100%) $503,333,333

COMMON BENEFIT PRINCIPLES

Under what has been coined the American rule, each litigant
generally pays his or her own attorney's fees. But in certain
circumstances, the American rule results in unjust enrichment
because individuals may benefit from a successful party without
bearing a fair share of the burden of litigation. To remedy this
problem, courts recognize several judicially-created equitable
doctrines, such as the common benefit doctrine, which is
appropriately applied when the plaintiff's successful litigation
confers a substantial benefit on the members of an ascertainable
class, and where the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the suit makes possible an award that will operate to spread the
costs proportionately among them.

Courts generally use one of two methods in determining fee awards
in common benefit cases: (1) the percentage method, which awards a
fee relative to the benefit that counsel achieved for the class and
(2) the lodestar method, which awards a fee relative to the hours
and hourly billing rates.  

SPECIAL MASTER STACK'S METHODOLOGY

Special Master Stack employed a percentage method as opposed to a
lodestar method and conducted both a quantitative and subjective
analysis. He stated his subjective analysis was based on his
personal experience and observations of the litigation. He also
cited the Johnson factors, which are routinely applied to common
benefit cases.

They are: (1) the time and labor required (2) the novelty and
difficulty of the questions (3) the skill requisite to perform the
legal service properly (4) the preclusion of other employment by
the attorney due to acceptance of the case (5) the customary fee
(6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent (7) time limitations
imposed by the client or the circumstances (8) the amount involved
and the results obtained (9) the experience, reputation, and
ability of the attorneys (10) the undesirability of the case (11)
the nature and length of the professional relationship with the
client; and (12) awards in similar cases.
  
Quantitative Analysis

Special Master Stack's quantitative analysis centered on four
categories: (1) common benefit hours (2) common benefit expenses
(3) claimant data and (4) client acquisition expenses. He
constructed a quantitative chart for each category that listed the
number of hours, common benefit expenses, claimants, or acquisition
expenses each applicant submitted, and assessed that number against
the total submissions from the applicants to arrive at a
percentage. Then, Special Master Stack averaged the percentages for
each applicant group across the categories, and assigned each group
a final percentage.

Based on Special Master Stack's calculations, Clark/Phipps
submitted 110,337 non-attorney common benefit hours and 31,326
attorney common benefit hours, for a total of 141,663 common
benefit hours; Conmy Feste submitted 38 non-attorney hours and 173
attorney hours, for a total of 211 hours; Eiland submitted 5,986
non-attorney hours and 7,268 attorney hours, for a total of 13,254
hours; Garrison submitted 9,593 non-attorney hours and 10,024
attorney hours, for a total of 19,616 hours; Onder submitted 3,274
non-attorney hours and 3,911 attorney hours, for a total of 7,186
hours; and Demerath submitted 3,446 non-attorney hours and 6,060
attorney hours, for a total of 9,506 hours. In sum, when
considering the non-attorney and attorney hours combined,
Clark/Phipps is responsible for 74% of all hours the Illinois
applicants submitted; Conmy Feste is responsible for 0.1%; Eiland
is responsible for 6.9%; Garrison is responsible for 10.2%; Onder
is responsible for 3.8%; and Demerath is responsible for 5.0%.

Special Master Stack also determined that Clark/Phipps' expenses
account for 87.8% of all expenses the Illinois applicants
submitted; Eiland's expenses account for 0.6% of all expenses;
Garrison's expenses account for 10.1% of all expenses; Onder's
expenses account for 0.5% of all expenses; and Demerath's expenses
account for 0.9% of all expenses.

Further, Clark/Phipps' claimants make up roughly 85.3% of the
claimants represented by the Illinois applicants; the Eiland
Group's claimants make up 5.1% of the claimants; Garrison's
claimants make up 5.1% of the claimants; and Onder's claimants make
up 5.8% of the claimants.

Finally, Special Master Stack calculated that Clark/Phipps' client
acquisition expenses are 89.4% of all client acquisition expenses
the Illinois applicants reported; Eiland's expenses are 2.3% of all
expenses; Garrison's expenses are 1.1% of all expenses; Onder's
expenses are 3% of all expenses; and Demerath's expenses are 4.1%
of all expenses.

After averaging the percentages from each category, Special Master
Stack reported that Clark/Phipps is responsible for 84.2% of the
contributions to the Illinois litigation; Conmy Feste is
responsible for 0.0%; Eiland is responsible for 3.9%; Garrison is
responsible for 6.2%; Onder is responsible for 3.2%; and Demerath
is responsible for 2.5%.

Subjective Analysis

Special Master Stack also conducted a subject analysis of each
applicant. He observed that Clark/Phipps was lead counsel in Tweet
and Browning and established multiple litigation fronts that
increased litigation pressure on Syngenta. Special Master Stack
also stated, Clark/Phipps further established novel litigation
theories against Syngenta for ethanol plants and biorefineries that
ultimately resulted in the formation of an ethanol producer
settlement subclass. Similarly, Clark/Phipps' vigorous prosecution
of claims on behalf of grain handling facilities also resulted in a
subclass of claimants in the Settlement.

There is a significant difference in the percentage of common
benefit hours among all of these Groups. In the Clark Group, the
Attorney Hours' are only 28% of the Non. Whereas all of the other
groups/firms have more Attorney Hours than Non. For this group, the
Attorney hours are only 28% of the `Non.' All others are the
opposite with the Non-Attorney hours being a percentage of the
Attorney hours: Conmy is 22%; Eiland 82%; Garrison 96%; Onder 54%
and Demerath 57%.

But Special Master Stack noted that Clark/Phipps did partake in
some activities that he found to be less than helpful and actually,
at times, potentially detrimental to the process. He concluded, My
assessment of Clark/Phipps' actual Common Benefit value is,
therefore, increased by the Settlement Committee and Ethanol Plant
efforts while diminished somewhat by the others." All-in-all, the
Report and Recommendation suggests awarding the Clark/Phipps Group
$61,633,166.67, which is 79% of the Illinois pool.

In regard to Garrison, Special Master Stack noted that Garrison was
lead counsel in Poletti;obtained an important jurisdictional ruling
that Clark/Phipps utilized; assisted with discovery; and
cooperatively participated in early settlement discussions. More
specifically, Special Master Stack pointed out that Garrison
assisted in document review, submitted more than 2,300 PFSs, and
presented 44 farmers for depositions in nine different states,
culminating in the production of 350,000 pages of farmer documents
to Syngenta. Special Master Stack also gave some increased
valuation for Garrison's hours related to arguments and filings.

Special Master Stack ultimately suggests awarding Garrison
$9,674,066.67 in attorney fees, which amounts to 12.4% of the
Illinois pool.

In regard to Eiland, Special Master Stack notes Eiland filed 934
cases in Williamson County, Illinois; assisted lead counsel there
with document review and briefing efforts; opted out approximately
1,200 clients from the litigation class certified in 2016; and
filed nine separate lawsuits in Illinois state court. Eiland also
developed analyses on the application of the economic loss doctrine
in Nebraska and Texas, as well as cross-jurisdictional and
intra-jurisdictional class action tolling law. Finally, Eiland
worked with regulatory and damages experts and assisted drafting
motions and responses, and contributed attorneys to review over 1.2
million pages of documents produced by Syngenta. Special Master
Stack suggests awarding Eiland $3,120,666.67, or 4% of the Illinois
pool.

As to Demerath, Special Master Stack credits the firms with work
performed in Nebraska and play[ing] a role in this Court. The
Report and Recommendation suggests awarding Demerath $1,560,333.33,
or 2% of the Illinois pool.

Regarding Onder, the Report and Recommendation recognizes the
firm's contribution to the creation of the consolidated actions in
this Court; preparation and service of PFSs on Syngenta; and
work-up of bellwether trials, which included obtaining and
reviewing tens of thousands of documents and millions of pages of
client documents. Onder also traveled across the country for client
depositions, coordinated with senior litigation partners, crafted
pretrial and trial strategies, and prepared substantive materials,
motions, and briefs. Special Master Stack suggests awarding Onder
$2,028,433.33, or 2.6% of the Illinois pool.

The Report and Recommendation suggests denying Conmy Feste's
application because the group did not provide any argument or
evidence of a common benefit contribution.

Finally, Special Master Stack reviewed certain fee sharing
agreements and found them to be fair and reasonable.

After carefully scrutinizing the record, the Court cannot adopt the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety, due to several
structural and procedural flaws.

First, the quantitative analysis considers client acquisition
costs, which Judge Lungstrum specifically instructed the courts not
to consider when allocating fees. The quantitative analysis also
puts undue weight on claimant numbers and expenses. These factors
are not per se improper in the common benefit analysis because they
may indicate how invested the firms were in the litigation and,
similarly, the degree of risk they carried. Because the Report and
Recommendation placed claimant numbers, expenses, and client
acquisition costs at an equal footing with the hours actually
expended in pursuit of the plaintiffs' cause, the methodology does
not accurately display the firms' common benefit value. The
methodology also carries the risk of blindly and disproportionately
rewarding attorneys for marketing efforts, rather than work
performed advocating for the benefit of the plaintiffs. Notably,
the Kansas court has implemented a separate process for the
reimbursement of expenses.

The Report and Recommendation's subjective analysis is also
incongruent, in some respects, with Judge Lungstrum's orders. For
instance, the Report and Recommendation justified awarding
Clark/Phipps nearly 80% of the Illinois pool largely for the firm's
work developing cases on behalf of ethanol plaintiffs. The Report
spends much time praising Clark/Phipps for establish[ing novel
litigation theories against Syngenta for ethanol plants and
biorefineries.

But Judge Lungstrum explained that Clark/Phipps' work on this front
was actually harmful to the Illinois plaintiffs: Much of the work
by Clark/Phipps on behalf of ethanol plants and against other
members of the grain trade ultimately proved unsuccessful, which
defeats bolstered Syngenta's position and thus did not contribute
to achievement of the settlement. Despite Judge Lungstrum's
comments, the Report and Recommendation increases Clark/Phipps'
common benefit value for their work on behalf of ethanol
plaintiffs.

The Court cannot adopt the Report and Recommendation in its
entirety. The Court will adjust the suggested allocations
accordingly.

Allocation

Clark/Phipps

Attorney Non-Attorney Description Hours Hours Complaint Drafting
7186.3 2506.6 Dispositive Motion Briefing and Argument 7497.7 28.9
Class Certification Motion Briefing and Argument 1150.8 0 Plaintiff
Fact Sheet Preparation and Review 673.9 4539.2 Paper Discovery
(Syngenta and Third Parties) 1232.6 0.2 Paper Discovery Against
Plaintiffs 454.2 0 Discovery Motion Practice and Communications
with Adverse Parties 1417.3 1.4 Fact Depositions (Syngenta and
Third Parties) 33 0 Defend Fact Depositions of Plaintiffs 0 0
Discovery File Management 2333.3 18497.7 Plaintiffs' Expert Witness
Work 1566.2 273.1 Defendant Expert Witness Work 107.3 0 Other
Pretrial Motion Practice 1080.9 13.6 Trial Briefing and Jury
Instructions 10 0 Post-Trial Briefing 405.1 0 Pre-Settlement
Communication with Clients 822.3 47398.80 Settlement Negotiations
1671.2 23.7 Assisting Clients in Perfecting Claims 915.5 21584.30
Preparation of Fee Petition 635.4 6.4 Administrative Work as
Court-Appointed Leadership 197.2 0.00 Other 1936.2 2549.40 Total
31326.4 97423.3

Clark/Phipps claims 128,749.7 hours of common benefit work,
consisting of 31,326.4 attorney hours and 97,423.3 non-attorney
hours. Pursuant to the Fee Allocation Order, the Court gives little
weight to the 22,499.8 hours of assisting clients in perfecting
claims and 5,213.1 hours of PFS work. Moreover, the 97,423.3
non-attorney hours (over two-thirds of Clark/Phipps' time) are
given significantly less weight than the 31,326.4 attorney hours.
Although the Court also gives less weight to Clark/Phipps' 48,221.1
hours of pre-settlement communications with clients, it recognizes
that some portion of this time was crucial to the settlement
agreement Syngenta required Clark/Phipps' participation in the
settlement as a pre-condition to executing the agreement. Thus,
Clark/Phipps spent necessary hours securing the participation of
their (roughly) 18,000 claimants, which adds to their common
benefit value. Finally, because Clark/Phipps' time appears to be
grossly excessive in comparison to all the other firms involved in
this litigation, the Court gives their time less weight, overall.


When considering Clark/Phipps' contributions, the Court
acknowledges Clayton Clark's appointment to the PNSC and the
Illinois settlement committee; these groups were invaluable in
reaching the global settlement. Clark/Phipps has demonstrated a
high level of commitment to this litigation and has expended
considerable time and resources in pursuing a resolution. As Judge
Lungstrum noted, Clark/Phipps filed hundreds of cases in various
courts and played an important role in helping to negotiate the
settlement. Special Master Reisman (appointed in the Kansas MDL)
also pointed out that Clark/Phipps initiated 456 discovery requests
on Syngenta and, along with Garrison, worked with a team of expert
economists to develop damages models against Syngenta. Also,
Clark/Phipps' efforts on behalf of grain handling facilities
resulted in the creation of one of the four settlement subclasses,
which adds to their common benefit value.

But the Court also must factor in the less-than-favorable results
Clark/Phipps obtained.

Clark/Phipps expended a substantial amount of effort prosecuting
cases on behalf of ethanol plants and biorefineries. Although
Clark/Phipps developed novel legal theories that resulted in an
ethanol settlement subclasses, this front was largely unsuccessful
and bolstered Syngenta's position. In fact, Judge Lungstrum reduced
the fee allocation to the Illinois pool because of Clark/Phipps'
ethanol losses (Kansas Case, Doc. 3882). Thus, the time and
resources Clark/Phipps expended prosecuting the unavailing ethanol
cases did not confer a common benefit on the plaintiffs as a
whole.

Also, Clark/Phipps' work in developing cases against grain handlers
created obstacles for coordination between the Illinois litigation
and the Kansas MDL. Clark/Phipps was appointed lead counsel in
Tweet, a case in this Court in which plaintiffs asserted claims
against grain handlers. As a result, Tweet created tension with the
MDL leadership's position that grain handlers were not liable, and
thus impeded discovery coordination. While Clark/Phipps points out
that it created more work for Syngenta by not coordinating
discovery, the claims against the grain handlers were largely
dismissed at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage or voluntarily dismissed
shortly thereafter. Thus, Clark/Phipps' time spent in furtherance
of claims against grain handlers cannot be considered common
benefit hours.

In light of the above, the Report and Recommendation's suggested
allocation of should be reduced to account for the non-attorney
hours; time spent communicating with clients and guiding them
through the claims process; the losing ethanol litigation; the
prosecution of claims against grain handling facilities; and the
lack of contemporaneous time sheets to support their summaries. In
conclusion, the Court awards Clark/Phipps $38,228,166.67, or 49% of
the Illinois pool.

Conmy Feste

Attorney Non-Attorney Description Hours Hours Pre-settlement
Communication with Clients 76.8 22.3 Assisting Clients in
Perfecting Claims in Settlement 6.0 4.4 Other 89.75 11.6
Total172.55 38.3

Conmy Feste's hours consist almost entirely of pre-settlement
communication with clients and assisting clients in perfecting
claims. These hours have little common benefit value, and Conmy
Feste did not object to the Report and Recommendation's denial of
its fee application. Accordingly, the Court adopts Special Master
Stack's recommendation and denies Conmy Feste's application.

Demerath

Non-Attorney Description Attorney Hours Hours Complaint Drafting
321.5 91.5 Pre-settlement Communication with Clients 5375.5 3237
Assisting Clients in Perfecting Claims 345 105 Preparation of Fee
Petition 18 12 Total 6060 3445.5

Demerath claims 9,505.5 hours of common benefit work, consisting of
6,060 attorney hours and 3,445.5 non-attorney hours. Again, the
Court affords significantly less weight to the non-attorney hours
and little weight to hours recorded as pre-settlement communication
with clients and assisting clients in perfecting claims. As to
Demerath's contributions, Demerath was responsible for filing some
of the first cases in Nebraska before exclusively assisting
Clark/Phipps. Demerath's background in farming was clearly
beneficial for client acquisition and retention, but it did not
benefit the class at large. Thus, the Court reduces Special Master
Stack's award to $780,166.67, or 1% of the Illinois pool.

Eiland claims 13,254 hours of common benefit work, consisting of
7,268 attorney hours and 5,986 non-attorney hours. Again, the Court
affords significantly less weight to the non-attorney hours and
little weight to the hours recorded as pre-settlement communication
with clients (over half of Eiland's estimated attorney hours) and
PFS work-related hours. As to their contributions, the Court
reiterates Special Master Stack's acknowledgement that Eiland filed
many cases in Williamson County, Illinois; assisted with document
review and briefing; opted out over one thousand clients from the
litigation class certified in 2016; worked with experts; and
conducted other discovery. But because the majority of Eiland's
hours consist of PFS work, communication with clients, assisting
clients with claims, and administrative work, the Court reduces
Eiland's award to $2,340,500, or 3% of the Illinois pool.

Garrison

Garrison submitted 19,616.41 hours, consisting of 10,023.71
attorney hours and 9592.7 non-attorney hours. Again, the Court
gives little weight to hours for pre-settlement communication with
clients, PFS work, and assisting clients in perfecting claims, and
affords significantly less weight to the non-attorney hours
compared to the attorney hours. Notably, Garrison provided detailed
time sheets describing the attorney or personnel who completed a
task, the nature of the task, the date the task was performed, and
the amount of time spent on each task.

As to Garrison's contributions, the group was at the forefront of
the Illinois Syngenta litigation. They were appointed lead counsel
in Poletti, where they secured important rulings on personal
jurisdiction and the economic loss doctrine. Garrison's success
benefitted all Illinois plaintiffs state and federal as well as
plaintiffs in other state courts across the country.

Furthermore, Garrison was engaged in a joint-prosecution agreement
with the Kansas MDL leadership and assisted them in document
review. Additionally, Garrison presented 44 farmers for deposition,
produced approximately 350,000 pages of farmer documents, and were
engaged in early settlement discussions. Finally, Garrison pursued
lines of questioning at depositions that were used at the Kansas
class trial where the jury returned a plaintiffs' verdict. In
consideration of all the relevant factors, the Court awards
Garrison $33,859,233.33, or 43.4% of the Illinois pool.

Onder

Onder submitted 7,185.73 hours, consisting of 3,911.33 attorney
hours and 3,274.4 non-attorney hours. The Court gives little weight
to the hours recorded as pre-settlement communication with clients,
PFS preparation and review, and assisting clients in perfecting
claims. Also, the Court affords significantly less weight to the
non-attorney hours compared to the attorney hours.

As to their contributions, Onder worked closely with Garrison and
contributed to the creation of the Illinois front in this Court.
Onder also played an important role in coordinating with the MDL
leadership to participate in depositions. Further, Onder took part
in depositions for its corn producer clients, developed pre-trial
and trial strategies, and prepared substantive materials, motions,
and briefs, which included arguments on the economic loss doctrine
and CAFA jurisdictional issues. Onder's work proved successful in
avoiding transfer of cases to the MDL; clearly this success
cemented the third front Syngenta could not ignore.

Furthermore, Onder, along with Garrison, contributed to developing
48 claims for potential bellwether trials in Poletti. Onder also
obtained and reviewed countless documents from Syngenta and its
subsidiaries regarding matters such as Syngenta's sales, marketing,
purchases, scientific GMO data, and agricultural market data.
Therefore, the Court awards Onder $2,808,600.00, or 3.6% of the
Illinois pool.

In conclusion, the Court adopts in part and rejects in part the
Report and Recommendation regarding fee allocations. The Court
adopts the Report and Recommendation to the extent it denies Conmy
Feste's application for attorneys' fees. The Court rejects the
remaining awards contained in the Report and Recommendation and,
instead, awards:

   -- Clark/Phipps $38,228,166.67, or 49% of the Illinois pool;

   -- Demerath $780,166.67, or 1% of the pool;

   -- Eiland $2,340,500.00, or 3% of the pool;

   -- Garrison $33,859,233.33, or 43.4% of the pool; and

   -- Onder $2,808,600.00, or 3.6% of the pool.

A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2zts7hw
from Leagle.com.

Leroy Tweet, Plaintiff, represented by Martin J. Phipps, Phipps
Cavazos, PLL, 102 9th Street, San Antonio, Texas 78215.

All Plaintiffs in Case 16-255, Plaintiff, represented by Brian John
Perkins -- bjp@perkins.law -- Perkins Law Firm, LLC, A. Craig
Eiland, Law Offices of A. Craig Eiland, 2200 Market Street, Suite
501, Galveston, TX 77550, Clayton A. Clark, Clark, Love & Hutson
GP, 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1600, Houston, TX 77002, David C.
Frederick -- dfrederick@kellogghanson.com -- Kellogg, Hanson et al,
pro hac vice, Jason Milne, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, pro hac
vice, Joseph Barrett Deacon, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, 102 9th
St., San Antonio, Texas, United States, pro hac vice, Joshua
Hafenbrack -- jhafenbrack@kellogghanson.com -- Kellogg, Hanson et
al, pro hac vice, Justin Demerath, O'Hanlon, Demerath & Castillo
PC, 808 West Ave, Austin, TX 78701, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps
Cavazos, PLLC

Syngenta AG & Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Defendants, represented
by Jordan M. Heinz -- jordan.heinz@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, Leslie M. Smith -- leslie.smith@kirkland.com- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, Michael J. Nester, Donovan Rose Nester, P.C., 8 East
Washington Street, Belleville, IL 62220 & Patrick T. Haney --
patrick.haney@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis

Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Syngenta
Biotechnology, Inc. & Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Defendants, represented
by Edwin U. John -- edwin.u@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis,
Jordan M. Heinz, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Michael D. Jones --
michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice,
Michael J. Nester, Donovan Rose Nester, P.C., Ragan Naresh --
ragan.naresh@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, Leslie M. Smith,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP &Patrick T. Haney, Kirkland & Ellis.


TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in IGNITE 3 Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts has granted an
unopposed motion for the appointment of a lead plaintiff in the
class action suit related to IGNITE3.

In July 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the company, its chief executive officer, its chief
scientific officer and the underwriters of its July 2017 public
offering, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who
purchased the company's securities pursuant and/or traceable to its
July and August 2017 public offering and those who purchased its
securities between March 8, 2017 and February 13, 2018.

The complaint purports to allege claims arising under Sections 10
and 20 of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning IGNITE3.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

In May 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the defendants motion to transfer the
matter to the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

In August 2019, the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts granted an unopposed motion for the appointment of
a lead plaintiff.

Tetraphase said, "We believe we have valid defenses against these
claims, and will engage in a vigorous defense of such litigation."

Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,
develops various antibiotics for the treatment of serious and
life-threatening multidrug-resistant infections. The company was
founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Watertown, Massachusetts.


TEXTRON INC: 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 Southern
District of New York on behalf of all investors that purchased
Textron, Inc. (NYSE: TXT) securities between January 31, 2018 and
October 17, 2018 (the "Class Period").  Investors have until
October 21, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On March 6, 2017, Textron expanded its recreational vehicle
business through its $316 million acquisition of Arctic Cat Inc.
("Arctic Cat"). Upon the completion of this transaction, Arctic Cat
became an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Textron. Throughout
the Class Period, Textron repeatedly touted Arctic Cat as an
important growth business for the Company, reassuring investors
about dealer demand, end-market sales and earnings prospects for
its Arctic Cat products.

The complaint, filed August 22, 2019, alleges that despite these
positive depictions to the market, defendants failed to disclose
that: (1) end-market sales of Arctic Cat products were slowing,
resulting in a massive glut of old Arctic Cat inventory on dealers'
floors; (2) in order to clear out this old inventory, the Company
provided significant price discounts, which negatively impacted
Textron's earnings; (3) as a result, Textron's positive statements
about Arctic Cat's business, operations, and prospects were false
and misleading.

The truth about Arctic Cat's inventory problems was revealed on
October 18, 2018, when Textron reported weak third quarter 2018
earnings and decreased its full-year 2018 forecast. The company
blamed the shortfall on heavy discounts issued by Textron to clear
out old Arctic Cat inventory. Analysts immediately lowered their
price targets on Textron stock citing the inventory concerns at
Arctic Cat. On this news, Textron's stock fell $7.29 or 11.25
percent, to close at $57.49 on October 18, 2018.

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

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


TEXTRON INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Aug. 22, 2019, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Textron, Inc. (NYSE: TXT).
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 January 31, 2018 through October 17, 2018.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/y4nrkdkq

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Textron, 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, October 21, 2019 to serve as a
lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so,
you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

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

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


TEXTRON INC: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP announces that on Aug. 22, 2019, it filed a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Building
Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania against Textron Inc.
(NYSE: TXT), and certain of its senior executives (collectively,
"Defendants"). The action, which is captioned Bldg. Trades Pension
Fund of Western Pennsylvania v. Textron Inc., No. 19-cv-07881
(S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Textron
common stock between January 31, 2018 and October 17, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Textron is a global manufacturer and distributor of small aircrafts
and recreational vehicles. On March 6, 2017, Textron expanded its
recreational vehicle business through its $316 million acquisition
of Arctic Cat Inc. ("Arctic Cat"). Upon the completion of this
transaction, Arctic Cat became an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of Textron. Arctic Cat designs and manufactures a variety of
recreational vehicles, including all-terrain vehicles and
snowmobiles. Arctic Cat revenues are generated through sales to
independent dealers. Throughout the Class Period, Textron
repeatedly touted Arctic Cat as an important growth business for
the Company, reassuring investors about dealer demand, end-market
sales and earnings prospects for its Arctic Cat products.

Notwithstanding these positive representations to the market,
Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) end-market sales of Arctic
Cat products were slowing, resulting in a massive glut of old
Arctic Cat inventory on dealers' floors; (2) in order to clear out
this old inventory, the Company provided significant price
discounts, which negatively impacted Textron's earnings; (3) as a
result, Textron's positive statements about Arctic Cat's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading.

The truth about Arctic Cat's inventory problems was revealed on
October 18, 2018, when Textron reported weak third quarter 2018
earnings and cut its full-year 2018 forecast. The Company blamed
the shortfall on heavy discounts issued by Textron to clear out old
Arctic Cat inventory. Analysts immediately lowered their price
targets on Textron stock citing the inventory concerns at Arctic
Cat. On this news, Textron's stock fell $7.29 or 11.25 percent, to
close at $57.49 on October 18, 2018, erasing $1.8 billion from its
market capitalization.

If you purchased or acquired Textron common stock during the Class
Period, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek
appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York no later than October 21, 2019. The Lead Plaintiff is a
court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You
do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any
Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there
is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an
absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to
represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com

Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania is represented
by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of the largest pension
funds in the United States and internationally with combined assets
under management of more than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow's
litigation reputation is built on its half-century of securities
litigation experience, more than 60 full-time attorneys, and
in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic
accountants. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its
excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked
in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York,
NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information about
Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com. [GN]


TEXTRON INC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) from January 31, 2018
through October 17, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Textron investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Textron class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1663.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) end-market sales of Arctic Cat Inc. products were
slowing, resulting in a massive glut of old Arctic Cat inventory on
dealers' floors; (2) in order to clear out this old inventory,
Textron provided significant price discounts, which negatively
impacted Textron's earnings; and (3) as a result, Textron's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
21, 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-1663.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 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.

Contact Information:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com  
                cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


TOWER INTERNATIONAL: Thompson Sues Over Autokiniton Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. TOWER INTERNATIONAL, INC., TONY BROWN,
JAMES GOUIN, MARK MALCOLM, JAMES CHAPMAN, ALISON DAVIS-BLAKE, FRANK
ENGLISH, DEV KAPADIA, AUTOKINITON US HOLDINGS, INC., and TIGER
MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01549 (D. Del., Aug.
20, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed transaction
announced on July 12, 2019, pursuant to which Tower International,
Inc. will be acquired by Autokiniton US Holdings, Inc. and Tiger
Merger Sub, Inc., which are affiliates of Autokiniton Global
Group.

On July 12, 2019, Tower's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Autokiniton.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced
a tender offer to acquire all of Tower's outstanding common stock
for $31.00 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is scheduled to
expire on September 13, 2019. On August 15, 2019, Defendants filed
a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

The complaint alleges that the Solicitation Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that defendants violate Sections
14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"1934 Act") in connection with the Solicitation Statement.

Plaintiff is the owner of Tower common stock.

Tower is a leading manufacturer of engineered automotive structural
metal components and assemblies primarily serving original
equipment manufacturers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
     Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
            gms@rl-legal.com

          - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (484) 324-6800
     Facsimile: (484) 631-1305


UI HOSPITAL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Pay Disputes
---------------------------------------------------------
Radio Iowa reports that three employees of the University of Iowa
Hospitals and Clinics have filed a lawsuit over pay disputes.

They allege the hospital is not paying them on time for extra
shifts and extended workdays and estimate 2000 employees could
qualify as part of their class action lawsuit.

In court filings, one of the plaintiffs says it took the hospital
two months to pay her for overtime.

"People being paid late is wrong. You need to follow the law," said
Nate Willems, Esq., the attorney representing the workers. "Money
has more value to people when it's paid to them on time and not a
month or two months later."

A physical therapist and two nurses filed the lawsuit. Willems said
the hospital is not following the state law that requires employees
to be paid for extra work within 12 days of a pay period.

"What we're describing is feature and not a bug of the way that
UIHC pays their employees," Willems said.

The lawsuit asks a judge to order the hospital to comply with wage
laws and pay damaged to employees who weren't paid on time for
extra hours of work. A spokesperson for the university says they
don't comment on litigation. The hospital changed the way it pays
what's commonly referred to as overtime after the legislature
changed Iowa's collective bargaining law in 2017. [GN]


UNDER ARMOUR: Maryland Court Dismisses Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
issued an Memorandum Opinion granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Consolidated Second Amended Complaint in the case
captioned In re UNDER ARMOUR SECURITIES LITIGATION. Civil Action
No. RDB-17-0388. (D. Md.).

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Under
Armour, Inc. and Kevin A. Plank alleging violations of federal
securities laws. Plaintiffs bring this federal class action under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act)  and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of
all persons or entities that purchased or acquired common stock of
Under Armour and who were damaged thereby.

The Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have added no new factual
allegations and still fail to plead scienter as to either Plank or
the Company, the only two remaining defendants.  

The Defendants further contend that Plaintiffs have attempted to
address the deficiencies in their pleadings by adding declarations
from expert witnesses to support their conclusions.

The Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
has not cured the prior complaint's pleading inadequacies, and they
fail to plead an actionable misrepresentation or omission and also
still fail to adequately allege scienter. The PSLRA's heightened
pleading standard is applicable to these two elements.  

Material Misrepresentations or Omissions

The complaint must include each statement alleged to have been
misleading, the reason why the statement is misleading, and if an
allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on
information and belief, the complaint shall state with
particularity all facts on which that belief is formed. In its
prior decision, this Court, viewing the factual allegations as
true, as it must under the dismissal standard, concluded that
although many of Plaintiffs' allegations did not represent
actionable misrepresentations, Plaintiffs made a plausible claim
under the analysis of the alleged partial disclosures, and there
were also some allegations of statements regarding the financial
outlook for 2016 that satisfied the pleading requirement. It is
unnecessary to perform another thorough analysis on this element.

As before, there are sufficient allegations pled to move forward to
the second of the six elements: scienter.

Scienter

To establish scienter, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant
acted with a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate,
or defraud. Although pleading either intentional or severely
reckless conduct is sufficient to allege scienter, a plaintiff must
satisfy the exacting pleading requirements set forth in the PSLRA
as well as Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Indeed, pleading a strong inference of scienter is no small burden.


To survive a motion to dismiss in a Section 10(b) complaint, the
inference of scienter must be more than merely reasonable or
permissible it must be cogent and compelling, thus strong in light
of other explanations. The plaintiff must plead facts rendering an
inference of scienter at least as likely as any plausible opposing
inference.

Plaintiffs had originally sued Under Armour and three individuals:
Plank, and two former Chief Financial Officers. In the Second
Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs sue only Under Armour and Plank. Each
shall be addressed in turn.

Plank

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs once again fail to provide any
corroborating factual allegations to support their allegation that
Plank knew his statements were false or misleading at the time he
made them. Defendants also assert that the allegations of motive
based on Plank's stock sales are insufficient to support a strong
inference of scienter.  

In the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, allegations have been
added to demonstrate that the SportScan data cited in the Morgan
Stanley Report was both reliable and materially consistent with
Under Armour's internal data. Plaintiffs assert that these
allegations give rise to an inference that Plank and Under Armour
knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Company was experiencing
undisclosed declining demand for the Company's core apparel
products and, as a result, had resorted to pursuing high volume,
low-priced sales, which caused declining ASPs, reduced margins and
excess inventory. Plaintiffs also argue that it is implausible to
suggest that Plank was not monitoring the Company's performance
using its internal accounting system and regular reports.  

Certainly, now that Plank is the only individual defendant being
sued, the Plaintiffs' complaint no longer presents this Court with
the prior complaint's group pleading problems. Therefore, this
Court will focus on the holistic view of the scienter pleadings,
taking into account plausible opposing inferences, but not parsing
out each allegation for individual analysis.  

In a nutshell, Plaintiffs' allegations paint a picture that Plank,
although he had access to contradictory information, recklessly
told investors that Under Armour's core business was incredibly
strong, profitable, and gaining market share, while the Company was
shifting from a premium brand focus to competing on price, which
Plank knew would result in a decline in the Company's market share
and stock price. Plaintiffs add allegations that Plank did this for
the purpose of keeping the stock price artificially inflated so
that he could sell large quantities of his own stock for $138
million in profit before the truth was revealed regarding the
Company's sales decline and loss of market share, which caused the
stock prices to drop.

Defendants counter that Plank's stock sales were neither unusual
nor suspicious but were made according to a pre-announced plan that
was part of a long-term strategy to increase liquidity without
diluting his control, and he continues to hold 95% of the Company's
stock so he has experienced the same decline in value. Defendants
argue that the most plausible inference of the alleged facts is
that the Company, which had experienced years of robust growth
continuing late into the Class Period, hit an unexpected slowdown.


Defendants generally assert that there are simply insufficient
facts pled to create a strong or compelling inference that Plank
had the intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud investors. This
Court accepts that Plaintiffs' allegations may be sufficient to
state a facially plausible claim under a typical dismissal
standard, but plausibility in a vacuum is not enough in the PSLRA
context.

To survive a dismissal motion, a securities fraud complaint must do
more than state a facially plausible claim under Iqbal and Twombly
because the sufficiency of the allegations must be scrutinized
under the heightened pleading requirements set forth in the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, which was intended to stiffen the
requirements for securities lawsuits and make pleading scienter
more difficult for plaintiffs.

Therefore, if a court finds the inference that the defendants acted
innocently, or even negligently, more compelling than the inference
that they acted with the requisite scienter, the complaint should
be dismissed.  

Plaintiffs have attempted to boost their allegations with opinions
from experts regarding the contemporaneous data that must have been
available to Plank and the suspicious timing of Plank's stock
sales. As stated above, this Court does not credit these external
opinions on whether the allegations present a cogent and compelling
inference of scienter. After consideration of all the alleged facts
and inferences, this Court concludes that the most reasonable
likely inference to be drawn is that Plank interpreted the data
that was available to him through the lens of the Company's
consistent success to date, attributed any non-conforming data to
typical retail market challenges, and assumed the Company would
continue to rise above such challenges as it had always done in the
past. It is possible that Plank was negligent by not paying more
attention to non-conforming and negative sales data earlier than he
did, but there is no strong or compelling inference of deliberately
intentional misconduct or such severe recklessness that it rises to
the level of fraud. Marketing and management mistakes that result
in a stock price decline do not typically equate to securities
fraud.  

Viewed in its entirety, the Second Amended Complaint fails to
present a cogent or compelling theory that Plank acted with the
requisite scienter. Count I against Defendant Plank shall be
dismissed.

The Company

Defendants also assert that Plaintiffs' corporate scienter theory
is deficient. Plaintiffs assert that even if Plank did not act with
scienter, the Second Amended Complaint still adequately alleges
scienter as to Under Armour on the basis of non-Defendant
employees' scienter. Plaintiffs allege that numerous senior
executives, including Under Armour's Chief Product Officer Kip
Fulks (Fulks) and Senior Vice President Brian Cummings (Cummings)
had knowledge of, or recklessly disregarded, adverse facts
concealed by Defendants' Class Period misrepresentations.  

Plaintiffs allege that the Company's senior management, including
Fulks and Cummings, had knowledge of declining demand, excess
inventory, and margin compression. Plaintiffs also allege that
Cummings orchestrated a deal with a customer to order products it
didn't want with the promise that they could be returned, and that
80% of more of the products were returned.

However, there are no allegations that Fulks or Cummings provided
information that was used in a misleading public statement, and
there are no allegations that Fulks or Cummings were involved with
the issuance of misstatements to the public.

Therefore, there is a failure to allege that the corporate agents
took any actions that would subject the corporation to liability.
Plaintiffs assert that scienter by management-level employees is
generally sufficient to attribute scienter to corporate defendants.
However, although Plaintiffs make a conclusory statement that the
executives had the requisite scienter, Plaintiffs make no factual
allegations that the corporate agents acted with scienter.

The Second Amended Complaint fails to allege scienter that can be
imputed to Under Armour. Count I against Defendant Under Armour
shall be dismissed with prejudice.

Section 20(a)

Section 20(a) provides for derivative liability for those who
control others found to be primarily liable under the Act.  A claim
of control person liability must allege a predicate violation of
Section 10(b). As stated above, this Court has concluded that
Plaintiffs failed to plead a viable underlying 10(b) or Rule 10b-5
violation by Plank or the Company. Since Plaintiffs must
successfully allege a predicate violation of the Act in order to
proceed under Section 20(a), failure of the scienter allegations of
the Section 10(b) claim is fatal to Plaintiffs' Section 20(a)
claim.

Therefore, Count II shall be dismissed with prejudice.

Section 20A

In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs have added a Count III,
For Violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act Against Defendant
Plank. Section 20A provides for a private right of action to buyers
and sellers of securities who trade contemporaneously with an
insider in possession of material nonpublic information.  

This Court has concluded that Plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead
scienter to support a claim against Plank for securities fraud.
With no primary violation of the Exchange Act to support a Section
20A claim, it must also fail. Therefore, Count III shall be
dismissed with prejudice.

A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y2badgsl
from Leagle.com.

Brian Breece, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. Piven, Brower Piven,
A Professional Corporation, Yelena Trepetin, Brower Piven A
Professional Corporation, 125 Old Valley Road, Stevenson, Maryland
21153, Austin P. Brane -abrane@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher R. Kinnon-
ckinnon@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Elizabeth A. Shonson -- eshonson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Mark J. Dearman --
mdearman@rgrdlaw. com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Robert R. Henssler, Jr. -- bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen R. Astley
-- SAstley@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice &William Nelson Sinclair -- bsinclair@mdattorney.com --
Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White LLC.

Under Armour, Inc., Defendant, represented by G. Stewart Webb, Jr.
-- gswebb@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, James D. Wareham --
james.wareham@friedfrank.com -- Fried Frank Harris Shriver &
Jacobson LLP, Samuel P. Groner -- samuel.groner@friedfrank.com --
Fried Frank Harris Shriver and Jacobson LLP, pro hac vice, Michael
P. Sternheim -- michael.sternheim@friedfrank.com -- Fried Frank
Harris Shriver and Jacobson LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Jackman
Wilson -- mjwilson@Venable.com -- Venable LLP.

Kevin A. Plank, Defendant, represented by Scott R. Haiber --
scott.haiber@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Jon Myer
Talotta -- jon.talotta@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP,
pro hac vice.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Court OKs Derivative Litigation Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued an Opinion granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned IN RE UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES,
INC., DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. Civil Action No. 17-2187.(E.D. Pa.).

Nominal Defendant1 Universal Health Services (UHS) is the largest
provider of behavioral health services in the United States. UHS
shareholders began filing shareholder derivative suits on behalf of
the company, claiming that alleged misconduct at UHS behavioral
health facilities was affecting the price of UHS shares.

First, in Count I, Plaintiffs allege that Individual Defendants
knowingly or recklessly made materially false or misleading
statements and omissions about UHS's financial position in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5, which was promulgated pursuant to Section
10(b).

In Count II, Plaintiffs allege that Individual Defendants, by
virtue of stock ownership and their positions of control in the
company, violated Section 20(A) of the Securities and Exchange Act.


Next, in Count III, Plaintiffs claim that under Delaware law,
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the company.


In Count IV, Plaintiffs allege that Individual Defendants committed
constructive fraud under Delaware law by failing to ensure that the
company disclosed true facts about its business.  
In Count V, Plaintiffs claim that the alleged improper conduct of
Individual Defendants amounts to corporate waste under Delaware
law.  

In Count VI, Plaintiffs bring a state law claim of unjust
enrichment, alleging that Individual Defendants unjustly enriched
themselves at the expense of the company.  

Finally, in Count VII, Plaintiffs allege that certain Individual
Defendants, referred to as Insider Trading Defendants, violated the
fiduciary duty they owed to the company under state law by engaging
in insider trading.

Count I - Securities Fraud Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5

In Count I of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that
Individual Defendants knowingly or recklessly made materially false
or misleading statements or omissions about the company in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5, which was promulgated pursuant to Section 10(b).  

In this case, Defendants submit that Plaintiffs have failed to
plead a material misrepresentation, scienter, reliance, and loss
causation.  

First, with respect to false and misleading statements, a complaint
must specify each statement alleged to have been misleading, the
reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, and, if an
allegation is made on information and belief state with
particularity all facts on which that belief is formed.

Second, the PSLRA enhances the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 9(b) which provides that in alleging fraud or
mistake a party must state with particularity the circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake and requires the plaintiff to state
with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the
defendant acted with the required state of mind. A strong inference
of scienter must be more than merely plausible or reasonable it
must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference
of nonfraudulent intent.

Here, Plaintiffs have not pled particularized facts under the PSLRA
and Rule 9(b) that demonstrate that Defendants did not honestly
believe that UHS was in substantial compliance with state and
federal standards. Although a small number of UHS facilities
experienced compliance issues, it does not appear that these issues
pervaded the entire company. At the height of the federal
investigation, it appears that at least twenty-five behavioral
health facilities were under investigation. But this number
represents only a small percentage of the total number of UHS
behavioral health facilities. Indeed, by the time the Amended
Complaint was filed, UHS operated over 300 such facilities.  

Further, according to Mr. Herrell, in 2013, 40% of UHS behavioral
health facilities were awarded Top Performer Status for Quality and
Safety. Based on these facts, Defendants had a reasonable basis for
believing that the company was in substantial compliance with state
and federal regulations. Thus, the third set of statements are not
actionable.

Because these three sets of statements are not actionable, the
Court need not determine whether Plaintiffs have pleaded scienter,
reliance, or loss causation. Significantly, due to the fact that
Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for securities fraud under
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, they have not demonstrated that the
Board faced a substantial threat of personal liability from this
claim.

Count II - Securities Fraud Under Section 20(A)

In Count II, Plaintiffs allege that Individual Defendants, by
virtue of their position of control over the company, violated
Section 20(A) of the Securities and Exchange Act.

Because Plaintiffs have failed to plead that Individual Defendants
violated Section 10(b), they have likewise failed to state a claim
under Section 20(A). As a result, Plaintiffs have not established
that the Board faced a substantial threat of personal liability
from the claim in Count II.

Count VII - Breach of Fiduciary Duty Based on Insider Trading

In Count VII of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that from
January 16, 2013 to March 8, 2017, Defendants Alan Miller, Marc
Miller, Pantaleoni, Herrell, Hotz, Gibbs, Filton, and Osteen, the
Insider Trading Defendants, collectively sold $29,686,911.13 of UHS
common stock while in possession of material, non-public
information in violation of federal securities laws.  

According to the Amended Complaint, these sales placed the Insider
Trading Defendants' shares onto the open market at artificially
inflated prices at a time when the Board was causing the Company to
repurchase those shares and as a result, UHS overpaid by more than
estimated $29.7 million for those shares.

Here, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing a
substantial likelihood of liability for insider trading on the part
of Insider Trading Defendants for several reasons. First,
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Board knew of or directed
the material, non-public information that forms the bedrock of this
claim. As emphasized repeatedly throughout this Opinion, Plaintiffs
have not pled particularized facts that demonstrate that any of the
Individual Defendants, including the Insider Trading Defendants,
knew of and/or were engaging in a scheme to cause the Company to
defraud the U.S. and individual state health care systems due to
their illicit over-admission of patients and billing such
government entities for their purported services.

Further, even if Plaintiffs had successfully established that
Individual Defendants knew about or engaged in the alleged
misconduct, much of this misconduct was publicly disclosed in the
company's filings. As noted above, UHS disclosed the qui tam
lawsuits and the state and federal investigations in its SEC
filings. The letters, Mr. Herrell's response to the letters, and
the Buzzfeed articles were also public.

Finally, Plaintiffs' insider trading allegations are not
sufficiently particularized to show a substantial likelihood of
liability against Insider Trading Defendants. For example, the
Amended Complaint states that Insider Trading Defendants' trades
were inconsistent with past trading patterns and suspicious in
their timing and amount. But fatally, they fail to demonstrate this
point by citing to examples of past trades for comparison. Without
such allegations, it is wholly unclear where the inconsistencies
lie and how they support an insider trading claim.

Additionally, the Amended Complaint alleges that Insider Trading
Defendants sold their shares, placing them into the open market, at
artificially inflated prices and at a time when the Board was
causing the Company to repurchase those same shares. According to
Plaintiffs, this timing was suspicious. But Plaintiffs provide no
particularized information about the Board's decisions, it is
unclear when these decisions were made, when the repurchases
occurred, or how much stock the company was authorized to
repurchase. Instead, Plaintiffs merely offer a boilerplate
allegation that the timing was suspicious and expect the Court to
fill in the blanks.

Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege a breach of fiduciary
duty claim based on insider trading, and therefore have not
demonstrated that this claim exposes the Board to a substantial
threat of personal liability.

Count III - State Law Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim

In Count III, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty, including acting without
good faith, by knowingly failing to supervise Universal and causing
the company to violate the False Claims Act and the federal
securities laws. They further allege that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by willfully and/or recklessly
engaging in a scheme to cause the Company to defraud the U.S. and
individual state health care systems due to their illicit
over-admitting of patients and billing such government entities for
their purported services.

Count III is entirely premised on the allegation that Individual
Defendants ignored red flags that should have alerted them to the
alleged misconduct occurring at UHS behavioral health facilities.
In other words, Plaintiffs' theory of liability in Count III
mirrors Plaintiffs' Caremarkclaims, discussed supra. Indeed, in
Paragraph 317 of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that
Individual Defendants were repeatedly informed through litigation
updates, investigation updates, and letters from concerned
shareholders and an employee union that the Company's practices
violated positive law and lacked sufficient internal controls to
properly enforce compliance with the law, but failed to remedy the
alleged misconduct.  

As noted in the Caremark section, Plaintiffs have failed to plead
that the Board acted in bad faith by ignoring red flags that should
have put them on notice of alleged misconduct at UHS behavioral
health facilities. For this reason, Plaintiffs have also failed to
state a claim in Count III and have failed to establish that the
conduct alleged in this claim exposes the Board to a substantial
threat of personal liability.

Count IV - State Law Constructive Fraud Claim

In Count IV, Plaintiffs bring a state law claim of constructive
fraud, alleging that Individual Defendants caused Universal to
violate the False Claims Act and to make numerous
misrepresentations to and/or conceal material facts from
Universal's shareholders, despite the Individual Defendants' duties
to ensure the Company disclosed true facts regarding the Company's
business and their control of the Company.

Delaware courts have held that the term constructive fraud is used
to describe a breach of fiduciary duty and not separate tort. Thus,
courts have dismissed claims for constructive fraud where the
conduct alleged in support of the claim simply repeats the
allegations pled in support of a breach of fiduciary duty claim.  

Here, the conduct alleged to support the constructive fraud claim
in Count IV is identical to the conduct pled to support the breach
of fiduciary claim in Count III. Thus, because the Court has found
that Count III fails to state a claim, Count IV also fails to state
a claim. For this reason, the conduct alleged in Count IV does not
expose the Board to a substantial threat of personal liability.

Count V - State Law Corporate Waste Claim

In Count V, Plaintiffs bring a state law corporate waste claim
against Individual Defendants, alleging that by rewarding
themselves through the payment of outsized incentive compensation
while causing Universal to violate the False Claims Act, and by
facilitating the insider sales by Insider Trading Defendants, the
Individual Defendants have caused Universal to waste valuable
corporate assets.

The test for corporate waste is stringent; indeed, to prevail on a
waste claim the plaintiff must overcome the general presumption of
good faith by showing that the board's decision was so egregious or
irrational that it could not have been based on a valid assessment
of the corporation's best interests.

Here, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim of corporate waste
because the claim is entirely premised on their claims that
Individual Defendants' breached their fiduciary duties. Indeed,
Plaintiffs claim that Individual Defendants committed waste (1) by
paying salaries to directors and officers who committed breaches of
fiduciary duties by knowing about or engaging in the alleged
misconduct, and (2) by paying salaries to directors and officers
who allegedly committed breaches of fiduciary duties by engaging in
insider trading.

Having determined that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient
facts which would allow the Court to draw the reasonable inference
that the Board faces a substantial likelihood of liability on the
breach of fiduciary duty claims, the Court similarly finds that
Plaintiffs have failed to allege a claim of corporate waste.

Count VI - State Law Unjust Enrichment Claim

Finally, in Count VI, Plaintiffs allege a state law unjust
enrichment claim, claiming that as a result of the conduct
described in the Amended Complaint, the Individual Defendants will
be, and have been, unjustly enriched at the expense of the Company
and its shareholders. More specifically, they allege that
Individual Defendants granted, authorized, approved, and/or
received tens of millions of dollars in outsized executive
compensation that was paid to them only as a result of their having
caused Universal to defraud the U.S. and individual state health
care systems by illicitly over-admitting patients and then billing
the U.S. government for their so-called services.

Under Delaware law, a claim for unjust enrichment has five
elements: (1) an enrichment (2) an impoverishment (3) a relation
between the enrichment and impoverishment (4) absence of
justification, and (5) the absence of a remedy.

Here, Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is based on the same
allegations as their breach of fiduciary duty claim. That is, they
claim that as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties,
Individual Defendants were unjustly enriched. Without a successful
a fiduciary duty claim, the unjust enrichment claim cannot survive.
For that reason, Count VI fails to state a claim against any
Individual Defendant. Therefore, Count VI does not expose any
member of the Board to a substantial threat of personal liability.

The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs have pled particularized
facts under Rule 23.1 that raise a reasonable doubt that the Board
was not disinterested, such that making a pre-suit demand would
have been futile.

Plaintiffs Have Failed to Plead Particularized Facts that Create a
Reasonable Doubt that a Majority of the UHS Board Lacked
Independence

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate demand
futility because the Amended Complaint lacks particularized facts
that create a reasonable doubt that a majority of the Board was not
disinterested or that a majority Board was not independent. Having
concluded that Plaintiffs failed to show that a majority of the
Board was not disinterested, the Court now turns to the question of
whether Plaintiffs have pled particularized facts that raise a
reasonable doubt that a majority of the Board was not independent.

In the context of a pre-suit demand, the burden is upon the
plaintiff in a derivative action to overcome that presumption. At
the pleading stage, a court must evaluate whether a plaintiff has
alleged particularized facts that create a reasonable doubt of a
director's independence in order to rebut the presumption.  

In this case, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Alan Miller, the
company's CEO and Chairman of the Board, is an interested director,
and that the remaining members of the Board are beholden to Alan
Miller, such that they are not independent. As noted earlier, there
are seven members of the UHS Board of Directors. During the time
period relevant to the misconduct alleged in this case, the
following Individual Defendants sat on the Board: Alan Miller, Marc
Miller, Lawrence Gibbs, Robert Hotz, Anthony Pantaleoni, Eileen
McDonnell, and John Herrell. Again, these Individual Defendants are
referred to as Director Defendants.

Through their control of the company's Class A and Class C stock,
Alan and Marc Miller have enough voting power to elect five of the
seven directors on the Board. Since 2006, when Marc Miller joined
the Board of Directors, the Millers have occupied two of those five
seats. Plaintiffs allege that the remaining three directors
maintain his/her directorship only at the pleasure of Defendants
Alan and Marc Miller, and thus are not truly independent. Thus,
Plaintiffs contend that at least five out of seven, or a majority,
of Directors are beholden to Alan Miller and therefore lack the
requisite independence to consider a pre-suit demand impartially.

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs' independence argument fails
because, as explained supra, the Amended Complaint lacks
particularized facts that demonstrate that Alan Miller, or any
member of the Board, is an interested director. For that reason
alone, the contention that the majority of the Board lacks
independence because they are beholden to Alan Miller fails.

Plaintiffs have failed to plead particularized facts that raise a
reasonable doubt that a majority of the Board lacked independence.
Nor does the Amended Complaint contain particularized facts that
raise a reasonable doubt that the Board was not disinterested. As a
result, Plaintiffs have not established demand futility under Rule
23.1 and Delaware law. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
will be granted and the Amended Complaint will be dismissed in its
entirety.

A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3j9kbv8 from
Leagle.com.

CENTRAL LABORERS' PENSION FUND, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSAL
HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, represented by BENNY C. GOODMAN,
III -- bennyg@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, ERIK
WILLIAM LUEDEKE -- eluedeke@rgrdlaw.com -ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &
DOWD LLP, JOHN C. HERMAN -- jherman@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP & SHERYL L. AXELROD --
saxelrod@theaxelrodfirm.com -- THE AXELROD FIRM LLC.

AMALGAMATED BANK LONGVIEW FUNDS, Plaintiff, represented by SHERYL
L. AXELROD , THE AXELROD FIRM LLC, JONATHAN M. ZIMMERMAN --
JZIMMERMAN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- SCOTT SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP,
JUDITH S. SCOLNICK -- jscolnick@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT & SCOTT
LLP & THOMAS L. LAUGHLIN, IV  -- tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT
& SCOTT LLP.

UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES INC & ALAN B. MILLER, Defendants,
represented by DAVID HUNTER SMITH -- hsmith@robbinsrussell.com --
ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, ORSECK, UNTEREINER & SAUBER LLP, GARY A.
ORSECK -- gorseck@robbinsrussell.com -- ROBBINS RUSSELL ENGLERT
ORSECK UNTEREINER & SAUBER LLP, MATTHEW M. MADDEN --
mmadden@robbinsrussell.com -- ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, ORSECK,
UNTEREINER & SAUBER LLP, JASON H. WILSON , MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
LLP & STEVEN A. REED -steven.reed@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Court OKs Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued an Opinion granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned TEAMSTERS LOCAL 456 PENSION FUND, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 17-2817. (E.D. Pa.).

Buzzfeed News (Buzzfeed) published an article that alleged that UHS
behavioral health facilities were committing insurance fraud by (1)
admitting healthy patients not in need of inpatient treatment to
UHS behavioral health facilities by falsely stating that they were
suicidal (2) improperly lengthening patients' stays in UHS
behavioral health facilities and (3) chronically understaffing
those facilities to maximize profits.

Plaintiff David Heed, a UHS shareholder, filed the present federal
securities class action alleging that Defendants knowingly or
recklessly made materially false and misleading statements about
UHS practices and procedures and failed to disclose that the
Behavioral Health Division relied on revenue from illegal and
unethical conduct.

In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants submit that Lead Plaintiffs'
allegations are not sufficiently particularized under the PSLRA to
state a claim under any of these three provisions. They advance
three arguments in support of their position.

They first argue that Lead Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts
sufficient to show that Defendants' public statements were
materially false or misleading.  

Second, they submit that Plaintiffs failed to plead the element of
scienter, that is, they claim that Lead Plaintiffs did not
sufficiently allege that Defendants Miller or Filton acted
knowingly or recklessly when they made the allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions.

Third, Defendants argue that Lead Plaintiffs failed to plead the
element of loss causation.
Lead Plaintiffs Have Failed to State a Claim Under Section 10(b) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

In Count I of the Amended Complaint, Lead Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants' public statements during the Class Period violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Act) and
Rule 10b-5, which was promulgated by the SEC pursuant to authority
granted by Section 10(b).  

Section 10(b) makes it unlawful to use or employ, in connection
with the purchase or sale of any security a manipulative or
deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and
regulations as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may
prescribe.

To prevail on a claim that a defendant made material
misrepresentations or omissions in violation of Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff must prove (1) a material misrepresentation
or omission by the defendant (2) scienter  (3) a connection between
the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a
security (4) reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission (5)
economic loss and (6) loss causation.

In this case, as in most, the parties' arguments relate to only
three elements: a material misstatement or omission, scienter, and
loss causation. The Court will address these three elements in
turn.

Alleged Material Misrepresentations and Omissions

The Court will first address Defendants' argument that Lead
Plaintiffs have failed to plead any material misstatement or
omission.  

First, Lead Plaintiffs cite to the six qui tam lawsuits filed
before the start of the Class Period by former UHS employees and
patients. These lawsuits, which were either settled or dismissed,
never resulted in any findings of liability against UHS. But they
are significant because they alleged remarkably similar conduct at
five different UHS facilities, all located in different parts of
the country.

Second, Lead Plaintiffs point to the CtW letter, which echoed the
qui tam allegations. As noted above, the CtW letter claimed that an
independent review of Medicare data revealed that UHS free-standing
inpatient psychiatric facilities (IPFs) utilize the suicidal
ideation code much more frequently than other free-standing IPFs.

Third, sometime in 2012 or 2013, the federal government commenced a
civil investigation into the billing practices of several UHS
behavioral health facilities that eventually expanded into a
coordinated civil and criminal investigation into 15 facilities and
UHS as a corporate entity.  

Fourth, Lead Plaintiffs cite extensively to the allegations made in
Buzzfeed I, which apparently was the result of interviews with 175
current and former UHS employees, including 18 UHS executives who
managed inpatient behavioral health facilities.  

These allegations are relevant to whether Lead Plaintiffs
sufficiently alleged misconduct for two reasons. First, Buzzfeed I
is based on interviews from a wide array of employees and patients,
all of whom had first-hand knowledge of UHS behavioral health
facilities' practices. Second, these employees and patients all
reported that similar misconduct occurred at geographically diverse
behavioral health facilities.

Finally, the statements of the anonymous former employees must be
considered. These ten employees allege highly particularized facts
about billing and admittance practices at individual UHS behavioral
health facilities.

From all these allegations, as set forth in the Amended Complaint,
and when viewing them in the light most favorable to Lead
Plaintiffs, it is evident that numerous employees have described
misconduct at UHS behavioral health facilities with the requisite
particularity. Despite the anonymity of a considerable number of
the employees mentioned by Lead Plaintiffs in the Amended
Complaint, the allegations of misconduct are plausible.

Here, as noted above, Lead Plaintiffs have cited highly
particularized details about the former employees. The Amended
Complaint states where they worked, how long they worked there, and
the positions they held.  Given the highly particularized and
strongly corroborative nature of these allegations, the Court is
convinced that Lead Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that
individual UHS behavioral health facilities improperly admitted
patients and lengthened patient stays.

Having concluded that Defendants' statements at the health care
conferences put the source of UHS's success in play, the Court now
turns to whether those statements are sufficiently connected to the
omission alleged by Lead Plaintiffs, such that failure to disclose
the alleged omission would render Defendants' statements false and
misleading. As explained above, Lead Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants omitted to disclose that individual UHS behavioral
health facilities improperly admitted patients and improperly
lengthened patient stays to maximize insurance reimbursements.

In addition, Lead Plaintiffs claim that Defendants misled investors
by reporting financial results without disclosing the alleged
misconduct. These alleged omissions are sufficiently connected to
Defendants' statements about the source of the company's
performance. If true, the alleged misconduct would directly
contradict Defendants' representations that UHS behavioral health
facilities have such high demand that they routinely turn away
clinically admissible patients. Such information would clearly
alter the mix of information available to the public regarding the
source of UHS's revenue and the success of the company's Behavioral
Health Division.

In sum, Defendants' statements at pre-article health care
conferences attributing the source of the Behavioral Health
Division's success to demand that was so high that facilities
turned away clinically admissible patients are actionable. These
statements put the source of the Behavioral Health Division's
performance in play by affirmatively characterizing that source as
high occupancy rates at UHS facilities, driven by persistent,
burgeoning demand. These statements are sufficiently connected to
the omission alleged by Lead Plaintiffs. Indeed, if the misconduct
alleged by Lead Plaintiffs is true, Defendants' failure to disclose
that misconduct would render the statements regarding the source of
the company's success false and misleading.

Thus, viewing the allegations in the Amended Complaint in the light
most favorable to the Lead Plaintiffs, the Court is persuaded that
Lead Plaintiffs have alleged sufficiently particularized facts to
plausibly show a material omission with regard to the statements
made about the source of the Behavioral Health Division's success
at health care conferences prior to December 7, 2016. For this
reason, these statements are actionable.

Scienter Has Not Been Sufficiently Pled

Next, the Court turns to whether the Amended Complaint contains
sufficiently particularized allegations of scienter.

To establish liability under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a
private plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with
scienter, a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate,
or defraud. Scienter may be established by showing that the
defendant intended to mislead investors or that the defendant acted
recklessly in the face of a danger of misleading investors. Thus,
to demonstrate scienter, a plaintiff must show that the defendants
acted consciously or recklessly when making the two sets of
actionable statements, as set forth above.  

Here, the Court will first consider whether Lead Plaintiffs have
pled that Defendants Miller and Filton, the individual Defendants,
acted with scienter. Second, the Court will address the doctrine of
corporate scienter, as it applies to Defendant UHS.

Defendants Alan B. Miller, the Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Office, and Steve G. Filton, the Chief Financial Officer

Here, Lead Plaintiffs have not submitted any smoking gun evidence
with respect to Mr. Miller or Mr. Filton. That is, they have not
proffered any direct evidence that Mr. Miller or Mr. Filton knew of
or recklessly disregarded any improper misconduct when they made
statements about the source of the Behavioral Health Division's
growth or when they denied the allegations in the Buzzfeed article.
There are no allegations that these individuals participated in the
misconduct, heard about the misconduct from internal sources, or
instructed others to engage in misconduct. But, as noted above, the
United States Supreme Court has emphasized that a plaintiff need
not produce such smoking-gun evidence to establish scienter.

Thus, the Court's inquiry ultimately rests not on the presence or
absence of certain types of allegations but on a practical judgment
about whether, accepting the whole factual picture painted by the
Amended Complaint, it is at least as likely as not that defendants
acted with scienter.

In the absence of direct evidence, Lead Plaintiffs' claims are
premised on an array of circumstantial evidence to raise an
inference of scienter. To start, Lead Plaintiffs point to the qui
tam lawsuits that were filed by former UHS employees prior to the
start of the Class Period. As noted above, at least six qui tam
lawsuits were filed against UHS before 2015. In one suit, Dr.
Steven Klotz, a former psychiatrist at the Roxbury Treatment
Facility in Pennsylvania, alleged that UHS falsely and fraudulently
coded patients as suicidal, when the chart did not reflect a
likelihood of patient suicide, in order to increase occupancy
levels at UHS facilities.  

Another lawsuit alleged that nurses at UHS behavioral health
facility in Virginia were trained to provoke residents to justify
longer lengths of stays, and a lawsuit in connection with a
facility in California alleged that nurses were instructed to make
notes in patients' charts using exaggerated buzz words like
agitated, irritated, aggressive, resisting, uncooperative, etc.,
because doing this increases the amount of money the government
would pay for the patient's care.

To combat Lead Plaintiffs' allegations, Defendants cite to Bartesch
v. Cook, a case in which a court in this Circuit found that qui tam
lawsuits cannot form the basis of securities fraud liability. 941
F.Supp.2d 501, 507 (D. Del. 2013). In that case, shareholders
brought a securities fraud lawsuit against an energy company,
alleging that the company made material misstatements and omissions
about certain operational failures and developments. In support of
the claim, the shareholders cited to a single qui tam lawsuit that
had been filed against the company. Allegations from the qui tam
action were copied in the securities fraud complaint. The court,
however, found that the single qui tam lawsuit did not raise a
strong inference of scienter, reasoning as follows:

The qui tam complaint is also an unreliable source. It is devoid of
any information concerning the qui tam plaintiff's relationship to
the defendant company or whether the plaintiff has firsthand
knowledge of his allegations against the defendant company. As
other courts in the Third Circuit have held, it is not appropriate
for the Court to give weight to the allegations in a qui tam case,
because such allegations are unproven and contested and do not
amount to facts sufficient to establish a strong inference of
scienter.

Notwithstanding these distinguishing factors, the Court cannot
ignore the fact that the allegations raised in the qui tam cases
are just that allegations. None of the qui tam lawsuits resulted in
findings against UHS. Liability was not admitted, and thus, the
allegations made in those suits remain unsubstantiated. For this
reason, the Court is not persuaded by Lead Plaintiffs' contention
that the qui tam lawsuits constitute evidence that Mr. Miller or
Mr. Filton knew about the alleged billing scheme. At most, the
lawsuits demonstrate that the individual Defendants were aware of
allegations circling the Behavioral Health Division; they do not
show that Mr. Miller or Mr. Filton knew the allegations to be true
or recklessly disregarded them.

Lead Plaintiffs claim that the inferences of scienter raised by the
qui tam lawsuits, the investor letter, the government
investigation, and Buzzfeed I are corroborated and bolstered by the
accounts of the ten anonymous former UHS employees. As noted above,
these ten employees confirmed that UHS facilities engaged in
widespread improper admission practices, misleading patients and
fabricating symptoms to justify institutionalizing them. Lead
Plaintiffs claim that these accounts all independently corroborate
that Defendants engaged in a massive, Company-wide and
reprehensible admissions scheme at UHS facilities across the
country.

The allegations regarding the confidential former employees, which
the Court found reliable in a preceding section, span thirty-seven
(37) paragraphs in the Amended Complaint. These paragraphs are
laden with allegations that senior officers, corporate bosses, UHS
executives,UHS executive management, corporate, and the highest
levels of corporate management knew about the billing scheme or
directed UHS employees to effectuate the scheme. But noticeably
absent from the Amended Complaint are specific allegations that
either Mr. Miller or Mr. Filton were involved in the misconduct.
Their names are never mentioned in these accounts. Even testimony
from a facility CEO who would have had contact with UHS corporate
executives does not affirmatively link the misconduct to Mr. Miller
or Mr. Filton. Thus, while the testimony from the former employees
is enough to raise an inference of misconduct at several UHS
behavioral health facilities, they are not enough to raise an
inference of scienter.

Lead Plaintiffs claim that the qui tam lawsuits, the CtW letter,
the government investigations, Buzzfeed I, and the testimony of the
former UHS employees all demonstrate that Mr. Miller and Mr. Filton
either knew about the existence of the alleged misconduct or
recklessly disregarded significant red flags that demonstrated the
existence of the alleged billing scheme. On the other hand,
Defendants posit that the qui tam suits, the CtW letter, the
investigations, Buzzfeed I, and the employees' testimony are
unsubstantiated allegations that do not prove that Mr. Miller or
Mr. Filton knew of or recklessly disregarded anything. To the
contrary, Defendants submit that these matters demonstrate that UHS
acknowledged the existence of the allegations, investigated them,
and determined that they were unfounded.

Having reviewed the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Court
is not convinced that Lead Plaintiffs have pled facts that raise a
strong inference of scienter. Based on the allegations, it is clear
that Mr. Miller and Mr. Filton were likely aware that allegations
of misconduct at individual facilities existed. What is not clear
or plausible from the confluence of the allegations is that Mr.
Miller or Mr. Filton knew the allegations to be true or
participated in the misconduct at the time the actionable
statements were made. In fact, the Board's behavior suggests the
opposite. In the letter sent to CtW, the Board clearly stated that
the independent contractors employed by the company to audit the
suicidal ideation data found nothing fraudulent about UHS's billing
practices.

Lead Plaintiffs' claim is made more improbable by the fact that
each UHS behavioral health facility operates under its own
leadership, including a chief executive officer, chief financial
officer, and compliance staff. Each facility also has its own
governance board, which includes members of the facility's medical
and professional staff. Each governance board is responsible for
the facility's medical, clinical, and ethical practices. Although
the corporate office regularly monitors each facility's quarterly
performance, day-to-day operations like admitting patients,
charting, and coding are monitored by the individual facility's
executives. Thus, while it is likely that the Board of Directors
knew about the allegations raised in the qui tam suits, the
investor letter, the government investigations, and Buzzfeed I, it
is not plausible that Mr. Miller and Mr. Filton were micromanaging
a handful of facilities with compliance issues. For this reason,
Lead Plaintiffs' core business theory is unpersuasive.

Having reviewed the allegations in the Amended Complaint as a
whole,  the Court is not convinced that Lead Plaintiffs have pled
particularized facts sufficient to raise a strong inference of
scienter against Mr. Miller or Mr. Filton, as required by the
PSLRA. Even viewed in the light most favorable to Lead Plaintiffs,
the allegations proffered in the Amended Complaint do not
demonstrate that Mr. Miller or Mr. Filton acted consciously or
recklessly when they made statements about the source of the
Behavioral Health Division's revenue or when they denied the
allegations raised in Buzzfeed I and other complaints received by
the company. Any inferences of scienter are outweighed by the
plausible, nonculpable explanation that Mr. Miller and Mr. Filton
acknowledged concerns about the billing scheme, investigated the
matter, but determined that the concerns were unfounded.

Accordingly, the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint fail to
raise the requisite inference of scienter against the individual
Defendants. Next, the Court will consider the applicability of the
doctrine of corporate scienter to this case.

Defendant UHS

In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendants contend that because Miller
and Filton are alleged to have made each of the alleged
misstatements it is their scienter that matters for the purposes of
determining whether Lead Plaintiffs have met the heightened
pleading standard under the PSLRA. Essentially, they argue that if
Lead Plaintiffs fail to allege scienter with respect to Mr. Miller
or Mr. Filton, they have also failed to allege scienter against UHS
as a corporation.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet decided whether
scienter allegations against a corporation require scienter
allegations against individual corporate defendants.  

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that lack of scienter against
individual defendants was not prohibitive; rather, it claimed that
under the doctrine of corporate scienter, it could plead scienter
against a corporation without successfully pleading scienter
against an individual. In support of this argument, the plaintiff
pointed to authority from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. As explained in City of
Roseville, the Seventh Circuit has found that it is possible to
draw a strong inference of corporate scienter without being able to
name the individuals who connected and disseminated the fraud. In
that case, the Seventh Circuit posed a hypothetical where corporate
scienter would exist.

Likewise, in this case, the Court need not determine whether Lead
Plaintiffs can successfully plead corporate scienter against UHS
without successfully pleading scienter against Mr. Miller or Mr.
Filton. Here, there are no particularized allegations of a
company-wide scheme or a widespread cover-up that rise to the level
of the coverup in Bridgestone or the hypothetical posed by the
Seventh Circuit.

To the contrary, when CtW sent a letter to UHS, raising concerns
about the company's use of the suicidal ideation code, the Board
sent CtW a letter that explained that the company internally audits
billing practices and also employs external auditors to review
coding at facilities. Likewise, the company did not ignore or cover
up the qui tam lawsuits and government investigations; instead,
these matters were immediately disclosed in the company's public
filings. Consequently, even if the Third Circuit had recognized the
doctrine of corporate scienter, the allegations in the Amended
Complaint would not fall under that doctrine.

In sum, the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint fail to raise
the requisite inference of scienter against Mr. Miller or Mr.
Filton, the individual Defendants, under the PSLRA. And even if the
Third Circuit recognized the doctrine of corporate scienter, the
Amended Complaint does not contain facts that would give rise to
liability under that doctrine. Thus, because Lead Plaintiffs have
not adequately pled scienter against any Defendant, Count I of the
Amended Complaint will be dismissed.

As a result, the Court need not consider whether Lead Plaintiffs
have adequately pled the element of loss causation.

Count II — Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934

In Count II of the Amended Complaint, Lead Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants Miller and Filton, as individuals with control over the
company, violated Section 20(a) of the Act.  Section 20(a) of the
Act imposes joint and several liability upon individuals who
control violators of Section 10(b). 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a).

To prevail under this provision of the Act, a plaintiff must
establish that (1) the defendant was in control of another person
or entity and (2) that person or entity violated Section 10(b).
Because Lead Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead that
Defendants Miller or Filton violated Section 10(b), they have
likewise failed to state a claim under Section 20(a). As a result,
Count II of the Amended Complaint will be dismissed.

A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y499q5e2 from
Leagle.com.

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 456 PENSION FUND, ET AL. INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Lead Plaintiff, represented by
DIANNE M. ANDERSON, SAXENA WHITE PA, JOSEPH E. WHITE, III, SAXENA
WHITE PA, KYLA J. GRANT, SAXENA WHITE PA,LESTER R. HOOKER, SAXENA
WHITE PA, MANUEL MIRANDA, SAXENA WHITE PA, MAYA SAXENA, SAXENA
WHITE PA, STEVEN B. SINGER, SAXENA WHITE PA 150 E Palmetto Park
Road, Suite 600, Boca Raton, FL & DAVID M. PROMISLOFF --
david@prolawpa.com -- PROMISLOFF LAW, P.C.

UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES INC & ALAN B. MILLER, Defendants,
represented by DAVID HUNTER SMITH -- hsmith@robbinsrussell.com --
ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, ORSECK, UNTEREINER & SAUBER LLP, GARY A.
ORSECK -- gorseck@robbinsrussell.com -- ROBBINS RUSSELL ENGLERT
ORSECK UNTEREINER & SAUBER LLP, MATTHEW M. MADDEN --
mmadden@robbinsrussell.com -- ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, ORSECK,
UNTEREINER & SAUBER LLP, JASON H. WILSON, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
LLP & STEVEN A. REED -- steven.reed@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN
LEWIS.


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Recordings in Class Suit Not Lost in Vault Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Stefano, writing for The Boot, reports that facing a class
action lawsuit from singer-songwriter Steve Earle and other
artists, Universal Music Group claims that the master recordings of
Earle and two of the other plaintiffs were not actually lost in a
2008 vault fire.

Billboard reports that, on Wednesday (Aug. 21), UMG attorney Scott
Edelman, Esq. filed a declaration reporting that Earle, Tom Petty
and Tupac Shakur did not "suffer irreparable damage in the fire."
Edelmen's declaration includes emails, sent in late July and early
August, which explain that UMG had determined that none of Petty's
original masters were destroyed in the fire, and that while Earle
and Shakur did lose some assets, the record company reportedly has
"viable alternate copies" of those items.

"Plaintiffs have propounded broad discovery and refused to agree to
a stay of discovery pending this Court's ruling on UMG's motion to
dismiss the Complaint and forthcoming motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint," writes Edelman, suggesting that the plantiffs
are asking UMG to determine the losses of specific artists and do
other discovery work in order to recruit other potential
plaintiffs. "In particular, Plaintiffs have served discovery
seeking voluminous materials that go well beyond materials related
to Plaintiffs and their claims."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs removed the rock band Hole from the
lawsuit on Friday (Aug. 16), after UMG reported that none of their
masters were destroyed in the fire. In addition to Earle and the
estates of Petty and Shakur, both of whom are dead, Soundgarden are
also plantiffs in the lawsuit.

"The plaintiffs' attorneys have already been informed that the
original masters for virtually every artist named in their
meritless lawsuit are safe in our storage facilities or theirs,"
says UMG in a statement. "The fact that they still pursue legal
action, and even try to drum up additional bogus claims, makes
clear that their true motivation is something other than concern
for artist masters."

Replies Howard King, Esq., an attorney for the plantiffs, "UMG
claims in their press releases they now want to be transparent with
the artist community, after 10 years of concealment and deception.
Their true motives are revealed by their efforts to thwart the
artists' attempts to obtain actual proof of which master recordings
were destroyed."

On July 18, UMG filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit.
The suit follows the June publication of a New York Times article
reporting that the record label underplayed the extent of the
damage incurred at the time of the 2008 vault fire. According to
the story, as many as 500,000 of the master recordings in UMG's
possession -- from artists including Patsy Cline, Lynyrd Skynyrd,
George Jones, Sheryl Crow and many others -- were damaged or
destroyed in the blaze, a fact that the record label allegedly
attempted to hide, despite internal knowledge of what had been
lost. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: Court Flips Dismissal of Cummings Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA CUMMINGS, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the ESTATE OF SHAUN MICHAEL CHAVEZ; JANA
VALLEJOS, Individually and as Personal Representative of the ESTATE
OF DONOVAN VALLEJOS; and LEON SALAZAR, Individually, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW
MEXICO, a body corporate of the State of New Mexico, for itself and
its public operations, including UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH
SCIENCES CENTER, and its components, THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO
HOSPITAL, and UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE,
Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. A-1-CA-35800 (N.M. App.), Judge
Michael E. Vigil of the Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the
district court's order dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims and
entering judgment in favor of UNMH on grounds that notice of the
Plaintiffs' was not provided to UNMH as required by the Tort Claims
Act ("TCA").

Plaintiffs, Cummings, individually and as personal representative
of the estate of her son Shaun Michael Chavez, brought a class
action complaint for medical and other negligence against the
Defendants, UNMH, resulting from treatment provided to pediatric
cancer patients at UNMH.

In 1987, after a review of UNMH's pediatric cancer program
conducted by physicians from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and
Harvard Medical School, UNMH received a letter stating that UNMH
was not employing standard protocols in treating its pediatric
cancer patients and strongly encouraged that all children with
cancer be treated on protocols if at all possible.  On March 3,
1997, Dr. Jami Frost, a physician in the pediatric cancer program
at UNMH, wrote a letter to the Chair of the Department of
Pediatrics, Dr. John Johnson, expressing concern about UNMH's
treatment of pediatric cancer patients.

Among other things, the letter states that it appears that children
treated at UNM Pediatric Oncology Program have been treated on the
same protocol for many years, without any changes made in regard to
availability of more effective therapy.  Dr. Johnson has contacted
two nationally recognized experts in the treatment of childhood
leukemia.  Both of these consultants agree that the treatment is
substandard.  Both agreed that it is not medically ethical to
continue these patients on the protocol.

On May 13, 1997, Dr. Frost followed up with a memorandum addressed
to Dr. Johnson and other UNMH administrators, including the Dean of
the University of New Mexico Medical School, Paul Roth, discussing
the findings of her investigation into the treatment of pediatric
cancer patients at UNMH between approximately 1980-1997.  Dr.
Frost's memorandum indicated that the survival rate for these
patients was "well below published national rates."  Dr. Frost's
memorandum was accompanied by a list of 217 pediatric cancer
patients whose treatment was reviewed and who were currently
receiving treatment, with an acknowledgment that the list may not
be exhaustive of all pediatric cancer patients treated at UNMH
between 1980 and 1997.  Shaun is not on the list.

In response to Dr. Frost's letter and memorandum, UNMH began an
internal investigation into the treatment of pediatric cancer
patients by Dr. Marilyn Duncan, M.D. for acute lymphoblastic
leukemia ("ALL").  On April 9, 1998, UNMH notified at least two of
its patient health insurance carriers that Dr. Duncan had been
placed on extended leave and was no longer seeing patients while
UNMH conducted an investigation into her treatment of pediatric
cancer patients, which apparently was not a treatment recommended
by national pediatric oncology clinical trials groups.

Dr. Cristina Beato, the Assistant or Associate Dean of UNMH, stated
that as part of UNMH's investigation, she "instructed employees of
UNMH to call certain patients treated for ALL by Dr. Duncan, as
well as families of patients so treated, and inform them that they
or their children may not have received the recommended treatment
for their ALL.  Ms. Cummings was not contacted.

In making these calls, Dr. Beato instructed the callers to
"complete a 'telephone work sheet'" or script.  These scripts are
marked "Attorney-Client Privileged."  The script also contains a
section titled "What Not to Talk About."

Similarly, another script titled "Script 2b - Child who was in
remission, but has suffered a relapse and is currently in
treatment" states that the physician who made the decisions on how
to treat pediatric oncology patients at UNM for many years and who
was responsible for selecting the treatment to be provided to one's
child, is now on extended leave and is no longer seeing patients.
However, UNM has learned that this physician did not select
treatment for the child that was the treatment recommended at that
time by a national clinical trials group supported by the National
Cancer Institute [called the Pediatric Oncology Group].

On Feb. 27, 2001, the estate of Steven Lawrence Lovato filed a
class action complaint against UNMH, grounded on the alleged
negligence of Dr. Duncan in her evaluation, care, and treatment of
pediatric cancer patients at UNMH.  On June 1, 2001, a second class
action complaint was filed by the estate of Christopher Joseph
Sedillo against UNMH, which we refer to as the Sedillo class
action.  The Sedillo class action was grounded on the same alleged
negligence of Dr. Duncan.

On Dec. 3, 2001, the Lovato class action plaintiffs filed a motion
to allow the Plaintiffs to be joined as plaintiffs and additional
class representatives.  The moving papers assert that the named
plaintiff in the Lovato class action and Shaun were both pediatric
leukemia patients of Dr. Duncan and members of the putative class.
The motion was granted.  The Lovato plaintiffs were later dismissed
from the Lovato class action, and the caption was amended to
reflect that the Plaintiffs were henceforth the plaintiffs in the
Lovato class action.  The operative complaint in the appeal is the
third amended Lovato class action complaint in which the Plaintiffs
are named as the Plaintiffs and class representatives.

UNMH subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
complaint, alleging that the Plaintiffs failed to provide notice of
their claims as required by the TCA.  After the Plaintiffs
responded, the district court granted the motion to dismiss on the
basis that the Plaintiffs are "unable to establish that UNMH was
ever given timely notice by Plaintiff Cummings, on her own behalf
or on behalf of Shaun Cummings, that there was a likelihood of
litigation stemming from the pediatric oncology facility's conduct.


The Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which the district
court denied.  In denying the motion to reconsider, the district
court explained its reasoning was that regardless of when the time
period for purposes of TCA notice began to run, the Plaintiffs
failed to establish that UNH was ever provided appropriate notice.

Initially, the Court observes that the district court used an
incorrect standard in granting UNMH's motion to dismiss.  The
burden was not on the Plaintiffs to prove proper notice under the
TCA -- it was UNMH's burden to prove inadequate notice.  The
Plaintiffs appeal.

Judge Vigil concludes that UNMH was given written notice of the
time, place and circumstances of the alleged loss or injury
suffered by the Plaintiffs as required by Section 41-4-16(A) of the
TCA.  He notes that UNMH does not argue that delivery of the notice
affidavit to UNMH's attorneys fails to satisfy the TCA under the
circumstances.  Moreover, there is no material distinction between
giving notice through an affidavit attached to a pleading and
sending a letter with the same affidavit attached.  The only
remaining question is whether the notice was timely, and the Judge
now turns his attention to that question.

Under Maestas v. Zager, the Judge concludes UNMH received timely
notice.  The undisputed facts show that Shaun's death on Sept. 29,
1983, followed his receipt of a LSA2L2 chemotherapy regimen.  Ms.
Cummings did not discover the facts relevant to her claim against
UNMH until she retained counsel to investigate her potential
wrongful death claim against UNMH arising from the hospital's
treatment of Shaun and received Shaun's full medical records, which
occurred, at the very earliest, on the same day Ms. Cummings'
counsel requested Shaun's full medical records from UNMH on Feb.
22, 2001.

This conclusion is supported by the affidavit filed by Ms. Cummings
in response to UNMH's motion to dismiss, in which she stated that
at no time during Shaun's treatment did UNMH inform her that it did
not follow nationally recognized standard protocols for treatment
of ALL; at no time between when Shaun passed away in September 1983
to the present has UNMH notified her that it failed to follow
nationally recognized protocols for ALL in treating Shaun; and that
no one from UNM ever called, wrote, or otherwise contacted her
about Shaun's treatment at UNMH.  Five months and five days passed
between Feb. 22, 2001, and the date on which Cummings filed the
notice affidavit -- on July 26, 2001.  Therefore, by the time the
six-month period for giving UNMH notice under the TCA expired on
Aug. 22, 2001, the hospital had already received notice of the
Plaintiffs' claims.

For these reasons, Judge Vigil reversed the order dismissing the
Plaintiffs' claims and entering judgment in favor of UNMH on
grounds that notice of the Plaintiffs' was not provided to UNMH as
required by the TCA.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/pPDFnl from Leagle.com.

Vigil Law Firm, P.A., Jacob G. Vigil, Albuquerque, NM.

Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward, P.A., Joseph
Goldberg, Frank T. Davis, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellants.

Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., Edward Ricco --
ericco@rodey -- Leslie McCarthy Apodaca -- lapodaca@rodey.com --
Andrew G. Schultz -- aschultz@rodey.com -- Nelson Franse ,
Albuquerque, NM.

Walz & Associates, Jerry Wal, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellees.


US PREMIUM: National Beef Packing Continues to Defend Minn. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that National Beef Packing
Company (NBP) continues to defend a putative class action suit in
the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota

On July 15, 2019, an amended putative class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court, District of Minnesota,
against JBS USA Food Company Holdings, Tyson Foods, Inc., Cargill,
Inc., and National Beef Packing Company (NBP) alleging unjust
enrichment, violations of unfair competition, antitrust, and
consumer protection laws, and other causes of action.

The class is seeking injunctive relief pursuant to federal law and
damages pursuant to various state antitrust, unfair competition,
unjust enrichment, and consumer protection laws.

THe company (USPB) believes this lawsuit is also without merit, and
understands that NBP is vigorously defending it.

U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, together with its subsidiaries, operates an
integrated cattle processing and beef marketing enterprise in the
United States. The company, through its interests in National Beef
Packing Company, LLC, processes and markets fresh and chilled boxed
beef, ground beef, beef by products, and consumer ready beef and
pork, and wet blue leather for domestic and international markets.
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Kansas City, Missouri.


US PREMIUM: NBP Faces Cattle Antitrust Litigation in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that National Beef Packing
Company (NBP) has been named as a defendant in a consolidated class
action suit in Illinois entitled,  In re Cattle Antitrust
Litigation.

On April 23, 2019 and thereafter, a series of putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, District
of Illinois, against Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.,
JBS S.A., JBS USA Food Company, Swift Beef Company, JBS Packerland,
Inc., Cargill, Incorporated, Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation,
Marfrig Global Foods S.A., National Beef Packing Company (NBP), and
John Does 1-10 alleging unjust enrichment, violations of antitrust
laws, the Packers and Stockyards Act, and the Commodity Exchange
Act.

The cases were consolidated on July 15, 2019 into one case entitled
In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation.

The class is seeking injunctive relief and various damages.

the company (USPB) believes this lawsuit is without merit, and
understands that NBP is vigorously defending it.

U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, together with its subsidiaries, operates an
integrated cattle processing and beef marketing enterprise in the
United States. The company, through its interests in National Beef
Packing Company, LLC, processes and markets fresh and chilled boxed
beef, ground beef, beef by products, and consumer ready beef and
pork, and wet blue leather for domestic and international markets.
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Kansas City, Missouri.


VERSUM MATERIALS: Class Suits Challenge Entegris Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Versum Materials, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company is defending
against several class action suits related to merger with Entegris,
Inc. and/or Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

On January 28, 2019, the company announced an agreement and plan of
merger, dated January 27, 2019, between the company and Entegris,
Inc., pursuant to which the company would merge with and into
Entegris, with Entegris as the surviving corporation.

Under the terms of the Entegris merger agreement, which was
unanimously approved by the Boards of Directors of both companies,
Versum stockholders would receive 1.120 shares of Entegris for each
existing share of Versum common stock.

Immediately following completion of the merger, Entegris
stockholders would own approximately 52.5% and company stockholders
would own approximately 47.5% of the issued and outstanding shares
of the combined company (based on fully diluted shares outstanding
including exercisable options only).  

The transaction was expected to close in the second half of 2019,
subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions,
including receipt of U.S. and international regulatory approvals
and approval by the stockholders of Versum and Entegris.

On February 27, 2019, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (Merck KGaA)
sent a letter to the Versum board of directors setting forth a
non-binding unsolicited proposal to acquire Versum for $48.00 per
share in cash.

Following discussions between Versum and Merck KGaA, on April 7,
2019, Merck KGaA submitted a revised proposal to the company to
acquire the company for $53.00 in cash per share.

Later on April 7, 2019, the company notified Entegris that the
company's Board of Directors, in consultation with its legal and
financial advisors, had unanimously determined that this revised
proposal from Merck KGaA constituted a "Superior Proposal" as
defined in the merger agreement with Entegris and that Versum's
Board of Directors intended to consider whether to terminate the
merger agreement with Entegris and enter into a definitive merger
agreement with Merck KGaA.

Consistent with the terms of the merger agreement with Entegris,
Entegris had the right, during the four business day period
following such notice and ending on April 11, 2019, to propose
revisions to the existing merger agreement between Versum and
Entegris but declined to do so.

On April 12, 2019, the company terminated the merger agreement with
Entegris and paid a termination fee of $140.0 million pursuant
thereto to Entegris.

Immediately thereafter, Versum and Merck KGaA signed an agreement
and plan of merger pursuant to which a wholly owned subsidiary of
Merck KGaA would merge with and into Versum, with Versum surviving
the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Merck KGaA.

Upon completion of the merger with Merck KGaA, Versum’s
stockholders will have the right to receive $53.00 per share in
cash for each share of common stock that they own immediately prior
to the completion of the merger.

Following the public announcement of the merger agreement signed
between Versum and Entegris, Inc. ("Entegris Merger"), purported
stockholders of Versum filed three putative class action lawsuits
and one individual lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware against Versum and the members of the
Versum Board (and, in the case of one of the putative class
actions, also against Entegris): Price v. Versum Materials, Inc. et
al., 1:19-cv-00427 (filed on March 1, 2019), Wang v. Versum
Materials, Inc. et al., 1:19-cv-00460 (filed on March 5, 2019),
Wheby v. Versum Materials, Inc. et al., 1:19-cv-00472 (filed on
March 6, 2019), and Robert v. Versum Materials, Inc. et al.,
1:19-cv-00511 (filed on March 14, 2019).  

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

The individual lawsuit (Wang) additionally alleges that the members
of the Versum Board breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the offer made by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany ("Merck
KGaA") to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares of
Versum's common stock at a purchase price of $48.00 per share (the
"Initial Merck KGaA Proposal").

Additionally, purported stockholders of Versum filed two putative
class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against Versum, the members of the Versum Board, and
Broadridge Corporate Issuer Solutions, Inc.: Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Trust v. Versum Materials, Inc. et
al., 2019-0190-JTL (filed on March 8, 2019) and City of Providence
v. Versum Materials, Inc. et al., 2019-0206-JTL (filed on March 14,
2019).  

The lawsuits contain similar allegations contending, among other
things, that the members of the Versum Board breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Initial Merck KGaA Proposal
and in instituting a shareholder rights agreement (the "Rights
Agreement").  

One lawsuit (City of Providence) additionally contains breach of
fiduciary duty allegations arising out of alleged negotiations by
members of the Versum Board with Entegris without board
authorization and without full disclosure to the board.  

The lawsuits sought relief declaring that the Rights Agreement was
unenforceable or enjoining its use, damages and costs, and other
remedies.

One lawsuit (City of Providence) additionally sought to enjoin the
Entegris Merger.

On March 19, 2019, the Delaware Chancery Court entered an order
consolidating the two lawsuits under the caption In re Versum
Materials, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
2019-0206-JTL.

The complaint previously filed by the City of Providence was
designated the operative complaint. On April 8, 2019, Plaintiffs
filed a supplement to the operative complaint containing additional
breach of fiduciary duty allegations arising out of, among other
things, the Board's consideration of the Initial Merck KGaA
Proposal.  

Additionally, Plaintiffs and Versum executed a stipulation dated as
of March 31, 2019 pursuant to which Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw
their motion seeking to enjoin consummation of the Entegris Merger
upon termination of the Rights Agreement.  

On April 3, following Versum's announcement of the termination of
the Rights Agreement, Plaintiffs filed a letter with the court
stating that Plaintiffs will no longer seek an injunction and
withdrawing their request for expedited proceedings.  

On April 12, 2019, Versum and Merck KGaA jointly announced the
termination of the Entegris Merger, the signing of an Agreement and
Plan of Merger by Versum, Merck KGaA and EMD Performance Materials
Holding, Inc. pursuant to which Versum would become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent (the "Merck KGaA Merger"), and the termination
of the Initial Merck KGaA Proposal.

On May 13, 2019, Versum filed a definitive proxy statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the special meeting
of its stockholders held on June 17, 2019 (the "Special Meeting")
to consider and vote on various proposals necessary to approve the
Merck KGaA Merger (the "proxy statement").

Following the filing of the proxy statement a purported shareholder
filed the putative class action Robert v. Versum Materials, Inc. et
al., 1;19-cv-00922 (filed May 17, 2019) against Versum and the
members of the Versum Board of Directors.

The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the proxy statement
misstated or failed to disclose certain material information in
violation of federal securities laws.

The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, either an order enjoining
the merger or rescission if the merger is consummated.

Solely to avoid the costs, burden, nuisance and uncertainties
inherent in litigation and to allow the Versum stockholders to vote
on the Merck KGaA Merger at the Special Meeting, without admitting
any liability or wrongdoing, Versum supplemented the disclosures
contained in the proxy statement.

Versum Materials, Inc. develops, manufactures, transports, and
handles specialty materials for the semiconductor and display
industries in the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, China,
Europe, and rest of Asia. The company operates through two
segments, Materials, and Delivery Systems and Services (DS&S).
Versum Materials, Inc. was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in
Tempe, Arizona.


VIP KIDZ: Fails to Pay for Overtime Work, Azucar Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
CELIA Y. AZUCAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIP KIDZ, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
9:19-cv-81141 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 12, 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 Azucar was employed by the Defendant as an hourly
paid, non exempt employee.

Vip Kidz, LLC owns and operates a day care facilities that caters
to and provides skilled nursing care to children with special
medical needs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher C. Copeland, Esq,
          Christopher C. Copeland, P.A.
          1003 W. Indiantown Road, Suite 208
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 691-9048
          Facsimile: (866) 259-0719
          E-mail: Chris@CopelandPA.com


VIZIO INC: Compelled to Produce Docs in Converse Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMY CONVERSE, Plaintiff, v. VIZIO, INC., Defendant,
Case No. C17-5897 BHS (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma,
granted the Plaintiff's (i) motion to compel documents reviewed by
the Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) designees, and (ii) motion to compel
answer to Interrogatory No. 4 (putative class member contact
information).

On Dec. 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a third amended class action
complaint against Defendant Vizio asserting numerous causes of
action based on the underlying allegations that Vizio falsely
advertised and marketed its smart televisions.

Relevant to the instant motions, the Plaintiff propounded discovery
on Vizio and deposed four 30(b)(6) witnesses.  First, she
propounded an interrogatory on Vizio requesting all email addresses
you have access to that are related to consumers who purchased
affected Smart TVs from you from 2009 to present.  She contends
that despite numerous meet and confers regarding this request,
Vizio has failed to respond.

Second, the Plaintiff deposed four corporate representatives in
late April and early May of 2019.  She contends that during the
depositions, the counsel for Vizio instructed the deponents not to
identify what documents each had reviewed in preparation for the
deposition.

On June 6, 2019, the Plaintiff filed motions to compel a response
to her interrogatory and the documents reviewed by Vizio's
witnesses.  On June 17, 2019, Vizio responded.  On June 21, 2019,
the Plaintiff replied.

Regarding the class list, Vizio has made the information relevant.
In light of Vizio's response and the Plaintiff's showing that the
requested information is relevant, JUdge Settle grants the
Plaintiff's motion on this issue.  He , however, the cautions
Plaintiff that it is improper to submit new evidence with a reply
without allowing the opposing party an opportunity to respond to
that evidence.

Regarding the 30(b)(6) documents, Vizio argues that the documents
are privileged and that the Plaintiff failed to lay the proper
foundation.  He finds it highly unlikely that every document each
corporate representative reviewed in preparation for his or her
deposition is privileged because, in order for a 30(b)(6) witness
to properly prepare for a deposition, he or she most likely reviews
documents produced in the regular course of business.  As to these
documents, Vizio should produce them if they exist.  After the
production of a log and possibly other documents, the parties shall
meet and confer regarding the possibility of successive
depositions.  The Judge is optimistic that another motion on this
issue is not necessary and reserves ruling on sanctions should
further disputes arise.

Based on the foregoing, Judge settle granted the Plaintiff's (i)
motion to compel documents reviewed by the Defendant's Rule
30(b)(6) designees, and (ii) motion to compel answer to
Interrogatory No. 4 (putative class member contact information).

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3LHJ69 from Leagle.com.

Amy Converse, on her own behalf and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Richard E. Goldsworthy
-- blf@blankenshiplawfirm.com -- THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM PLLC,
Jacob L. Karczewski -- jacobklaw@gmail.com -- LAW OFFICES OF JACOB
KARCZEWSKI & Scott Crispin Greco Blankenship, THE BLANKENSHIP LAW
FIRM PLLC.

Vizio, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by
Clark Gordon -- cgordon@akingump.com -- AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &
FELD LLP, pro hac vice, David Maas -- davidmaas@dwt.com -- DAVIS
WRIGHT TREMAINE, Hyongsoon Kim -- kimh@akingump.com -- AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, pro hac vice, Kelsey S. Morris --
kmorris@akingump.com -- AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, pro hac
vice & Stephen M. Rummage -- steverummage@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT
TREMAINE.


WAGEWORKS INC: Class Suits Challenge HealthEquity Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
WageWorks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company faces
several class action suits related to its merger agreement with
HealthEquity, Inc.

On June 26, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with HealthEquity, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("HealthEquity"), and Pacific Merger Sub Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of HealthEquity
("Merger Sub").

The Merger Agreement provides that, subject to the terms and
conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into
WageWorks (the "Merger"), with WageWorks surviving the Merger and
becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of HealthEquity.

Beginning on July 30, 2019, putative class action suits were filed
in the United States District Court Courts for the Southern
District of New York, the District of Delaware, and the Northern
District of California asserting claims under Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against
the Company and the members of its Board of Directors.

The complaints generally allege disclosure violations in the proxy
statement issued by the Company in connection with the stockholder
vote on the proposed merger with HealthEquity.

WageWorks, Inc. engages in administering consumer-directed benefits
(CDBs) that empower employees to save money on taxes, and provide
corporate tax advantages for employers in the United States.
WageWorks, Inc. was incorporated in 2000 and is headquartered in
San Mateo, California.


WAGEWORKS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
WageWorks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

On March 9, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California (the
"Securities Class Action"). On May 16, 2019, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed by the lead plaintiffs asserting claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer
and its former Chief Financial Officer on behalf of purchasers of
WageWorks common stock between May 6, 2016 and March 1, 2018.

The complaint also alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, arising from the Company's June 19, 2017 common stock
offering against those same defendants, as well as the members of
its Board of Directors at the time of that offering and the
underwriters of the offering.

On June 22, 2018 and September 6, 2018, two derivative lawsuits
were filed against certain of the company's officers and directors
and the Company (as nominal defendant) in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Mateo. The actions were
consolidated.

On July 23, 2018, a similar derivative lawsuit was filed against
certain of the company's officers and directors and the Company (as
nominal defendant) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (together, the "Derivative Suits").


The Derivative Suits purport to allege claims related to breaches
of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and unjust
enrichment. In addition, the complaint in District Court includes a
claim for abuse of control, and the complaint in Superior Court
includes a claim to require the Company to hold an annual
shareholder meeting. The allegations in the Derivative Suits relate
to substantially the same facts as those underlying the Securities
Class Action.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and fees and costs. In
addition, the complaint in the Superior Court seeks for the company
to provide past operational reports and financial statements, to
publish timely and accurate operational reports and financial
statements going forward, to hold an annual shareholder meeting,
and to take steps to improve its corporate governance and internal
procedures.

Plaintiffs in the Superior Court action filed a Consolidated
Complaint on May 2, 2019.

As stipulated by the parties, and approved by the District Court,
the District Court action is stayed. The parties in the District
Court action are to notify the District Court within 15 days of (1)
the dismissal of the Securities Class Action, (2) the denial of
defendants’ motion(s) to dismiss, or (3) a party giving notice
that they no longer consent to the voluntary stay.

WageWorks, Inc. engages in administering consumer-directed benefits
(CDBs) that empower employees to save money on taxes, and provide
corporate tax advantages for employers in the United States.
WageWorks, Inc. was incorporated in 2000 and is headquartered in
San Mateo, California.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Denies Bid to Amend Evans Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARDE EVANS, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:10-cv-1224-JCM-VCF (D. Nev.), Judge James C.
Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada denied
Evans' (i) motion to amend complaint, and (ii) motion to amend the
class certification order.

The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action on July 22, 2010,
alleging claims under N.R.S. Section 608.020 et seq.

Under NRS Section 608.020, whenever an employer discharges an
employee, the wages and compensation earned and unpaid at the time
of such discharge will become due and payable immediately.
Similarly, under NRS Section 608.030, whenever an employee resigns
or quits his or her employment, the wages and compensation earned
and unpaid at the time of the employee's resignation or quitting
must be paid no later than: the day on which the employee would
have regularly been paid the wages or compensation; or seven days
after the employee resigns or quits, whichever is earlier.

If an employer fails to timely pay an employee who is discharged or
has resigned or quit, the employer must pay the wages and
compensation earned and unpaid at the time of termination as well
as continuation wages.

On June 23, 2011, the parties stipulated to stay discovery pending
the conclusion of their attempt to mediate the Plaintiff's claims.
The case remained stayed until Jan. 25, 2013, when the Court
entered an order lifting the stay and setting a briefing schedule
on the Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

Thereafter, on Jan. 24, 2014, the Court entered an order granting
Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment and denying as moot the
Plaintiff's motion to certify class.  In its order, the Court found
that waiting time penalties were not available for unpaid overtime
wages under Nevada law.  Accordingly, it held that the Plaintiff's
claims for the same failed as a matter of law and closed the case.


The Plaintiff appealed the Court's grant of summary judgment in
favor of Wal-Mart, and the Ninth Circuit reversed.  In its Aug. 15,
2016, memorandum opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that overtime pay
is a form of wages under Nevada law, and thus that the Plaintiff
had a cognizable claim for waiting time penalties stemming from her
and the other class members' unpaid overtime wages.  Accordingly,
the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further consideration.

On remand, the Plaintiff filed another motion for class
certification.  Wal-Mart opposed the motion.  Wal-Mart then asked
the Court for an indefinite stay of the action while a separate
case, Neville v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of
Nevada, was pending before the Nevada Supreme Court.  The issue
before the Neville court was whether Nevada employees have a
private right of action to seek unpaid wages under N.R.S. Section
608.020 et seq. See Neville v. Eighth Judicial District Court of
the State of Nevada.

Because the Neville court had undertaken a threshold issue in the
case, the Court granted Wal-Mart's motion and stayed the entire
action from Feb. 16, 2017, until Dec. 8, 2017, when the Plaintiff
notified the Court that the Neville court had held that Nevada
employees do have a private right of action under N.R.S. Section
608.020 et seq.  Promptly after the Plaintiff filed her notice
regarding the Neville decision, she filed yet another motion to
certify class on Dec. 28, 2017.

Through her motion, the Plaintiff sought to certify a class of
4,358 persons who meet the following description: Any hourly
employees of Wal-Mart who (1) worked in Wal-Mart Stores in Nevada
between Feb. 27, 2009 and July 31, 2010, (2) earned 1.5 times the
minimum wage per hour or less, and (3) commenced a work shift any
day less than 24 hours after commencement of their shift on the
previous day, and (4) whose employment terminated prior to Sept. 1,
2010.

While the class allegations regarding the non-payment of overtime
wages had been resolved by an earlier class action, the Court
ultimately found that Wal-Mart may still be held liable for failing
to pay the Plaintiff and the putative class members waiting-time
penalties under NRS Sections 608.040 and 608.050.  However, it
found that the Plaintiff, who had voluntarily terminated her
employment with Wal-Mart, did not have standing to bring a cause of
action under N.R.S. Section 608.050, which makes clear on its face
that it only applies to employees who were discharged or laid off.


Accordingly, the Court granted in part the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class, limiting the class to include only those class
members who voluntarily terminated their employment with Walmart
and thus have a viable claim under NRS Section 608.040 only.

Now, the Plaintiff moves to amend her complaint and the Court's
certification order to include Lisa Pizzurro Westcott as a class
representative for the class of involuntarily terminated employees.
The Plaintiff alleges that Westcott was employed by Wal-Mart from
July 2009 to January 2010, when she was involuntarily terminated,
and was also a victim of Wal-Mart's alleged violations of NRS
Section 608.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff moves to name Westcott as
an additional representative Plaintiff in the matter.

The parties do not dispute that, absent some form of tolling,
Westcott's claims are time-barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.  However, the Plaintiff argues that, because she
asserted claims on behalf of involuntarily terminated employees
under N.R.S. Section 608.050 from the outset of the litigation,
these claims were initiated prior to the running of the statute of
limitations, regardless of whether she ultimately had standing to
assert them.  The Plaintiff submits that Westcott can step into her
shoes and revive those claims, acting as the class representative
for the class of involuntarily terminated Wal-Mart employees.

Additionally, the Plaintiff asserts that China Agritech, Inc. v.
Resh does not control here because that case dealt with a situation
in which the Plaintiff attempted to file a completely new,
time-barred class action (against the same Defendant and for the
same claims) after the district court had denied a prior motion for
class certification outright.  The Plaintiff argues that because
the Court granted in part and denied in part her motion for class
certification, Westcott is not seeking to initiate a new, separate
class action following a complete denial of class certification.
Rather, the Plaintiff submits that Westcott seeks to join an
existing, partially certified action as an additional class
representative.

Judge Mahan finds the Plaintiff's arguments unpersuasive.  First,
the Ninth Circuit recognized in Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co. that the law makes clear that if none of the named
plaintiffs purporting to represent a class established the
requisite case or controversy with the defendants, none may seek
relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class.  

Therefore, because the Judge determined that Plaintiff lacked
standing to represent the members of her purported class who were
involuntarily terminated from Wal-Mart, the Plaintiff's claims
under N.R.S. Section 608.050 were never validly asserted.  Absent
any authority to the contrary, the Judge cannot endorse the
Plaintiff's attempt to assert claims for which she has no standing
to serve as a placeholder for Westcott, who seeks to join the
action well past the limitations period.

Finally, the Judge finds the Plaintiff's attempt to distinguish the
case from China Agritech equally unpersuasive.  Indeed, it makes no
difference that the Court declined to certify only some of the
Plaintiff's claims as opposed to denying the motion for
certification in its entirety, as the trial court did in China
Agritech.  The end result with respect to the uncertified claims is
the same -- the Judge has found that those claims are not fit for
certification in the instant class action suit, and Westcott cannot
revive those claims past the expiration of the statute of
limitations.

Because he finds that Lierboe and China Agritech foreclose the
Plaintiff's ability to add Westcott as a representative Plaintiff
in the matter, amendment in the case would be futile and the
Plaintiff's motions must be denied.

Accordingly, Judge Mahan denied the Plaintiff's (i) motion to amend
complaint and (ii) motion to amend the class certification order.
The clerk of court will lift the stay in the instant matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mBt80B from Leagle.com.

Charde Evans, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Markham --
CONTACT@MARKHAM-LAW.COM -- The Markham Law Firm, pro hac vice,
James M. Treglio, Clark & Markham LLP, pro hac vice, Mark R.
Thierman -- info@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP, R. Craig
Clark, Clark & Markham LLP, pro hac vice & Joshua D. Buck, Thierman
Buck, LLP.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian L. Duffy --
duffyb@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, pro hac vice, Eric W.
Swanis, Greenberg Traurig, Naomi Beer -- beern@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, pro hac vice & Mark E. Ferrario --
ferrariom@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig.


WELLS FARGO: Court Allows Amendment to MCPA Claims
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint in
the case captioned ALICIA HERNANDEZ, EMMA WHITE, KEITH LINDNER,
TROY FRYE, COSZETTA TEAGUE, IESHA BROWN, RUSSELL and BRENDA
SIMONEAUX, JOHN and YVONNE DEMARTINO, ROSE WILSON, TIFFANIE HOOD,
GEORGE and CYNDI FLOYD, DEBORA GRANJA, and DIANA TREVINO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendants. No. C 18-07354 WHA. (N.D. Cal.).

The plaintiffs all had their mortgage loans serviced by defendant
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., when they faced various financial hardships
and defaulted on their loans. Although they sought loan
modifications, those applications were denied. Plaintiff Alicia
Hernandez filed this putative nationwide class action, asserting
claims for negligence, conversion, violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act.

The proposed second amended complaint seeks to amend plaintiffs'
claims by adding fraudulent concealment and negligent
misrepresentation claims, as well as amending plaintiffs' breach of
contract, negligence, Maryland Consumer Protection, and wrongful
foreclosure claims.

FRCP 15(a)(2) permits a party to amend its pleading with the
district court's leave, advising that the court should freely give
leave when justice so requires. In ruling on a motion for leave to
amend, courts consider: (1) bad faith (2) undue delay (3) prejudice
to the opposing party (4) futility of amendment and (5) whether
plaintiff has previously amended his complaint.  

AMENDED CLAIMS

Breach of Contract

For ten of the twelve named plaintiffs, the alleged underlying
contract is the Fannie/Freddie secured-loan instrument they entered
into when they financed their homes. The order dismissing
plaintiffs' breach of contract claim did so on the ground the
complaint did not adequately plead defendant breached a provision
in the instruments by failing to notify plaintiffs they could cure
default by accepting a mortgage modification. In particular, the
complaint did not sufficiently allege mortgage modifications were a
default-curing mechanism contemplated in the notice provision.

Plaintiffs have now alleged additional facts to demonstrate
defendant bank knew loan modification was an action that could cure
default. Furthermore, the complaint also alleges the instruments
referenced loan modifications stating, extension of the time for
payment or modification of amortization of the sums secured by this
Security instruments shall not operate to release the liability of
Borrowers.

Defendant bank argues that plaintiffs' amendments fail because
contracts are interpreted to give effect to the intent of the
parties as it existed at the time of contracting and plaintiffs
have admitted HAMP and other government-mandated mortgage
modifications did not exist at the time of contracting. Plaintiffs'
proposed amended complaint alleges that the instrument references
the possibility of modification. Even though such modifications
were not government-mandated at the time of contracting, it is
nonetheless plausible that the mutual understanding at the time of
contracting was that all available default-avoidance measures would
be considered.

Accordingly, because of defendant's acknowledgment of loan
modifications as an option to cure default as well as the
contractual language in the instrument referencing modifications,
plaintiffs' breach of the Fannie/Freddie security instrument
contract claim is neither futile nor frivolous at this stage and
the motion to amend this claim is thus GRANTED.

For the remaining two named plaintiffs, the alleged underlying
contract is FHA security instrument. These instruments do not
contain the same language as the Fannie/Freddie instruments.
Plaintiffs have accordingly amended their complaint by adding the
following alleged language from the instrument: in many
circumstances, regulations issued by the Secretary will limit
Lender's rights. This Security Instrument does not authorize
acceleration or foreclosure if not permitted by regulations of the
Secretary. The amended complaint further asserts the Secretary, in
a Congressional report, stated during the time of elevated
financial stress on households, FHA maintained a robust set of
policies including, among other things, loan modifications.

Because plaintiffs have alleged mortgage modification was part of
the policies at the time, plaintiffs' breach of the FHA security
instrument contract claim is neither futile nor frivolous, and is
GRANTED.

Maryland Consumer Protection Act and Wrongful Foreclosure

Plaintiffs' Maryland Consumer Protection Act and wrongful
foreclosure claims are based on the claim that defendant failed to
notify plaintiffs they could cure their default by accepting a
mortgage modification. Because plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend as to their breach of contract claims has been granted, leave
to amend as to their Maryland Consumer Protection Act and wrongful
foreclosure claims is also GRANTED.

Negligence

Plaintiffs have now added language in the proposed amended
complaint that states defendant was not acting as an ordinary
lender because defendant relied on information it knew was false to
deny mortgage modifications, and accordingly owed plaintiffs a duty
of care. The new allegations still fall short of alleging that the
bank did anything other than consider the possibility of loan
modifications for plaintiffs. Merely engaging in the loan
modification process is insufficient to give rise to a duty of
care.

The proposed amendment of plaintiffs' negligence claim is
accordingly futile and leave to amend the claim is DENIED.

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

Plaintiffs' proposed second amended complaint seeks to add a
fraudulent concealment claim and a negligent misrepresentation
claim. Plaintiffs do not have the authority to add these new claims
under the previous order granting in part and denying in part
defendant's motion to dismiss. The order only permitted plaintiffs
to seek leave to amend the dismissed claims, but did not provide
plaintiffs could add new claims.

Plaintiffs also do not have the authority to add these new claims
under the case management order either, which provides leave to add
any new parties or to amend pleadings must be sought by June 28,
2019. Plaintiffs can thus only add these new claims if good cause
can be shown.

Here, plaintiffs allege that defendant did not provide the evidence
that forms the basis of these claims until at least May 29.
Regardless of whether this is sufficiently good cause, allowing
leave to amend these two claims would be futile on the merits.

Fraudulent Concealment.

To state a claim for fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must
allege: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a
material fact (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to
disclose the fact to the plaintiff (3) the defendant must have
intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to
defraud the plaintiff (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of
the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the
concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the
concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have
sustained damage.

Here, plaintiff alleges a duty existed because Wells Fargo stated
half-truths to plaintiffs and one who undertakes to make a
statement must not only state the truth, but may not conceal any
facts. Such facts are insufficient to demonstrate the necessary
intent to give rise to a duty, especially because defendant was
acting in its conventional role as a money lender. The proposed
amendment of plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment claim is
accordingly futile and leave to amend the claim is DENIED.

Negligent Misrepresentation

To state a claim for negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must
allege: (1) misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact
(2) without reasonable ground for believing it to be true (3) with
intent to induce another's reliance on the misrepresentation (4)
ignorance of the truth and justifiable reliance on the
misrepresentation by the party to whom it was directed and (5)
resulting damage.

Here, plaintiff alleges defendant had a duty because choosing to
speak in stating that Plaintiffs did not qualify for a modification
required an accurate disclosure. As previously explained, merely
engaging in the loan modification process by denying a modification
is insufficient to give rise to a duty.

The proposed amendment of plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation
claim is futile and leave to amend the claim is DENIED.

Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend as to their fraudulent
concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence claims is
DENIED and plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their breach of
contract, Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and wrongful
foreclosure claims is GRANTED.  

A copy full-text copy of the District Court's August 19, 2019 Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyx23xp6 from Leagle.com.

Alicia Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Richard M. Paul, III --
Rick@PaulLLP.com -- Paul LLP, pro hac vice, Ashlea Gayle Schwarz --
Ashlea@PaulLLP.com -- Paul LLP, pro hac vice, Laura Catherine
Fellows  -- Laura@PaulLLP.com --  Paul LLP, pro hac vice, Linda
Pham Lam  -lpl@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP & Michael
Lawrence Schrag  -- mls@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP.

Diana Trevino, Coszetta Teague, Yvonne Demartino, Iesha Brown,
George Floyd, Troy Frye, Russell Simoneaux, Tiffanie Hood, Rose
Wilson, Emma White, Cyndi Floyd, John Demartino, Keith Lindner,
Brenda Simoneaux & Debora Granja, Plaintiffs, represented by Laura
Catherine Fellows, Paul LLP, pro hac vice, Linda Pham Lam, Gibbs
Law Group LLP & Michael Lawrence Schrag, Gibbs Law Group LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves
-- agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice,
Gretchen Vetter Scavo -- gscavo@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP, pro hac vice, Kobi Kennedy Brinson -- kbrinson@winston.com --
Winston and Strawn, LLP, pro hac vice, Stacie Corbett Knight --
sknight@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Angela
Aziza Smedley -- asmedley@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP,
pro hac vice & Morgan E. Stewart -mstewart@winston.com -- Winston
and Strawn LLP.


WHOLE FOODS: John Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sean John filed an appeal from a District Court opinion
dated July 17, 2019, in the lawsuit titled John, et al. v. Whole
Foods Market, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-5838, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Sean John and Joseph Bassolino claimed they purchased the same
kinds of items that were implicated in the overcharging and
mislabeling investigation against the Defendants, including
prepackaged cheeses, chicken and cupcakes.

The men had separately filed putative class actions against the
upscale grocer not long after the DCA issued its press release, and
the two suits were consolidated in October 2015.  Mr. Bassolino had
tried remanding his case to state court, but lost his bid after the
court found that Whole Foods had shown, with reasonable
probability, that he had sought damages exceeding $5 million on the
theory he had pled.

The appellate case is captioned as John, et al. v. Whole Foods
Market, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-2528, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Sean John, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated is represented by:

          Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3290
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. is represented
by:

          David E. Sellinger, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          500 Campus Drive
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 360-7900
          E-mail: sellingerd@gtlaw.com


WOOD GROUP: Accused by Kitterman FLSA Suit of Not Paying Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFFORD KITTERMAN, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated
v. WOOD GROUP PSN, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00233 (S.D. Tex., Aug.
15, 2019), accuses the Defendant of not paying overtime as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Wood Group, Inc. is a "global leader in the delivery of project,
engineering and technical services to energy and industrial
markets," according to its Web site.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


WR CAPITAL: Court Dismisses J. Urdan Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware issued an Memorandum Opinion
granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned
JONATHAN URDAN and WILLIAM WOODWARD, Plaintiffs, v. WR CAPITAL
PARTNERS, LLC., a Delaware limited liability company, WR E3
HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, HENRI
TALERMAN, FRANK E. WALSH III, and BRADLEY D. KNYAL, Defendants, and
ENERGY EFFICIENT EQUITY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Nominal
Defendant. C.A. No. 2018-0343-JTL. (Del. Ch.).

A co-founder of a company and one of its early investors sued a
private equity fund, its affiliates, and the two fund principals
who served on the company's board of directors. The plaintiffs
allege that after loaning the company funds and gaining
representation on the board, the defendants used the rights they
secured in the loan agreement to cut off the company's other
financing options. Once the company was desperate for capital, the
defendants extracted onerous terms that solidified the defendants'
control. They then proceeded to dilute the plaintiffs through
interested transactions.

Plaintiffs contend that the plaintiffs thereby lost the ability to
assert derivative claims. The same principle would foreclose the
plaintiffs' ability to assert direct claims. The only remaining
claims are for fraud and unjust enrichment, and the defendants
contend that the complaint fails to plead the elements of these
claims.

The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule
12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim on which relief can be
granted. When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, this court (i) accepts as true all well-pleaded factual
allegations in the complaint (ii) credits vague allegations if they
give the opposing party notice of the claim and (iii) draws all
reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs.  

Derivative Claims

The right to sue derivatively is a property right associated with
share ownership. When a share of stock is sold, the property rights
associated with the shares pass to the buyer. Having transferred
the property right that gives rise to the ability to sue
derivatively, a plaintiff can no longer maintain a derivative
action.

The development of two similarly sounding doctrines that both
affect the ability of stockholders to bring derivative claims the
contemporaneous ownership requirement and the continuous ownership
requirement illustrates and confirms the settled nature of the rule
that the right to sue derivatively passes to the buyer in a sale of
shares. Generally speaking, a derivative claim is a cause of action
belonging to a corporation that another party, typically a
stockholder, seeks to litigate on the entity's behalf.

Although contemporary derivative actions most often involve
stockholder plaintiffs attempting to assert claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against corporate officers or directors, the
biosphere of claims that can be pursued derivatively contains a
multitude of species. Any claim belonging to the corporation may,
in appropriate circumstances, be asserted in a derivative action,
including claims that do and claims that do not involve corporate
mismanagement or breach of fiduciary duty.

Derivative actions originally proliferated during the nineteenth
century, not because of stockholders pursuing breach of fiduciary
duty claims against management, but because management encouraged
supportive stockholders to assert corporate claims against
third-party defendants, frequently challenging taxes or other forms
of regulation that a state or municipality had imposed on the
corporation's business.  

To prevent corporations from using this technique to manufacture
diversity jurisdiction, the United States Supreme Court created the
contemporaneous ownership requirement. From that point on, for a
stockholder to sue in federal court, the plaintiff had to have been
a stockholder at the time of the wrong.  

In this case, the expansive continuous ownership requirement and
the antecedent rule on the effect of selling shares lead to the
same result: dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty claim in
Count I to the extent the claim is derivative.  

Both doctrines also require dismissal of Counts VI and VIII, which
are similarly derivative. In Count VI, the plaintiffs assert a
claim for breach of the express provisions of the Loan Agreement.
On the facts alleged in the complaint, that claim is derivative:
The Company was a party to the Loan Agreement, and the plaintiffs
seek to assert the Company's claim on its behalf. Having sold their
shares, they can no longer assert that claim.

The same is true for Count VIII, where the plaintiffs assert a
claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing that inheres in the Loan Agreement. Although that claim
relies on implied terms rather than express provisions, it is a
claim for breach of the Loan Agreement. That is a right held by the
Company, which the plaintiffs seek to assert derivatively. Having
sold their shares, they can no longer assert that claim either.

Direct Claims

Both during the initial briefing and in the supplemental briefing,
the parties debated whether, by transferring their shares, the
plaintiffs lost their ability to assert direct claims. The parties'
discussion of this issue explored the ever-fertile fields of the
derivative-versus-direct distinction. If the plaintiffs had been
deprived of their shares by merger, then that distinction would
matter, because the plaintiffs could challenge the transaction that
deprived them involuntarily of their property rights. But in this
case, the plaintiffs sold their shares voluntarily. By selling
their shares, the plaintiffs transferred the rights to sue that
depended on ownership of their shares.

Like the right to assert a derivative claim, the right to assert a
direct claim is a property right associated with the shares.
Consequently, unless the seller and buyer agree otherwise, the
ability to assert a direct claim and the ability to benefit from
any remedy pass with the shares. If a seller wishes to retain a
subset of the rights associated with the transferred shares, such
as the right to assert a direct claim, then the parties to the
transaction must provide specifically for that outcome. Otherwise,
when the shares are sold, the rights to assert and benefit from
direct claims pass with the shares to the new owner.

In this case, Count I of the complaint asserted a claim for breach
of fiduciary duty that the plaintiffs characterized as direct and
the defendants as derivative. There is no need to parse the
derivative-versus-direct distinction because, assuming for the sake
of argument that the claim was direct, the plaintiffs lost their
ability to assert it when they voluntarily sold their shares. The
right to assert Count I, like the right to assert the other rights
associated with the shares, passed to the buyer. Unless the
plaintiffs somehow contracted to retain those rights, they lost
their ability to sue.

The Fraud Claims

In Counts IV and V of the complaint, the plaintiffs have asserted
claims for fraud. In both counts, the plaintiffs assert that WR
Capital, WR Sub, Talerman, and Walsh fraudulently induced them to
enter into the 2016 Financing. In Count IV, they assert that the
defendants accomplished this through fraudulent representations. In
Count V, they say that the defendants accomplished this through
fraudulent concealment. In their answering brief, the plaintiffs
claimed that the fraudulent concealment actually occurred in
connection with the 2017 Financing and the Spring 2018 Capital
Raise. These claims fail on the merits.

To state a claim for fraud, a complaint must plead the following
elements: 1) a false representation, usually one of fact, made by
the defendant 2) the defendant's knowledge or belief that the
representation was false, or was made with reckless indifference to
the truth;3) an intent to induce the plaintiff to act or to refrain
from acting 4) the plaintiff's action or inaction taken in
justifiable reliance upon the representation and5) damage to the
plaintiff as a result of such reliance.

Overt Misrepresentations

The plaintiffs attempt to plead fraud based on two instances of
overt misrepresentations in connection with the 2016 Financing.
Neither provides the necessary predicate for a fraud claim.

The first set of overt misrepresentations related to the parties'
relationship. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants induced
them to enter into the 2016 Financing by falsely stating in an
early 2016 email that the defendants and plaintiffs would be
working together as partners.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the same email falsely
represented that WR Capital only sought minority ownership. The
plaintiffs say that the defendants reinforced these representations
in other ways, such as through the WR Capital website, where the
defendants held themselves out as making investments in cooperation
with management and directors. According to the plaintiffs, the
defendants actually intended to obtain control of the Company and
to dilute and replace its management team.

Along similar lines, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
touted their ability to raise capital for the Company from outside
sources if they were given a seat at the table. According to the
plaintiffs, the defendants in fact planned to use their blocking
rights to deprive the Company of access to outside capital so that
the Company would be forced to accept onerous and unfair terms from
the defendants.

Statements like this are puffery, and a plaintiff cannot reasonably
rely on them for purposes of a fraud claim. Perhaps the plaintiffs
in fact relied on these statements. Academic literature supports
the importance of trust between entrepreneurs and investors, making
it conceivable that a deceitful party could induce detrimental
reliance by falsely signaling trustworthiness. But for purposes of
a fraud claim, the plaintiffs could not reasonably rely on these
statements. If the plaintiffs had wanted specific protections, then
they or their counsel should have included express commitments in
the transaction documents.

The plaintiffs have not cited a false representation. Instead, they
appear to have misinterpreted the agreements. The term sheet gave
the defendants an option and capped what the defendants would
receive if they exercised it. The term sheet did not say what the
defendants would receive if they declined to exercise the option
and bargained for different terms.

The Loan Agreement did not cap the amount of equity that the
defendants could receive, nor did it give the plaintiffs an option
to demand $3 million in additional financing in exchange for a set
number of warrants. The option ran the other way. WR Capital could
exercise its option for a set number of warrants, or it could
decline to exercise its option and ask for other consideration.

Neither of the plaintiffs' theories of overt fraud supports a
claim. In the first instance, the plaintiffs pinned their hopes on
puffery. In the second, they misunderstood how the financing
worked. In neither case were they defrauded.

Fraudulent Concealment

The plaintiffs next claim that the defendants fraudulently
concealed material information in connection with the Spring 2018
Capital Raise. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants refused
to turn over a support agreement detailing side benefits that the
defendants sought in the Spring 2018 Capital Raise and information
about the negotiations that took place during the Spring 2018
Capital Raise.

This claim fails for multiple reasons. For one, the plaintiffs have
not alleged that the defendants fraudulently concealed information.
They have alleged that the defendants openly refused to provide it.
If the plaintiffs thought they had a right to the information, then
they could have sued to enforce it.

For another, the plaintiffs have not alleged how they detrimentally
relied on the defendants' failure to provide this information. WR
Capital controlled the Company, and it could have engaged in any
transaction with or without the support of the plaintiffs. The
complaint does not explain how the fraudulent concealment induced
action by the plaintiffs.

Most fundamentally, the Spring 2018 Capital Raise did not lead to a
transaction. The complaint does not explain how the plaintiffs were
harmed by a transaction that never took place.

Silence In The Face Of A Duty To Speak

Invoking the third species of fraud, the plaintiffs contend that
the defendants remained silent in the face of a duty to speak. In
their answering brief, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants
failed to disclose their scheme to take control of the Company by
(a) shutting out capital sources (b) controlling the Company's
business affairs (c) diluting the plaintiffs' equity through [he
2017 Financing (d) undercutting management; and (e) installing
Knyal and rewarding him with outsized equity to ensure loyalty.

As the basis for the defendants' duty to speak, the plaintiffs cite
the duty of disclosure that the defendants' owed as directors and
controlling stockholders. The duty of disclosure is not an
independent duty, but derives from the duties of care and loyalty.
The duty of disclosure arises because of the application in a
specific context of the board's fiduciary duties. A claim for
breach of the duty of disclosure is thus a claim for breach of
fiduciary duty, which the plaintiffs transferred when they sold
their shares. And a claim for breach of fiduciary duty fails when
it asks the defendants to engage in self-flagellation. As framed by
the plaintiffs, the disclosures they seek would have required
self-flagellation.

The Unjust Enrichment Claim

The last claim is Count VII, where the plaintiffs contend that the
defendants unjustly enriched themselves through the 2017 Financing.
On the facts of this case, the plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim
for unjust enrichment.

The elements of unjust enrichment are deceptively simple to state:
(1) an enrichment (2) an impoverishment (3) a relation between the
enrichment and impoverishment (4) the absence of justification and
(5) the absence of a remedy provided by law. These straightforward
elements mask a more flexible and free-flowing doctrine.

Unjust enrichment is a very broad and flexible equitable doctrine
that has as its basis the principle that it is contrary to equity
and good conscience for a defendant to retain a benefit that has
come to him at the expense of the plaintiff.

The difficulty with unjust enrichment is a corollary to its
strength. Because it is flexible and free-flowing, unjust
enrichment can encroach on other areas of the law and upset settled
frameworks. That is the problem with the claim here. According to
the plaintiffs, the defendants unjustly enriched themselves to the
plaintiffs' detriment when, without justification, the defendants
shut out new investors and then leveraged the Company's need for
capital to demand millions of new warrants for extending the
agreed-upon credit line. That is the same theory that the
plaintiffs seek to litigate through their claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract.

When an unjust enrichment theory duplicates a breach of fiduciary
duty claim, it is typically dismissed in favor of the breach of
fiduciary duty claim so that the more settled doctrine can govern.
The same is true for an unjust enrichment claim that duplicates a
claim for breach of contract. In both situations, permitting the
theory to proceed would upset the settled outcomes generated by the
established legal frameworks. Those principles apply here.

On the facts of this case, the unjust enrichment theory also
depends on the plaintiffs' status as stockholders. In essence, the
plaintiffs contend that the Company was impoverished when it issued
more warrants in the 2017 Financing than it should have been
required to issue. Because the Company was harmed, and because any
remedy would go to the Company, the unjust enrichment claim is
derivative. Having sold their shares, they can no longer assert
that claim.

Just as a breach of fiduciary duty claim that is derivative can be
reframed as direct, so too can the plaintiffs cast their unjust
enrichment claim as direct. Recast in this light, the plaintiffs
argue that the voting power of their shares was diluted when the
Company issued more warrants in the 2017 Financing than it should
have been required to issue. The reframing does not help the
plaintiffs, because the detriment still affected their shares. Just
as they gave up their ability to assert a direct claim for dilution
when they sold their shares, they likewise gave up a parallel claim
for unjust enrichment based on harm to their shares.

Count VII is dismissed.

The complaint originally contained eight counts. The plaintiffs
failed to state a claim for fraud in either Count IV or V. They
also failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment in Count VII.
The plaintiffs released the claims asserted in Counts II and III
and dismissed the defendant who was the subject of their claims. By
selling their shares, the plaintiffs gave up their rights to assert
their other claims.

The defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

A copy full-text copy of the Chancery Court's August 19, 2019
Memorandum Opinion is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y567ydqb
from Leagle.com.

Elena C. Norman, Benjamin M. Potts, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
TAYLOR, LLP, The Brandywine Building, 1000 West Street, 17th Floor,
Wilmington, Delaware, 19801; Louis R. Miller --
smiller@millerbarondess.com -- Daniel S. Miller, Jeffery B. White
-- jwhite@millerbarondess.com -- MILLER BARONDESS, LLP, Los
Angeles, California; Counsel for Plaintiffs.

Kenneth J. Nachbar -- knachbar@mnat.com -- Alexandra M. Cumings --
acumings@mnat.com -- MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Counsel for Defendants.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: 73 Unresolved Suits over PROFEMUR Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company is facing 73
pending lawsuits over PROFEMUR(R).

The company has received claims for personal injury against it
associated with fractures of the PROFEMUR(R) titanium modular neck
product (PROFEMUR(R) Claims).

As of June 30, 2019, there were approximately 19 unresolved pending
U.S. lawsuits and approximately 54 unresolved pending non-U.S.
lawsuits alleging such claims (44 of which are part of a single
consolidated class action lawsuit in Canada).

The overall fracture rate for the product is low and the fractures
appear, at least in part, to relate to patient demographics. In
2009, Wright Medical began offering a cobalt-chrome version of the
PROFEMUR(R) modular neck, which has greater strength
characteristics than the alternative titanium version.

However, during the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2011, as a
result of an increase in the number and monetary amount of these
claims, management estimated the Company's liability to patients in
the United States and Canada who have previously required a
revision following a fracture of a PROFEMUR(R) titanium modular
neck, or who may require a revision in the future. Management has
estimated that this aggregate liability is $14.1 million as of June
30, 2019.

Wright Medical said, "We have classified $9.4 million of this
liability in "Accrued expenses and other current liabilities," as
we expect to pay such claims within the next twelve months, and
$4.7 million as non-current in "Other liabilities" on our
consolidated balance sheet. We expect to pay the majority of these
claims within the next two years. Any claims associated with this
product outside of the United States and Canada, or for any other
products, will be managed as part of our standard product liability
accrual methodology on a case-by-case basis."

Wright Medical Group N.V., a medical device company, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells upper and lower extremities, and
biologics products in the United States, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, Canada, Asia, Australia, and Latin America. The company was
founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands.


WYNN RESORTS: Bid to Dismiss Ferris Securities Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wynn Resorts Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the securities class action suit initiated by John V. Ferris and
Joann M. Ferris remains pending.

On February 20, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed
against the Company and certain current and former officers of the
Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York (which was subsequently transferred to the United States
District Court, District of Nevada) by John V. Ferris and Joann M.
Ferris on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between February 28, 2014 and January 25, 2018.

The complaint alleges, among other things, certain violations of
federal securities laws and seeks to recover unspecified damages as
well as attorneys' fees, costs and related expenses for the
plaintiffs.

The defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which are currently
pending before the court.

Wynn Resorts said, "The defendants in these actions will vigorously
defend against the claims pleaded against them. These actions are
in preliminary stages and management has determined that based on
proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the
probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of
reasonably possible loss, if any."

Wynn Resorts Limited, Limited owns and operates destination casino
resorts. The company was founded in 2002 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.


[*] Medical Debt Collector to Pay $1.2MM Class-Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Gooch, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that a
North Carolina debt collection agency has agreed to pay $1.2
million to settle allegations that it engaged in improper practices
when collecting medical debt, attorneys announced Aug. 22.

A class-action lawsuit claimed the agency violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the North Carolina Collection Agency
Act by seeking to collect medical debt that was already eliminated
through Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  The practices allegedly occurred
between 2012 and 2019.

The $1.2 million settlement resolves the allegations. The attorneys
did not disclose the name of the debt collection agency. [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 ***