CAR_Public/191120.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, November 20, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 232

                            Headlines

400 WEST 23RD ST: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
ADVANCE AUTO: Bid to Drop Delaware Securities Suit Still Pending
ADVANTAGE INVESTIGATIVE: Hormozdi Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Faces Ramos De Jeda Suit in Calif. Court
AKORN INC: Final Approval Hearing in Data Breach Suit on Dec. 3

ALL STAR ELECTRIC: Faces Class Suit Over Hard Rock Collapse
ALTRIA GROUP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 2 Deadline
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Awaits Dismissal of Farmers' Suit
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Bid to Dismiss Suit Against Unit Pending
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Faces AOT Holding's Class Action

AVANGRID INC: Appeal in Suit by PNE Energy Supply Underway
AVANGRID INC: En Banc Review of Breiding Case Dismissal Sought
AVEO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Amended Hackel Suit Still Pending
BERRY GLOBAL: Gonsales FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Drachman Class Action Complaint Underway

BLUE APRON: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in EDNY Still Pending
BLUE APRON: Mediation in California Class Suit Ongoing
CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Gross Law Announces Class Action
CAMBRIDGE MANAGEMENT: Hobbs Seeks Unpaid Wages for Employees
CAPITAL ONE: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit

CARBONITE INC: No Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Yet in Securities Suits
CASELLA WASTE: Faces Vandemortel Class Suit in New York
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Still Faces Naylor Farms Class Suit in Oklahoma
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
CIGNA CORP: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Reconsider Ruling in "Amara"

CITADEL BUILDERS: Faces Class Suit Over Hard Rock Collapse
COVETRUS INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
DISH DBS: $61-MM Judgment in Krakauer Suit Brought to Supreme Court
DISH DBS: EchoStar Board Members Cleared from Retirement Fund Suit
DLA PIPER: Ex-Manager Files Gender Discrimination, Harassment Case

DOMO INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
DROPBOX INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Dec. 3 Deadline
DYNACAST LLC: Colon Suit Remanded to Cook County Circuit Court
EAGLE BANCORP: Still Defends Stein Securities Class Suit in N.Y.
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Amend Complaint

FANNIE MAE: Appeal in D.C. Class Action Still Pending
FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend Suits over Stock Purchase Deals
FARFETCH LIMITED: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 18 Deadline
FARFETCH LIMITED: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit
FEDERAL SIGNAL: Status Hearing Set in Hearing Loss Litigation

FLEETCOR TECH: Preliminary OK of $50MM Pact in Georgia Suit Pending
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Schultz Suit v. Unit for $10,000
FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Kanugonda Class Suit
FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Washington
GPB CARS: Court Narrows Claims in Page Class Suit

GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Still Faces Securities Action in Virginia
HARO BICYCLE: Faces Class Suit Over Website's ADA Compliance
HARRY BAKER: Faces Class Suit Over Hard Rock Collapse
HARTFORD MDC: Must Decide on $9.1MM Offer to Settle Surcharges Case
HEASLIP ENGINEERING: Faces Class Suit Over Hard Rock Collapse

HOPPER USA: Violates TCPA by Sending Illegal Texts, Kravitz Says
IMG STONECRAFTER: Espinoza Seeks to Recoup $9,600 in Unpaid Wages
INFOSYS LIMITED: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 23 Deadline
INFOSYS LIMITED: Vincent Wong Reminds of Dec. 23 Deadline
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Bid to Dismiss Connecticut Class Suit Denied

IQVIA INC: Sued by Fischbein for Sending Unsolicited Fax Ads
IROBOT CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Dec. 23 Deadline
JOE'S KWIK: Settles Lawsuit Over Overtime Pay for $785K
KAILAS COMPANIES: Faces Class Suit Over Hard Rock Collapse
KANDI TECH: Time to Appeal Nixed N.Y. Securities Suit Has Expired

KELLOGG CO: Settles "Healthy" Sugary Cereal Lawsuit for $20MM
KRAFT HEINZ: Continues to Defend Osborne Class Action
KRAFT HEINZ: Securities Class Suits Consolidated
LBG CONSTRUCTION: Hernandez-Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Suit Against Unit, Voya Still Ongoing

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Motion for Leave to Amend Glover Suit Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Defends Class Action by TVPX ARS
LOUISIANA: Inmates Mental Exam OK'd in Tellis DWSS Suit
LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Karri Class Action Pending
MAC DONUT: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum and OT Wages, Rivera Says

MATCH GROUP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 2 Deadline
MDL 2327: Godwin Suit Over Pelvic Repair Systems Consolidated
MDL 2918: Cimino Suit over Headway HDD Assemblies Consolidated
MDL 2918: CMP Suit vs. NHK Spring over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
MDL 2918: Elmazi Suit over Headway HDD Assemblies Consolidated

MEDNAX INC: Anesthesiology Business-Related Suit Ongoing
METROWEST SUBARU: Campbell Seeks Overtime Pay for Sales Workers
MOSES ENGINEERS: Faces Class Suit Over Hard Rock Collapse
MYRIAD GENETICS: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
NASTYGAL.COM USA: Fowler Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts

NEXSTAR MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Event-Driven Fund Suit Still Pending
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Bid to Nix 2nd Amended TV Ads Antitrust Suit Filed
OLD REPUBLIC: Sua Sues Alleging Sex Discrimination and Harassment
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 18 Deadline
OLLIES BARGAIN: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit

OMNICELL INC: Dismissed from Mazya Class Action
ONTARIO REFRIGERATION: Faces Garcia Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
OTTAWA, CANADA: Federal Gov't. Ordered to Pay $1.12M in Legal Fees
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: 4 Purported Securities Class Suits Underway
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 26 Deadline

OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 26 Deadline
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Traynor's Putative Class Suit Dismissed
OVERSTOCK.COM: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of Nov. 26 Deadline
PARETEUM CORP: Kaskela Law Notes of Dec. 23 Plaintiff Deadline
PARETEUM CORPORATION: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit

POLARITYTE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation Still Pending
QIHOO 360: Altimeo Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to S.D. New York
RADIANT LOGISTICS: No Trial Date Yet for Appeal in Barahona Suit
RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending
RINGCENTRAL INC: Trial in Hurley TCPA Class Suit Set for March 2020

RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Bids to Dismiss Takata Class Suit Still Pending
ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Feb. 2020 Hearing Set for Class Suit Settlement
RUHNN HOLDING: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Dec. 6 Deadline
RUHNN HOLDING: Gross Law Announces Class Action
RUHNN HOLDING: Kaskela Law Notes of Dec. 6 Plaintiff Deadline

SEQUIUM ASSET: Standish Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
SONIM TECH: Pearson and 3 Other IPO-Related Class Suits Underway
SPRINT CORP: Still Faces Soloman Class Suit in New York
STAMPS.COM INC: Seeks to Dismiss Karinski Securities Class Lawsuit
TAMBURI TRATTORIA: Veleva Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA

TAMPOPO LLC: Larios Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: IGNITE3 Class Suit Voluntarily Dropped
TRENDSETTER ENGINEERING: Jozwiak Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
TRINITY HEALTH: Faces Ripley Suit for Not Paying Overtime Wages
TWITTER INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Lawsuit

TWITTER INC: Kaplan Fox Files Class Action Lawsuit
TWITTER INC: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
TYSON FOODS: Amended Complaint Filed in Fed Cattle Antitrust Suit
TYSON FOODS: Amended Complaints in Pork Purchasers' Suit Underway
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Beef Buyers Suit Still Pending

TYSON FOODS: Direct Beef Purchasers Class Action Underway
TYSON FOODS: Non-Supervisory Staff Wage-Fixing Class Suit Underway
TYSON FOODS: PH Supreme Court Review on Suit v. Hillshire Pending
TYSON FOODS: Still Defends Illinois Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Rizzuto ERISA Suit Moved to Massachusetts

UNITED STATES: 100 Insurers Owed Nearly $1.6-Bil. in Unpaid CSRs
UNITED STATES: Class Suit Links Immigrant Visas, Health Insurance
VALARIS PLC: Continues to Defend Zhang Class Suit
VENATOR MATERIALS: Miami Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to S.D. Texas
VIEWRAY INC: Gross Law Announces Class Action

WAITR HOLDINGS: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
WARDROP FOODS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Olivares Says
WAYFAIR INC: Bid to Dismiss Massachusetts Class Action Pending
WELSPUN PIPES: Kilcrease-Tiger Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WESTCOM PROPERTY: Attempts to Illegally Collect Debt, Trupin Says

WESTERN DIGITAL: Settlement of Scandisk Suit Gets Court's Final OK
WW NORTH AMERICA: Hirsh Sues Over Unreimbursed Business Expenses
ZENDESK INC: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Suit

                            *********

400 WEST 23RD ST: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Ramirez, on Behalf of himself And All Others Similarly
Situated v. 400 WEST 23RD STREET RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a THE RAIL
LINE DINER, IRENE NICTAS, and TEDDY NICTAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-10572
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2019), is brought for damages and equitable
relief based upon the Defendants' flagrant and willful violations
of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the minimum and
overtime wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Defendants required the Plaintiff to work, and he did work,
more than 40 hours per week. However, the Plaintiff alleges, the
Defendants failed to pay him at the minimum wage or overtime rate
of pay of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for each
hour that he worked per week in excess of 40, as the FLSA and the
NYLL require. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff for his spread of hours in violation of NYLL, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a kitchen helper from
March 1, 2013, to November 29, 2017.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis M. Leon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 583-7400
          Email: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com


ADVANCE AUTO: Bid to Drop Delaware Securities Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
October 5, 2019, that a motion to dismiss a putative class action
remains pending before the U.S. District Court, District of
Delaware.

On February 6, 2018, a putative class action on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities who purchased or otherwise
acquired their securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), was commenced against the
Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers
and directors in the United States District Court, District of
Delaware.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being,
business relationships, and prospects during the alleged Class
Period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Company said, "The case is still in its early stages, with a
motion to dismiss pending before the court.  We strongly dispute
the allegations of the complaint and intend to defend the case
vigorously."

Advance Auto Parts, Inc. provides automotive replacement parts,
accessories, batteries, and maintenance items for domestic and
imported cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and light and heavy
duty trucks. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. was founded in 1929 and is
based in Raleigh, North Carolina.


ADVANTAGE INVESTIGATIVE: Hormozdi Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hormozdi Law Firm, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company, on
behalf of itself and all other similarly situated v. ADVANTAGE
INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-05173-MLB (N.D. Ga.,
Nov. 14, 2019), challenges the Defendant's policy and practice of
sending unsolicited facsimiles in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant transmitted by facsimile machine a two-page
unsolicited advertisement to the Plaintiff. The fax advertises
"investigative services" offered by the Defendant. The Plaintiff
contends the Defendant did not have its prior express investigation
or permission to send an advertisement to its fax machine. The
unsolicited fax wasted the Plaintiff's valuable time that would
have been spent on something else, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a Georgia limited liability company located in
Gwinnett County, Georgia.

The Defendant is a limited liability company that specializes in
investigative services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles M. Clapp, Esq.
          5 Concourse Parkway NE, Suite 3000
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Phone: 404-585-0040
          Fax: 404-393-8893
          Email: charles@lawcmc.com


AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Faces Ramos De Jeda Suit in Calif. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aimbridge
Hospitality, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Yolanda Ramos De
Jeda on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC and Does 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00267711-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Oct. 25, 2019).

The case alleges violation of employment-related laws.

Aimbridge Hospitality is the leading, global, third-party hotel
management company operating branded full service, select service,
luxury hotels, destination resorts, convention centers and
lifestyle hotels. Aimbridge merged with Interstate Hotels & Resorts
in 2019, and now represents a premium portfolio of more than 1,400
branded and independent properties in 49 states and 20
countries.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Justian Jusuf, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF
          17011 Beach Blvd Ste 900
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647
          Telephone: (714) 274-9815
          Facsimile: (714) 362-3148
          E-mail: jjusuf@jusuf-law.com

AKORN INC: Final Approval Hearing in Data Breach Suit on Dec. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the court in the class action
suit entitled, In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities
Litigation, has reaffirmed the December 3, 2019 date for the Final
Settlement Approval Hearing.

On March 8, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint entitled Joshi Living Trust v.
Akorn, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint named as defendants the Company, Chief Executive
Officer Rajat Rai, Chief Financial Officer Duane Portwood and Chief
Accounting Officer Randall Pollard. The complaint alleged that
defendants made materially false or misleading statements and/or
material omissions by failing to disclose sooner the existence of
investigations into data integrity at the Company. The complaint
sought, among other things, an award of damages, attorneys' fees
and expenses. The Company disputes these claims.

On May 31, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing Gabelli & Co.
Investment Advisors, Inc. and Gabelli Funds, LLC as lead plaintiffs
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"),
approving their selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel and
amending the case caption to In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity
Securities Litigation (the "Securities Class Action Litigation").
On June 26, 2018, the Court denied a motion to lift the PSLRA stay,
subject to entry of a preservation order.

On September 5, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against the Company, Rajat Rai, Duane A. Portwood, Mark M.
Silverberg, Alan Weinstein, Ronald M. Johnson, Brian Tambi, John
Kapoor, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Adrienne L. Graves, Steven J. Meyer
and Terry A. Rappuhn.

The amended complaint asserted (i) claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Fraud Claims")
against Defendants Akorn, Rai, Portwood, Silverberg, Weinstein,
Johnson and Tambi; and (ii) claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Proxy Claims") against
defendants Akorn, Rai, Kapoor, Weinstein, Abramowitz, Graves,
Johnson, Meyer, Rappuhn and Tambi.

The amended complaint alleged that, during a class period from
November 3, 2016, to April 20, 2018, defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded widespread institutional data integrity problems at
Akorn's manufacturing and research and development facilities,
while making or causing Akorn to make contrary misleading
statements and omissions of material fact concerning the Company's
data integrity at its facilities. The amended complaint alleged
that corrective information was provided to the market on two
separate dates, causing non-insider shareholders to lose over $1.07
billion and $613 million in value respectively. The amended
complaint sought an award of equitable relief and damages.

On October 29, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation and joint
motion providing for the dismissal of certain claims and
defendants. On October 30, 2018, the Court granted the parties'
joint motion, dismissing the Proxy Claims without prejudice;
dismissing defendants Kapoor, Abramowitz, Graves, Meyer and Rappuhn
without prejudice; and dismissing Defendant Silverberg with
prejudice.

On February 21, 2019, Plaintiff Johnny Wickstrom, a purported
shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Wickstrom Action").

The complaint named as defendants the Company, Rai and Portwood.
The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or
misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning its
compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
regulations and that those misstatements were corrected when the
Company disclosed its receipt from the FDA of a warning letter at
the Company's facility in Decatur, IL. The complaint sought, among
other things, an award of damages, attorneys' fees and expenses.

On March 8, 2019, the parties in the Securities Class Action
Litigation filed a proposed stipulation which sought, among other
things: (i) leave to file a second amended class action complaint,
which would extend the end date of the alleged class period from
November 3, 2016, through September 28, 2018; (ii) to consolidate
the Wickstrom complaint into the Securities Class Action Litigation
for all purposes; and (iii) to extend the existing discovery
schedule in order to permit time to mediate lead plaintiffs’
claims and to conduct additional discovery related to the expanded
class period.

During a March 27, 2019 conference, the Court found that the
Wickstrom Action was related to the Securities Class Action
Litigation and ordered oral argument for April 22, 2019, on lead
plaintiffs’ requests to file a second amended complaint and to
consolidate the Wickstrom complaint.

Following the March 27, 2019 hearing, the Court entered an order
finding the Securities Class Action Litigation and Wickstrom Action
to be related and requesting the reassignment of the Wickstrom
Action. The Court also extended the discovery and pretrial
deadlines.

On April 22, 2019, Plaintiff Vicente Juan, a purported shareholder
of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Juan Action").

The complaint named as defendants the Company, Rai and Portwood.
The complaint alleged that defendants made or caused the Company to
make materially false or misleading statements and/or material
omissions concerning the Company's compliance with FDA regulations
and that those misstatements were corrected when the Company
disclosed its receipt from the FDA of a warning letter at the
Company's facility in Decatur, IL. The complaint sought, among
other things, an award of damages, attorneys' fees and expenses.

Also on April 22, 2019, lead plaintiffs, by and through their
attorneys, filed a second amended complaint against the Company,
Rai, Portwood, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi. The second amended
complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The second amended complaint
alleges that, during a class period from November 3, 2016, to
January 8, 2019, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded
widespread institutional data integrity problems at Akorn's
manufacturing and research and development facilities, while making
or causing Akorn to make contrary misleading statements and/or
omissions of material fact concerning the Company's data integrity
at its facilities.

The second amended complaint alleges that corrective information
was provided to the market on three separate dates. The second
amended complaint seeks an award of equitable relief and damages.
On April 23, 2019, the Court entered an order finding the
Securities Class Action Litigation and Juan Action to be related
and requesting reassignment of the Juan Action.

On May 3, 2019, the Company and lead plaintiffs commenced
mediation. On May 9, 2019, the Court entered an order consolidating
both the Wickstrom Action and the Juan Action with and into the
Securities Class Action Litigation.

The Court also extended the discovery and pretrial deadlines.

On May 31, 2019, Plaintiffs Twin Master Fund, Ltd., Twin
Opportunities Fund, LP and Twin Securities, Inc., purported
shareholders of the Company, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging
violations of Sections 10(b), 18 and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and common law fraud (the “Twin Master Fund
Action”).

The complaint names as defendants the Company, Rai, Portwood,
Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi. The complaint alleges that defendants
made or caused Akorn to make materially false or misleading
statements and/or material omissions concerning the Company's
compliance with FDA regulations, among other things. The complaint
seeks, among other things, an award of damages, punitive damages
and expenses. Following a June 5, 2019 conference, the Court
extended the discovery and pretrial deadlines.

On June 11, 2019, the Court entered an order finding the Securities
Class Action Litigation and Twin Master Fund Action to be related
and requesting reassignment of the Twin Master Fund Action.  On
July 5, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification
of a proposed class of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Akorn's common stock between November 3, 2016
and January 8, 2019, inclusive, and were damaged thereby.

On July 10, 2019, Plaintiffs Manikay Master Fund, LP and Manikay
Merger Fund, LP, purported shareholders of the Company, filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 18 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law fraud
(the "Manikay Master Fund Action"). The complaint names as
defendants the Company, Rai, Portwood, Weinstein, Johnson and
Tambi. The complaint alleges that defendants made or caused Akorn
to make materially false or misleading statements and/or material
omissions concerning the Company's compliance with FDA regulations,
among other things. The complaint seeks, among other things, an
award of damages, punitive damages and expenses.

On July 25, 2019, after extensive arm's-length negotiations, the
parties in the Securities Class Action Litigation reached a
non-binding agreement in principle, memorialized in a signed term
sheet, with respect to the principal terms of a settlement that, if
consummated, would provide for, among other things, the dismissal
of that action and the release of all claims asserted by or on
behalf of the putative class in that action.

Under the terms of the non-binding agreement in principle, the
putative class would release its claims in exchange for a
combination of (i) up to $30 million in insurance proceeds from the
Company's D&O insurance policies (the "D&O Proceeds Payment"), (ii)
the issuance by the Company of approximately 6.5 million shares of
the Company's common stock and any additional shares of Company
common stock that are released as a result of the expiration of out
of the money options through December 31, 2024 and (iii) the
issuance by the Company of contingent value rights ("CVR") with a
five year term, subject to an extension of up to two years under
certain circumstances.

Under the terms of the non-binding agreement in principle, holders
of the CVR would be entitled to receive an annual cash payment from
the Company of 33.3% of "Excess EBITDA" (i.e., earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) above the
amount of EBITDA required to meet a 3.0x net leverage ratio,
assuming a $100.0 million minimum cash cushion, before any such CVR
payment is triggered). To the extent any such annual payments are
triggered under the CVR, they are capped at an aggregate of $12.0
million per year and $60.0 million in the aggregate during the term
of the CVR.

Upon certain change of control transactions during the term of the
CVR, if the Company's first lien term loan lenders and holders of
the Company's other debt are repaid in full, the CVR would entitle
the holders thereof to a cash payment in the aggregate amount of
$30.0 million (the "Change of Control Payment"). If the Company is
the subject of a voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy filing during
the term of the CVR, the CVR agreement would provide that holders
of the CVR would receive in the aggregate a $30.0 million unsecured
claim (which unsecured claim will be subordinated to any deficiency
claim of the Company's first lien term loan lenders and holders of
the Company's other secured debt in any such bankruptcy case) (the
"Bankruptcy Claim"). The $60.0 million cap on annual payments would
not apply to the Change of Control Payment or the Bankruptcy Claim,
if any. No further amounts would be payable under the CVR following
such a change of control transaction or bankruptcy event.

The Company and the other defendants in the Securities Class Action
Litigation have denied and continue to deny each and all of the
claims alleged in the action, and the entry into the non-binding
agreement in principle is not an admission of wrongdoing or
acceptance of fault by the Company or any of the other defendants.

At a July 30, 2019 conference, the parties to the Securities Class
Action Litigation disclosed to the Court that they had reached a
non-binding agreement in principle to settle the action. At the
July 30, 2019 conference, the Court entered a finding of
relatedness with respect to the Manikay Master Fund Action, and
requested reassignment of that action.

On August 9, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, approval of the
form of class notice and a hearing date for final settlement
approval (the "Final Approval Hearing"), with supporting papers.

On August 26, 2019, the Court formally entered an order (the
"Preliminary Approval Order") preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement, approving the form of class notice, and setting a
hearing on final approval of the settlement for December 3, 2019.

Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order: lead plaintiffs shall
file a motion for final approval of the proposed settlement, the
proposed plan of allocation and lead counsel's motion for
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses no later than 35 calendar
days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, or October 29, 2019; any
potential class members seeking to exclude themselves from or
object to the proposed settlement shall file requests for exclusion
or objections no later than 21 calendar days prior to the Final
Approval Hearing, or November 12, 2019; and lead plaintiffs shall
file reply papers, if any, in further support of lead plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the proposed settlement, the proposed
plan of allocation and lead counsel's motion for attorneys' fees
and litigation expenses no later than seven calendar days prior to
the Final Approval Hearing, or November 26, 2019.

The definitive settlement agreement is subject to numerous terms
and conditions including, among other things, (i) the unilateral
right of the Company and the other defendants in the action to
terminate the definitive settlement agreement if persons who
purchased a number of shares exceeding a to be agreed threshold opt
out of and elect not to participate in or be bound by the proposed
settlement and (ii) final approval by the Court. There can be no
guarantee that the Company and the other defendants will not
exercise their termination right or that the definitive settlement
agreement will receive Court approval.

By orders dated September 11, 2019, in light of the definitive
settlement agreement, the Court disassociated the Twin Master Fund
Action and the Manikay Master Fund Action from the Securities Class
Action Litigation. On September 13, 2019, defendants in the Twin
Master Fund Action and Manikay Master Fund Action moved to dismiss
both complaints.

On September 16, 2019, the Securities Class Action Litigation was
reassigned to the Honorable Steven Seeger. During a status
conference on October 29, 2019, the court reaffirmed the December
3, 2019 date for the Final Approval Hearing.

On October 15, 2019, plaintiffs in the Twin Master Fund Action and
Manikay Master Fund Action filed oppositions to defendants' motions
to dismiss both complaints.

Akorn, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and markets generic and branded prescription
pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter (OTC) consumer health products,
and animal health pharmaceuticals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates in two segments, Prescription
Pharmaceuticals and Consumer Health. Akorn, Inc. was founded in
1971 and is headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.


ALL STAR ELECTRIC: Faces Class Suit Over Hard Rock Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------------
WDSU News reports that four businesses at the site of the New
Orleans Athletic Club have filed a class-action lawsuit against
developers and contractors of the collapsed Hard Rock Hotel.

The businesses, 1021 Bienville Street LLC, McCrory's LLC, Lynn
Properties LLC and New Orleans Athletic LLC have filed a lawsuit
against Citadel Builders, Harry Baker Smith Architects, Heaslip
Engineering, Moses Engineers, All Star Electric and Kailas
Companies, according to court documents. All four businesses that
filed the suit list William More as a company officer and 222 North
Rampart St. as its address, according to the Louisiana Secretary of
State's website.

The lawsuit contends that the collapse of the hotel caused
"catastrophic damage" to people within the building and nearby, and
as a result, their businesses have been forced to close or
drastically limit their businesses operations.

According to the lawsuit, the contractor's negligence caused
damages to the businesses by not identifying dangerous conditions
at the site, improper oversight of the construction and creating
unsafe conditions.

The businesses contend in the lawsuit that they suffered economic
and property damage as a result of the collapse.

They are seeking damages for economic loss as a result of business
interruption or property damage.

The City of New Orleans is still working with the Small Business
Administration on loans for businesses affected by the collapse.
[GN]


ALTRIA GROUP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 2 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Altria Group.
Investors have until the deadlines listed below to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

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

Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE: MO)
Class Period: December 20, 2018 - September 24, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019

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 Altria had conducted insufficient due diligence
into JUUL prior to the company's $12.8 billion investment in JUUL;
(2) that Altria consequently failed to inform investors, or account
for, material risks associated with JUUL's products and marketing
practices, and the true value of JUUL and its products; (3) that
all of the foregoing, as well as mounting public scrutiny, negative
publicity, and governmental pressure on e-vapor products and JUUL
made it reasonably likely that Altria's investment in JUUL would
have a material negative impact on the company's reputation and
operations; and (4) that as a result, the company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

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 these class actions, 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.

Contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Awaits Dismissal of Farmers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company's motion to dismiss the remaining farmers' suit is still
pending.

The Company has been a party to numerous lawsuits pending in
various U.S. state and federal courts arising out of Syngenta
Corporation's ("Syngenta") marketing and distribution of
genetically modified corn products, Agrisure Viptera and Agrisure
Duracade, in the U.S. First, the Company brought a state court
action in Louisiana against Syngenta in 2014, alleging Syngenta was
negligent in commercializing its products before the products were
approved in China. In December 2017, the Company and Syngenta
reached a confidential settlement of this action.

Second, Syngenta brought third-party claims against the Company in
2015 in a federal multidistrict litigation ("MDL") in Kansas City,
Kansas, a state court MDL in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and other
courts, seeking contribution in the event Syngenta is held liable
in class actions by farmers and other parties.

In the December 2017 settlement, Syngenta agreed to dismiss all of
these third-party claims against the Company. Third, farmers and
other parties have sued the Company and other grain companies in
numerous individual and purported class action suits in Illinois
state and federal courts beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015,
alleging the Company and other grain companies were negligent in
failing to screen for genetically modified corn.

On January 4, 2017, a federal court in the Southern District of
Illinois dismissed, subject to appeal, all of the pending federal
complaints against the Company, and thus the Company remains a
defendant only in certain Illinois state court actions by farmers
and other parties, which actions the Company has moved to dismiss
as well.

The Company denies liability in all of the actions in which it has
been named as a third-party defendant or defendant and is
vigorously defending itself in these cases. All of these actions
are in pretrial proceedings.

Archer-Daniels-Midland said, "At this time, the Company is unable
to predict the final outcome of this matter with any reasonable
degree of certainty, but believes the outcome will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows."

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores,
processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products, and
ingredients. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Bid to Dismiss Suit Against Unit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Company
is awaiting a court ruling on the motion to dismiss a class action
suit against subsidiary Golden Peanut.

On September 5, 2019, D&M Farms, Mark Hasty, and Dustin Land filed
a putative class action on behalf of a purported class of peanut
farmers under the U.S. federal antitrust laws in federal court in
Norfolk, Virginia, alleging that the Company's subsidiary, Golden
Peanut, and another peanut shelling company, conspired to fix the
price they paid to farmers for raw peanuts.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this suit on October 21,
2019, and that motion is awaiting decision by the court. The
Company denies liability, and is vigorously defending itself, in
this action.  

Archer-Daniels-Midland said, "As this action is in pretrial
proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to predict the
final outcome with any reasonable degree of certainty, but believes
the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows."

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores,
processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products, and
ingredients. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Faces AOT Holding's Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company
is defending against a putative class action suit initiated by AOT
Holding AG.

On September 4, 2019, AOT Holding AG ("AOT") filed a putative class
action under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district
court in Urbana, Illinois, alleging that the Company sought to
manipulate the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol
derivatives traded on futures exchanges.

AOT alleges that members of the putative class suffered "hundreds
of millions of dollars in damages" as a result of the Company's
alleged actions.  

The Company denies liability, and is vigorously defending itself,
in this action.  

Archer-Daniels-Midland said, "As this action is in pretrial
proceedings, the Company is unable at this time to predict the
final outcome with any reasonable degree of certainty, but believes
the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows."

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores,
processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products, and
ingredients. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois.


AVANGRID INC: Appeal in Suit by PNE Energy Supply Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the appeal in the
case, PNE Energy Supply LLC v. Eversource Energy and Avangrid,
Inc., remains pending.

On August 10, 2018, PNE Energy Supply LLC, a competitive energy
supplier located in New England that purchases electricity in the
day-ahead and real time wholesale electric market, filed a civil
antitrust action, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated,
against the Company and Eversource alleging that their respective
gas subsidiaries illegally manipulated the supply of pipeline
capacity in the "secondary capacity market" in order to
artificially inflate New England natural gas and electricity
prices. These allegations were also based on the conclusions of the
whitepaper issued by EDF.

The plaintiff claims to represent entities who purchased
electricity directly in the wholesale electricity market that it
claims was targeted by the alleged anticompetitive conduct of
Eversource and the Company.

On September 28, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of
the claims based on federal preemption and lack of any evidence of
antitrust behavior, citing, among other reasons, the results of the
FERC staff inquiry and the dismissal of the related case, "Breiding
et al. v. Eversource and Avangrid," by the same court in September.


The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on October
26, 2018 and the Company filed a reply on November 15, 2018. The
district court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on
January 18, 2019. On April 26, 2019, the Company filed a brief in
support of its motion to dismiss, and on June 7, 2019, the district
court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed all
claims.

On July 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed notice of appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and, on October 18, 2019,
filed a brief in support of appeal. We cannot predict the outcome
of this class action lawsuit.

Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc.
is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.


AVANGRID INC: En Banc Review of Breiding Case Dismissal Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that plaintiffs in the
case, Breiding et al. v. Eversource and Avangrid, filed a motion
seeking en banc review of the First Circuit Court of Appeals'
affirmation of the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's
claims.

On November 16, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
customers in New England against the Company and Eversource
alleging that certain of their respective subsidiaries that take
gas transportation service over the Algonquin Gas Transmission
(AGT), which for AVANGRID would be its indirect subsidiaries
Southern Connecticut Gas Company (SCG) and Connecticut Natural Gas
Corporation (CNG), engaged in pipeline capacity scheduling
practices on AGT that resulted in artificially increased
electricity prices in New England.

These allegations were based on the conclusions of a whitepaper
issued by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an environmental
advocacy organization, on October 10, 2017, purporting to analyze
the relationship between the New England electricity market and the
New England local gas distribution companies.

The plaintiffs assert claims under federal antitrust law, state
antitrust, unfair competition and consumer protection laws, and
under the common law of unjust enrichment.

They seek damages, disgorgement, restitution, injunctive relief,
and attorney fees and costs. On February 27, 2018, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) released the results of a FERC
staff inquiry into the pipeline capacity scheduling practices on
the AGT. The inquiry arose out of the allegations made by the EDF
in its whitepaper. The FERC announced that, based on an extensive
review of public and non-public data, it had determined that the
EDF study was flawed and led to incorrect conclusions.

FERC also stated that the staff inquiry revealed no evidence of
anticompetitive withholding of natural gas pipeline capacity on the
AGT and that it would take no further action on the matter.

On April 27, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the
claims based on federal preemption and lack of any evidence of
antitrust behavior, citing, among other reasons, the results of the
FERC staff inquiry conclusion.

The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 25,
2018. On September 11, 2018, the District Court granted the
Company's Motion and dismissed all claims. On January 29, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed a brief in support of appeal and on April 26,
2019, the Company and Eversource filed a joint brief in opposition.


On May 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a reply to the opposition. On
September 18, 2019, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.

The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking en banc review on October 16,
2019.

Avangrid said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this matter."

Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc.
is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.


AVEO PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Amended Hackel Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that a motion to dismiss the class
action suit initiated by David Hackel remains pending.

On February 25, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its present and former officers, 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 Company'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.

On September 27, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

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

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.


BERRY GLOBAL: Gonsales FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Mario Gonsales, individually and
on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Berry Global Films LLC, a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through
100 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVDS 1928987, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Eastern Division - Riverside) on Oct. 30, 2019.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-02080 to the proceeding.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Berry Global is a Fortune 500 global manufacturer and marketer of
plastic packaging products.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]

Defendant Berry Global Films LLC is represented by:

          Jason M. Guyser, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Fourth Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 513-5100
          Facsimile: (714) 513-5130
          E-mail: jguyser@sheppardmullin.com


BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Drachman Class Action Complaint Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the Company will
respond to the complaint in the case styled, Drachman v.
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., by the December
6, 2019 deadline set by the Court and defend against it
vigorously.

On July 2, 2018, the Company filed a Schedule 14A Proxy Statement
(the "Proxy") with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") in connection with its 2018 Annual Meeting.  Proposals 1 and
2 of the Proxy sought stockholder approval to amend the Company's
Certificate of Incorporation by deleting Article TWELFTH of the
Company's Certificate of Incorporation in its entirety and
replacing it with a new Article TWELFTH that, among other things
(i) provided for the declassification of the Company's Board in
phases, with the full declassification to be achieved in 2020 (the
"Declassification Amendment") and (ii) changed the voting standard
for the uncontested election of directors to the Board from a
plurality standard to the majority of votes cast standard as set
forth in the bylaws of the Company (the "Election Amendment" and
together with the "Declassification Amendment", the "Amendments").

On August 2, 2018, the Company held the 2018 Annual Meeting, at
which time the stockholders voted on the Amendments.  Following the
2018 Annual Meeting, based on consultation with the Company's
advisors, the Company determined that the Amendments had been
adopted by the requisite vote of stockholders and effected the
Amendments by filing a Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate
of Incorporation with the Secretary of State of the State of
Delaware on August 6, 2018.

On September 11, 2019, two purported stockholders of the Company
filed a putative class action against the Company and its directors
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.) (the "Complaint").

The Complaint alleges that the Amendments did not receive the
requisite vote of stockholders at the 2018 Annual Meeting and
asserts claims for violation of the Delaware General Corporation
Law, breach of fiduciary duties, and declaratory judgment.  The
Complaint seeks, inter alia, a declaration that the Amendments were
not validly approved and invalidation of the Amendments, including
altering the one-year terms of all directors duly elected at the
2018 and 2019 Annual Meetings to three-year terms.  The Complaint
also seeks costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees.  The
Company will respond to the complaint by the December 6, 2019
deadline set by the Court and defend against it vigorously.

BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., a specialty
pharmaceutical company, engages in the development and
commercialization of pharmaceutical products in the United States
and internationally.  It was founded in 1997 and is headquartered
in Raleigh, North Carolina.


BLUE APRON: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in EDNY Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a motion to dismiss
a consolidated class action suit remains pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The Company is subject to a consolidated putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging federal securities law violations in connection with
the Company's June 2017 initial public offering, or the IPO.  

The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain current
and former officers and directors made material misstatements or
omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus
that caused the stock price to drop.

Pursuant to a stipulated schedule entered by the parties,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
21, 2018.  Plaintiffs filed a response on July 12, 2018 and
defendants filed a reply on August 13, 2018. The motion to dismiss
remains pending before the Court.

The Company is also subject to two putative class action lawsuits
filed in New York Supreme Court alleging federal securities law
violations in connection with the IPO, which are substantially
similar to the above-referenced federal court action.

The parties have entered into stipulations staying the state court
actions pending resolution of the motion to dismiss filed in the
federal court action.

Blue Apron said, "The Company is unable to provide any assurances
as to the ultimate outcome of any of these lawsuits or that an
adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position or results of operations."

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

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


BLUE APRON: Mediation in California Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that mediation has been
ongoing in the wage and hour class action lawsuit in California
Superior Court.

The Company is subject to a lawsuit filed in California Superior
Court under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of
certain non-exempt employees in the Company's Richmond, California
fulfillment center.

The complaint was filed on October 16, 2017, and alleges that the
Company failed to pay wages and overtime, provide required meal and
rest breaks, provide suitable resting facilities and provide
accurate wage statements, to non-exempt employees in violation of
California law.

Plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate class action lawsuit alleging
largely the same claims, but covering a longer period, which is now
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The Company believes that it is likely that the two cases will be
consolidated, and the parties are preparing for mediation scheduled
for November 2019 in an attempt to resolve both cases.

Blue Apron said, "The Company is currently unable to provide any
assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits or that
adverse resolution of these lawsuits would not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or
results of operations."

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.


CADENCE BANCORPORATION: Gross Law Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues a
notice on behalf of shareholders of publicly traded company Cadence
Bancorporation (CADE). Shareholders who purchased shares in the
company during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm
regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.

Cadence Bancorporation (CADE)

Investors Affected : July 23, 2018 - July 22, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Cadence Bancorporation. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
assess credit risk; (2) as a result, certain of the Company's loans
posed an increased risk of loss; (3) as a result, the Company was
reasonably likely to incur significant losses for certain loans;
(4) the Company's financial results would suffer a material adverse
impact; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cadence-bankcorporation-loss-submission-form/?id=4047&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

          The Gross Law Firm
          15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
          New York, NY, 10018
          E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
          Tel: (212) 537-9430
          Fax: (833) 862-7770
[GN]



CAMBRIDGE MANAGEMENT: Hobbs Seeks Unpaid Wages for Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES HOBBS, in a Representative capacity only, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. and CAMBRIDGE
MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00056938-CU-OE-CTL
(Cal. Super., Oct. 25, 2019), alleges the Defendants failed to:

     -- pay minimum wage for all hours worked;

     -- pay overtime;

     -- provide meal periods or pay premiums in lieu thereof;

     -- provide rest periods or pay premiums in lieu thereof;

     -- reimburse necessary failure to business expenses; and

     -- provide accurate itemized wage statements under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as non-exempt employee,
from in or about Jan. 2019 to Aug. 2019. The Plaintiff and all
other aggrieved employees were and currently denied the benefits
and protections of the Labor Code due to Defendant's
institutionalized pay practices, standard as to all Defendant's
California-based non-exempt employees.

The company offers property management.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees are:

          William B. Sullivan, Esq.
          Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
          Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq.
          Andrea J. Torres-Figueroa, Esq.
          SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC
          2330 Third Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 702-6760
          Facsimile: (619) 702-66761
          E-mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                  yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                  ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                  atorres@sullivanlawgroupapc.com

CAPITAL ONE: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Capital One Financial Corporation (COF)

Investors Affected : February 2, 2018 - July 29, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Capital One Financial Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company did not maintain
robust information security protections, and its protection did not
shield personal information against security breaches; (2) such
deficiencies heightened the Company's exposure to a cyber-attack;
and (3) as a result, Capital One's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/capital-one-financial-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=4123&from=1

Waitr Holdings Inc. (WTRH)

Investors Affected : on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares
between May 17, 2018 and August 8, 2019, including, but not limited
to, those who acquired Waitr shares in connection with the Going
Public Transaction, and those who acquired shares of the Company in
the May 2019 Secondary Offering.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Waitr Holdings Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Waitr lacked a plan to achieve profitability
and, contrary to the statements of Company founder Chris Meaux,
Waitr was not at or near profitability and Defendants had created
the illusion of financial stability by engaging in a host of
illegal and improper activities each designed to inflate revenues
and earnings - such as unilaterally breaking low-rate contracts and
imposing significantly higher rates, and by refusing to pay drivers
for mileage related expenses - both of which ultimately resulted in
independent class action lawsuits; and (ii) Waitr's technology
provided no real advantage and the Company could not obtain the
developer, programming, or engineering resources necessary to
enhance, maintain, and develop industry leading software from its
headquarter location in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/waitr-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4123&from=1

Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN)

Investors Affected : September 2, 2016 - August 13, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Myriad Genetics, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Myriad's product, GeneSight, lacked evidence or
information sufficient to support the tests in their current form,
including their purported benefits; (ii) the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had requested changes to GeneSight and
questioned the validity of the test's purported benefits; (iii)
Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding the
FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (iv) Myriad's acquisition of
Counsyl - and thereby, Foresight - caused the Company to incur the
risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for its expanded carrier
screening tests, which had the potential to, and actually did,
materialize into a material negative impact on the Company's
revenue; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/myriad-genetics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4123&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

Contact:

         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         Phone: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
         Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]


CARBONITE INC: No Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Yet in Securities Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carbonite, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff or lead
counsel in the Securities Complaints.

On August 1, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint against the Company, its former
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
captioned Ruben A. Luna, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali, and Anthony
Folger (No. 1:19-cv-11662-LTS).

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements in connection with the Company's
Server Backup VM Edition, and seeks, among other things, the
designation of the action as a class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

On August 23, 2019, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the
same court captioned William Feng, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Carbonite, Inc., Mohamad S. Ali,
and Anthony Folger (No. 1:19-cv-11808-LTS) (together with the Luna
Complaint, the "Securities Complaints").

On September 30, 2019, five plaintiffs filed competing motions to
consolidate the Securities Complaints and to appoint a lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel:

     -- Peoria Police Pension Fund;
     -- Camelot Event Driven Fund, A Series of Frank Funds Trust;
     -- Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension Trust;
     -- Tom Johnatan Or-Paz; and
     -- Peter Wu

Between October 3, 2019 and October 15, 2019, one plaintiff -- Tom
Johnatan Or-Paz -- withdrew its motion, three plaintiffs filed
notices of non-opposition, and one plaintiff -- Construction
Industry and Laborers Joint Pension Trust -- filed an opposition to
the competing lead plaintiff motions.  The court has not yet
appointed a lead plaintiff or lead counsel.

Carbonite said, "In light of, among other things, the early stage
of the litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of
these actions and is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or
range of loss, if any, that could result from these proceedings."

Carbonite, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides cloud
backup and restore solutions to small and medium sized businesses,
and consumers in the United States.  The Company was founded in
2005 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


CASELLA WASTE: Faces Vandemortel Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company faces a
class action complaint initiated by Richard Vandemortel and Deb
Vandemortel.

On or about September 17, 2019, Richard Vandemortel and Deb
Vandemortel filed a class action complaint against us on behalf of
similarly situated citizens in Ontario County, New York.

The lawsuit has been filed in Ontario County (the "New York
Litigation"). It alleges that over one thousand (1,000) citizens
constitute the putative class in the New York Litigation, and it
seeks damages for diminution of property values and infringement of
the putative class' rights to live without interference to their
daily lives due to odors emanating from the Ontario County
Landfill, which is operated by us pursuant to a long-term
Operation, Maintenance and Lease Agreement with Ontario County. The
New York Litigation was served on the company on October 14, 2019.


Casella said, "We are reviewing the New York Litigation and intend
to present a vigorous defense."

Casella Waste Systems, Inc. provides integrated and non-hazardous
solid waste services throughout the Eastern United States. The
Company offers collection, transfer, disposal, and recycling
services, generates steam, and manufactures finished products
utilizing recyclable materials. The company is based in Rutland,
Vermont.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Still Faces Naylor Farms Class Suit in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. continues to face the alleged class action
styled, Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as class
representative on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

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 US$5,000 thousand, the majority of
which would consist of interest and may increase with the passage
of time.

The Naylor Trial Court certified a class of plaintiffs with oil and
gas leases containing specific language with claims beginning June
1, 2006 through present and the Company's appeal of that class
certification was subsequently denied by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

In addition to filing claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs and
putative class members, plaintiffs' attorneys, on behalf of the
putative class, filed amended proofs of claims in the Company's
Chapter 11 Cases in excess of US$90,000 thousand inclusive of
actual and punitive damages, statutory interest and attorney fees.
The Company's objection to treatment of the claims on a class basis
is the subject of an appeal pending with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Company said, "We continue to dispute the plaintiffs'
allegations and are objecting to the claims both individually and
on a class-wide basis.  To the extent that any claims are allowed,
determined or settled in favor of plaintiffs and they accrued prior
to the Petition Date, pursuant to the terms of the Reorganization
Plan, such claims will be satisfied through the issuance of new
shares of common stock in the Company."

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.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against The Chemours Company (NYSE: CC) and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the District of Delaware, and docketed under
19-cv-02074, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise Chemours securities between February 16,
2017 and August 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The claims
asserted herein are alleged against Chemours and certain of the
Company's senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"), and arise
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the rules promulgated thereunder,
including SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Chemours securities between
February 16, 2017, and August 1, 2019, both dates inclusive, you
have until December 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 number of shares purchased.

Chemours is a spin-off of the Performance Chemicals division of
industrial conglomerate E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
("DuPont") which began trading as its own public company in 2015.
The spin-off was completed pursuant to a Separation Agreement that
required Chemours to indemnify DuPont for historic environmental
liabilities.  The action arises from Defendants' misrepresentations
and omissions relating to Chemours' statements and accruals for
environmental liabilities arising from its decades-long production,
use, and discharge of chemicals manufactured by the Performance
Chemicals division, including perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS")—toxic chemicals that have become the basis
for environmental regulatory actions, prosecutions, personal injury
lawsuits, and extensive remediation efforts.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misled investors by representing that Chemours had appropriately
accounted and accrued reserves for its environmental liabilities,
that the possibility of costs exceeding accrued amounts was
"remote," and that, in any event, additional costs would not be
material.  Chemours also assured investors that its "policies,
standards and procedures are properly designed to prevent
unreasonable risk of harm to people and the environment," and that
its "handling, manufacture, use and disposal of hazardous
substances are in accordance with applicable environmental laws and
regulations."  As a result of these misrepresentations, Chemours
shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period.

A series of disclosures beginning on May 6, 2019 and culminating on
August 1, 2019 revealed the truth about the Company's environmental
practices, and that Chemours' liabilities were far greater than the
Company had represented.  These disclosures included the June 28,
2019 unsealing of a complaint Chemours had filed under seal against
DuPont on May 13, 2019, in which Chemours made detailed allegations
that its spin-off from DuPont was part a deliberate plan by DuPont
to rid itself of significant exposures incurred through decades of
PFAS discharge and to unload that responsibility onto Chemours.
These disclosures triggered sharp declines in the price of Chemours
stock, which lost half its value during this time frame, with
Chemours shares falling from $34.18 per share on May 3, 2019 to
close at $14.69 per share on August 2, 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. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.

Contact:

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


CIGNA CORP: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Reconsider Ruling in "Amara"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in
the class action suit initiated by Janice Amara are seeking
reconsideration of the district court's denial of the plaintiffs'
challenge in the methodology used to calculate and pay benefits.

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

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

In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to
convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2)
found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required
the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-conversion
traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the
post-conversion cash balance formula.

From 2008 through 2015, this case has undergone a series of court
proceedings that resulted in the original District Court Order
being largely upheld. In 2015, the Company submitted to the
District Court its proposed method for calculating the additional
pension benefits due to class members and plaintiffs responded in
August 2015.

Since then, there has been continued litigation regarding the
calculation of benefits, attorneys' fees, and the administration of
the remedy payments. On November 29, 2018, the Court ordered the
Pension Plan to pay attorneys' and incentive fees of $32 million,
and to pay any past due lump sums and back benefits within 90 days
of the Order.

The attorneys' fees were paid as ordered in December 2018. In the
first quarter of 2019, the Company amended the Plan, notified class
participants of their increased benefits and commenced remedy
benefit payments out of the Plan, including the past due lump sums
and back benefits.

In April 2019, plaintiffs challenged certain aspects of the
methodology used to calculate and pay benefits. In August 2019, the
Court denied plaintiffs' challenge in all but one minor respect
which did not result in a material change to the pension
obligation. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration.


Cigna said, "If such motion is granted by the Court, the Company
and the Plan will continue to vigorously oppose it."

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


CITADEL BUILDERS: Faces Class Suit Over Hard Rock Collapse
----------------------------------------------------------
WDSU News reports that four businesses at the site of the New
Orleans Athletic Club have filed a class-action lawsuit against
developers and contractors of the collapsed Hard Rock Hotel.

The businesses, 1021 Bienville Street LLC, McCrory's LLC, Lynn
Properties LLC and New Orleans Athletic LLC have filed a lawsuit
against Citadel Builders, Harry Baker Smith Architects, Heaslip
Engineering, Moses Engineers, All Star Electric and Kailas
Companies, according to court documents. All four businesses that
filed the suit list William More as a company officer and 222 North
Rampart St. as its address, according to the Louisiana Secretary of
State's website.

The lawsuit contends that the collapse of the hotel caused
"catastrophic damage" to people within the building and nearby, and
as a result, their businesses have been forced to close or
drastically limit their businesses operations.

According to the lawsuit, the contractor's negligence caused
damages to the businesses by not identifying dangerous conditions
at the site, improper oversight of the construction and creating
unsafe conditions.

The businesses contend in the lawsuit that they suffered economic
and property damage as a result of the collapse.

They are seeking damages for economic loss as a result of business
interruption or property damage.

The City of New Orleans is still working with the Small Business
Administration on loans for businesses affected by the collapse.
[GN]


COVETRUS INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies.  Investors have until the deadlines
listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

Covetrus, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVET)
Class Period: February 8, 2019 - August 12, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 29, 2019

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 had overstated its capabilities
with regard to inventory management and supply chain services; (2)
that Covetrus had understated the costs of the integration of Henry
Schein's Animal Health Business and VFC, including the timing and
nature of those costs; (3) that Covetrus had understated its
separation costs from Henry Schein; and (4) that the Company
understated the impact on earnings from online competition and
alternative distribution channels as well as the impact of the loss
of a large customer in North America just prior to the Company's
separation from Henry Schein.

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 these class actions, 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.

Contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]


DISH DBS: $61-MM Judgment in Krakauer Suit Brought to Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that in the Krakauer Action on October
15, 2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition for writ of
certiorari, requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court agree to hear a
further appeal.

A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the
subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network
L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").  Following a five-day
trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that case found that the
independent third-party retailer was acting as DISH Network
L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue in that case,
and that class members are eligible to recover US$400 in damages
for each call made in violation of the TCPA.  

On March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court
for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new
trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017.  

On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful
and knowing, and trebled the damages award to US$1,200 for each
call made in violation of TCPA.  

On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a US$61 million judgment in
favor of the class.  DISH Network L.L.C. appealed and on May 30,
2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
affirmed.  

DISH DBS said, "During the second quarter 2017, we recorded US$41
million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action on
our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and
Comprehensive Income (Loss).  We recorded US$20 million of
"Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action during the
fourth quarter 2016.  Our total accrual related to the Krakauer
Action at December 31, 2018 was US$61 million and was included in
"Other accrued expenses" on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets.  During the three months ended September 30, 2019, the
judgment was paid to the court.  We intend to vigorously defend
these cases.  We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the
outcome of these suits."

DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV
services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The
company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation.


DISH DBS: EchoStar Board Members Cleared from Retirement Fund Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that the plaintiff in the putative class
action lawsuit filed in Nevada styled, Hallandale Beach Police
Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et
al., has amended the complaint, dropping "as defendants the
EchoStar board members other than [Charles] Ergen."

DISH DBS said, "On July 2, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit
was filed by a purported EchoStar stockholder in the District Court
of Clark County, Nevada under the caption City of Hallandale Beach
Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v.
Ergen, et al., Case No. A-19-797799-B.  The lawsuit named as
defendants Mr. Ergen, the other members of the EchoStar Board, as
well as EchoStar, certain of its officers, DISH Network and certain
of DISH Network's and EchoStar's affiliates.  Plaintiff alleges,
among other things, breach of fiduciary duties in approving the
transactions contemplated under the Master Transaction Agreement
for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an unfair and
conflicted process, and that EchoStar, DISH Network and certain
other defendants aided and abetted such breaches.  In the operative
First Amended Complaint, filed on October 11, 2019, the plaintiff
dropped as defendants the EchoStar board members other than Mr.
Ergen.  Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including the issuance of
additional DISH Network Class A Common Stock, monetary relief and
other costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees."

DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case, but cannot
predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this suit or
determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV
services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The
company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation.


DLA PIPER: Ex-Manager Files Gender Discrimination, Harassment Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Arciga, writing for Daily Beast, reports that just weeks
after sexual assault allegations within the ranks of law firm DLA
Piper surfaced, a former human resources manager at the firm says
she was fired shortly after complaining about an ex-managing
partner's conduct. The ex-HR manager, who remains unnamed, filed a
complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging
gender discrimination, hostile work environment, sexual harassment,
and retaliation. The former manager said she was fired weeks after
complaining that she and other female employees at the firm's Palo
Alto branch were afraid of being alone with then-managing partner
Louis Lehot. She was allegedly told that Lehot brought in
"substantial fees" for DLA Piper.

The ex-manager also said Lehot likely spread rumors about three of
his subordinates having affairs with him, including Vanina
Guerrero, a junior partner who alleged she was sexually assaulted
four times by her boss. Lehot also allegedly paid his assistant
extra to tolerate his angry outbursts and harassment. The former
manager asked the EEOC to investigate the firm on a class-action
basis for all female employees who worked DLA Piper's Palo Alto,
Sacramento, and San Francisco offices.

"How many more women must come forward with tales of abuse by Louis
Lehot before DLA Piper stops retaliating against female employees
who dare report misconduct by male partners?" Jeanne Christensen,
Esq., a lawyer for the ex-manager, said in a statement. "The era of
DLA Piper protecting its male rainmaking partners at the expense of
the physical and emotional safety of the firm's female employees
must come to an end."
[GN]




DOMO 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 Domo, Inc.
(NASDAQ:DOMO) for violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering ("IPO" or
"Offering") commenced on or around June 29, 2018, or between June
28, 2018 and September 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before December 16, 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. Domo suffered weakness in its enterprise
business as well as in international sales. The Company's growth of
billings had slowed considerably. These issues were likely
negatively impact the Company's financial results. 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 Domo, 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]



DROPBOX INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Dec. 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming December 3, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Dropbox, Inc. ("Dropbox" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: DBX) investors who purchased Class A common
stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Company's March 2018 initial public offering
("IPO" or the "Offering").

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

On or about March 23, 2018, Dropbox held its initial public
offering ("IPO"), in which it sold 41.4 million shares at $21.00
per share.

On August 8, 2019, Dropbox announced its second quarter 2019
financial results and claimed to have "more than 500 million
registered users" as of June 2019, or essentially flat user growth
since December 31, 2017. Moreover, the Company's revenue growth was
only 18%, a sharp decline from annual growth rates of 40% and 31%
highlighted in the Registration Statement.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.75, or nearly 13%,
to close at $18.71 per share on August 9, 2019, thereby injuring
investors. Since the IPO, Dropbox's stock has traded as low as
$17.26, significantly below the $21 IPO price.

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 Dropbox had materially overstated its ability
to monetize its user base; (2) that Dropbox was facing worsening
revenue trends, which were negatively impacting the Company at the
time of the IPO; (3) that Dropbox was tracking below its internal
revenue and monetization targets at the time of the IPO; and (4)
that as a result, defendants' statements about Dropbox's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Dropbox Class A common
stock, you may move the Court no later than December 3, 2019 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. 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 the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

Contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
                 lportnoy@glancylaw.com
[GN]


DYNACAST LLC: Colon Suit Remanded to Cook County Circuit Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert Dow of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, has remanded to the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, the case captioned TAMARA COLON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DYNACAST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-4561. (N.D.
Ill.).

Defendant Dynacast LLC used so-called biometric data to provide
authentication for its time-card system, where an employee's
fingerprint and/or handprint is collected and stored to
authenticate timecard entries. Every time an employee clocked in or
out, he or she would have to scan his or her finger or handprint;
Defendant's computer systems would then compare the instant
biometric information against the stored record.  

Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
asserting various theories under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act. Defendant removed the case to federal court and soon
thereafter filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff responded by filing a motion to remand for lack of
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). Plaintiff
argues that she lacks Article III standing and that she also fails
to meet the statutory amount-in-controversy requirements for either
individual or class actions.  

Defendant retorts that Plaintiff's injury is sufficiently concrete
to confer Article III standing; that the individual amount in
controversy is greater than $75,000; and that the class-action
amount in controversy is well-over $5,000,000.  

Indeed, the Court notes, the case is virtually identical to several
other BIPA cases that courts in this district have remanded or
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction when employees knowingly
provided biometric data to their employers, the employers did not
disclose said data to third parties and the employees sued on the
sole basis of their respective employers' failure to provide
written notice or obtain signed consent. The fact that this was not
explained in writing does nothing to harm people's privacy
interests, because they knew that the data was being collected and
did not allege that their data was shared with third parties.

Defendant's various arguments to the contrary are unconvincing, the
Court opines. Defendant points to Plaintiff's proposed class
definition, which includes those whose data was distributed. But
Plaintiff has not pled sufficient factual allegations, that
plausibly suggest that her or anyone else's data was actually
distributed.  Indeed, the class definition is the only time that
the complaint mentions distribution, and Plaintiff does not bring
any claims under the subsection of BIPA concerning distribution to
third parties. This single, opaque reference to a potential
concrete injury is not enough to plausibly allege injury in fact.


Finally, Plaintiff's conclusory statement that she suffered risks,
harmful conditions, and violations of privacy is insufficient to
plead injury in fact on its own, the Court points out. That single
statement is nothing more than rhetoric, as the entirety of the
complaint clarifies that the complained of conduct is Defendant's
failure to provide or obtain written information. Indeed, elsewhere
in the Complaint, Plaintiff soft-pedals the alleged privacy
invasion, explaining that BIPA is little more than an informed
consent statute and that the only complained-of violations stemmed
from procedural deficiencies in the mutually-consented-to
collection of biometric information, the Court adds.

But even if this rhetoric referred to activities that could give
rise to concrete injuries, legal conclusions or bare and conclusory
allegations are insufficient to plead concrete injury and thus
confer Article III standing, the Court says.

It was not clearly established at the time of removal that
Plaintiffs lacked standing, the Court points out. Thus, Plaintiff's
request for attorneys' fees is denied, the Court rules.

Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted, the Court further orders.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019
Memorandum Opinion and Order at https://tinyurl.com/y5xsh8m5 from
Leagle.com

Tamara Colon, Plaintiff, represented by Alejandro Caffarelli ,
Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. & Madeline K. Engel , Caffarelli &
Associates Ltd, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 300
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dynacast LLC, Defendant, represented by Richard Patrick McArdle -
rmcardle@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Joseph A. Donado -
jdonado@seyfarth.com - Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


EAGLE BANCORP: Still Defends Stein Securities Class Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Bancorp, Inc. continues to face a putative class action
lawsuit styled, Shiva Stein vs. Eagle Bancorp, Inc., et al. (Case
1:19-cv-06873), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019.

On July 24, 2019, the putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, its current and former President and
Chief Executive Officer and its current and former Chief Financial
Officer, on behalf of persons similarly situated, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Company securities between March 2, 2015 and
July 17, 2019.

The plaintiff in the action alleges that certain of the Company's
10-K reports and other public disclosures contained material
misrepresentations, or omitted material information, about the
business, operations and management of the Company, including the
effectiveness of its internal controls and related party
transactions, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20(a) of
that act, resulting in injury to the purported class members as a
result the decline in the value of the Company's common stock
following the disclosure of increased legal expenses associated
with certain government investigations involving the Company.  The
relief sought in the lawsuit includes damages.

The Company said, "While we continue to review the complaint, the
Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit and
intends to defend vigorously against them."

Eagle Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
EagleBank that provides commercial and consumer banking services
primarily in the United States.  It accepts business and personal
checking, NOW, tiered savings, and money market accounts, as well
as individual retirement, certificate of deposit, and investment
sweep accounts; and time deposits.  Eagle Bancorp, Inc. was founded
in 1997 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.


EQUITY BANCSHARES: Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Amend Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Bancshares, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that on October 15, 2019, the plaintiffs
in a putative securities class lawsuit in New York have filed an
amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased Company securities between April 20, 2018 and April 23,
2019.

On May 13, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in federal court in the
Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of
its executive officers.  

On August 16, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and on
October 15, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased Company
securities between April 20, 2018 and April 23, 2019.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company made materially misleading
statements about the Company's financial results, business,
operations and prospects starting on April 20, 2018, that these
statements caused the Company's securities to be overvalued and
that the "truth" came out on January 24, 2019, when the Company
disclosed that a credit relationship was downgraded and further on
April 22, 2019, when the Company disclosed a US$14.5 million
provision for loan loss against that credit relationship.

Equity Bancshares said, "The Company believes that the lawsuit is
without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against all
claims asserted.  At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate the outcome of this litigation."

Equity Bancshares, Inc., incorporated on August 23, 2002, is a bank
holding company. The Company's principal activity is the ownership
and management of its subsidiary, Equity Bank (the Bank). The Bank
provides a range of financial services primarily to businesses and
business owners, as well as individuals through its network of over
49 branches located in Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma. The
company is based in Wichita, Kansas.


FANNIE MAE: Appeal in D.C. Class Action Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Associationsaid in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
appeal undertaken by plaintiffs in the class action suit pending
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is
still pending.

Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) is a defendant
in three cases pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia, a consolidated putative class action and two
additional cases.

In all three cases, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stockholders filed
amended complaints on November 1, 2017 against the company, the
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as the company's conservator
and Freddie Mac.

On September 28, 2018, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs'
claims in these cases, except for their claims for breach of an
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and on May 16,
2019, the court denied defendants' motion for partial
reconsideration.

In a fourth case that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia on May 21, 2018, the court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss on March 6, 2019, and on March 18, 2019,
plaintiff moved to alter or amend the judgment and to file an
amended complaint. On May 24, 2019, the court denied this motion.

On June 19, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the court's
dismissal and related orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.

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


FANNIE MAE: Continues to Defend Suits over Stock Purchase Deals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Associationsaid in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31,
2019, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company continues to defend itself in lawsuits, including a
consolidated class action, related to Senior Preferred Stock
Purchase Agreements.

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

In the consolidated class action and two of the non-class action
suits, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae and Fairholme Funds
v. FHFA, plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 1, 2017
alleging that the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior
preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012
amendments nullified certain of the shareholders' rights,
particularly the right to receive dividends.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive
relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs in the class action seek to represent several classes of
preferred and/or common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie
Mac who held stock as of the public announcement of the August 2012
amendments. On September 28, 2018, the court dismissed all of the
plaintiffs' claims except for their claims for breach of an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On October 15, 2018,
defendants filed a motion for partial reconsideration. On May 16,
2019, the court denied this motion.

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

On March 6, 2019, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
and on March 18, 2019, plaintiff moved to alter or amend the
judgment and to file an amended complaint. On May 24, 2019, the
court denied this motion. On June 19, 2019, plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal of the court's dismissal and related orders with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

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

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


FARFETCH LIMITED: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded company
Farfetch Limited (FTCH). To determine your eligibility and get free
access to our shareholder support tools that provide you with case
updates, automated loss calculations and claims recovery
assistance, please contact the firm via the links below. There will
be no cost or obligation to you.

Farfetch Limited (FTCH)

Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Farfetch Class A
ordinary shares between September 21, 2018, and August 8, 2019,
inclusive, including those who purchased or otherwise acquired
Farfetch Class A ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
Company's September 21, 2018 initial public offering.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 18, 2019

TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/farfetch-loss-form?prid=4125&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (1) the Company would refuse to
reduce merchandise prices to match the rest of the market; (2) this
sub-optimal pricing strategy rendered the Company's platform highly
susceptible to underpricing by competitors, despite what Defendants
touted as a "superior" platform; and (3) as a result, the Company's
past and projected Platform Gross Merchandise Value growth rates
were foreseeably unsustainable. As a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business strategy and
growth prospects lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

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

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

Contact:

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


FARFETCH LIMITED: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Farfetch
Limited (FTCH). If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Farfetch Limited (FTCH)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/farfetch-loss-submission-form?prid=4045&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 18, 2019
Class Period: all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Farfetch Class A ordinary shares between September 21,
2018, and August 8, 2019, inclusive, including those who purchased
or otherwise acquired Farfetch Class A ordinary shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with Company's September 21, 2018 initial
public offering.

Allegations against FTCH include that: (1) the Company would refuse
to reduce merchandise prices to match the rest of the market; (2)
this sub-optimal pricing strategy rendered the Company's platform
highly susceptible to underpricing by competitors, despite what
Defendants touted as a "superior" platform; and (3) as a result,
the Company's past and projected Platform Gross Merchandise Value
growth rates were foreseeably unsustainable. As a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's business
strategy and growth prospects lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Status Hearing Set in Hearing Loss Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that a status hearing
has been scheduled for November 19, 2019, in the Hearing Loss
Litigation.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective.

There were 33 cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004,
involving a total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.

These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six additional cases were
filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was filed in Cook County
involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the number
of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffs
concluded with a verdict against the Company and for the plaintiffs
in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company appealed this
verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court
rejected this appeal.

The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the
Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013. The
Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave to
appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013. On May
29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order
declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the
Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs, which
resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this
trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate
Court accepted the Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs
moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the
trial court had erred in certifying a class action trial in this
matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate
Court reversed the trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a
class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole
issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of the
firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues and
that there is an adequate representative for the class.

During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented
to the Court that they would again seek to certify a class of
firefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were
defective and unreasonably dangerous. On January 12, 2015,
plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints to add class
action allegations with respect to Chicago firefighter plaintiffs,
as well as the approximately 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago.

On March 11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiff's motions to
amend their complaints. On April 24, 2015, the cases were
transferred to Cook County chancery court, which will decide all
class certification issues. On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify as a class all firefighters from the Chicago Fire
Department who have filed lawsuits in this matter. The Company has
served discovery upon plaintiffs related to this motion and intends
to continue its objections to any attempt at certification.

The court has ordered plaintiffs to respond to the Company's
discovery. A further status hearing has been scheduled for November
19, 2019.

Federal Signal Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies a suite of products and
integrated solutions for municipal, governmental, industrial, and
commercial customers in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Environmental
Solutions Group and Safety and Security Systems Group. Federal
Signal Corporation was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Oak
Brook, Illinois.


FLEETCOR TECH: Preliminary OK of $50MM Pact in Georgia Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FleetCor Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that on November 7, 2019, the lead
plaintiff in a class action initiated in Georgia is seeking
preliminary approval of a US$50 million settlement.

On June 14, 2017, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's stock between February 5, 2016 and May 2,
2017.

On October 13, 2017, the shareholder filed an amended complaint
asserting claims on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February
4, 2016 and May 3, 2017.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
made false or misleading statements regarding fee charges and the
reasons for its earnings and growth in certain press releases and
other public statements in violation of the federal securities
laws.

On July 17, 2019, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages,
costs, and attorneys' fees.

On October 3, 2019, the parties executed a term sheet to settle the
case for a payment of US$50 million for the benefit of the class.
The full settlement amount is covered by the Company's insurance
policies.

On November 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.

FleetCor Technologies said, "The Company disputes the allegations
in the complaint and the settlement is without any admission of the
allegations in the complaint."

FleetCor Technologies, Inc. provides commercial payment solutions
in North America, Latin America, Europe, and Australasia. The
company offers fuel payment solutions to businesses and government
entities that operate vehicle fleets, as well as to oil and leasing
companies, and fuel marketers. FleetCor Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Peachtree Corners, Georgia.



FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Schultz Suit v. Unit for $10,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
FleetCor Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019, that the potential class action suit
against its subsidiary was settled with the individual plaintiff
for US$10,000 on September 20, 2019.

On February 1, 2019, Schultz Transfer Systems, Inc. filed a
complaint against Fleetcor Technologies Operating Company, LLC
("Fleetcor LLC") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.  The complaint alleges that it is a
Fleetcor LLC customer and member of the Fuelman program, and that
Fleetcor LLC overcharged the plaintiff for fees and fuel through
the Fuelman program.  Based on these allegations, the complaint
asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent concealment, money
had and received, and unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks to
represent a class defined as all persons, including corporate
entities, who were enrolled in the Fuelman program between June
2016 and the present.  

On April 1, 2019, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration
and to dismiss the case, which was granted without prejudice on
July 8, 2019.

FleetCor Technologies, Inc. provides commercial payment solutions
in North America, Latin America, Europe, and Australasia. The
company offers fuel payment solutions to businesses and government
entities that operate vehicle fleets, as well as to oil and leasing
companies, and fuel marketers. FleetCor Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Peachtree Corners, Georgia.



FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Kanugonda Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Kanugonda v. Funko, Inc. et
al.

On June 4, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Kanugonda
v. Funko, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington against us, certain of our
officers and directors, and certain other defendants. On January 4,
2019, a lead plaintiff was appointed in that case.

On April 30, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
against the previously named defendants.

The parties to the federal action, now captioned Berkelhammer v.
Funko, Inc. et al., have agreed to a stay of that action pending
developments in the state case.

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

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Washington
------------------------------------------------------------------
Funko, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that plaintiffs have filed a first
amended consolidated complaint in the class action suit entitled,
In re Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On November 16, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington
in and for King County against the company, certain of itd officers
and directors, and the underwriters of the company's initial public
offering (IPO), entitled Robert Lowinger v. Funko, Inc., et al.

In January and March 2018, five additional putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Washington state court, four in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for King County and one in the Superior
Court of Washington in and for Snohomish County.

Two of the King County lawsuits, Surratt v. Funko, Inc. et al.
(filed on January 16, 2018) and Baskin v. Funko, Inc. et al. (filed
on January 30, 2018), were filed against the company and certain of
its officers and directors.

The other two King County lawsuits, The Ronald and Maxine Linde
Foundation v. Funko, Inc. et al. (filed on January 18, 2018) and
Lovewell v. Funko, Inc. et al (filed on March 27, 2018), were filed
against the company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental and certain other defendants.

The Snohomish County lawsuit, Berkelhammer v. Funko, Inc. et al.
(filed on March 13, 2018), was filed against the company, certain
of its officers and directors, and ACON. On May 8, 2018, the
Berkelhammer action was voluntarily dismissed, and on May 15, 2018
a substantially similar action was filed by the same plaintiff in
the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County.  

On April 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Jacobs
v. Funko, Inc. et al was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company ,
certain of its officers and directors, and certain other
defendants.

On May 21, 2018 the Jacobs action was voluntarily dismissed, and on
June 12, 2018 a substantially similar action was filed by the same
plaintiff in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King
County.

On July 2, 2018, all of the above-referenced suits were ordered
consolidated for all purposes into one action under the title In re
Funko, Inc. Securities Litigation in the Superior Court of
Washington in and for King County.

On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental, and certain other defendants. On October 1, 2018, the
company moved to dismiss that action.  

Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion to
dismiss on October 31, 2018, and the company filed its reply to
plaintiffs' opposition on November 30, 2018. Oral arguments on the
motions to dismiss were held on May 3, 2019.

On August 2, 2019, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated state litigation, allowing plaintiffs
leave to amend the complaint.  

The Court found, inter alia, that "Funko's statements regarding its
financial disclosures were not materially false or misleading" and
that "plaintiffs have not shown that Funko's 'opinion statements'
were false or that such statements were not simply corporate
optimism or puffery."

On October 3, 2019, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
complaint.

Funko said, "We intend to move to dismiss the action."

Funko, Inc., a pop culture consumer products company, designs,
sources, and distributes licensed pop culture products in the
United States, China, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. Funko, Inc.
was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Everett, Washington.


GPB CARS: Court Narrows Claims in Page Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Anne Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey issued an Opinion on Motions to Dismiss filed in the
case captioned RACHEL A. PAGE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GPB CARS 12, LLC d/b/a NORTH
PLAINFIELD NISSAN, NISSAN EXTENDED SERVICES NORTH AMERICA, G.P.,
and NATION MOTOR CLUB a/k/a Nation Safe Drivers a/k/a NSD,
Defendants, Civ. No. 19-11513. (D.N.J.).

Under the class action suit, Plaintiff made allegations concerning
purchase of vehicle and service contracts against Defendants GPB
Cars 12, LLC d/b/a North Plainfield Nissan (NP Nissan); Nissan
Extended Services North America, G.P. (NESNA); and Nation Motor
Club, LLC a/k/a Nation Safe Drivers a/k/a NSD (NSD).  Plaintiff
bought a vehicle from Defendant NP Nissan in April 2018. Plaintiff
signed the Motor Vehicle Retail Order ("Retail Order") and the
Retail Installment Sale Contract ("RISC") to purchase the vehicle
and obtain financing. Attendant to the purchase, a sales
representative told Plaintiff she would have to pay for an
additional Vehicle Service Contract (VCS) from Defendant NESNA in
order to obtain financing; and recommended that Plaintiff purchase
the Security Plus Tire & Wheel Protection Plan ("TWPP") for $1,000
from Defendant NSD.

Both the VSC and TWPP contracts contain cancellation provisions
that guarantee a full refund on the purchase price if the purchaser
submits a cancellation request within a specified period after the
date of purchase.  The contracts require the providers to complete
the refund within forty-five days of the cancellation request, and,
if they fail to do so, guarantee a 10% penalty for each thirty-day
period that the refund remains unpaid.

Plaintiff executed and submitted refund requests for both the VSC
and TWPP on May 15, 2018, seventeen days after the date of
purchase.  She did not receive the $3,500 refund for the VSC until
July 31, 2018, during which time she continued to pay interest on
that amount. Defendant NESNA did not provide Plaintiff with the 10%
penalty for the delay. Plaintiff never received a refund for the
TWPP from Defendant NSD.  Plaintiff said it filed an arbitration
demand on the matter, but was unsuccessful on arriving at a
resolution. The Retail Order contains an arbitration agreement
("Arbitration Agreement"), in which the parties agree to arbitrate
all disputes through the American Arbitration Association ("AAA")
and to waive any complaints on behalf of a class.

After the failed arbitration attempt, Plaintiff filed an action on
April 26, 2019, alleging four counts against Defendant NP Nissan:
(1) violation of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1601 et seq., for Defendant's failure to make accurate disclosures
of the annual percentage rate, finance charge, and amount financed
in the RISC (Count 1) ; (2) violation of the Consumer Fraud Act
("CFA"), N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 et seq., for Defendant's inclusion of the
service contract fees in the amount financed in the RISC (Count 2);
(3) violations of the CFA, N.J.S.A. 56:8-4, and Motor Vehicle
Advertising Practices regulations ("MVAP"), N.J.A.C. 13:45A-26A.4,
for Defendant's refusal to sell or lease the advertised vehicle at
the price set forth in the online advertisement (Count 3); and (4)
violations of the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act ("TCCWNA"), N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 to -18, based on the violations
of the TILA, CFA, and MVAP (Count 4). Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendant NESNA violated the Consumer Service Contract Act
("CSCA"), N.J.S.A. 56:12-93(k), (Count 5) and CFA, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2,
(Count 6) due to its failure to pay the 10% penalty due under the
VSC for the delay in refunding Plaintiff. Defendant further alleges
violations of the CSCA, N.J.S.A. 56:12-93(k) (Count 7) and CFA,
N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, (Count 8) by Defendant NSD for failing to provide
the refund due under the TWPP.

On July 16, 2019, Defendant NESNA and Defendant NSD filed separate
motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.  On September 5, 2019, Defendant NP Nissan
filed its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking dismissal and referral to
arbitration based on the Arbitration Agreement.

Arbitration Agreement

Plaintiff and the AAA sent notice of arbitration demand to
Defendant NP Nissan at its main business address, and there is a
notice of receipt of at least one of those letters. Taking all
facts in the Complaint as true, the Court cannot at this stage find
that the service on Defendant NP Nissan at its main business
address was improper. Furthermore, Defendant NP Nissan's suggestion
that a clerical error caused five letters mailed on separate dates
from separate senders to all go missing is unpersuasive, the Court
states.

Accordingly, Defendant NP Nissan's Motion to Dismiss the suit and
refer the case to arbitration is denied, the Court rules. Since NP
Nissan did not contest the claims against it, those claims (Counts
1-4) can proceed, the Court orders.

Consumer Service Contract Act Claims Against Defendant NESNA and
Defendant NSD

Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant NESNA and Defendant NSD
for violations of the Consumer Service Contract Act (CSCA).
Defendant NESNA and Defendant NSD argue that the CSCA does not
create a private right of action, as evidenced by the statute's
explicit enforcement provision that gives enforcement power to the
Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs and provides that
violations of the CSCA are actionable under the CFA.  

Although the CSCA on its face does not appear to create a private
right of action, the Court need not resolve this question because
it is clear that neither Defendant NESNA nor Defendant NSD violated
Section 93(k) of the CSCA, which mandates: A service contract shall
contain the requirements set forth in this section. This section
clearly regulates the content of service contract provisions,
rather than the performance of such provisions. Plaintiff's claims
are not based on the contents of the VSC or TWPP, but rather
Defendants' non-performance of these contracts.

Counts 5 and 7 of the Complaint are dismissed, the Court rules.

Consumer Fraud Act Claims Against Defendant NESNA and Defendant
NSD

Plaintiff claims Defendant NESNA and Defendant NSD violated the
Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) based on (1) Defendant NESNA's failure to
pay the 10%-per-month penalty on the VSC refund, and (2) Defendant
NSD's failure to provide the refund for the TWPP.

Section 2 of the CFA prohibits any unconscionable commercial
practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise,
misrepresentation, or the knowing concealment, suppression, or
omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon
such concealment, suppression, or omission, in connection with the
sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate.

Plaintiff attempts to characterize the alleged unlawful conduct of
Defendant NESNA and Defendant NSD as false promises or
unconscionable commercial practices. First, Plaintiff argues that
the cancellation provisions in the VSC and TWPP constituted
affirmative representations of Defendants' future performance,
which became false promises upon their failure to fully refund
Plaintiff. Second, Plaintiff claims that the withholding of the
required penalty by Defendant NESNA, and the failure to pay the
refund by Defendant NSD, constituted unconscionable commercial
practices because they lacked good faith and fair dealing.

False Promise

Mere failure to perform on a contract cannot constitute a false
promise actionable under the CFA, unless the promisor knew at the
time the contract was formed that he did not intend to fulfill the
promise.  

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to suggest that either
Defendant NESNA or Defendant NSD entered into the contracts with
Plaintiff with an intent to breach the cancellation provisions
within those contracts. Thus, Plaintiff cannot characterize the
contracts at issue as false promises or misrepresentations
actionable under the CFA.

Unconscionable Commercial Practice

The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that although unconscionable
commercial practice implies conduct that lacks good faith and fair
dealing, a breach of warranty, or any breach of contract, is not
per se unfair or unconscionable and alone does not violate a
consumer protection statute. To meet this standard, a plaintiff
must demonstrate that the business behavior in question stands
outside the norm of reasonable business practice in that it will
victimize the average consumer.

Plaintiff argues that substantial aggravating factors exist here.
First, Plaintiff contends that the TWPP contract places the
Administrator's name in an inconspicuous place, encouraging
customers to cancel through the Selling Dealer and thereby creating
an extra step for customers that may lead to delays in the
cancellation process. As an additional aggravating factor,
Plaintiff argues that Defendant NESNA knew about her cancellation
request since it credited $3,500 to her account but still failed to
pay the late fee.  

Regardless, Plaintiff fails to make any showing that requiring a
service contract to be canceled through the dealership where the
service was originally purchased is a substantial aggravating
factor outside the norm of reasonable business practice. Since
Plaintiff has not plead any substantial aggravating factors,
Defendant NESNA and Defendant NSD's alleged breaches of their
cancellation provisions were not unconscionable commercial
practices under the CFA.

Since there has been no unlawful practice within the meaning of the
CFA, the Court will not assess whether there are ascertainable
damages or a causal relationship. Plaintiff's allegations against
Defendant NESNA and Defendant NSD for violations of the CFA are
dismissed.

Defendant NP Nissan's Motion to Dismiss is denied; Defendant
NESNA's Motion to Dismiss is granted; and Defendant NSD's Motion to
Dismiss is granted, the Court orders.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019 Opinion
at https://tinyurl.com/y555ef54 from Leagle.com

RACHAEL A PAGE, individually, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW R.
WOLF , The Wolf Law Firm, LLC, 1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101,
North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902, CHRISTOPHER J. MCGINN , Law
Office of Christopher J. McGinn, 20 Nassau St., Ste 250-W,
Princeton, NJ 08542 & DAVID C. RICCI , LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C.
RICCI, LLC, 51 John F Kennedy Pkwy 1st Floor West, Short Hills, New
Jersey 07078

GPB CARS 12, LLC, doing business as NORTH PLAINFIELD NISSAN,
Defendant, represented by JEFFREY C. SOTLAND -
jsotland@defensecounsel.com - MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA &
MEYERS ESQS.

NISSAN EXTENDED SERVICES NORTH AMERICA, G.P., Defendant,
represented by MATTHEW J. FEDOR - matthew.fedor dbr.com - DRINKER,
BIDDLE & REATH, LLP & KATIE BAILEY GARAYOA - katie.garayoa dbr.com
- RINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP.

NATION MOTOR CLUB LLC, also known as NATION SAFE DRIVERS,
Defendant, represented by ANDREW MICHAEL SCHWARTZ –
amschwartz@grsm.com - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP & LAWRENCE
J. BARTEL, III – lbartel@grsm.com - Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani.


GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Still Faces Securities Action in Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
GTT Communications, Inc. continues to defend itself against a
purported class action complaint (Case No. 1:19-cv-00982) filed in
Virginia on behalf of certain GTT stockholders, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

On July 30, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia (Case No. 1:19-cv-00982) on behalf of certain GTT
stockholders.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in connection with disclosures relating
to GTT's acquisition and integration of Interoute Communications
Holdings S.A.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

GTT Communications said, "The Company believes that the claims in
this lawsuit are without merit and intends to defend against them
vigorously.  The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this time,
no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whether the
outcome will be material to the Company."

GTT Communications, Inc. provides cloud networking services to
multinational enterprises, carriers, and government customers in
the United States, Europe, and internationally. The Company was
formerly known as Global Telecom & Technology, Inc. and changed its
name to GTT Communications, Inc. in January 2014. GTT
Communications, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in
McLean, Virginia.


HARO BICYCLE: Faces Class Suit Over Website's ADA Compliance
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Frothingham, writing for Bicycle Retailer, reports that Haro
Bicycle Corp. is one of thousands of companies dealing with
lawsuits over their websites' compliance with the Americans With
Disabilities Act.

A Brooklyn, New York-man who is legally blind is the lead plaintiff
in a class action lawsuit filed against Haro in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The man, Valentin
Reid, says Haro is violating the ADA because one of its websites,
ridedelsol.com, is not accessible to the blind.

Reid is the lead plaintiff on at least four other similar suits
filed in the court last week, and legal experts say thousands of
such suits have been filed in recent years. One source counted over
2,200 such suits filed in 2018, a 177% increase over the year
prior. Haro is likely not the first bike-related company to be sued
over website ADA compliance, but the suit is the first against a
bike company that BRAIN has found through online court filing
searches.

Reid is asking for legal fees and compensatory and punitive
damages. He is represented by the Stein Saks lawfirm of Hackensack,
New Jersey. The other suits he filed last week are against a vape
company, a heat-transfer device supplier, a lab equipment supplier,
and a wine e-commerce site.

Joe Hawk, Haro's COO, said the company is aware of the suit but has
yet to receive the complaint and its lawyers have not reviewed it.

"In an initial test of our site we believe our site to be in
compliance with ADA requirements; the plaintiff obviously
disagrees," Hawk said.

Even more on the way?

A U.S. Supreme Court's decision earlier this month to decline to
review a lower court's decision on website ADA compliance may have
opened the door to even more such suits, according to some legal
experts.

The high court denied a request to review a lower court's decision
that Domino's Pizza must make its website accessible to people with
visual impairments.

The decision "will ensure that the spate of lawsuits filed (and
demand letters sent) across the United States, to any commercial
enterprise with a website, will continue for the foreseeable
future," an article published last week on the legal site Lexology
reads.

"Given that any business with a website may be targeted by website
accessibility claims, companies are strongly recommended to take
preventative measures, including adopting a website accessibility
policy, reviewing options to scan and updating their websites to
comply with trending website accessibility and lawsuit deterrence
standards."

No clear standards

ADA compliance generally requires a site to be compatible with
screen readers and other features allowing full access by those
with disabilities to information and functions, including its
shopping cart functions. But the lack of clear guidelines
complicates the issue for website owners and is contributing to the
rash of suits. The U.S. Justice Department began to draft such
regulations in 2010, but ended the rulemaking process last December
in the name of reducing federal regulations.

Attorney Steven Hansen, a BRAIN contributor who has worked with
bike companies on legal issues for years, said some responsibility
for ADA compliance should fall on the outside web developers that
many companies contract to build their sites.

"Quite frankly the web designers should be held accountable by
their clients for ADA compliance at a minimum," Hansen said.
"Websites are global and need to comply with lots of laws, not just
ADA, such as the EU's General Data Protection Regulation ... as
well as safety data and the recall data CPSC demands ... You also
have under-18 consumers and privacy rules," he said.

"Companies need to be aware of these types of problems and think
ahead. Much cheaper to fix a website now than deal with one of
these suits. Quite frankly lawyers familiar with these issues
should be working with the web team to make sure there is legal
compliance, not just 'flashiness.'"

Haro's Joe Hawk said the company is committed to correcting any
broken links or parts of the site the make it difficult to use by
the disabled.

"Haro fully supports the ADA and any actions that result in
legitimate betterment for disabled persons.  We are a bit confused
however on how this individual may have been damaged or
inconvenienced.  Our products are sold at retailers world wide and
information is readily available ...  If the complaint was sincere,
it could have come direct to Haro rather than through the legal
system," he said. [GN]


HARRY BAKER: Faces Class Suit Over Hard Rock Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------
WDSU News reports that four businesses at the site of the New
Orleans Athletic Club have filed a class-action lawsuit against
developers and contractors of the collapsed Hard Rock Hotel.

The businesses, 1021 Bienville Street LLC, McCrory's LLC, Lynn
Properties LLC and New Orleans Athletic LLC have filed a lawsuit
against Citadel Builders, Harry Baker Smith Architects, Heaslip
Engineering, Moses Engineers, All Star Electric and Kailas
Companies, according to court documents. All four businesses that
filed the suit list William More as a company officer and 222 North
Rampart St. as its address, according to the Louisiana Secretary of
State's website.

The lawsuit contends that the collapse of the hotel caused
"catastrophic damage" to people within the building and nearby, and
as a result, their businesses have been forced to close or
drastically limit their businesses operations.

According to the lawsuit, the contractor's negligence caused
damages to the businesses by not identifying dangerous conditions
at the site, improper oversight of the construction and creating
unsafe conditions.

The businesses contend in the lawsuit that they suffered economic
and property damage as a result of the collapse.

They are seeking damages for economic loss as a result of business
interruption or property damage.

The City of New Orleans is still working with the Small Business
Administration on loans for businesses affected by the collapse.
[GN]


HARTFORD MDC: Must Decide on $9.1MM Offer to Settle Surcharges Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edmund H. Mahony, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that
Hartford's giant water and sewer authority faces a multi-million
dollar legal choice.

The Metropolitan District Commision has 31 days to accept an offer
to pay $9.1 million to settle a class action suit by customers who
contend that for years, the authority padded their bills with what
the state Supreme Court has called illegal surcharges.  If the MDC
declines, takes the case to trial and loses, it could be faced with
a more expensive judgement, along with a punitive interest charge.

A month ago, the district sued unsuccessfully to force once of its
insurers to offset about half the cost of the surcharges, making it
likely--as the MDC has warned--that however it proceeds with the
rate case, customers will get stuck with higher prices.

The clock began running on the latest legal go round early in
September when lawyers for the class of 9,000 disgruntled customers
in East Granby, Farmington, Glastonbury and South Windsor told the
MDC it could settle the case for $9,101,470.23--the total of
illegal surcharges plus punitive interest.

Under the law, the MDC had 30 days to accept the offer. If it
declined, and a jury later imposed a bigger judgement at trial, the
MDC would be obligated to pay the larger sum plus additional
punitive interest.

The MDC chose to neither accept nor decline the offer. Rather, it
returned to court and argued that such settlement offers are not
allowed in class action suits. Superior Court Judge Thomas G.
Moukawsher disagreed in a written decision and gave the MDC until
Nov. 25 to decide how to continue.

The MDC did not reply to questions about the case.

The 9,000 customers in the class action buy MDC water, but live in
towns that are not member towns of the district. The MDC has said
in the past it is entitled to impose surcharges in nonmember towns
because, unlike member towns, they do not contribute to the upkeep
of the regional water and sewer infrastructure.

Ratepayers in the four towns complain that they have been made to
pay surcharges not imposed on the member towns and that the money
has been spent on capital improvements that benefit customers
elsewhere in the MDC network.

Surcharges on nonmember towns have been imposed for decades. But
nonmember ratepayers complained in 2012 and 2013 when the
surcharges soared. The lawsuit cites successive annual surcharges,
ranging from $41.40 to as much as $423, between 2006 and 2014.

After the complaints, the MDC reduced the surcharge and the state
legislature, which created the regional water and sewer authority
and controls its operations by statute, enacted a law to limit
surcharges on nonmembers. The legislature also gave the nonmember
towns seats on the MDC board. [GN]



HEASLIP ENGINEERING: Faces Class Suit Over Hard Rock Collapse
-------------------------------------------------------------
WDSU News reports that four businesses at the site of the New
Orleans Athletic Club have filed a class-action lawsuit against
developers and contractors of the collapsed Hard Rock Hotel.

The businesses, 1021 Bienville Street LLC, McCrory's LLC, Lynn
Properties LLC and New Orleans Athletic LLC have filed a lawsuit
against Citadel Builders, Harry Baker Smith Architects, Heaslip
Engineering, Moses Engineers, All Star Electric and Kailas
Companies, according to court documents. All four businesses that
filed the suit list William More as a company officer and 222 North
Rampart St. as its address, according to the Louisiana Secretary of
State's website.

The lawsuit contends that the collapse of the hotel caused
"catastrophic damage" to people within the building and nearby, and
as a result, their businesses have been forced to close or
drastically limit their businesses operations.

According to the lawsuit, the contractor's negligence caused
damages to the businesses by not identifying dangerous conditions
at the site, improper oversight of the construction and creating
unsafe conditions.

The businesses contend in the lawsuit that they suffered economic
and property damage as a result of the collapse.

They are seeking damages for economic loss as a result of business
interruption or property damage.

The City of New Orleans is still working with the Small Business
Administration on loans for businesses affected by the collapse.
[GN]


HOPPER USA: Violates TCPA by Sending Illegal Texts, Kravitz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Kravitz, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. HOPPER (USA) INC., Case No.
CACE-19-023648 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Nov. 14, 2019), is brought
against the Defendant to secure redress for violation of Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

To solicit new customers, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing with no regard for privacy rights of the recipients of
those messages, the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant caused
thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular
telephones of the Plaintiff and the proposed class, causing them
injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
the Defendant's illegal conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of themselves and members of the class, and any
other available legal or quotable remedies.

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

The Defendant is an online travel booking services and mobile
application.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                 gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


IMG STONECRAFTER: Espinoza Seeks to Recoup $9,600 in Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO ESPINOZA, Plaintiff v. IMG STONECRAFTER INC., a Florida
Profit Company, and ALBERTO D. DI CATARINA, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 98168441 (Fla. Cir., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to
recover damages for $9,600 in unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for breach of agreement, quantum meruit and
unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed work for the
Defendants as an Office Administrator from 2016 through February
28, 2019. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff was compensated
on a weekly basis at a rate of $600 per week, but he alleges that
he was consistently paid late.

The Plaintiff says he was last paid for work he had done through
October 26, 2018, on May 15, 2019. To date, the Plaintiff is owed
compensation for work he performed for the Defendant from November
2, 2018, until February 22, 2019, in the amount of $9,600 in unpaid
wages.

Mr. Espinoza asserts that his attempts to collect his unpaid wages
from the Defendant have proven unsuccessful.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason S. Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


INFOSYS LIMITED: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Dec. 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Infosys Limited (NYSE:INFY) from
July 7, 2018 and October 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period")
of the important December 23, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Infosys investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Infosys class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1700.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) Infosys improperly recognized revenues to inflate
short-term profits; (2) Infosys' CEO, Salil Parekh, bypassed
reviews and approvals for large deals to avoid accounting scrutiny;
(3) management pressured Infosys' finance team to hide information
from auditors and Infosys' Board of Directors; and (4) 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. 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 December
23, 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-1700.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, 40th 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]



INFOSYS LIMITED: Vincent Wong Reminds of Dec. 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Infosys Limited
(INFY). If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Infosys Limited (INFY)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/infosys-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=4045&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2019
Class Period: July 7, 2018 to October 20, 2019

Allegations against INFY include that: (1) the Company improperly
recognized revenues to inflate short-term profits; (2) Chief
Executive Officer Salil Parekh bypassed reviews and approvals for
large deals to avoid accounting scrutiny; (3) management pressured
the Company's finance team to hide information from auditors and
the Company's Board of Directors; and (4) as a result of the
aforementioned misconduct, Defendants' statements about Infosys's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Bid to Dismiss Connecticut Class Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that its motion to dismiss the new
complaint in a class action suit in Connecticut has been denied.

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, which was denied on September 30, 2019.

Interactive Brokers said, "The Company is exploring further means
to have the case dismissed under Connecticut law.  In any event,
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."

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.


IQVIA INC: Sued by Fischbein for Sending Unsolicited Fax Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard E. Fischbein, MD, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. IQVIA, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-05365-NIQA (E.D. Pa., Nov. 14, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has sent unsolicited
advertisements by facsimile to the Plaintiff and others in
violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff says he did not expressly
invite or give express permission to receive any advertisement from
the Defendant by fax. The Plaintiff does not have an established
business relationship with the Defendant and, even if he did, the
Defendant's faxes do not contain an opt-out notice that complies
with the requirements of the TCPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a physician in psychiatry in a practice located in
Kingston, Pennsylvania.

The Defendant is engaged in data mining for the healthcare
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-658-5500
          Fax: 312-658-5555


IROBOT CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Dec. 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until December 23, 2019 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against iRobot
Corporation (IRBT), if they purchased the Company's shares between
November 21, 2016 and October 22, 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 iRobot 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-irbt/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by December 23, 2019.

About the Lawsuit

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

On October 22, 2019, post-market, the Company disclosed
disappointing 3Q2019 financial results including cuts to the high
end of its annual revenue forecast, from $1.25 billion to $1.21
billion; a roll back of price increases after a "suboptimal"
customer response, and continuing significant increases of
inventory levels.

On this news, the price of iRobot's shares fell from $54.03 per
share on October 22, 2019, to $49.06 per share on October 23, 2019
on unusually high trading volume.

The case is Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund v. iRobot
Corporation, et al., 1:19-cv-09837.

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's
premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a
variety of clients – including public institutional investors,
hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking
recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or
malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New
York, California and Louisiana. [GN]



JOE'S KWIK: Settles Lawsuit Over Overtime Pay for $785K
-------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for The Citizen's Voice, reports
that the owner of the Joe's Kwik Marts convenience store chain
agreed to pay up to $785,000 to settle a federal class-action
lawsuit filed by store managers who claimed they were wrongly
denied overtime pay.

The proposed settlement, which must be approved by a judge, calls
for SMG Group LLC of Allentown to pay $520,000 to 189 managers who
were denied overtime dating back to 2013. It also earmarks $250,000
in legal fees to attorney Peter Winebrake, Esq. of Dresher and
$15,000 to the lead plaintiff, Jenny Shiptoski.

Winebrake filed suit on behalf of Shiptoski and other employees in
2016, alleging the chain improperly classified her and other
managers as salaried employees.

By law, an employer does not have to pay overtime to salaried
employees under most circumstances. The employer must show the
employee performs mostly managerial duties, however. The suit
alleged managers primarily did the same work as hourly employees,
which entitled them to overtime.

Joe's Kwik Marts has 22 locations in Northeast Pennsylvania,
including Scranton, Dunmore, Taylor, Archbald, Clarks Summit and
Dupont, according to the company's website.

A copy of the settlement filed in federal court says SMG Group does
not admit any wrongdoing. It settled the case to avoid the cost of
litigation.

The settlement covers employees who worked at the chain's stores in
Pennsylvania from June 20, 2013, to this past July 27, and those
who worked at stores in other states from Sept. 15, 2013, to July
27.

Payments to employees will average about $2,750, but some will
receive more than others, depending on the number of hours worked
and whether they opted in to the suit when it was first filed.

U.S. District Judge Robert D. Mariani has preliminarily approved
the settlement. He scheduled a hearing for 10:30 a.m. Jan. 6 in
federal court in Scranton to further review the terms of the deal.
He will issue a final ruling following the hearing.[GN]



KAILAS COMPANIES: Faces Class Suit Over Hard Rock Collapse
----------------------------------------------------------
WDSU News reports that four businesses at the site of the New
Orleans Athletic Club have filed a class-action lawsuit against
developers and contractors of the collapsed Hard Rock Hotel.

The businesses, 1021 Bienville Street LLC, McCrory's LLC, Lynn
Properties LLC and New Orleans Athletic LLC have filed a lawsuit
against Citadel Builders, Harry Baker Smith Architects, Heaslip
Engineering, Moses Engineers, All Star Electric and Kailas
Companies, according to court documents. All four businesses that
filed the suit list William More as a company officer and 222 North
Rampart St. as its address, according to the Louisiana Secretary of
State's website.

The lawsuit contends that the collapse of the hotel caused
"catastrophic damage" to people within the building and nearby, and
as a result, their businesses have been forced to close or
drastically limit their businesses operations.

According to the lawsuit, the contractor's negligence caused
damages to the businesses by not identifying dangerous conditions
at the site, improper oversight of the construction and creating
unsafe conditions.

The businesses contend in the lawsuit that they suffered economic
and property damage as a result of the collapse.

They are seeking damages for economic loss as a result of business
interruption or property damage.

The City of New Orleans is still working with the Small Business
Administration on loans for businesses affected by the collapse.
[GN]


KANDI TECH: Time to Appeal Nixed N.Y. Securities Suit Has Expired
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the time to appeal the
dismissed putative shareholder class actions in New York federal
court has run.

The Company said, "Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder
class actions were filed against Kandi and certain of its current
and former directors and officers in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California and the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
complaints generally alleged violations of the federal securities
laws based Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its financial
statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three quarters of
2016 would need to be restated, and sought damages on behalf of
putative classes of shareholders who purchased or acquired Kandi's
securities prior to March 13, 2017.  Kandi moved to dismiss the
remaining cases, all of which were pending in the New York federal
court, and that motion was granted by an order entered on September
30, 2019, and the time to appeal has run."

Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs,
develops, manufactures, and commercializes electric vehicle (EV)
products and parts and off-road vehicles in the People's Republic
of China and internationally.  It offers off-road vehicles,
including go-karts, all-terrain vehicles, utility vehicles, and
other vehicles for sale to distributors or consumers; and EV parts
comprising battery packs, EV drive motors, EV controllers, air
conditioners, and other electric products.  The company was
formerly known as Kandi Technologies, Corp. and changed its name to
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. in December 2012.  Kandi
Technologies Group, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered
in Jinhua, the People's Republic of China.


KELLOGG CO: Settles "Healthy" Sugary Cereal Lawsuit for $20MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessi Devenyns, writing for Food Dive, reports that Kellogg,
sensing a lengthy legal battle ahead, has agreed to shell out $20
million to settle a class action suit accusing it of
inappropriately using the term "healthy" on products that contain
high amounts of unhealthy ingredients, including sugar.

It chose to pony up the penalty cash and forgo potentially steeper
expenses--as well as the possibility of damage to its brand--that
could result from a guilty verdict in court. In the settlement,
Kellogg denied any wrongdoing.

Other brands that have been involved in similar cases--like General
Mills, which recently had a similar case about sugar in its cereals
dismissed--also denied they printed falsehoods on their labels.
That does not, however, seem to deter motivated consumers from
looking more deeply into those claims and sounding alarm bells.

This settlement may not set a legal precedent, considering the
recent dismissal of the General Mills case. A similar case against
Post is still working its way through court. And in August, a
federal judge denied a request for dismissal for a nearly identical
case filed against Clif Bar.

However, companies facing these accusations might want to follow
Kellogg's lead. By paying its consumers with this large fund, it
can work to absolve itself of any wrongdoing through a quiet,
personal interaction.

Perhaps the most important outcome of the lawsuit are the claims
Kellogg is now prohibited from using on its cereal boxes. The terms
that are now off-limits are those the lawsuit took issue with in
the first place. The settlement terms in effect validate the
concerns that were brought before the court. Taking these terms off
of cereal boxes prevents future litigation on this topic against
Kellogg, and also shows these claims may soon no longer be
acceptable for other cereal manufacturers.

Upcoming federal labeling changes requiring added sugars to be
separately listed may make a difference in how companies--and
consumers--treat sweetened cereal in the future. Long-pending
changes to FDA's definition of the "healthy" label claim could also
clarify messaging to consumers. However, the most important piece
of this puzzle is making sure consumers know where to find the
information and can understand what it means.

Much like the term "natural"--which also has no federally regulated
definition and has been the reason for other class-action
lawsuits--has fallen out of favor with CPG manufacturers, it may
soon be the case that touting a health halo when sugar makes up a
substantial portion of the nutrients in a bowl is no longer
accepted by consumers. [GN]


KRAFT HEINZ: Continues to Defend Osborne Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit entitled, Osborne v.
Employee Benefits Administration Board of Kraft Heinz.

The company's Employee Benefits Administration Board and certain of
its current and former officers and employees are currently
defendants in one class action lawsuit, Osborne v. Employee
Benefits Administration Board of Kraft Heinz, which was filed on
March 19, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit purport to represent a class of current
and former employees who were participants in and beneficiaries of
various retirement plans which were co-invested in a commingled
investment fund known as the Kraft Foods Savings Plan Master Trust
(the "Master Trust") during the period of May 4, 2017 through
February 21, 2019.

An amended complaint was filed on June 28, 2019. The amended
complaint alleges violations of Section 502 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") based on alleged breaches
of obligations as fiduciaries subject to ERISA by allowing the
Master Trust to continue investing in our common stock, and alleges
additional breaches of fiduciary duties by current and former
officers for their purported failure to monitor Master Trust
fiduciaries. The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount,
attorneys' fees, and other relief.

The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy
products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other
grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J. Heinz
Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz Company
in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


KRAFT HEINZ: Securities Class Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that the class action
lawsuits entitled, Hedick v. The Kraft Heinz Company, Iron Workers
District Council (Philadelphia and Vicinity) Retirement and Pension
Plan v. The Kraft Heinz Company, and Timber Hill LLC v. The Kraft
Heinz Company, have been consolidated.

The company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors are currently defendants in three securities class action
lawsuits filed in February, March, and April 2019.

The first filed action, Hedick v. The Kraft Heinz Company, was
filed on February 24, 2019 against the Company and three of its
officers (the "Hedick Action").

The second filed action, Iron Workers District Council
(Philadelphia and Vicinity) Retirement and Pension Plan v. The
Kraft Heinz Company, was filed on March 15, 2019 against, among
others, the Company and six of its current and former officers (the
"Iron Workers Action").

The third filed action, Timber Hill LLC v. The Kraft Heinz Company,
was filed on April 25, 2019 against, among others, the Company and
seven of its current and former officers and directors (the "Timber
Hill Action").

All of these securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


Another securities class action lawsuit, Walling v. Kraft Heinz
Company, was filed on February 26, 2019 in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against,
among others, the Company and six of its current and former
officers (the "Walling Action"). Plaintiff in the Walling Action
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his complaint, without
prejudice, on April 26, 2019.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits purport to represent a class of all
individuals and entities who purchased, sold, or otherwise acquired
or disposed of publicly traded securities of the Company (including
in the Timber Hill Action, the purchase of call options on Company
common stock, the sale of put options on Company common stock, and
the purchase of futures on the Company's common stock) from May 4,
2017 through February 21, 2019, in the case of the Hedick Action
and the Walling Action, and from July 6, 2015 through February 21,
2019, in the case of the Iron Workers Action and the Timber Hill
Action.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly
materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public
statements, press releases, investor presentations, earnings calls,
and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, financial
results, and internal controls. The plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On October 8, 2019, the court entered an order consolidating these
lawsuits into one proceeding and appointing lead plaintiffs and
lead plaintiffs' counsel.

The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy
products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other
grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J. Heinz
Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz Company
in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


LBG CONSTRUCTION: Hernandez-Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Hernandez-Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. LBG CONSTRUCTION LLC and JOSE JIMENEZ, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01449-CMH-MSN (E.D. Va., Nov. 14, 2019), is brought
against the Defendants for failing to pay their employees legally
mandated wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act, the D.C. Wage Payment and
Collection Law, the D.C. Workplace Fraud Act, the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and Employment Article,
the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Maryland
Workplace Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff frequently worked in excess of 40 hours per week
while employed by the Defendants, but was not paid at the time and
a half overtime rate for such overtime work, says the complaint.
While working for the Defendants, the Plaintiff was treated for tax
purposes, as independent contractors, rather than employees.

The Plaintiff and proposed class members were employed by the
Defendants as construction workers.

The Defendants provide construction services in the District of
Columbia metropolitan area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Nadas, Esq.
          Matthew K Handley, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH ANDERSON
          777 6th Street, NW, Eleventh Floor
          Washington, DC 20001
          Email: mhandey@hfajustice.com
                 rnadas@hfajustice.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
          THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
          1100 N Glebe Rd., Suite 1010
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Phone: (703) 665-9529
          Email: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Suit Against Unit, Voya Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
company's subsidiary, The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New
York ("LLANY"), continues to be actively engaged in the vigorous
defense of the class action suit entitled, Hanks v. The Lincoln
Life and Annuity Company of New York ("LLANY") and Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company ("Voya").

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, No. 1:16-cv-6399, and served on LLANY on
August 12, 2016.  

Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator
of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.


Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.  

On March 13, 2019, the court issued an order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification for the breach of contract claim and
denying such motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim
against LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the court issued an
order approving the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with
respect to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed LLANY as a
defendant in the case.  

In light of LLANY's role as reinsurer and administrator under the
1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna (now Voya), and of the
parties' rights and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be
actively engaged in the vigorous defense of this action.

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Motion for Leave to Amend Glover Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion
for leave to amend the complaint in the class action suit entitled,
Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, is pending.

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a
putative class action that was served on The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company ("LNL")on June 8, 2016.  

Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.  Plaintiff seeks to represent all
universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned
policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions
that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages
on behalf of all such policyholders.

On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.  In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint, which we have opposed.

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Defends Class Action by TVPX ARS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that The Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company still defends itself against a
putative class action suit initiated by TVPX ARS INC.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.  

Plaintiff alleges that The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
("LNL") charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than
permitted by the policy.  Plaintiff seeks to represent all
universal life and variable universal life policyholders who own
policies issued by LNL or its predecessors containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LOUISIANA: Inmates Mental Exam OK'd in Tellis DWSS Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, Shreveport Division, issued a Memorandum Order granting
Defendants' Motion for Mental Examinations in the case captioned
ANTHONY TELLIS, ET AL, v. JAMES M. LEBLANC, ET AL. Civil Action No.
18-cv-0541. (W.D. La.)

The Advocacy Center of Louisiana, on behalf of inmates at the David
Wade Correctional Center (DWCC), filed a putative class action to
seek injunctive relief with respect to the mental health care
afforded inmates who are held in extended lockdown on the South
Compound in buildings N-1 through N-4, which are solitary
confinement and extended lockdown tiers.

Defendants seek an order allowing their chosen psychiatrists to
perform mental evaluations of 42 inmates housed in the South
Compound at DWCC.

The Court finds that the 42 putative class members are parties for
the purposes of Rule 35. Otherwise, this important tool of
discovery would be written out of the rules for class action
litigation. If Plaintiffs suggest that the inmates would become
parties for the purposes of Rule 35 only upon class certification,
that would unduly delay resolution of the case. Indeed, the
examinations may reveal details about the mental health of the 42
inmates that could impact the court's analysis of commonality and
other factors relevant to class certification, the Court opines.

Defendants' motion stated the following conditions for the
examinations:  The proposed examinations was to be conducted at
DWCC on November 4-6, 2019. The examination will have each offender
individually called out to a confidential area. The offender will
be interviewed and evaluated by one of Defendants' doctors
face-to-face. Defendants' doctors will also review the offender's
medical records, though this will likely be done prior to meeting
with the individual. Defendants also attached to their motion the
CVs of its experts who will conduct the examinations.

The Court finds Defendants have adequately described the scope,
methods, conditions, and times for the examinations.

The Court further finds that the mental health of the putative
class members is squarely at issue. Plaintiffs have alleged that
the cruel and unusual conditions in which these inmates are held,
together with the lack of appropriate mental health care, trigger
the onset or worsening of the inmates' mental illnesses, which
creates the significant risk of serious harm to the inmates. This
is enough to meet the controversy requirement of the rule.

Finally, the Court finds that good cause exists. While Defendants
have access to the putative class members and their medical
records, those records might speak only to routine treatment at
specified intervals rather than the type of information that might
be necessary to defend against Plaintiffs' allegations and respond
to the testimony of Plaintiffs' experts.C
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have not indicated that they have
informed the individuals to be examined as required by Rule 35.
Defendants respond that they provided adequate notice by notifying
the inmates' attorneys. Defendants argue that counsel for
Plaintiffs have identified the individuals as their clients, so
Defendants are not able to contact them directly. The Court finds
that notice through Plaintiffs' attorneys satisfied the
requirements of Rule 35.

Defendants have retained Dr. John Thompson, Dr. Herman Soong, and
Dr. Sanket Vyas to conduct the Rule 35 examinations. Defendants
have also disclosed to Plaintiffs that Dr. John Thompson is a Rule
26 testifying expert witness on the issue of class certification.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' testifying expert cannot conduct
the Rule 35 examinations because the purpose of a Rule 35
examination is to secure an independent physical or mental
examination of a party. The Court finds Plaintiffs' arguments
unpersuasive here. Any perceived problems with the examinations due
to lack of independence or impartiality of the evaluators can be
raised by Plaintiffs after the examinations and evaluated by the
court prior to use of the examinations in court.

Waiver

Defendants state that on August 26, 2019, they sent a notice of
mental examinations to Plaintiffs and asked for a response by
August 30, 2019. On August 30, Plaintiffs responded by stating that
they did not consent to the request but did not raise any specific
objections. Defendants argue that because Plaintiffs did not take
this opportunity to timely raise their objections, the objections
have been waived.

The Court disagrees with Defendants. A four-day window of the right
to object is completely unfair. None of Plaintiffs' arguments were
waived due to the passage of that unilateral deadline.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 17, 2019
Memorandum Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2jlg6rq from
Leagle.com

Bruce Charles, on behalf of themselves and all other smimilarly
situated prisoners at David Wade Correctional Center, Plaintiff,
represented by Jonathan Cameron Trunnell - trunnell@gmail.com -
Advocacy Center, Bruce W. Hamilton - bhamilton@laaclu.org -
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of LA, Katharine Murphy
Schwartzmann , American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of LA,
Melanie Ann Bray , P.O. Box 56157 New Orleans, Louisiana 70156,
Advocacy Center of LA, Ronald Kenneth Lospennato , Advocacy Center
& Sarah H. Voigt , Advocacy Center. 8325 Oak StreetNew Orleans, LA
70118

Advocacy Center of Louisiana, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan
Cameron Trunnell , Advocacy Center, Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann ,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of LA, Melanie Ann Bray ,
Advocacy Center of LA, Ronald Kenneth Lospennato , Advocacy Center
& Sarah H. Voigt , Advocacy Center.

James M LeBlanc, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections, Jerry Goodwin, Warden of David Wade
Correctional Center, Lonnie Nail, Col, Deborah Dauzat, Assistant
Warden & Johnie Adkins, Defendants, represented by Connell L.
Archey - connell@kswb.com - Kantrow Spaht et al, George Prentiss
Holmes - george@kswb.com - Kantrow Spaht et al, Keith Joseph
Fernandez -  keith@kswb.com - Kantrow Spaht et al & Randal J.
Robert - randy@kswb.com - Kantrow Spaht et al.

Gregory Seal, Dr, Steve Hayden & Aerial Robinson, Defendants,
represented by Connell L. Archey , Kantrow Spaht et al, George
Prentiss Holmes , Kantrow Spaht et al & Randal J. Robert , Kantrow
Spaht et al.


LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Karri Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Lumentum Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2019, that defendants are
seeking dismissal of the amended complaint in the class action suit
entitled, SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
3:18-cv-03435-JD.  That request is currently pending.

On December 10, 2018, the company completed a merger with Oclaro,
Inc., a provider of optical components and modules for the
long-haul, metro and data center markets. Oclaro's products provide
differentiated solutions for optical networks and high-speed
interconnects driving the next wave of streaming video, cloud
computing, application virtualization and other bandwidth-intensive
and high-speed applications.

In connection with the company's acquisition of Oclaro, seven
lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Oclaro challenging
the proposed merger (the "Merger"). Two of the seven suits were
putative class actions filed against Oclaro, its directors,
Lumentum, Prota Merger Sub, Inc. and Prota Merger, LLC: Nicholas
Neinast v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03112-VC, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (filed May 24, 2018) (the "Neinast Lawsuit"); and Adam
Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-00817-GMS, in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (filed
June 9, 2018) (the "Franchi Lawsuit"). Both the Neinstat Lawsuit
and the Franchi Lawsuit were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

The other five suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC (the "Wordehoff Lawsuit"),
Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC (the
"Ryan Lawsuit"), Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No.
5:18-cv-03203-EJD (the "Walker Lawsuit"), Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03262-VKD (the "Garcia Lawsuit"), and
SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD
(the "Karri Lawsuit" and, together with the other six lawsuits, the
"Lawsuits"), were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 25, 2018, May 29, 2018, May
30, 2018, May 31, 2018, and June 9, 2018, respectively.

These five Lawsuits named Oclaro and its directors as defendants
only and did not name Lumentum. The Wordehoff, Ryan, Walker, and
Garcia Lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, and the Wordehoff,
Ryan, and Walker dismissals were with prejudice. The Karri Lawsuit
has not yet been dismissed. The Ryan Lawsuit was, and the Karri
Lawsuit is, a putative class action.

The Lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that Oclaro and
its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by
disseminating an incomplete and misleading Form S-4, including
proxy statement/prospectus. The Lawsuits further alleged that
Oclaro's directors violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
failing to exercise proper control over the person(s) who violated
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act.

The remaining Lawsuit (the Karri Lawsuit) currently purports to
seek, among other things, damages to be awarded to the plaintiff
and any class, if a class is certified, and litigation costs,
including attorneys' fees.

A lead plaintiff and counsel has been selected, and an amended
complaint was filed on April 15, 2019, which also names Lumentum as
a defendant. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint has been
filed and is currently pending, and defendants intend to defend the
Karri Lawsuit vigorously.

Lumentum Holdings Inc. manufactures and sells optical and photonic
products in the Americas, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle
East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments,
Optical Communications and Commercial Lasers. Lumentum Holdings
Inc. was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Milpitas,
California.


MAC DONUT: Fails to Pay Proper Minimum and OT Wages, Rivera Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edin Rivera, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees v. MAC DONUT CORP., and STEVE MANDEL, Case No.
1:19-cv-06434 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law arising from their failure to pay minimum wage, overtime
pay and other wages.

The Plaintiff was not paid prevailing minimum wages for all hours
worked, overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, wages earned in accordance with the agreed terms of
employment, compensation for wages and gratuities that were
unlawfully deducted, and/or spread-of-hours pay, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants and was hired on August 20,
2014.

Defendants MDC is a manufacturer of donuts, which it sells in bulk
both wholesale and retail.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Tuosto, Esq.
          Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
          GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C.
          250 Park Ave., 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10177
          Phone: (212) 300-5358
          Fax: (888) 365-7054


MATCH GROUP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 2 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Match Group.
Investors have until the deadlines listed below to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

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

Match Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTCH)
Class Period: August 6, 2019 - September 25, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 2, 2019

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 used fake love interest ads to
convince customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions; (2) that the
Company made it difficult and confusing for consumers to cancel
their subscriptions; (3) that, as a result, the Company was
reasonably likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (4) that
the Company lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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 these class actions, 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.

Contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]


MDL 2327: Godwin Suit Over Pelvic Repair Systems Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as LINDA GODWIN AND LARRY GODWIN,
Plaintiffs v. ETHICON, INC., ETHICON WOMEN'S HEALTH AND UROLOGY, a
Division of Ethicon, Inc., GYNECARE, JOHNSON & JOHNSON, C.R. BARD
INC., AND JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
2:12-cv-03226 (Filed July 12, 2012), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
(Lexington) on Oct 30, 2019.

The Eastern District of Kentucky Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-00437-CHB to the proceeding.

The Godwin case is being consolidated in MDL No. 2327 re: Pelvic
Repair Systems Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Claria Horn Boom.

The Defendants allegedly failed to perform or rely on proper and
adequate testing and research in order to determine and evaluate
the risks and benefits of the pelvic mesh products inserted into
the Plaintiff. The Defendants also failed to design and establish a
safe, effective procedure for removal of the Medical Devices,
therefore, in the event of a failure, injury, or complications it
is impossible to easily and safely remove the Medical Devices.

Feasible and suitable alternative designs, as well as suitable
alternative procedures and instruments for implantation have
existed at all times relevant as compared to the Products implanted
in the Plaintiff, the lawsuit says.

According to its Web site, Johnson & Johnson is world's largest and
most diverse medical devices and diagnostics company, with its
worldwide headquarters located at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, in
New Brunswick, New Jersey. Ethicon, Inc. is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson located in Somerville, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher R. LoPalo, Esq.
          Hunter Jay Shkolnik, Esq.
          NAPOLI & SHKOLNIK & ASSOC., PLLC - NJ
          10,000 Lincoln Drive E, Suite 201
          One Greentree Center
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
          E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christy D. Jones, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW LLP
          1020 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 1400
          P.O. Box 6010
          Ridgeland, MS 39157-6010
          Telephone: (601) 948-5711
          Facsimile: (601) 985-4500

               - and -

          David B. Thomas, Esq.
          Susan M. Robinson, Esq.
          THOMAS COMBS & SPANN, PLLC
          P.O. Box 3824
          Charleston, WV 25338
          Telephone: (304) 414-1800
          Facsimile: (304) 414-1801

               - and -

          Philip J. Combs, Esq.
          ALLEN, GUTHRIE, MCHUGH & THOMAS
          P.O. Box 3394
          Charleston, WV 25333-3394
          Telephone: (304) 345-7250
          Facsimile: (304) 345-9941
          E-mail: pjcombs@agmtlaw.com

               - and -

          William M. Gage, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW LLP
          1020 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 1400
          P.O. Box 6010
          Ridgeland, MS 39157-6010
          Telephone: (601) 985-4561
          Facsimile: (601) 985-4500


MDL 2918: Cimino Suit over Headway HDD Assemblies Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as ANTHONY CIMINO, and BASECAMP
INC., the Plaintiffs, 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., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO.,
LTD., SAE MAGNETICS (H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07428 (Filed Aug. 8, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07048-MMC. The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related
laws.

The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and
their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares
for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies.

The Cimino case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD
DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this
litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive
suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May
2008 through at least April 2016.

In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern
District of California is an appropriate transferee forum.
Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this
district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from
two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC.

Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the
computer harddisk drive industry. The company provides solutions to
the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive
industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George F. Farah, Esq.
          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          81 Prospect Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (212) 477-8090
          Facsimile: (804) 300-1952
          E-mail: gfarah@hfajustice.com
                  mhandley@hfajustice.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
          Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
                  rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com

MDL 2918: CMP Suit vs. NHK Spring over HDD Assemblies Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as CMP CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.; NHK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION;
NAT PERIPHERAL (HONG KONG) CO., LTD.; NAT PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN)
CO., LTD.; NHK SPRING (THAILAND) CO., LTD.; TDK CORPORATION;
MAGNECOMP PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PUBLIC CO. LTD.; SAE MAGNETICS
(H.K.) LTD; and HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-12337 (Filed Aug. 7, 2019), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Oct. 28, 2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07047-MMC. The suit alleges violation of anti-trust related
laws.

The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and
their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares
for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies.

The CMP case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD DISK
DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this
litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive
suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May
2008 through at least April 2016.

In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern
District of California is an appropriate transferee forum.
Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this
district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from
two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC.

CMP provides a range of proactive services to keep computer systems
up and running.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Darryl Bressack, Esq.
          Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
          FINK BRESSACK
          38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500
          E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com
                  dbressack@finkbressack.com
                  nfink@finkbressack.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Telephone: (917) 438-9189
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          Kevin B. Love, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Ste. 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
                  klove@cridenlove.com

MDL 2918: Elmazi Suit over Headway HDD Assemblies Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as FERZULA ELMAZI, the 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., NHK SPRING PRECISION (GUANGZHOU) CO., LTD., SAE MAGNETICS
(H.K.) LTD., AND TDK CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-02399 (Filed July 30, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on
Oct. 28, 2019.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-07055-MMC. The suit seeks $5 million in damages alleging
violation of anti-trust related laws.

The lawsuit arises out of a global conspiracy among Defendants and
their co-conspirators to fix prices of and allocate market shares
for hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies.

The Elmazi case is being consolidated with MDL 2918 in RE: HARD
DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Oct. 8, 2019. The actions in this
litigation involve allegations that engaged in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of hard disk drive
suspension assemblies sold in the United States and abroad from May
2008 through at least April 2016.

In its Oct. 8, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel conclude that the Northern
District of California is an appropriate transferee forum.
Defendant Headway Technologies, Inc., has its headquarters in this
district, and third-party discovery is expected to take place from
two hard disk drive manufacturers headquartered there. Thus, common
documents and witnesses likely will be located in this district.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney. The
lead case is Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC.

Headway Technologies provides recording head products to the
computer harddisk drive industry. The company provides solutions to
the server, mobile, and desktop segments of the hard disk drive
industry for customers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon Almonrode, Esq.
          950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  saa@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Noelle Feigenbaum, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
                  KLerner@robinskaplan.com
                  NFeigenbaum@RobinsKaplan.com

               - and -

          Aaron Sheanin, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 W. El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: (650) 784-4040
          Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
          E-mail: ASheanin@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          Mark Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com

MEDNAX INC: Anesthesiology Business-Related Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Mednax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a securities class action related to its anesthesiology
business.

On July 10, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of the company's officers and a
director in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Case No. 0:18-cv-61572-WPD) that purports to state a claim
for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on statements made by the
defendants primarily concerning the company's anesthesiology
business. The complaint was seeking unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in April 2019, which was
granted in October 2019; however, the plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint on October 25, 2019.

Mednax said, "We continue to believe this lawsuit to be without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against it. The lawsuit is in
the early stages and, at this time, no assessment can be made as to
its likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to us."

Mednax, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides newborn,
anesthesia, maternal-fetal, radiology and teleradiology, pediatric
cardiology, and other pediatric subspecialty physician services in
the United States and Puerto Rico. The company was founded in 1979
and is based in Sunrise, Florida.


METROWEST SUBARU: Campbell Seeks Overtime Pay for Sales Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN CAMPBELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. METROWEST SUBARU LLC; FRANK HANENBERGER,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-3812 (Mass. Super., Oct. 31,
2019), accuses the Defendants of violating the Massachusetts
General Laws by failing to pay overtime wages to their sales
employees.

MetroWest is an automobile dealership in Natick, Massachusetts that
sells new and used automobiles. Frank Hanenberger is the owner and
Dealer Principal of Metro West.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff from October 24, 2016, until
September 25, 2017, as an inside salesman in Natick, Massachusetts.
MetroWest has employed more than 40 different car salesmen and
women during the three years preceding the filing date of the
action.

Mr. Campbell contends that MetroWest regularly scheduled him and
all other sales employees to work more than 40 hours in a week but
fails to pay them proper overtime wages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brook S. Lane, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: 617 607-3260
          E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com


MOSES ENGINEERS: Faces Class Suit Over Hard Rock Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------
WDSU News reports that four businesses at the site of the New
Orleans Athletic Club have filed a class-action lawsuit against
developers and contractors of the collapsed Hard Rock Hotel.

The businesses, 1021 Bienville Street LLC, McCrory's LLC, Lynn
Properties LLC and New Orleans Athletic LLC have filed a lawsuit
against Citadel Builders, Harry Baker Smith Architects, Heaslip
Engineering, Moses Engineers, All Star Electric and Kailas
Companies, according to court documents. All four businesses that
filed the suit list William More as a company officer and 222 North
Rampart St. as its address, according to the Louisiana Secretary of
State's website.

The lawsuit contends that the collapse of the hotel caused
"catastrophic damage" to people within the building and nearby, and
as a result, their businesses have been forced to close or
drastically limit their businesses operations.

According to the lawsuit, the contractor's negligence caused
damages to the businesses by not identifying dangerous conditions
at the site, improper oversight of the construction and creating
unsafe conditions.

The businesses contend in the lawsuit that they suffered economic
and property damage as a result of the collapse.

They are seeking damages for economic loss as a result of business
interruption or property damage.

The City of New Orleans is still working with the Small Business
Administration on loans for businesses affected by the collapse.
[GN]


MYRIAD GENETICS: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Capital One Financial Corporation (COF)

Investors Affected : February 2, 2018 - July 29, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Capital One Financial Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company did not maintain
robust information security protections, and its protection did not
shield personal information against security breaches; (2) such
deficiencies heightened the Company's exposure to a cyber-attack;
and (3) as a result, Capital One's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/capital-one-financial-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=4123&from=1

Waitr Holdings Inc. (WTRH)

Investors Affected : on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares
between May 17, 2018 and August 8, 2019, including, but not limited
to, those who acquired Waitr shares in connection with the Going
Public Transaction, and those who acquired shares of the Company in
the May 2019 Secondary Offering.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Waitr Holdings Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Waitr lacked a plan to achieve profitability
and, contrary to the statements of Company founder Chris Meaux,
Waitr was not at or near profitability and Defendants had created
the illusion of financial stability by engaging in a host of
illegal and improper activities each designed to inflate revenues
and earnings - such as unilaterally breaking low-rate contracts and
imposing significantly higher rates, and by refusing to pay drivers
for mileage related expenses - both of which ultimately resulted in
independent class action lawsuits; and (ii) Waitr's technology
provided no real advantage and the Company could not obtain the
developer, programming, or engineering resources necessary to
enhance, maintain, and develop industry leading software from its
headquarter location in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/waitr-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4123&from=1

Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN)

Investors Affected : September 2, 2016 - August 13, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Myriad Genetics, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Myriad's product, GeneSight, lacked evidence or
information sufficient to support the tests in their current form,
including their purported benefits; (ii) the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had requested changes to GeneSight and
questioned the validity of the test's purported benefits; (iii)
Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding the
FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (iv) Myriad's acquisition of
Counsyl - and thereby, Foresight - caused the Company to incur the
risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for its expanded carrier
screening tests, which had the potential to, and actually did,
materialize into a material negative impact on the Company's
revenue; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/myriad-genetics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4123&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

Contact:

         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         Phone: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
         Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]


NASTYGAL.COM USA: Fowler Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Texts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Fowler, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NASTYGAL.COM USA INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-09788
(C.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2019), is brought against the Defendant to
secure redress for its violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's unauthorized text messages to
cellular telephone subscribers, who never provided the Defendant
with prior express consent, as well as cellular telephone
subscribers, who expressly requested not to receive solicitation
text messages by registering their telephone number on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry.

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, the
Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant caused thousands of text messages
to be sent to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and others,
who did not provided the Defendant with consent to contact them,
says the complaint.

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

The Defendant is an American retailer that specializes in fashion
for young women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com
                 jason@kazlg.com
                 nicholas@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          321 N. Mall Drive, Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          Email: jason@kazlg.com


NEXSTAR MEDIA: Bid to Dismiss Event-Driven Fund Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. is awaiting the Court's ruling regarding
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed in
The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund's putative securities class action,
according to Nexstar Media's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

On September 10, 2018, The Arbitrage Event-Driven Fund filed a
putative securities class action complaint against subsidiary
Tribune Media Company and members of its then senior management in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The putative securities class action complaint alleges
that Tribune and its then senior management violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by misrepresenting and omitting
material facts concerning Sinclair's conduct during the Sinclair
and Tribune merger approval process (the merger agreement has been
terminated in August 2018).

On December 18, 2018, the court appointed The Arbitrage
Event-Driven Fund and related entities as Lead Plaintiffs.

On January 31, 2019, Lead Plaintiffs and two other named plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.  The amended complaint eliminates the
claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and adds a claim
under Section 11 of the Securities Act related to a November 29,
2017 public offering of Tribune's Class A Common Stock by Oaktree
Tribune, L.P.  The amended complaint also names certain members of
the then Board of Directors of Tribune as defendants.  The amended
complaint also includes claims against Oaktree Tribune, L.P.,
Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC.

The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
Tribune Class A Common Stock between November 29, 2017 and July 16,
2018, contemporaneously with Oaktree Tribune, L.P.'s sales in the
November 29, 2017 public offering or pursuant or traceable to that
offering.  Plaintiffs seek damages in an amount to be determined at
trial.

On March 29, 2019, Tribune and the individual Tribune defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and that motion is
now fully briefed before the Court.

The Company said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit and
intend to defend it vigorously."

Nexstar Media Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting and
digital media company in the United States. The company focuses on
the acquisition, development, and operation of television stations
and interactive community Websites in small and medium-sized
markets. The company was formerly known as Nexstar Broadcasting
Group, Inc. and changed its name to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. in
January 2017. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas.


NEXSTAR MEDIA: Bid to Nix 2nd Amended TV Ads Antitrust Suit Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation, the
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike on October 8, 2019,
according to Nexstar Media Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2019.

Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class
action lawsuits against the a group of companies including Nexstar
and its subsidiary Tribune Media Company (the "Defendants")
alleging that the Defendants coordinated their pricing of
television advertising, thereby harming a proposed class of all
buyers of television advertising time from one or more of the
Defendants since at least January 1, 2014.  The plaintiff in each
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money damages caused by the
alleged antitrust violations.

On October 9, 2018, these cases were consolidated in a
multi-district litigation in the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising
Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785 ("MDL Litigation").

On January 23, 2019, the Court in the MDL Litigation appointed
plaintiffs' lead and liaison counsel.  

The MDL Litigation is ongoing.  The Plaintiffs' Consolidated
Complaint was filed on April 3, 2019; Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss on September 5, 2019.  Before the Court ruled on that
motion, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated
Complaint on September 9, 2019.  This complaint added additional
defendants and allegations.  The Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss and Strike on October 8, 2019.

Nexstar and Tribune deny the allegations against them and will
defend their advertising practices.

Nexstar Media Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting and
digital media company in the United States. The company focuses on
the acquisition, development, and operation of television stations
and interactive community Websites in small and medium-sized
markets. The company was formerly known as Nexstar Broadcasting
Group, Inc. and changed its name to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. in
January 2017. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas.


OLD REPUBLIC: Sua Sues Alleging Sex Discrimination and Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Sua, Cynthia Jimezez, and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees v. OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL SERVICES, INC., OLD REPUBLIC
CONTRACTORS INSURANCE GROUP, OLD REPUBLIC CONTRACTORS INSURANCE
AGENCY INC., OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE GROUP, OLD REPUBLIC
CONSTRUCTION AGENCY INC., OLD REPUBLIC CONTRACTORS INSURANCE GROUP,
INC., DOUG KNOY and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No.
19STCV41044 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles, Cty., Nov. 14, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants for sex discrimination, sexual
harassment, violation of Government Code, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.

During the course of the Plaintiffs' employment, Defendant Knoy
made numerous discriminatory remarks on the basis of the
Plaintiffs' sex, and on December 27, 2018, after a significant
period of wholly satisfactory, competent and diligent performance
to the profit of the Defendants, and after the Defendants
collectively failed to reprimand Defendant Knoy and allowed him to
retaliate against the Plaintiffs for their telling him to stop and
reporting him to corporate, each Plaintiff was constructively
discharged on December 27, 2018, according to the complaint.

As proximate result of the Defendants' willful, knowing, and
intentional discrimination against the Plaintiffs, they have each
sustained and continue to sustain substantial losses on earning and
other employment benefits, the Plaintiffs assert. Each Plaintiff
also has suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, emotional
distress, and mental and physical pain and anguish, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants and worked as
non-exempt hourly paid employees.

The Defendants employed persons and conducted business in
California. Defendant Doug K. Knoy was the Human Recourses Manager
of Defendant Old Republic.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Neal J. Fialkow, Esq.
          James S. Cahill, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NEAL J. FIALKOW, INC.
          215 N. Marengo Ave., 3rd Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Phone: (626) 584-6060
          Fax: (626) 584-2950
          Email: nfialkow@pacbell.net
                 jscahill@aol.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Phone: (818) 609-0807
          Fax: (818) 609-0892


OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Ollies
Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI).  Shareholders interested in
serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to
petition the court and further details about the cases can be found
at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Ollies Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI)
Class Period: June 6, 2019 - August 28, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 18, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ollies-bargain-outlet-holdings-inc-loss-form?wire=3

About the lawsuit: During the class period, Ollies Bargain Outlet
Holdings, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company suffered
a supply chain issue that impacted the initial inventory available
at new stores; (2) as a result, the Company lacked sufficient
inventory to meet demand at certain store locations; (3) as a
result, the Company's comparable store sales were likely to
decrease quarter-over-quarter; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Ollies Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. class
action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

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

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

Contact:

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


OLLIES BARGAIN: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Ollies Bargain
Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI). If you suffered a loss you have until
the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.

Ollies Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (OLLI)

If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ollies-bargain-outlet-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=4045&wire=1

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 18, 2019
Class Period: June 6, 2019 to August 28, 2019

Allegations against OLLI include that: (1) the Company suffered a
supply chain issue that impacted the initial inventory available at
new stores; (2) as a result, the Company lacked sufficient
inventory to meet demand at certain store locations; (3) as a
result, the Company's comparable store sales were likely to
decrease quarter-over-quarter; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]


OMNICELL INC: Dismissed from Mazya Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Omnicell, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the company has
been finally dismissed from the class action suit entitled, Yana
Mazya, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital, Northwestern Memorial
Healthcare, Omnicell, Inc. and Becton Dickinson, Case No.
2018-CH-07161, without prejudice to plaintiff refiling the action.

On June 6, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against a
customer of the Company, the customer's parent company and two
vendors of medication dispensing systems, one of which is the
Company, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division, captioned Yana Mazya, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital,
Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, Omnicell, Inc. and Becton
Dickinson, Case No. 2018-CH-07161.

The complaint sought class certification, monetary damages in the
form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the
alternative, negligent violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and certain declaratory,
injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to
allegations of violation of BIPA and of negligence by the
defendants.

The complaint was served on the Company on June 15, 2018. The
Company's obligation to respond to the complaint was held in
abeyance pending a decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in a
separate case involving BIPA issues.

The Illinois Supreme Court issued its decision in that case on
January 25, 2019. On April 10, 2019, subsequent to the court's
issuance of an order granting the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding
a second named plaintiff and an affiliate of the Company's customer
as an additional defendant and, in addition to making other
modifications to the complaint, removing the separate cause of
action directed to negligence.

The court established a deadline of May 13, 2019 for the defendants
to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint. On May 10,
2019, defendants Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital, Northwestern
Memorial Healthcare, and Northwestern Memorial Hospital removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Subsequently, on May 17, 2019, the Company and the other defendants
in the case each filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a cause of action upon which relief could be
granted. On June 14, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court.

The Court then entered an order, on June 19, 2019, denying
plaintiffs' motion to remand, granting defendants' motions to
dismiss with respect to the additionally-named plaintiff, and
continuing the motions to dismiss with respect to the
originally-named plaintiff.

On July 2, 2019, the Court entered an order remanding the case to
state court and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss without
prejudice to renewal of the motions in state court.

On September 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily
dismiss the Company from the case without prejudice. The motion was
granted by order of the Court dated October 10, 2019 and, as a
result, the Company has been finally dismissed from the case
without prejudice to plaintiff refiling the action.

Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software
solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare
worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Automation
and Analytics, and Medication Adherence. The Company was formerly
known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to
Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


ONTARIO REFRIGERATION: Faces Garcia Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Garcia and Miguel Martinez on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONTARIO REFRIGERATION SVC,
INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1–100, inclusive, Case
No. 37-2019-00060518-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego, Cty.,
Nov. 14, 2019), seeks to recover damages for the Defendants'
violations of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions
Code and applicable Wage Orders issued by the California Industrial
Welfare Commission.

The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendant for numerous
wage and hour violations, including failing to provide off-duty
meal periods; to provide off-duty rest breaks; to pay all wages
owed; to pay all wages by the appropriate pay period; and to
provide timely accurate wage statements, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are former ORS employees, who reside in San
Bernardino County, California.

The Defendant operates a private refrigeration company that serves
clients throughout California, Nevada, and Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Jennifer M. French, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP APC
          1350 Columbia St., Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 756-6990
          Fax: (619) 756-6991
          Email: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
                 jenn@pattersonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Shawna S. Nazari, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAWNA S. NAZARI APLC
          15303 Ventura Blvd., 9th Floor
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Phone: 818-605-7776
          Fax: 818-380-3016
          Email: snazari@ssnlegal.com


OTTAWA, CANADA: Federal Gov't. Ordered to Pay $1.12M in Legal Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for Global News, reports that the federal
government has been ordered to pay $1.12 million in legal fees for
a segregation class action in a judgment critical of Ottawa's
arguments for paying less.

In awarding the costs to representative plaintiff Jullian Reddock,
Superior Court Justice Paul Perell rejected the government's
contention that the requested fees were unreasonable or excessive.

"If anything, it is the pot calling the kettle black for the
federal government to submit that class counsel over-lawyered the
case," Perell said.

The fee award comes in a class action involving the placement of
inmates in administrative solitary confinement. Lawyers from
McCarthy Tetrault and Koskie Minsky were involved.

Reddock launched the action in March 2017. He said he had sometimes
spent days without leaving his cell and that he binged on an
anti-anxiety drug.

In August, Perell awarded the thousands of class members $20
million in damages, with the right of individual complainants to
push for higher amounts depending on their circumstances.

"The Correctional Service operated administrative segregation in a
way that unnecessarily caused harm to the inmates," Perell said.

Reddock requested $1.24 million to cover the legal costs of his
successful fight. The government, however, claimed the fees were
"disproportionate and excessive."

In its submissions, Ottawa argued a substantial cut was warranted
because the Reddock lawyers from McCarthy Tetrault were also
involved in a separate segregation class action against the
government. That lawsuit, with Christopher Brazeau as one of the
representative plaintiffs, involved mentally ill inmates placed in
administrative segregation.

The lawyers' decision to separate the lawsuits was "duplicative"
and the litigation approach "unreasonable," the government
maintained.

Perell, however, rejected the arguments, noting among other things
that the government did not say what costs would have been
reasonable or how much it spent on its own lawyers.

"When an unsuccessful party does not file a bill of costs but
alleges over-lawyering, courts are very skeptical about the
allegations," Perell said.

It would appear, the judge said, that Ottawa spent at least as
much, if not more, on lawyers than did the plaintiff.

The two class actions, Perell said, were substantively different
and Ottawa's claim to the contrary was unjustified. Nor could it be
said that pressing them as a single suit would have been more
efficient, he said.

"The federal government was quite happy to take ironical and
inconsistent approaches in advancing its defences and playing one
case off against the other," Perell said. "It takes irony and
hypocrisy for the federal government to say there were efficiencies
to be achieved."

Perell did reduce Reddock's requested fees by $113,000 for a sliver
of counsel overlap he found in the two cases.

Administrative segregation involves isolating inmates for safety
reasons where authorities believe there is no reasonable
alternative. Prisoners spend almost their entire day in small cells
without meaningful human contact or programming.

Critics argue the practice can cause severe psychological harm and
amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, facts that Perell--and
other courts--have accepted. Ottawa has said legislation that takes
effect Nov. 30 will alleviate the problem. [GN]




OVERSTOCK.COM INC: 4 Purported Securities Class Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. is facing four purported securities class
action lawsuits in Utah, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

On September 27, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and its former chief executive
officer and former chief financial officer in the United States
District Court in the Central District of Utah, alleging violations
under Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a), Section 20(A) of
the Exchange Act.

On October 8, 2019, October 17, 2019, and October 31, 2019, three
similar lawsuits were filed in the same court also naming the
Company and the former executives as defendants, bringing similar
claims under the Exchange Act, and seeking similar relief.

The Company said, "No estimates of the possible losses or range of
losses can be made at this time.  We intend to vigorously defend
these actions."

Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United
States and internationally.  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.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Nov. 26 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Overstock.com
Inc.  Investors have until the deadlines listed below to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

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

Overstock.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: OSTK)
Class Period: May 9, 2019 - September 23, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019

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 it was not true that Overstock would be able to
support the launch of its tZERO crypto currency with earnings or
cash flow from its Retail operations and that whatever marginal
improvements defendants had made by cutting costs and engineering
earnings, could not be sustained so as to generate positive EBITDA
or cash from operations necessary to support its crypto currency
operations; (2) that the extreme additional risks and the
substantial volatility in the price of Company shares was
foreseeable, given defendants' undisclosed plan to offer its tZERO
Preferred Share Dividend as a means to squeeze short sellers out of
Overstock, and to prevent them from holding legitimate positions in
the Company; (3) that the Company's ability to accomplish its
intended short squeeze would embolden the SEC or even market
participants, such as major brokerage houses, to act to prevent
this market manipulation; (4) that Overstock did not have adequate
systems of internal operational or financial controls, such that
Overstock's quarterly reports filed with the SEC were true,
accurate or reliable; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, it
was not true that the Company's quarterly reports filed with the
SEC were prepared in accordance with GAAP ad SEC rules; (6) that
defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Overstock was
operating according to plan, or that Overstock could achieve
guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by defendants; and (7) that as a
result, Overstock's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

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 these class actions, 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.

Contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esquire
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         Tel: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
[GN]


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded company
Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK). Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK)
Class Period: May 9, 2019 - September 23, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 26, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/overstock-com-inc-loss-form?wire=3

About the lawsuit: Overstock.com, Inc. allegedly made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(a) it was not true that Overstock would be able to support the
launch of its tZERO crypto currency with earnings or cash flow from
its retail operations and that whatever marginal improvements
defendants had made by cutting costs and engineering earnings could
not be sustained so as to generate positive EBITDA or cash from
operations necessary to support its crypto currency operations; (b)
there were extreme additional risks and substantial volatility in
the price of Company shares was foreseeable, given defendants'
undisclosed plan to offer its tZERO Preferred Share Dividend as a
means to squeeze short sellers out of Overstock and to prevent them
from holding legitimate positions in the Company; (c) there was a
foreseeable likelihood that the Company's ability to accomplish its
intended short squeeze would embolden the SEC or even market
participants, such as major brokerage houses, to act to prevent
this market manipulation; (d) it was not true that Overstock
contained adequate systems of internal operational or financial
controls, such that Overstock's quarterly reports filed with the
SEC were true, accurate or reliable; (e) as a result of the
foregoing, it also was not true that the Company's quarterly
reports filed with the SEC were prepared in accordance with GAAP ad
SEC rules; and (f) as a result of the aforementioned adverse
conditions which defendants failed to disclose, defendants lacked
any reasonable basis to claim that Overstock was operating
according to plan, or that Overstock could achieve guidance
sponsored and/or endorsed by defendants.

To learn more about the Overstock.com, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

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

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

Contact:

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


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Traynor's Putative Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that Yassen Traynor's putative class action
lawsuit in New York was dismissed on October 23, 2019.

On January 31, 2019, Yassen Traynor filed the putative class action
lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, alleging that the Company's website
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") in addition to
other New York specific laws, because it was not accessible to
blind and visually impaired people.

Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United
States and internationally.  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.


OVERSTOCK.COM: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of Nov. 26 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds that an
investor securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed
against Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK) ("Overstock") on behalf of those
who purchased or otherwise acquired Overstock securities between
May 9, 2019 and September 23, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Overstock securities during the Class Period may, no later
than November 26, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please visit:
https://www.ktmc.com/overstock-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=Overstock.

According to the complaint, Overstock is an online retailer of
furniture, home décor and other products that recently shifted its
focus to include the development and commercialization of the
financial applications of blockchain cryptocurrency technologies
through its tZERO platform.

The Class Period commences on May 9, 2019, when the defendants
published a release announcing purported results for the first
quarter of 2019. The release announced that, after spending $100
million of shareholder funds over the last four years, Overstock's
tZERO product was ready to launch, and critically, that Overstock
Retail department was performing so well that EBITDA guidance could
be increased by 50%. As defendants explained in the release, the
return of Overstock Retail to positive cash flow was imperative in
supporting the launch of tZERO.

According to the complaint, on Sunday, September 22, 2019,
MarketWatch published a report titled, "Overstock founder tried to
squeeze short sellers, then sold out when the SEC cracked down."
The report stated, in part, "One of Patrick Byrne's last acts at
Overstock.com Inc. appears to have forced a short squeeze that
warranted the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
and the sell-off of his entire stake over the last three days is
now raising questions about whether he tried to manipulate the
market." The report also noted the implications of the unusual
timing and amount of defendant Byrne's stock sales. The report
concluded, "[e]ven if Byrne escapes charges of market manipulation
or insider trading, this is still a horrible look: Amid an ongoing
investigation by the SEC's enforcement division into Overstock's
tZERO platform and its token offering, the chief executive quit and
sold his entire stake while seemingly hiding out in an unidentified
Asian country, with plans to invest the money in ways that it may
not be recoverable by U.S. authorities."

On September 23, 2019, Overstock belatedly reported that its Chief
Financial Officer, defendant Gregory Iverson, had left Overstock in
an unscheduled departure a week before, on September 17, 2019, and
that Overstock would lower guidance to break even EBITDA for the
year, eliminating the projected $17.5 million that Overstock had
only recently guided to expect. Following this news, the price of
Overstock shares fell from just below $15.00 per share on September
20, 2019, the trading day prior to September 23, 2019, to $11.19
per share.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) it was not true that Overstock would be able to
support the launch of its tZERO cryptocurrency with earnings or
cash flow from its Retail operations; (ii) the foreseeable
likelihood that Overstock's ability to accomplish its intended
short squeeze would embolden the SEC or even market participants,
such as major brokerage houses, to act to prevent this market
manipulation; (iii) it was also not true that Overstock contained
adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls; and
(iv) the defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that
Overstock was operating according to plan, or that Overstock could
achieve guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by defendants.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667-7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

Overstock investors may, no later than November 26, 2019, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class
members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to
share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.

Contact:

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Tel: (844) 887-9500 (toll free), (610) 667-7706
         Email: info@ktmc.com, jmaro@ktmc.co, abell@ktmc.com  
[GN]


PARETEUM CORP: Kaskela Law Notes of Dec. 23 Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against:

Pareteum Corporation (Nasdaq: TEUM)

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pareteum Corporation
("Pareteum") on behalf of investors who purchased Pareteum
securities between December 14, 2017 and October 21, 2019.
Pareteum investors may, no later than December 23, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action.  For
additional information about the Pareteum action please visit
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/pareteum-corporation/.

Investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC to receive
additional information about the actio and their legal rights and
options.  Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in
securities fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition
litigation.  For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC
please visit www.kaskelalaw.com.

Contact:

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
         Newtown Square, PA 19073
         Tel: (484) 258 - 1585
              (888) 715 - 1740
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
[GN]



PARETEUM CORPORATION: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
law firm, announces that an additional class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Pareteum
Corporation (TEUM) securities between December 14, 2017 and October
21, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until December 23,
2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

On December 14, 2017, the Company provided an update to
stockholders, highlighting that its "restructuring and
repositioning in 2016 has led to solid growth in 2017, and has
defined [the Company's] innovation in both services and market
positioning, establishing a strong outlook for our success in 2018
and beyond."

On June 7, 2019, Marcus Aurelius Value published a report
questioning the propriety of Pareteum's accounting and statements
about its backlog, backlog conversion rates, and receivables. The
report concluded, "[w]e see massive downside potential and believe
the stock is completely uninvestible."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.83, or over 24%, to
close at $2.58 per share on June 7, 2019.

Next, on June 25, 2019, Viceroy Research Group published a report
identifying several sources of "uncollectable" revenue presented in
Pareteum's financial results, concluding that "total revenue is
overstated by 42%."

On this news, the company's stock price fell $0.51, or over 20%, to
close at $2.00 per share on June 26, 2019.

On October 15, 2019, the company announced the termination of
Pareteum's Chief Operating Officer Denis McCarthy, who reportedly
played a central role in disseminating the Company's
36-Month-Contract-Backlog, the metric under intense scrutiny.

On this news, the company's stock price fell $0.36, over three
consecutive trading sessions to close at $0.83 per share on October
17, 2019.

On October 21, 2019, the company disclosed that certain revenues
recognized during 2018 and 2019 should not have been recorded
during that period and that, as a result, the Company would restate
their previously issued consolidated financial statements as of and
for the full year ended December 31, 2018, and interim periods
ended March 31, 2019 and June 30, 2019.

On this news, the company's stock price fell $0.4401, or nearly
60%, to close at $0.2992 on October 22, 2019.

If you purchased Pareteum shares during the class period and
suffered a loss, or you're interested in learning more about the
class action or your legal rights and remedies, 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 nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do
not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]


POLARITYTE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
PolarityTE, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated class action
suit styled, In re PolarityTE, Inc. Securities Litigation, remains
pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.  A hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss
was scheduled for November 19, 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 filed a reply
to the opposition on September 13, 2019.

A hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was scheduled for
November 19, 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.


QIHOO 360: Altimeo Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Altimeo Asset Management
individualy and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, and ODS Capital LLC, Movant v. Qihoo 360 Technology Co.
Ltd; Hongyi Zhou; Xiangdong Qi; and Eric X Chen, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01619 (Filed Mar. 5, 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 New York (Foley
Square) on Oct 30, 2019.

The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-10067-JMF to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman.

The securities class action is brought on behalf of all former
owners of Qihoo 360 stock and American Depositary Shares (ADSs) who
(i) sold shares, and were damaged thereby, during the  period
between January 11, 2016, and July 15, 2016, inclusive; and/or (ii)
held shares as of July 15, 2016. Excluded from the Class are the
Defendants, members of the immediate family of the Individual
Defendants, any subsidiary or affiliate of Qihoo 360, and the
directors and officers of Qihoo 360 and their families and
affiliates at all relevant times, and anyone, who filed a petition
or pursued appraisal rights of their Qihoo 360 stock pursuant to
Cayman Law.

The case concerns a scheme, which violates the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, by Qihoo 360 and certain of its officers and/or
directors to depress the value of Qihoo 360's stock and ADS in
order to avoid paying a fair price to Qihoo 360's shareholders
during a transaction to take the Company private.

Qihoo 360 is a Chinese internet security company known for its
antivirus software, Web Browser, and Mobile Application Store. It
was founded by Zhou Hongyi and Qi Xiangdong in June 2005.[BN]

The Plaintiff and Movant are represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Michael Grunfeld, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          90024, Ste 20th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Angela M. Liu, Esq.
          David H. Kistenbroker, Esq.
          Joni S. Jacobsen, Esq.
          Nathan M. McClellan, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          35 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 646-5800
          Facsimile: (312) 646-5815
          E-mail: angela.liu@dechert.com
                  david.kistenbroker@dechert.com
                  joni.jacobsen@dechert.com
                  nathan.mcclellan@dechert.com


RADIANT LOGISTICS: No Trial Date Yet for Appeal in Barahona Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that the Second District Court of Appeal for
the State of California has not issued an appellate briefing
schedule related to a notice of appeal filed from a court decision
in the class action suit entitled, Ingrid Barahona v.
Accountabilities, Inc. d/b/a/ Accountabilities Staffing, Inc.,
Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. and DBA Distribution Services, Inc.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California against Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. ("RGL") and DBA
Distribution Services, Inc. ("DBA", a wholly-owned subsidiary)
(collectively referred to as the "Company"), and two third-party
staffing companies (collectively with the Company, the "Staffing
Defendants") with whom RGL and DBA contracted for temporary
employees.  In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of herself and
the putative class, sought damages and penalties under California
law, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, along with
equitable remedies, alleging that she and the putative class were
the subject of unfair and unlawful business practices, including
certain wage and hour violations relating to, among others, failure
to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime, and failure to reimburse employees for work-related
expenses.  Ms. Barahona alleged that she was jointly employed by
the staffing companies and RGL and DBA.  RGL and DBA denied Ms.
Barahona's allegations in their entirety, denied that they were
liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative class members in any way,
and vigorously defended against these allegations based upon a
preliminary evaluation of applicable records and legal standards.
If Ms. Barahona were to prevail on her allegations on substantially
all claims against the Company, the Company could be liable for
uninsured damages in an amount that, while not significant when
evaluated against either the Company's assets or current and
expected level of annual earnings, could be material when judged
against the Company's earnings in the particular quarter in which
any such damages arose, if at all.

On February 19, 2019, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
class action case, which the court granted on March 14, 2019, and
subsequently entered judgment in favor of the Company on April 30,
2019.

On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal, seeking
appellate review.  The trial judge's decision to dismiss the case
and enter judgment in favor of the Company will be reviewed by the
Second District Court of Appeal for the State of California.

The Company said, "To date, however, the Court of Appeal has not
issued an appellate briefing schedule.  At this time, the Company
is unable to express an opinion as to the likely outcome of the
matter."

Radiant Logistics, Inc. operates as a third-party logistics and
multi-modal transportation services company primarily in the United
States and Canada. Radiant Logistics, Inc. was founded in 2001 and
is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ribbon Communications Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the motion seeking
dismissal of the class action suit initiated by Ron Miller remains
pending.

On November 8, 2018, Ron Miller, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a Class Action Complaint (the "Miller Complaint") in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(the "Massachusetts District Court") against the company and three
of the company's former officers, Raymond P. Dolan, Mark T.
Greenquist and Michael Swade, claiming to represent a class of
purchasers of Sonus common stock during the period from January 8,
2015 through March 24, 2015 and alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

Similar to a previous complaint entitled Sousa et al. vs. Sonus
Networks, Inc. et al., which was dismissed with prejudice by an
order dated June 6, 2017, the Miller Complaint claims that the
Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning
Sonus' expected fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance,
which statements were also the subject of an August 7, 2018
Securities and Exchange Commission Cease and Desist Order, whose
findings the company neither admitted nor denied. The Miller
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.

After the Miller Complaint was filed, several parties filed and
briefed motions seeking to be selected by the Massachusetts
District Court to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the action.

On June 21, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court appointed a
group as Lead Plaintiffs and the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on July 19, 2019. On August 30, 2019, the Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Miller Complaint and, on October 4,
2019, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss.

The Defendants are expected to reply to such opposition on or
before November 1, 2019.

Ribbon Communications Inc. provides networked solutions in the
United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, other Asia
Pacific, and internationally. The company was formerly known as
Sonus Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Ribbon Communications
Inc. in November 2017. Ribbon Communications Inc. was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in Westford, Massachusetts.


RINGCENTRAL INC: Trial in Hurley TCPA Class Suit Set for March 2020
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RingCentral, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that in the class action suit initiated by
Joann Hurley, a trial is set for March 10, 2020.

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 affirmative defenses to the second
amended complaint on October 18, 2018.

Plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class on July 9, 2019.  The
Company and another defendant filed oppositions to the motion,
which have been fully briefed and is pending decision by the
court.

On October 1, 2019, the court issued a revised scheduling order
continuing the discovery cutoff to October 25, 2019, and the
dispositive motion deadline to November 15, 2019.

Trial is set for March 10, 2020.

The Company 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.


RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Bids to Dismiss Takata Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Riot Blockchain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019, that defendants in the Takata class action
lawsuit have filed "multiple motions to dismiss the amended
complaint starting on September 3, 2019."

Briefing on the motions to dismiss was expected to be completed on
November 18, 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.

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 filed
multiple motions to dismiss the amended complaint starting on
September 3, 2019.  Briefing on the motions to dismiss was expected
to be completed on November 18, 2019.

The Company 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.


ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Feb. 2020 Hearing Set for Class Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Court review and approval of Rockwell Medical, Inc.'s agreement to
settle the shareholder class action is scheduled for February 2020,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, the Company
has agreed to pay the Plaintiffs US$3.7 million in exchange for a
full release of all liability as to all defendants.  Of the
Settlement Amount, the Company will be contributing approximately
US$0.4 million, which represents the remaining retention amount
under the Company's director and officer liability insurance
policy.  The remainder of the settlement amount will be funded by
the Company's director and officer insurance policy.  The
settlement is subject to court review and approval.

On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff Ah Kit Too filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern
District of New York against the Company and former officers,
Robert Chioini and Thomas Klema.  The complaint is a federal
securities class action purportedly brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
the Company between March 16, 2018 and June 26, 2018.  The
Complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Chioini and Klema
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").  Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that defendants filed reports with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that contained purported inaccurate and misleading
statements regarding the potential for the Company's drug,
Triferic, to quality for separate reimbursement status by the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff Robert Spock filed a similar
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of New York against the Company and Messrs.
Chioini and Klema.  The Spock complaint is a federal securities
class action purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of
persons who purchased the Company's securities between November 8,
2017 and June 26, 2018.  This complaint alleges that the Company
and Messrs. Chioini and Klema violated the Exchange Act in that the
Company was aware the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
would not pursue the Company's proposal for separate reimbursement
for Triferic; misstated reserves in the Company's quarterly report
for the first quarter of 2018; had a material weakness its internal
controls over financial reporting, which rendered those controls
ineffective; Mr. Chioini withheld material information regarding
Triferic from the Company's auditor, corporate counsel, and
independent directors of the Board; and, as a result of these
alleged issues, statements about the Company's business were
materially false and misleading.

On September 25, 2018, four Company stockholders filed motions to
appoint lead plaintiffs, lead counsel, and to consolidate the Ah
Kit Too v. Rockwell securities class action with the Spock v.
Rockwell securities class action.  

On October 10, 2018, the court issued an order consolidating the
two actions, appointing co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.  

On December 10, 2018, lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which included the same allegations as the initial
complaints and asserted claims on behalf of a putative class
consisting of person who purchased the Company's securities between
November 8, 2017 and June 26, 2018, accordingly.  

On August 7, 2019, all parties to the class action entered into a
settlement of the consolidated class action.  Pursuant to the terms
and conditions of the settlement agreement, the Company will pay
the Plaintiffs US$3.7 million (the "Settlement Amount') in exchange
for a full release of all liability as to all defendants.  Of the
Settlement Amount, the Company will be contributing approximately
US$0.4 million, which represents the remaining retention amount
under the Company's director and officer liability insurance
policy.  The remainder of the settlement amount will be funded by
the Company's director and officer insurance policy.

Rockwell Medical, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical
company that targets end-stage renal disease and chronic kidney
disease with therapies and products for the treatment of iron
deficiency and hemodialysis. Rockwell Medical, Inc. was founded in
1994 and is based in Wixom, Michigan.


RUHNN HOLDING: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Dec. 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming December 6, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Ruhnn Holding Limited
("Ruhnn" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RUHN) investors who purchased
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with Ruhnn's April
2019 initial public offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering").

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

On or about April 3, 2019, Ruhnn completed its IPO in which it sold
over 10 million ADSs for $12.50 per share.

On June 14, 2019, the Company reported its fourth quarter and
fiscal year 2019 financial results, reporting that it only had 56
stores in operation, indicating that nearly 40% of the stores
reported in the Registration Statement had been closed. The Company
also disclosed that product sales had fallen sequentially 46%.

Since the IPO, Ruhnn's shares have traded as low as $7.07 per
share, or 43% below the IPO price.

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 at the time of the IPO, the number of Ruhnn's
online stores had declined by nearly 40%; (2) that at the time of
the IPO, the number of Ruhnn's full-service Key Opinion Leaders had
declined by nearly 44%; (3) that as a result, the Company's net
revenues derived from its full-service segment had declined by 46%
on a sequential basis; and (4) that as a result, defendants'
statements about Ruhnn's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ruhnn ADSs pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement, you may move the Court no
later than December 6, 2019 to request appointment as lead
plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. 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 the
pending class action lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

Contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
         Tel: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com, lportnoy@glancylaw.com

[GN]


RUHNN HOLDING: Gross Law Announces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues a
notice on behalf of shareholders of publicly traded company Ruhnn
Holding Limited (RUHN). Shareholders who purchased shares in the
company during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm
regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.

Ruhnn Holding Limited (RUHN)

Investors Affected : all persons or entities who purchased Ruhnn
American Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's April 3, 2019 initial public offering.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Ruhnn Holding Limited. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) at the time of the initial public offering
("IPO"), the number of Ruhnn's online stores had declined by nearly
40%; (2) at the time of the IPO, the number of Ruhnn's full-service
Key Opinion Leaders had declined by nearly 44%; (3) as a result,
the Company's net revenues derived from its full-service segment
had declined by 46% on a sequential basis; and (3) as a result,
defendants' statements about Ruhnn's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/ruhnn-holding-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=4047&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

          The Gross Law Firm
          15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
          New York, NY, 10018
          E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
          Tel: (212) 537-9430
          Fax: (833) 862-7770
[GN]



RUHNN HOLDING: Kaskela Law Notes of Dec. 6 Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that s shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against:

Ruhnn Holding Limited (Nasdaq: RUHN)

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ruhnn Holding Limited
("Ruhnn" or the "Company") on behalf of certain investors who
purchased shares of the Company's securities on or after April 3,
2019.  Ruhnn investors may, no later than December 6, 2019, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action.  For
additional information about the Ruhnn action please visit
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/ruhnn-holding-limited/.

Investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC to receive
additional information about the action and their legal rights and
options.  Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in
securities fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition
litigation.  For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC
please visit www.kaskelalaw.com.

Contact:

         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
         Newtown Square, PA 19073
         Tel: (484) 258 - 1585
              (888) 715 - 1740
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
[GN]



SEQUIUM ASSET: Standish Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
LYLE STANDISH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04821-TWT (N.D. Ga., Oct. 25, 2019),
contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise,
in part, by placing calls using artificial and pre-corded voice
and/or automatic telephone dialing system to wireless phone users,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Sequium caused Plaintiff and the members of the Class actual harm
and cognizable legal injury. This includes the aggravation and
nuisance and invasions of privacy that result from the receipt of
calls, in addition to the consumption of battery life, lost
cellular minutes, loss of value realized for the monies consumers
paid to their wireless carriers, the lawsuit says.

Sequium is an advanced accounts receivable management company.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jeffrey D. Horst, Esq.
          Kana Caplan, Esq.
          KREVOLIN & HORST, LLC
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3250
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 888 9700
          E-mail: horst@khlawfirm.com
                  caplan@khlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 330 5512
          Facsimile: (212) 989 9163
          E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
                  jarisohn@bursor.com

SONIM TECH: Pearson and 3 Other IPO-Related Class Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonim Technologies, Inc. is facing four putative class action
complaints in California related to its initial public offering
("IPO"), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

On September 20, 2019, a purported Sonim stockholder who allegedly
purchased stock registered in Sonim's initial public offering
("IPO") filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, captioned
Pearson v. Sonim Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CIV05564,
on behalf of himself and others who purchased shares of Sonim
registered in the IPO (the "Pearson Action").  

On October 4 and 16, 2019, two additional purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Pearson Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs yet the same putative class of
Sonim stockholders, in the same court as the Pearson Action.  

On October 7, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

All four complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
by Sonim and certain of its current and former officers and
directors for, among other things, alleged false or misleading
statements and omissions in the registration statement issued in
connection with the IPO, relating primarily to an alleged failure
to disclose software defects in Sonim's phones and alleged
misstatements about performance characteristics of Sonim's phones.

Sonim said it intends to defend these matters vigorously.  "An
adverse outcome in any of these matters, however, could have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows for a particular period.  Due to the
uncertainly of the outcome of this matter, the Company has not
recorded any accruals as of September 30, 2019."

Sonim Technologies, Inc. provides ruggedized mobile phones and
accessories for task workers. It offers ruggedized mobile phones,
such as Sonim XP8, Sonim XP5s, and Sonim XP3 based on the Android
platform that are capable of attaching to public and private
wireless networks; industrial-grade accessories, including remote
speaker microphones, multi-bay charging accessories, and in-vehicle
hands-free voice communications solutions; and cloud-based software
and application services. Sonim Technologies, Inc. sells its mobile
phones and accessories primarily to wireless carriers in the United
States and Canada. The company was formerly known as NaviSpin.com,
Inc. and changed its name to Sonim Technologies, Inc. in December
2001. Sonim Technologies, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
headquartered in San Mateo, California.


SPRINT CORP: Still Faces Soloman Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation continues to defend itself against a putative
class action styled, Soloman v. Sprint Corporation, et al.,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2019.

On April 22, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the Southern District of New
York against the Company and two of the Company's executive
officers, captioned Meneses v. Sprint Corporation, et al.

On June 5, 2019, a second purported stockholder of the Company
filed a putative class action complaint in the Southern District of
New York against the Company and two of the Company's executive
officers, captioned Soloman v. Sprint Corporation, et al.

The complaints in the Meneses and Solomon actions allege that the
Company and the two executive officers violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by issuing untrue
statements related to certain postpaid net subscriber additions.
The complaints seek damages and reasonable attorneys fees.

The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit.

On June 24, 2019, the Meneses action was voluntarily dismissed.

Sprint Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides a
range of wireless and wireline communications products and services
to consumers, businesses, government subscribers, and resellers in
the United States, Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin
Islands.  The Company was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in
Overland Park, Kansas. Sprint Corporation is a subsidiary of
SoftBank Group Corp.


STAMPS.COM INC: Seeks to Dismiss Karinski Securities Class Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stamps.com Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the putative class
action styled, Karinski v. Stamps.com, Inc. et al, Case
2:19-cv-01828, pending in California, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019.

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 in August 2019, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss
in October 2019.

Stamps.com said, "We believe that the case is without merit and
intend to defend it vigorously.  Due to the early stage 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.


TAMBURI TRATTORIA: Veleva Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALENTINA VELEVA, on behalf of herself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, Plaintiff v. TAMBURI TRATTORIA LTD., and FABIO
CAMARDION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10078 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
30, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages,
compensation for off-the-clock work, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have
been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to
the Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,
procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, the lawsuit says. The
Plaintiff contends that all these acts all culminate in a willful
failure, and refusal, to pay the employees proper wages due to time
shaving, and failure to pay them minimum wage and overtime premium
at the rate of one and one half times the regular rate for work in
excess of 40 hours per workweek.

Tamburi Trattoria is in the eating places industry in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: 212-465-1188
          Facsimile: 212-465-1181


TAMPOPO LLC: Larios Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nazareno Larios, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. TAMPOPO LLC d/b/a TAMPOPO RAMEN, JOSHUA FRANK, and NANAE
MAMEUDA-FRANK, Case No. 1:19-cv-10561 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2019), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law alleging that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from
the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages; unpaid overtime compensation;
liquidated and statutory damages; prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff alleges he worked over 40 hours per week but he was
not paid proper minimum wages and overtime compensation throughout
his employment. He asserts that work performed above 40 hours per
week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as
required by state and federal law. The Defendants knowingly and
willfully operate their business with a policy of not paying the
Plaintiff either the FLSA or the NYLL minimum wage and overtime
rates, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a non-exempt
food deliver worker, porter and stock person. He was then promoted
two months later as a cook and server.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant known as
"Tampopo Ramen," located in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 209-3933
          Fax: (212) 209-7102


TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: IGNITE3 Class Suit Voluntarily Dropped
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that in October 2019, the lead
plaintiff in the class action suit related to IGNITE3 filed a
motion to voluntarily dismiss the case, and on October 16, 2019,
the Massachusetts Federal Court entered an order dismissing the
case.

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 the
Company's July and August 2017 public offering and those who
purchased the Company's 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 (the "Massachusetts Federal Court") granted an
unopposed motion for the appointment of a lead plaintiff.

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.


TRENDSETTER ENGINEERING: Jozwiak Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Jozwiak, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Persons v. TRENDSETTER ENGINEERING, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-04489
(S.D. Tex., Nov. 14, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant has a business plan that includes not paying hourly
employees for all the time they work, and paying hourly employees
less overtime pay than they are entitled to receive, the Plaintiff
asserts. The Defendant does this in order to save money and, thus,
gain an unfair advantage over competitor, who follow the law in
their employment practices, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a subsea service
technician from June 2018 until June 20, 2019.

The Defendant is a Texas corporation. Trendsetter Engineering
provides specialized subsea solutions for oil and gas companies
across the globe. The Company specializes in solving unconventional
problems with conventional field proven technology, especially in a
crisis environment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Phone: 713-868-3388
          Facsimile: 713-683-9940
          Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                 vijay@buenkerlaw.com


TRINITY HEALTH: Faces Ripley Suit for Not Paying Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Ripley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRINITY HEALTH CORPORATION, TRINITY HEALTH OF NEW
ENGLAND CORPORATION, INC., and SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL
CENTER, Case No. 3:19-cv-01811 (D. Conn., Nov. 14, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wages Act.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated patient care staff have been
denied payment for all hours worked, including overtime in
violation of the FLSA and Connecticut law, and have been denied
meal periods that comply with Connecticut law, the Plaintiff
alleges. This case implicates that longstanding policy and practice
of the Defendants, which failed to properly compensate non-exempt
employees for work performed during meal periods, for work
performed while "off-the-clock," and for missed meal periods.

The Plaintiff was employed as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)
by the Defendants at Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center in
Hartford, Connecticut.

Trinity Health Corporation is a health system operating 93
hospitals in 22 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Nestico, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
          Scottsdale, AZ 85253
          Email: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Phone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                 oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
          Houston, TX 77098
          Phone: (713) 338-2560
          Fax: (415) 421-7105
          Email: whogg@schneiderwallace.com


TWITTER INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Twitter, Inc. (TWTR) and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Twitter securities between August 6, 2019 and October 23, 2019,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site:www.bgandg.com/twtr.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) while Twitter represented that it "fixed" certain issues
relating to user choice settings designed to target advertising
were not working as intended; (2) the changes implemented to fix
these issues adversely affected Twitter's ability to target
advertising, including the targeting of advertising through its
Mobile App Promotion ("MAP") product, which caused a material
decline in advertising revenue; and (3) as a result, Twitter'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/twtr 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 Twitter you have until December 30, 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:

         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com, peretz@bgandg.com
[GN]


TWITTER INC: Kaplan Fox Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) has filed a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Twitter, Inc. ("Twitter" or the
"Company"), Jack Dorsey, Twitter's Chief Executive Officer, and Ned
Segal, Twitter's Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the
"Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC, and is brought by plaintiff on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the publicly
traded common stock of Twitter from August 6, 2019 through October
23, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later December 30, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
proposed Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery.

The complaint further alleges that on August 6, 2019, Twitter
publicly disclosed through a tweet that it recently found issues
where certain user settings choices designed to target advertising
were not working as intended.  Twitter represented that "We
recently discovered and fixed issues related to your settings
choices for the way we deliver personalized ads, and when we share
certain data with trusted measurement and advertising partners."
(Emphasis added).  However, unknown to investors, while Twitter
represented that it "fixed" certain issues relating to user choice
settings, Defendants failed to disclose that the changes
implemented to fix these issues adversely affected Twitter's
ability to target advertising, including the targeting of
advertising through its Mobile App Promotion ("MAP") product, which
caused a material decline in advertising revenue.

On October 24, 2019, before the market opened, the Company
disclosed its financial results for the quarter ended September 30,
2019 and conducted a conference call with investors. During the
conference call, Defendant Dorsey, disclosed that Twitter "had some
missteps and bugs in our map ads . . .  We discovered and took
steps to remediate bugs that largely affected our legacy map
product. These bugs affected our ability to target ads and share
data with measurement and partners.  We also discovered that
certain personalization and data sightings were not operating as
expected."

On this news, Twitter's shares declined from a closing price of
$38.83 per share on October 23, 2019, to close at $30.73 per share,
a decline of $8.10 per share, or over 20%, on heavier than average
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class
and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
(www.kaplanfox.com).  Our firm, with offices in New York, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey, has decades of
experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions
involving violations of the Federal securities laws.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, or would like a copy of the complaint,
please e-mail attorneys Jeff Campisi (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com), or
Larry King (lking@kaplanfox.com), or contact them by phone, regular
mail, or fax:

         Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Toll-Free Telephone: (800) 290-1952
         Telephone: (212) 687-1980
         Fax: (212) 687-7714
         E-mail address: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

         Laurence D. King, Esq.
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 772-4700
         Fax: (415) 772-4707
         E-mail address: lking@kaplanfox.com
[GN]


TWITTER 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 Twitter,
Inc. ("Twitter" or "the Company") (NYSE: TWTR) for violations of
Secs. 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 August 6,
2019 and October 23, 2019, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before December 30, 2019.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

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. Twitter's settings related to targeted
advertising were not working, despite the Company claiming to have
"fixed" its issues. The Company's futile efforts to fix its
problems actually adversely affected its ability to target
advertising. This problem extended to Twitter's Mobile App
Promotion ("MAP") product, resulting in a significant decline in
advertising revenue. 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 Twitter,
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]


TYSON FOODS: Amended Complaint Filed in Fed Cattle Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 28, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the proceedings styled,
In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation, filed a second amended complaint
on October 4, 2019.

On April 23, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and
entities who directly sold to the named defendants any fed cattle
for slaughter and all persons who transacted in live cattle futures
and/or options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or another
U.S. exchange, filed a class action complaint against the Company
and its  the Company and its beef and pork subsidiary, Tyson Fresh
Meats, Inc., as well as other beef packer defendants, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy
from January 2015 to the present to reduce fed cattle prices in
violation of federal antitrust laws, the Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Act of 1921, and the Commodities Exchange Act by
periodically reducing their slaughter volumes so as to reduce
demand for fed cattle, curtailing their purchases and slaughters of
cash-purchased cattle during those same periods, coordinating their
procurement practices for fed cattle settled on a cash basis,
importing foreign cattle at a loss so as to reduce domestic demand,
and closing and idling plants.

In addition, the plaintiffs also allege the defendants colluded to
manipulate live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

This complaint was subsequently voluntarily dismissed and re-filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Other similar lawsuits were filed by ranchers in other district
courts.

All actions seeking relief by ranchers and futures traders have now
been transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota action and are consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings as In Re Cattle Antitrust Litigation.

Following the filing of defendants' motion to dismiss this matter,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on October 4,
2019.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Amended Complaints in Pork Purchasers' Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. continues to face a consolidated lawsuit styled,
In re Pork Antitrust Litigation, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended September 28, 2019.  The matter was
previously dismissed without prejudice in August 2019 but the
plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 6, 2019.

On June 18, 2018, a group of plaintiffs acting on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who
indirectly purchased pork, filed a class action complaint against
the Company and certain of its pork subsidiaries, as well as
several other pork processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Subsequent to the filing of the initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were also filed in the same court.

The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers.  The consolidated
actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation.

Since the original filing, a putative class member is proceeding
with an individual direct action making similar claims, and others
may do so in the future.  The individual complaint has been filed
in the District of Minnesota and is proceeding on a coordinated
pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions.

The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in
violation of United States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws.  The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive
relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees
on behalf of the putative classes.

On August 8, 2019, this matter was dismissed without prejudice.
The plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 6, 2019, in
which the plaintiffs again have alleged that the defendants
conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the
price of pork and pork products in violation of state and federal
antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment common laws,
and the plaintiffs again are seeking treble damages, injunctive
relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees
on behalf of the putative classes.

The Company said, "We intend to respond to the amended complaints.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has
also initiated a civil lawsuit against us, certain of our
subsidiaries, and several other pork processing companies alleging
activities in violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust laws.  This
lawsuit was transferred to the District of Minnesota and remains
pending with an amended complaint due on or before December 6,
2019."

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Indirect Beef Buyers Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss an indirect consumer purchaser litigation
styled as Peterson v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al.,
remains pending, according to Tyson Foods, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended September 28, 2019.

On April 26, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers
of beef for personal use filed a class action complaint against the
Company, other beef packers, and Agri Stats, Inc., an information
services provider, in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  Agri-Stats was subsequently dismissed from
the suit.

The plaintiffs allege that the packer defendants conspired to
reduce slaughter capacity by closing or idling plants, limiting
their purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of
cash cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers so as to reduce
beef output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages under state
antitrust and consumer protection statutes and the common law of
approximately 30 states, as well as injunctive relief.

The defendants' motions to dismiss this matter are pending.  The
indirect consumer purchaser litigation is styled as Peterson v. JBS
USA Food Company Holdings, et al.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Direct Beef Purchasers Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. is facing a class action complaint filed in
Minnesota on behalf direct purchasers of beef, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2019.

On October 16, 2019, a direct purchaser of beef, on behalf of
itself and other direct purchasers of beef, filed a class action
complaint against the Company and other beef packer defendants in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to reduce
slaughter capacity by closing and idling plants, limiting their
purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of cash
cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers, so as to reduce beef
output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
punitive damages, restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest,
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Non-Supervisory Staff Wage-Fixing Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. is defending itself against a consolidated class
action lawsuit regarding fixing the rates of wages for
non-supervisory production and maintenance workers, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2019.

On August 30, 2019, Judy Jien, Kieo Jibidi and Elaisa Clement,
acting on their own behalf and a putative class of non-supervisory
production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants
in the continental United States, filed a class action complaint
against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as
several other poultry processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.  An additional
complaint making similar allegations was also filed by Emily
Earnest.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a
wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information
regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of
wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance workers in
violation of federal antitrust laws.  The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages,
restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief.

The court consolidated the Jien and Earnest cases for coordinated
pretrial proceedings.  Following the consolidation, two additional
lawsuits have been filed by individuals making similar
allegations.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: PH Supreme Court Review on Suit v. Hillshire Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Philippine Supreme Court's review of the case where Tyson
Foods, Inc.'s subsidiary is a respondent is still pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 28, 2019.

The Company's subsidiary, The Hillshire Brands Company (formerly
named Sara Lee Corporation), is a party to a consolidation of cases
filed by individual complainants with the Republic of the
Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment and the National
Labor Relations Commission from 1998 through July 1999.

The complaint was filed against Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee
Corporation, Sara Lee Philippines, Inc., Fashion Accessories
Philippines, Inc., and Attorney Cesar C. Cruz.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the respondents engaged in unfair
labor practices in connection with the termination of manufacturing
operations in the Philippines in 1995 by Aris Philippines, Inc., a
former subsidiary of The Hillshire Brands Company.

In late 2004, a labor arbiter ruled against the respondents and
awarded the complainants PHP3,453,664,710 (approximately U.S. US$66
million) in damages and fees.

The respondents appealed the labor arbiter's ruling, and it was
subsequently set aside by the NLRC in December 2006.  Subsequent to
the NLRC's decision, the parties filed numerous appeals, motions
for reconsideration and petitions for review, certain of which
remained outstanding for several years.

While various of those appeals, motions and/or petitions were
pending, The Hillshire Brands Company, on June 23, 2014, without
admitting liability, filed a settlement motion requesting that the
Supreme Court of the Philippines order dismissal with prejudice of
all claims against it and certain other respondents in exchange for
payments allocated by the court among the complainants in an amount
not to exceed PHP342,287,800 (approximately US$6.6 million).

Based in part on its finding that the consideration to be paid to
the complainants as part of such settlement was insufficient, the
Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the respondents' settlement
motion and all motions for reconsideration thereof.  The Supreme
Court of the Philippines also set aside as premature the NLRC's
December 2006 ruling.  As a result, the cases were remanded back
before the NLRC to rule on the merits of the case.

On December 15, 2016, the Company learned that the NLRC rendered
its decision on November 29, 2016, regarding the respondents'
appeals regarding the labor arbiter's 2004 ruling in favor of the
complainants.  The NLRC increased the award for 4,922 of the total
5,984 complainants to PHP14,858,495,937 (approximately U.S. US$285
million).  However, the NLRC approved a prior settlement reached
with the group comprising approximately 18% of the class of 5,984
complainants, pursuant to which The Hillshire Brands Company agreed
to pay each settling complainant PHP68,000 (approximately U.S.
US$1,300).

The settlement payment was made on December 21, 2016, to the NLRC,
which is responsible for distributing the funds to each settling
complainant.

On December 27, 2016, the respondents filed motions for
reconsideration with the NLRC asking that the award be set aside.
The NLRC denied respondents' motions for reconsideration in a
resolution received on May 5, 2017 and entered a judgment on the
award on July 24, 2017.  Each of Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee
Corporation and Sara Lee Philippines, Inc. appealed this award and
sought an injunction to preclude enforcement of the award to the
Philippines Court of Appeals.

On November 23, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted a writ of
preliminary injunction that precluded execution of the NLRC award
during the pendency of the appeal.  The Court of Appeals
subsequently vacated the NLRC's award on April 12, 2018.
Complainants have filed motions for reconsideration with the Court
of Appeals.

On November 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied claimants'
motions for reconsideration and granted defendants' motion to
release and discharge the preliminary injunction bond.  Claimants
have since filed petitions for writ of certiorari with the Supreme
Court of the Philippines.  The Supreme Court has accepted the case
for review.

The Company said it continues to maintain an accrual for this
matter.

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

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Still Defends Illinois Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. continues to face a consolidated class action
suit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
September 28, 2019.

On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on its own
behalf and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry
products, filed a class action complaint against the Company and
certain of the Company's poultry subsidiaries, as well as several
other poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of
Illinois.  Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint,
additional lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative
classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers.  The consolidated
actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

Since the original filing, certain putative class members have
opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct
actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future.

All opt out complaints have been filed in, or transferred to, the
Northern District of Illinois and are proceeding on a coordinated
pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions.

The operative complaints, which have been amended throughout the
litigation, allege, among other things, that beginning in January
2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain,
and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United
States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws.

The plaintiffs also allege that defendants "manipulated and
artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the
Georgia Dock." The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants
concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the
putative classes.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes.  Decisions on class certification and summary
judgment motions likely to be filed by defendants are currently
expected in late calendar year 2020 and early 2021.

If necessary, trial will occur after rulings on class certification
and any summary judgment motions.

On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs notified the Company that the
U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") Antitrust Division issued a
grand jury subpoena to them requesting discovery produced by all
parties in the civil case.

On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion to intervene and sought a
limited stay of discovery in the civil action, which the court
granted in part.  Subsequently, the Company received a grand jury
subpoena from the DOJ seeking additional documents and information
related to the chicken industry.  The Company is fully cooperating
with the DOJ's request.

On October 16, 2019, the court extended the limited stay of
discovery in the civil action through June 27, 2020.

The Company said, "The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of
its citizens, has also initiated a civil lawsuit against us,
certain of our subsidiaries, and several other poultry processing
companies alleging activities in violation of the Puerto Rican
antitrust laws.  This lawsuit has been transferred to the Northern
District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial proceedings."

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Rizzuto ERISA Suit Moved to Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Zachary Rizzuto, Plaintiff v.
United Healthcare Insurance Company, United HealthCare Services,
Inc., and The Hertz Custom Benefits Program, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00691 (Filed Sept. 19, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on Oct
30, 2019.

The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-12239-ADB to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Allison D. Burroughs.

Mr. Rizzuto brings this action for himself and those similarly
situated to challenge UnitedHealthcare's deceptive and fraudulent
misrepresentations to its Employee Retirement Income Security Act
plan participants and beneficiaries that it would deliver access to
covered, medically necessary healthcare for the treatment of
cancer. The case also challenges UnitedHealthcare's (i) deceptive
and unfair administration of its ERISA plans, including its prior
authorization and utilization review process for plan members
seeking proton beam therapy, and (ii) adjudication and
administration of claims for proton beam therapy made under ERISA
plans underwritten and administered by UnitedHealthcare, which
skews the determination of coverage for medically necessary
services towards denial.

UnitedHealthcare offers plans that provide reliable health care
coverage, and dental, vision and other insurance plans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Damon D. Eisenbrey, Esq.
          CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC
          3 Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor
          Santa Ana, CA 92707
          Telephone: (714) 241-4444
          Facsimile: (714) 241-4445
          E-mail: deisenbrey@callahan-law.com

               - and -

          Lisa S. Kantor, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525
          Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
          E-mail: lkantor@kantorlaw.net

               - and -

          Richard T. Collins, Esq.
          CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC
          3 Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor
          Santa Ana, CA 92707
          Telephone: (714) 241-4444
          Facsimile: (714) 241-4445
          E-mail: rcollins@callahan-law.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq.
          ROZELLE & ROZELLE, LLP
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525
          Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
          E-mail: trozelle@kantorlaw.net

               - and -

          Edward Philip Dabdoub, Esq.
          DABDOUB LAW FIRM, PA
          1600 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1205
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 754-2000
          Facsimile: (305) 754-2007
          E-mail: eddie@longtermdisability.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allen Paige Pegg, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS LLP
          600 Brickell Avenue, 27th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 459-6641
          Facsimile: (305) 459-6550
          E-mail: allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com


UNITED STATES: 100 Insurers Owed Nearly $1.6-Bil. in Unpaid CSRs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Keith, writing for Health Affairs, reports that on October
22, 2019, Judge Margaret M. Sweeney issued a final decision in a
class action lawsuit brought by insurers over unpaid cost-sharing
reduction (CSR) payments. She held that the estimated 100 insurers
in the class are owed nearly $1.6 billion in unpaid CSRs for 2017
and 2018.

The ruling itself was no surprise: Judge Sweeney held in February
2019 that these insurers were entitled to unpaid CSRs. (She has
reached the same conclusion in other challenges brought by
individual health insurers.) In her February decision, she held
that insurers were owed unpaid CSRs for both 2017 and 2018 even
though many insurers used "silver loading" to make up for unpaid
CSRs in 2018. The total amount in unpaid CSRs is down from
insurers' prior estimate of $2.3 billion. The amount reflected in
Judge Sweeney's order was determined by the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services (CMS) after insurers completed the CSR
reconciliation process earlier this year.

Judge Sweeney's most recent ruling will likely be appealed to the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. There are already four
CSR cases on appeal to the Federal Circuit: these challenges were
brought by Sanford Health Plan, Montana Health CO-OP, and Community
Health Choice. A fourth challenge from Maine Community Health
Options was recently consolidated with these other cases. Oral
arguments before the Federal Circuit may be held in early 2020.

The CSR litigation is happening in the shadow of litigation over
unpaid risk corridor payments. In late June, the Supreme Court
agreed to hear health insurers' appeal of a Federal Circuit
decision that they were not entitled to more than $12 billion in
unpaid risk corridor payments. Oral argument before the Supreme
Court has been set for December 10, and various filings are
available here.

The outcome of the risk corridors litigation is important in the
CSR context because judges in the CSR cases have relied heavily on
the Federal Circuit's risk corridors decision to conclude that the
government is statutorily obligated to provide CSRs. Unlike in the
risk corridors case, Congress has not limited CSRs through, say,
subsequent appropriations riders.

Background On CSR Litigation

There is a long history of litigation over CSR payments, which were
intended to compensate insurers for reducing deductibles,
copayments, and coinsurance for marketplace enrollees with incomes
below 250 percent of the federal poverty level, as required by the
Affordable Care Act. This history dates back to November 2014 when
the Republican-led House of Representatives sued the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). The House argued that CSR payments
to insurers were improper because HHS did not have an explicit
congressional appropriation to make them. In 2016, Judge Rosemary
M. Collyer of the District of Columbia agreed with the House,
concluding that HHS could not constitutionally reimburse insurers
for CSRs without such an appropriation. This litigation, now known
as House v. Azar, was resolved in May 2018.

In October 2017, the Trump administration cited Judge Collyer's
ruling to justify an abrupt decision to stop making CSR payments to
insurers. The administration's decision was challenged by
Democratic state attorneys general in a separate lawsuit in
California; that case was dismissed in July 2018 at the states'
request. Minnesota and New York sued, separately, over the impact
of this decision on their Basic Health Programs.  

At the same time, insurers began suing the federal government for
unpaid CSRs in the Court of Federal Claims. These lawsuits began as
early as November 2017 when Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative,
an insurer based in Wisconsin, amended its class action lawsuit on
risk corridor payments to additionally contest the government's
failure to make CSR payments. This was followed by separate
challenges from several other insurers.

To my knowledge, every CSR case that has been decided so far has
been won by insurers. Four of these cases have already been
appealed to the Federal Circuit. These lawsuits were brought by
Montana Health CO-OP, Sanford Health Plan, Community Health Choice,
and Maine Community Health Options; some of the rulings apply to
unpaid CSRs for only 2017 while others include both 2017 and 2018.
Given the common legal issues, the first three cases were already
consolidated. On July 30, the Federal Circuit determined that all
four cases should be heard and decided together by the same panel
of judges.

Class Action Lawsuit and Ruling

As noted above, Common Ground amended its class action lawsuit on
risk corridor payments to additionally request unpaid CSR payments.
Insurers have continued to join that class over time which now
includes an estimated 100 insurers. In her February 2019 decision,
Judge Sweeney held that the insurers in the class action were owed
unpaid CSRs for 2017 and 2018. However, the parties did not agree
on the amounts owed for 2018.

After insurers estimated that they were owed more than $2.3 billion
for 2017 and 2018, the federal government disputed this amount and
asked for a delay in final judgment until after the CSR
reconciliation process could be completed for 2018. This would
allow the court to enter a final judgment reflecting actual unpaid
CSR amounts from 2018. In early March, Judge Sweeney granted the
government's request and agreed to delay entering a final judgment
until after the parties notified her of the actual unpaid CSR
payments for all class members for 2018.

The judge's order on October 22 is the culmination of that process.
On October 18, the parties filed a joint status report setting out
the amount of unpaid CSRs owed to each class member for both 2017
and 2018. The amounts were determined by CMS using the CSR
reconciliation process. Most of the unpaid CSRs-$1.45 billion-are
from 2018. As noted above, Judge Sweeney's ruling is likely to be
appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Other CSR Lawsuits
Most other CSR lawsuits have now been stayed pending a decision by
the Federal Circuit on CSRs or the Supreme Court on risk corridors.
Stayed lawsuits have been brought by Molina, Guidewell Mutual
Holding Corporation (which includes Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Florida, Florida Health Care Plan, and Health Options), Health
Alliance Medical Plans, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Blue Cross
Blue Shield of North Dakota. Some lawsuits have been newly stayed
pending the outcome of the Federal Circuit's decision: Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Vermont's challenge was stayed in late September
2019, and EmblemHealth's challenge was stayed on October 10. In
addition, both Montana Health CO-OP and Sanford Health Plan-whose
initial cases for unpaid 2017 CSRs are pending before the Federal
Circuit-filed separate lawsuits for 2018 CSRs; these cases are
stayed pending a decision by the Federal Circuit.

To my knowledge, the only outstanding CSR challenge that has not
been appealed or stayed is the lawsuit brought by L.A. Health Care
Plan. In late September, L.A. Health Care Plan asked the court to
issue a partial final judgment for unpaid CSRs for 2017, 2018, and
the first half of 2019. The federal government must file its
response to that request at the end of October. [GN]





UNITED STATES: Class Suit Links Immigrant Visas, Health Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alia Paavola, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
several immigrant rights groups sued the Trump administration this
week, challenging a rule that would deny visas to immigrants who
don't obtain health insurance within 30 days of entering the
country or can't prove they can pay for their own medical expenses,
according to The Hill.

The class-action lawsuit, filed by the American Immigration Lawyers
Association, the Justice Action Center, Innovation Law Lab and
Sidley Austin, claims the policy could block two-thirds of
potential legal immigrants from entering the country.

President Donald Trump issued the rule earlier this month in an
effort to halt entry for people pursuing visas who "will
financially burden the U.S. healthcare system," he said.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a "public charge
rule," earlier this year that would have allowed the federal
government to deny green cards to immigrants who have used public
benefits, including Medicaid, but courts have  blocked the rule
from taking effect. [GN]


VALARIS PLC: Continues to Defend Zhang Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Valaris PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Xiaoyuan Zhang.

On August 20, 2019, plaintiff Xiaoyuan Zhang, a purported Valaris
shareholder, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Valaris
shareholders against Valaris plc and certain of our executive
officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The complaint cites general statements in press releases and the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and alleges that
the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose material information regarding the performance of our
ultra-deepwater segment, among other things.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased Valaris plc shares between April 11, 2019 and July 31,
2019.

Under applicable law, the court will appoint a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.

Valaris said, "We anticipate that an amended complaint will be
filed in the first quarter of 2020. We strongly disagree and intend
to vigorously defend against these claims. At this time, we are
unable to predict the outcome of these matters or the extent of any
resulting liability."

Valaris PLC provides offshore contract drilling services. The
Company owns, operates, and manages rig fleets and provides
drilling services. Valaris serves customers globally. The company
is based in London, England.


VENATOR MATERIALS: Miami Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as City of Miami General Employees
& Sanitation Employees Retirement Trust, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff and Fresno County
Employees Retirement Association and City of Pontiac General
Employees Retirement System, Movants v. Venator Materials PLC;
Simon Turner; Kurt D. Ogden; Stephen Ibbotson; Russ R. Stolle;
Peter R. Huntsman; Sir Robert J. Margetts; Douglas D. Anderson;
Daniele Ferrari; Kathy D Patrick; Huntsman (Holdings) Netherlands
B.V.; Huntsman International LLC; Huntsman Corporation; Citigroup
Global Markets Inc.; Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith
Incorporated; Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07182 (Filed July 31, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Houston) on Oct 30, 2019.

The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-04266 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge David Hittner.

The securities class action is brought on behalf of all persons or
entities that:

   -- purchased Venator ordinary shares between August 2, 2017
      and October 29, 2018, inclusive;

   -- purchased Venator shares in or traceable to the Company's
      initial public offering of ordinary shares conducted on or
      around August 3, 2017; and

   -- purchased Venator shares in or traceable to the Company's
      secondary public offering of ordinary shares conducted on
      or around December 4, 2017.

The claims asserted are alleged against Venator and certain of the
Company's officers, members of Venator's Board of Directors,
including the Directors that signed the registration statements for
the Offerings, the lead underwriters of the Offerings, and the
"Selling Shareholders" and arise under 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 and Rule 10b-5.

Venator Materials PLC operates as a manufacturer and marketer of
chemical products. The company produces a broad range of pigments
and additives. Venator offers titanium dioxide, color pigments,
functional additives, and timer and water treatment products
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff and Movants are represented by:

          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
          New York City, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400


VIEWRAY INC: Gross Law Announces Class Action
---------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues a
notice on behalf of shareholders of publicly traded company
Viewray, Inc. (VRAY). Shareholders who purchased shares in the
company during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm
regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.

Viewray, Inc. (VRAY)
Investors Affected : March 15, 2019 - August 8, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Viewray, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) demand for ViewRay systems had declined due in
part to changes being made to Medicare reimbursement approaches
first announced in November 2019 that could make purchases of new
ViewRay systems less profitable for customers; (b) the Company's
reported backlog was overstated due to the inclusion of orders with
insufficient surety as to permit for their inclusion in reported
backlog; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about ViewRay's business metrics and financial prospects
during the Class Period were materially false and misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/viewray-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4047&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Contact:

          The Gross Law Firm
          15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
          New York, NY, 10018
          E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
          Tel: (212) 537-9430
          Fax: (833) 862-7770
[GN]



WAITR HOLDINGS: Gross Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.

Capital One Financial Corporation (COF)

Investors Affected : February 2, 2018 - July 29, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Capital One Financial Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company did not maintain
robust information security protections, and its protection did not
shield personal information against security breaches; (2) such
deficiencies heightened the Company's exposure to a cyber-attack;
and (3) as a result, Capital One's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/capital-one-financial-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=4123&from=1

Waitr Holdings Inc. (WTRH)

Investors Affected : on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares
between May 17, 2018 and August 8, 2019, including, but not limited
to, those who acquired Waitr shares in connection with the Going
Public Transaction, and those who acquired shares of the Company in
the May 2019 Secondary Offering.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Waitr Holdings Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Waitr lacked a plan to achieve profitability
and, contrary to the statements of Company founder Chris Meaux,
Waitr was not at or near profitability and Defendants had created
the illusion of financial stability by engaging in a host of
illegal and improper activities each designed to inflate revenues
and earnings - such as unilaterally breaking low-rate contracts and
imposing significantly higher rates, and by refusing to pay drivers
for mileage related expenses - both of which ultimately resulted in
independent class action lawsuits; and (ii) Waitr's technology
provided no real advantage and the Company could not obtain the
developer, programming, or engineering resources necessary to
enhance, maintain, and develop industry leading software from its
headquarter location in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/waitr-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4123&from=1

Myriad Genetics, Inc. (MYGN)

Investors Affected : September 2, 2016 - August 13, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Myriad Genetics, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Myriad's product, GeneSight, lacked evidence or
information sufficient to support the tests in their current form,
including their purported benefits; (ii) the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had requested changes to GeneSight and
questioned the validity of the test's purported benefits; (iii)
Myriad had been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding the
FDA's requested changes to GeneSight; (iv) Myriad's acquisition of
Counsyl - and thereby, Foresight - caused the Company to incur the
risk of suffering from lower reimbursement for its expanded carrier
screening tests, which had the potential to, and actually did,
materialize into a material negative impact on the Company's
revenue; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/myriad-genetics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=4123&from=1

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

Contact:

         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         Phone: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
         Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
[GN]


WARDROP FOODS: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Olivares Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Olivares, on Behalf of himself And All Others Similarly
Situated v. WARDROP FOODS, INC d/b/a PAUL'S DA BURGER JOINT, and
MATTHEW WARDROP, Case No. 1:19-cv-10568 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2019),
is brought for damages and equitable relief based upon the
Defendants' flagrant and willful violations of the Plaintiff's
rights guaranteed to him by the minimum and overtime wage
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants required the Plaintiff to work, and he did work,
more than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff says. However, the
Plaintiff contends, the Defendants failed to pay him at the minimum
wage or overtime rate of pay of one and one-half times his regular
rate of pay for each hour that he worked per week in excess of 40,
as the FLSA and the NYLL require. Furthermore, the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff for his spread of hours pay, in
violation of NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in 2002 through January 27,
2019.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant establishment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis M. Leon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 583-7400
          Email: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com


WAYFAIR INC: Bid to Dismiss Massachusetts Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wayfair Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2019, that the Company has filed a
motion to dismiss the class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts with prejudice.

On January 10, 2019 and January 16, 2019, putative securities class
action complaints were filed against the Company and three of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The two complaints allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company.

Each plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased or acquired stock of the Company between August 2, 2018
and October 31, 2018 and seeks damages and other relief based on
allegations that the defendants' conduct affected the value of such
stock.

The Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.

On August 30, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice.

Wayfair said, "At this time, based on available information
regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably
assess the ultimate outcome of these cases or determine an
estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses."

Wayfair Inc., incorporated on August 8, 2014, offers browsing,
merchandising and product discovery for a range of products from
various suppliers. The Company operates through two segments: U.S.
and International. The U.S. segment consists of amounts earned
through product sales through the Company's five sites in the
United States and through sites operated by third parties in the
United States. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts.



WELSPUN PIPES: Kilcrease-Tiger Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Kilcrease-Tiger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WELSPUN PIPES, INC.; WELSPUN TUBULAR LLC; and
WELSPUN USA INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00798-DPM (E.D. Ark., Nov. 14,
2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wages Act as a result of the Defendants' failure
to pay the Plaintiff and other exempted employees lawful overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and other exempted
employees one-and-one-half times their regular rate for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek, according to the complaint. Hence,
the Plaintiff asserts, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff any
overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
The Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether the
way they paid the Plaintiff violated the FLSA and AMWA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Quality Control
Supervisor from November 2018 until September 2019.

The Defendants operate multiple manufacturing facilities worldwide
and are a leading supplier of various types of pipes to the oil and
gas industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WESTCOM PROPERTY: Attempts to Illegally Collect Debt, Trupin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH TRUPIN, on  behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Westcom Property Services, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-09314 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 30, 2019), challenges the
Defendant's attempts to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt
allegedly owed by the Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff's payments on the Debt were allegedly past due;
therefore, it was assigned, placed, or otherwise transferred to the
Defendant for collection purposes. According to the complaint, the
Plaintiff has since paid the amounts owed less any collection fees
and interest.

On November 16, 2018, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff an initial
communication, collection letter demanding payment on the Debt
(Letter). The Letter specifically stated, "If no payment has been
received within 30 days from the mailing of such collection letter,
the Association will be beginning the legal process to record an
Assessment lien against the delinquent owner's unit." The Letter
was an accounting of alleged outstanding charges. Such accounting
indicated Association's most recent charges included in its
assessments were from November of 2018.

Nonetheless, the Letter threatened the Plaintiff with a lawsuit to
foreclose and money judgment or non-judicial proceedings to
foreclose on the lien, if no payment is received within 30 days
after the recording of said lien, the lawsuit says.

Westcom Property Services, Inc. is a full service management
company established in 1983.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Albert R. Limberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALBERT R. LIMBERG
          3667 Voltaire Street
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 344-8667
          Facsimile: (619) 344-8657
          E-mail: alimberg@limberglawoffice.com


WESTERN DIGITAL: Settlement of Scandisk Suit Gets Court's Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended October 4, 2019, that the court in the class action
suit involving SanDisk has issued its final order and judgment
approving the settlement agreement.

Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk Corporation, which was acquired by
the Company in May 2016, and two of SanDisk's former officers,
Sanjay Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class
action lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Two complaints are brought on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between
October 2014 and March 2015, and one is brought on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between April
2014 and April 2015.  The complaints generally allege violations of
federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or
omissions by the defendants during the alleged class periods.  The
complaints seek, among other things, damages and fees and costs.

In July 2015, the District Court consolidated the cases and
appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset
Management NV as lead plaintiffs.  The lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in August 2015.

In January 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to
amend.

In February 2016, the District Court issued an order appointing as
new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford,
Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders
Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees'
Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund
(collectively, the "Institutional Investor Group").

In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended
complaint.

In June 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend.

In July 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed a further
amended complaint.

In June 2017, the District Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss.

In September 2018, the District Court granted the Institutional
Investor Group's motion to certify a class of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired SanDisk's publicly
traded common stock between October 2014 and April 2015, excluding
those who purchased or otherwise acquired SanDisk's publicly traded
common stock during the class period but who sold their stock prior
to the first corrective disclosure in March 2015.  The
Institutional Investor Group alleged artificial inflation in the
price of SanDisk's publicly traded common stock of US$9.04 per
share from October 16, 2014 through March 25, 2015, US$2.26 per
share on March 26, 2015, and US$1.35 per share from March 27, 2015
through April 15, 2015.

In March 2019, the parties reached a settlement of all claims in
this matter.

In May 2019, the court granted the motion for preliminary approval,
and in October 2019, the court issued its final order and judgment
approving the settlement.

Western Digital Corporation develops, manufactures, and sells data
storage devices and solutions worldwide. The company sells its
products under the HGST, SanDisk, and WD brands to original
equipment manufacturers, distributors, resellers, cloud
infrastructure players, and retailers. Western Digital Corporation
was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


WW NORTH AMERICA: Hirsh Sues Over Unreimbursed Business Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Hirsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WW NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-09782
(C.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2019), is brought seeking payment for
unreimbursed business expenses, damages, restitution and
disgorgement for unfair business practice, interest, equitable
relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under all
applicable provisions of California law.

The Plaintiff and other WW Studio Team Members have been regularly
required to incur necessary business expenditures for the Defendant
for which it has not reimbursed them as required by California law,
according to the complaint. Per written policies of WW, the
Plaintiff have made expenditures incurred in purchasing
"Smartphone" as required by WW, and in data plan costs associated
with the required use of that Smartphone during WW customer
workshops. The Defendant has failed to reimburse the Plaintiff and
others for necessary expenditures they make in direct consequences
of discharging their duties, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a WW "Studio
Team Member."

WW North America Holdings, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the law of the state of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven G. Zieff, Esq.
          John T. Mullan, Esq.
          RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP
          351 California Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (703) 665-9529
          Email: sgz@rezlaw.com
                 jtm@rezlaw.com


ZENDESK INC: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Zendesk, Inc. (ZEN) in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired the securities of Zendesk from
February 6, 2019 and October 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Zendesk
investors under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleged Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Zendesk's clients
had been subject to data breaches dating back to 2016; (2) Zendesk
was experiencing slowing demand for its SaaS offerings,
particularly in Germany, the U.K. and Australia; (3) Zendesk's
business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as
represented during the Class Period; and (4) as a result, Zendesk'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 December 23, 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]




                            *********

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 ***