CAR_Public/191126.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 26, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 236

                            Headlines

ACTIVEHOURS INC: Stark Files Suit in N.D. California
ALASKA: Smith Wants Recognition of Same-Sex Couples and Marriages
ALTRIA GROUP: JPML Orders Consolidation of Suits over JUUL Vape
AMERICAN ADVISORS: Illegally Sent Marketing Calls, Abramson Says
ANN INC: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ANNTAYLOR INC: Mendez Suit Asserts ADA Breach
ASHLEY FURNITURE'S: Gets Favorable Ruling in "DuraBlend" Case
ATLANTIC UNION: Townsley Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
AUDIO-TECHNICA: Violates ADA, Guglielmo Suit Asserts
AVEDRO INC: Thompson Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Sale to Glaukos

BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Awaits Decision on Investors' Appeal
BISCAYNE HOLDING: Fails to Properly Pay Dancers, Macklin Says
BMW FINANCIAL: Faces Trim Suit Over Erroneous Credit Reports
BRIDGER LOGISTICS: Bussey Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: 6 of 7 Hercules Merger-Related Suits Dismissed

BUTTS COUNTY, GA: Group of Sex Offenders File Class Action
CARE OPTIONS: Dobbins Files Suit in Ca. Super. Ct.
CARRA LLC: Tarax Suit Seeks Overtime Wages for Restaurant Staff
CEPHEID: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Lopez Labor Suit Says
CHEMOURS CO: Saw Sues Over PFAS-Related Decline in Share Prices

CHRISTIAN FAITH: Literary Agents Class Certified in O'Brien Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Bid for Class Certification in Gertler Suit Pending
CITIGROUP INC: Bid for Reconsideration in NYPL Class Suit Denied
CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss Allianz 2nd Amended Suit Pending
CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Denied

CITRIX SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Suit over GoTo Services Spinoff
COLORADO CAPITAL: Haque Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CONAGRA BRANDS: Aleisa Sues over Mislabeled Cocoa Products
COVETRUS INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
DEEP SENTINEL: Guglielmo Suit Asserts ADA Violation

DETROIT CITY, MI: Bottner Asks Appeals Ct. to Review Case Ruling
DEWINE: Class Settlement in Ball Suit Obtains Preliminary Court Nod
DOMINION ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss RICO Class Action Pending
DOMINION ENERGY: Cooper Voluntarily Consents to Stay Cross Claims
DOMINION ENERGY: Metzler Class Action Ongoing

EAZE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
EL POLLO: Receives $18.1MM from Insurance Proceeds
EL POLLO: Settlement Approval Seen in 2020 First Quarter
EL POLLO: Settlement Paid in Turocy-Huston Case
ESL INVESTMENTS: James Darr Files Affidavit and Verification

EUBA CORP: Class Settlement Approved; Buckles Suit Dismissed
FL RETAIL: Dominguez Files ADA Class Action in NY
FOOT LOCKER RETAIL: Faces Dominguez Suit Over ADA Violation
FOOT LOCKER: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FRANCESCA'S COLLECTION: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

GENISYS CREDIT: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Amended Complaint filed in 1MDB Suit in NY
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Cert. in Interest Rate Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Adeptus IPO-Related Suit Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suit Pending

GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Lawsuit over Uber's $8.1 Billion IPO
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suit over Alnylam's Nov. 2017 IPO
GOLDMAN SACHS: Ill. State Court Suit over Camping World IPO Stayed
GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Securities Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
GRANDVIEW APARTMENTS: To Be Fumigated; Tenants Still Being Evicted

HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Coverage Criteria Too Limiting, Smith Says
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Edgardo Canez Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
IQVIA INC: Certification of Class Sought in Fischbein TCPA Suit
JOSEPH NASTASI: Faces Galie Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
JPMORGAN CHASE: Leitzke Moves to Certify Class of Investigators

JUICE GENERATION: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JUST BRANDS: CBD Leads to Failed Drug Test, Trucker Claims
KELLOGG: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $20 Million
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Jan Class Suit in California
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Counsel Withdraws from Class Suit

LANE BRYANT: Faces Mendez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
LIPOCINE INC: Abady Sues over 71% Drop in Share Price
LJM FUNDS: Settlement Fairness Hrg. Set for June 3 in Sokolow Suit
LOAD TRAIL: Cheated Undocumented Workers of Overtime, Suit Claims
MARSHALLS OF MA: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York

MDL 2804: Village of Great Neck Opts Out of Opioid Class Action
MITCHELL SIMONE: Guglielmo Files Suit in New York under ADA
MYER: Shareholders' Class Action to Go to Judgment in Australia
NAI TAPAS RESTAURANT: Teran Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hart Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana

NATIONAL VEHICLE: Calusinski's Bid for Class Certification Denied
NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit in NJ Pending
NAVIENT CORP: Continues to Defend Lord Abbett Fund Class Suit
NAVIENT CORP: Suits over Breach of Consumer Laws Pending
OHIO: Settles Suit Over 'Needlessly Institutionalized' Patients

ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Galestan Class Action Concluded
OZARK PIZZA: Kindle Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
PACIFIC GAS: Investors File Class Action Following Power Outages
PARETEUM CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 23 Plaintiff Deadline
PARETEUM CORP: Schall Law Investigates Securities Law Breach Claims

RE/MAX HOLDINGS: 2 Antitrust Class Action Complaints Ongoing
S-L DISTRIBUTION: Sued by Maranzano for Diverting IBOs' Earnings
SABER GRILLS: Guglielmo Files ADA Class Action in NY
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Sued by Jones for Violating Interest Rate Cap
SCHOOL OUTFITTERS: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SECURITY BENEFIT: Faces Clinton Suit Alleging RICO Act Violation
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces Tabat Suit Over Illegal Pay-to-Pay Fees
SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action
SKINNYCORP LLC: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOKAOGON CHIPPEWA: Blackburn Files RICO Suit in E.D. Virginia

SULLIVAN COUNTY, TENN.: $3-Mil. Lawsuit Filed Over Inmate Assault
SUNDIAL GROWERS: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action
SUNSHINE 39 WINDOWS: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Aquapan Suit Alleges
SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Alfaro Says
SURESCRIPTS: Falconer Pharmacy Files Antitrust Class Action

T.E.H. REALTY: Northwinds Apartments Residents Seek Class Action
TAPPAN GOLF: Garzon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
TARGET CORPORATION: Smith Sues Over Illegal Reduction of Pay
TEREX CORP: Ace Tree Appeals N.D. Georgia Ruling to 11th Circuit
TORRID LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Kudatsky Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
UNITED PARCEL: Must Face Drivers' Overtime Class Action
UNITI GROUP: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
UNITI GROUP: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
URBAN ONE: Lucas Seeks OT Wages; Alleges Pay Bias and Retaliation

VICTORIA SECRET: Cortes Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
WATERFORD ON PIEDMONT: Faces Makeen Suing Alleging ADA Violation
WESTBRAE NATURAL: Barreto Sues Over False Vanilla Soymilk Claims
WHOLE FOODS: Burke Sues Over Misleading Vanilla Soymilk Claims
WIDEOPENWEST INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in NY Pending

WORLDWIND SERVICES: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
YNAP CORPORATION: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
[*] Class Actions in Canadian Cannabis Industry Expected to Rise

                            *********

ACTIVEHOURS INC: Stark Files Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Activehours, Inc. The
case is styled as Jared Stark, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Activehours, Inc. doing
business as: Earnin, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-07553 (N.D. Cal.,
Nov. 15, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Truth in
Lending.

Activehours. Inc. designs and develops application software. The
Company offers a smartphone-based application that enables users to
get paid for the hours worked when they need it.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J Preusch, Esq.
          Keller Rohrback LLP
          801 Garden Street Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Phone: (805) 456-1496
          Fax: (805) 456-1497
          Email: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


ALASKA: Smith Wants Recognition of Same-Sex Couples and Marriages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Denali Nicole Smith, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. MICHAEL DUNLEAVY, in his official capacity of Governor
of the State of Alaska, KEVIN CLARKSON, in his official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of Alaska, BRUCE TANGEMAN, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of the State of Alaska,
Department of Revenue, ANNE WESKE, in her official capacity as
Director of the Permanent Fund Division, State of Alaska,
Department of Revenue, Case No. 3:19-cv-00298-HRH (D. Alaska, Nov.
20, 2019), seeks to stop the State from its unlawful enforcement of
previously enjoined statutes, which excluded same-sex couples from
marriage and prevents the State from recognizing valid same-sex
marriages entered into elsewhere.

The Alaska Statutes violate the equal protection and due process
rights of the Plaintiff guaranteed by the United States
Constitution, Ms. Smith contends. She asks the Court to enter an
injunction (1) barring the Defendants from enforcing Alaska Stat.
Section 25.05.011-.013 and other statutes violating her right to
equal protection and due process, (2) requiring the Defendants to
authorize and issue marriage licenses to her and all those
similarly situated unmarried people, and (3) to extend legal
recognition under state law to the existing marriages of people
lawfully married elsewhere and all those similarly situated.

After a court issued an order of declaratory relief and a permanent
injunction, the State continued to enforce the Alaska Statutes,
explicitly denying her and other Alaska residents, who were
accompanying spouses of Alaska residents in military service
outside the State in same sex marriages their permanent fund
dividends on the basis of Alaska Stat. Section 25.05.011-.013, Ms.
Smith asserts. Specifically, as to the Plaintiff, the State of
Alaska denied her eligibility for the 2019 Permanent Fund Dividend
because she is a woman married to a woman, who is a member of the
Armed Forces of the United States, who would, if married to a male
member of the Armed Forces of the United States, be categorically
eligible for the 2019 PFD, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Alaska.

Defendant Michael Dunleavy is the Governor of the State of
Alaska.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caitlin Shortell, Esq.
          SHORTELL LAW LLC
          911 W. 8th Avenue, Suite 204
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Phone: (907) 272-8181
          Facsimile: (888) 979-6148
          Email: cs.sgalaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Heather Gardner, Esq.
          4141 B Street, Suite 410
          Anchorage, AK 99503
          Phone: (907) 375-8776
          Facsimile: 1 (888) 526-6608
          Email: hgardnerlaw@gmail.com


ALTRIA GROUP: JPML Orders Consolidation of Suits over JUUL Vape
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, 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 United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has ordered the
coordination or consolidation of class action lawsuits relating to
JUUL e-vapor products.   

As of October 28, 2019, Altria and/or PM USA were named as
defendants in 12 class action lawsuits relating to JUUL e-vapor
products.

JUUL is also named in these lawsuits. The theories of recovery
include: violation of RICO; fraud; failure to warn; design defect;
negligence; and unfair trade practices. Plaintiffs seek various
remedies including compensatory and punitive damages and an
injunction prohibiting product sales.

Altria and/or PM USA also have been named as defendants in 26
individual lawsuits involving JUUL e-vapor products. JUUL is also
named in these lawsuits.

The majority of the individual and class action lawsuits mentioned
above were filed in federal court. In October 2019, the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
coordination or consolidation of these lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California for
pretrial purposes.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United
States. It offers cigarettes primarily under the Marlboro brand;
cigars principally under the Black & Mild brand; and moist
smokeless tobacco products under the Copenhagen, Skoal, Red Seal,
and Husky brands. ltria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


AMERICAN ADVISORS: Illegally Sent Marketing Calls, Abramson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEWART ABRAMSON, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. AMERICAN ADVISORS GROUP,
INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01341-MJH (W.D. Pa., Oct. 18, 2019), alleges
that the Defendant sent the Plaintiff prerecorded telemarketing
calls for the purposes of advertising its goods and services
without consent, which is prohibited by the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

American Advisors Group, Inc., is a California Corporation with its
principal place of business located in Orange, California. American
Advisors Group engages in telemarketing nationwide, including into
this District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
          MORROW & ARTIM, PC
          304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-1250
          E-mail: csm@consumerlaw365.com

               - and -

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


ANN INC: Mendez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ann Inc. d/b/a Loft.
The case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Ann Inc. d/b/a Loft,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10623 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019).

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

Ann Inc. is an American group of specialty apparel retail chain
stores for women. The stores offer classic styled suits, separates,
dresses, shoes and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


ANNTAYLOR INC: Mendez Suit Asserts ADA Breach
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AnnTaylor, Inc. The
case is styled as Himelda Mendez AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. AnnTaylor, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-10625 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019).

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

Ann Taylor Inc. operates as a women apparel retail stores. The
Company offers products such as blouses, tops, knits, tees,
sweaters, dresses, suits, skirts, denim, swim suits, shoes,
accessories, petites, and wedding clothes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


ASHLEY FURNITURE'S: Gets Favorable Ruling in "DuraBlend" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Ninth Circuit ruled that
a class failed to prove that Ashley Furniture's representations
about its "DuraBlend" furniture would lead a reasonable consumer to
believe the product is made out of genuine leather.

A copy of the Memorandum is available at:

                       https://is.gd/8tBgi9



ATLANTIC UNION: Townsley Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Union Bank.
The case is styled as Gennifer Townsley, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atlantic Union Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00849 (E.D. Va., Nov. 14, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Atlantic Union Bank provides financial services. The Bank offers
offers checking accounts, credit and debit cards, loans, insurance,
payment protection, phone banking, bill pay, and merchant
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Thomas Fennell, Esq.
          P.O. Box 12325
          Roanoke, VA 24024
          Phone: (540) 339-3889
          Fax: (540) 339-3880
          Email: patrick@fmtrials.com


AUDIO-TECHNICA: Violates ADA, Guglielmo Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Audio-Technica U.S.,
Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Audio-Technica
U.S., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10603 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15,
2019).

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

Audio-Technica U.S., Inc. manufactures and distributes electronic
equipment. The Company produces and retails microphones,
headphones, wireless systems, mixers, and electronic products for
home and professional use.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
          Stein Saks PLLC
          285 Passaic St., Suite 5
          Hakensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com


AVEDRO INC: Thompson Seeks to Enjoin Vote on Sale to Glaukos
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN THOMPSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. AVEDRO, INC., GIL KLIMAN, DONALD J. ZURBAY,
JONATHAN SILVERSTEIN, HONGBO LU, GARHENG KONG, THOMAS W. BURNS,
REZA ZADNO, ROBERT J. PALMISANO, GLAUKOS CORPORATION, and ATLANTIC
MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02075-UNA (D. Del.,
Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Avedro will be acquired by Glaukos Corporation
and Glaukos' wholly owned subsidiary, Atlantic Merger Sub, Inc.

On August 7, 2019, Avedro's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Glaukos.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Avedro's
stockholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.365 shares of
Glaukos common stock for each share of Avedro common stock they
own.

Based on Glaukos stock's August 6, 2019 closing price, the Merger
Consideration is valued at approximately $27.86 per share. Upon
completion of the Proposed Transaction, Glaukos shareholders will
own approximately 85% of the combined company, and Avedro
stockholders will own approximately 15%.

The Plaintiff alleges that Avedro and the members of Avedro's Board
of Directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 14a-9, in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

On September 17, 2019, The Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Plaintiff contends the Registration Statement fails to provide
Company stockholders with material information, or provides them
with materially misleading information, concerning:

   -- Avedro's, Glaukos', and the combined company's financial
      projections;

   -- the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor
      in connection with the Proposed Transaction, Guggenheim
      Securities, LLC;

   -- the inputs and assumptions underlying the financial
      valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion
      provided by Guggenheim; and

   -- Guggenheim's and Company insiders' potential conflicts of
      interest.

The Plaintiff, who owns Avedro common stock, seeks an order
preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the Proposed Transaction, or any vote on
the Proposed Transaction, unless and until the Defendants disclose
and disseminate the missing material information to Avedro
stockholders.

Avedro is a leading commercial-stage ophthalmic medical technology
company focused on treating corneal ectatic disorders and improving
vision to reduce dependency on eyeglasses or contact lenses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bd1@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400-1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301-3514


BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Awaits Decision on Investors' Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Biglari Holdings 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 is
awaiting a decision on the shareholders' appeal from the order of
dismissal of the class action lawsuits.

On January 29, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company and the members of its
Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton County,
Indiana. The shareholder generally alleges claims of breach of
fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of Directors
and unjust enrichment to Sardar Biglari as a result of the dual
class structure.

On March 26, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company and the members of its
Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton County,
Indiana. This shareholder generally alleges claims of breach of
fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of Directors.
This shareholder sought to enjoin the shareholder vote on April 26,
2018 to approve the dual class structure. On April 16, 2018, the
shareholders withdrew their motions to enjoin the shareholder vote
on April 26, 2018.

On May 17, 2018, the shareholders who filed the January 29, 2018
complaint and the March 26, 2018 complaint filed a new,
consolidated complaint against the Company and the members of its
Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton County,
Indiana. The shareholders generally allege claims of breach of
fiduciary duty by the members of the Company's Board of Directors
and unjust enrichment to Mr. Biglari arising out of the dual class
structure. The shareholders seek, for themselves and on behalf of
all other shareholders as a class, a declaration that the
defendants breached their duty to the shareholders and the class,
and to recover unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and an award of their attorneys' fees and other costs.

On December 14, 2018, the judge of the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana issued an order granting the Company's motion to
dismiss the shareholders' lawsuits. On January 11, 2019, the
shareholders filed an appeal of the judge's order dismissing the
lawsuits.  

Biglari said, "The appeal was argued on October 7, 2019, and we
await a decision."

Biglari Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, primarily operates
and franchises restaurants in the United States. The company owns,
operates, and franchises restaurants under the Steak n Shake and
Western Sizzlin names. The company was formerly known as The Steak
n Shake Company and changed its name to Biglari Holdings Inc. in
April 2010. Biglari Holdings Inc. was founded in 1934 and is based
in San Antonio, Texas.


BISCAYNE HOLDING: Fails to Properly Pay Dancers, Macklin Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARIEL MACKLIN on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. BISCAYNE HOLDING CORP. d/b/a WILD ZEBRA and
CHRISTOPHER VIANELLO, Case No. 1:19-cv-00561 (D.R.I., Oct. 18,
2019), alleges that the Defendants required and permitted the
Plaintiff and others to work as exotic dancers at their adult
entertainment club "Wild Zebra" in excess of 40 hours per week, but
refused to compensate them at the applicable minimum wage and
overtime rates under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Biscayne Holding Corp. is a Florida corporation with its principal
place of business located at 245 Allens Ave., in Providence, Rhode
Island.  Christopher Vianello is the owner, controlling
shareholder, manager, and president of Biscayne Holding Corp.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Providence
County, Rhode Island, under the name of "Wild Zebra."  The
Defendants employ exotic dancers, including the Plaintiff, at this
location.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chip Muller, Esq.
          MULLER LAW, LLC
          47 Wood Avenue
          Barrington, RI 02806
          Telephone: (401) 256-5171
          Facsimile: (401) 256-5178
          E-mail: chip@mullerlaw.com

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          Jacob J. Ventura, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: (310) 507-7924
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
                  jacob@kristensenlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonah A. Flynn, Esq.
          FLYNN LAW FIRM, LLC
          4200 Northside Pkwy. NW
          Building One, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone: (404) 835-9660
          Facsimile: (404) 835-6005
          E-mail: jflynn@flynnlaw.com


BMW FINANCIAL: Faces Trim Suit Over Erroneous Credit Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN TRIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, d/b/a
ALPHERA FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-02081-BEN-MDD (S.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2019), arises from the
illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently or intentionally
reporting erroneous negative and derogatory information on the
Plaintiff's credit report.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint for damages arising out of the
systematic issuance of erroneous credit reports by the Defendant
since it has erroneously reported continual monthly payment
obligations on accounts that have been paid in full and closed. The
Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant failed to properly
investigate disputes concerning the inaccurate data it knew or
should have known was erroneous and which caused the Plaintiff and
the Class damages pursuant to the California Consumer Credit
Reporting Act.

Alphera supports dealers and customers to finance vehicles of all
makes and models.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: yana@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.cm


BRIDGER LOGISTICS: Bussey Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAMARK LOUIS BUSSEY, and all others similarly situated under 29 USC
216(b) v. BRIDGER LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00310 (S.D.
Tex., Oct. 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
liquidated damages owed to the Plaintiff and other misclassified
workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Texas and was formerly employed by
the Defendant.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant attempted
to circumvent the FLSA's protections by misclassifying the
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated workers in order to deny
them overtime wages.  Specifically, the Defendant paid the
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees based on the
quantity of work performed and in a manner that has failed to
compensate them for overtime work.

Bridger Logistics is a limited liability company that serves
midstream and oilfield service-oriented businesses.  The Company is
in the business of assisting companies in shipping oil all over the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          Meredith Mathews, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N St. Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
                  mmathews@foresterhaynie.com


BUCKEYE PARTNERS: 6 of 7 Hercules Merger-Related Suits Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Buckeye Partners, L.P. 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 six out of seven
lawsuits related to its merger deal with Hercules Intermediate
Holdings LLC have been dismissed with prejudice.

On May 10, 2019, Buckeye Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership" or
"Buckeye"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"merger agreement") with Hercules Intermediate Holdings LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), Hercules Merger Sub
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), Buckeye Pipe Line Services
Company, a Pennsylvania corporation ("ServiceCo"), and Buckeye GP
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and the general partner
of the Partnership (the "General Partner").

On June 13, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
captioned Harry Curtis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No.
4:19-cv-2147 (the "Curtis Action").

On June 18, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a
complaint in a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Michael Kent,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01128 (the "Kent
Action").

On June 19, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned John Greer v. Buckeye Partners,
L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05741 (the "Greer Action").

On June 20, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Anthony Luers v. Buckeye Partners,
L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05767 (the "Luers Action").

On June 26, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, captioned Michael Weston, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01208 (the "Weston Action").

On June 26, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Heather McManus, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners,
L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06000 (the "McManus Action").

On June 28, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned John Ingalls, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P.,
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06098 (the "Ingalls Action").

On June 28, 2019, a purported unitholder of Buckeye filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, captioned Michael Riss, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-01241 (the "Riss Action" and, together with the Curtis
Action, the Kent Action, the Greer Action, the Luers Action, the
Weston Action, the McManus Action and the Ingalls Action, the
"Federal Merger Litigation").

On June 28, 2019, Buckeye also received a joint demand letter from
the plaintiffs of each of the Curtis Action, the Kent Action and
the Greer Action reiterating the claims contained in each of those
actions. On July 18, 2019, the Greer Action, the Luers Action, the
McManus Action and the Ingalls Action were transferred to the
United States District Court for Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division. These cases are now docketed as Case No.
4:19-cv-02648, 4:19-cv-02647, 4:19-cv-02644 and 4:19-cv-02645,
respectively.

The Curtis Action alleges, among other things, that in pursuing the
Merger, the Board breached its express and implied contractual
duties pursuant to Buckeye's limited partnership agreement and its
fiduciary duties to Buckeye's unitholders in agreeing to enter into
the Merger Agreement by means of an allegedly unfair process and
for an allegedly unfair price.

Each of the Federal Merger Litigation cases alleges that (i) either
Buckeye's preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on June
7, 2019 or Buckeye's definitive proxy statement, filed with the SEC
on June 25, 2019 omits material information with respect to the
Merger, rendering it false and misleading and, as a result, that
Buckeye and the members of the Board violated Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and (ii) the
members of the Board, as alleged control persons of Buckeye,
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the
filing of the allegedly materially deficient Preliminary Proxy
Statement or Proxy Statement.

Each of the Federal Merger Litigation cases sought some or all of
the following relief: an order enjoining the Merger, an order
enjoining the unitholder vote until disclosure of the allegedly
omitted material information identified is provided, the disclosure
of all material information concerning the Merger, an order
directing the Board to disseminate a proxy statement that does not
contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all
material facts required or necessary to make the statements
contained therein not misleading, an order rescinding the
consummation of the Merger or an award of rescissory damages (in
the event the Merger is consummated), a declaration that the
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, an award of
damages and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.

Buckeye believes that each of the Federal Merger Litigation cases
is without merit and no supplemental disclosure was required under
applicable law. However, in order to avoid the risk of the Federal
Merger Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to
minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation,
and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, on July 22,
2019, Buckeye filed with the SEC a Current Report on Form 8-K and a
Schedule 14A supplementing certain of the allegedly misleading
proxy statement disclosures identified in the Federal Merger
Litigation.

Each plaintiff agreed that the disclosure contained in the
Supplemental Proxy Statement mooted his or her disclosure claims.

On August 27, 2019, the Greer Action was dismissed with prejudice
as to the plaintiff. On September 5, 2019, the Kent Action was
dismissed without prejudice. On September 11, 2019, the Riss Action
was dismissed with prejudice as to the plaintiff. On September 30,
2019, the Ingalls Action was dismissed with prejudice as to the
plaintiff. On October 3, 2019, the Curtis Action was dismissed
without prejudice. On October 22, 2019, the McManus Action was
dismissed with prejudice.

Buckeye Partners, L.P. (Buckeye), incorporated on July 11, 1986,
owns and operates a network of integrated assets providing
midstream logistic solutions, primarily consisting of the
transportation, storage, processing and marketing of liquid
petroleum products. The Company's segments include Domestic
Pipelines & Terminals, Global Marine Terminals and Merchant
Services. Buckeye GP LLC (Buckeye GP) is the Company's general
partner. The Company is an independent terminaling and storage
operator in the United States in terms of capacity available for
service. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


BUTTS COUNTY, GA: Group of Sex Offenders File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
David Boroff, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a group
of sex offenders in Georgia has filed a class-action lawsuit after
objecting to "No Trick-or-Treat" signs posted at their homes by the
local sheriff ahead of Halloween.

The registered sex offenders claim the signs violate their privacy
and their right to free speech, and have asked a federal judge to
stop Butts County Sheriff Gary Long from placing them.

"It's easy to pick on these guys," lawyer Mark Yurachek told TV
station 11 Alive. "Because nobody really wants to see anything done
for a sex offender. But I promise you if this goes by without a
legal challenge and push-back, it's going to get worse . . . the
Sheriff's going to say the next time, when it's the DUI registry,
and he wants to identify people who drink and drive, that that's
OK, as well."

Yurachek was making an emergency request for an injunction to be
put in place.

Sheriff Long, who also posted the signs last year, says he plans to
argue that he is following state law by placing the signs.

"Regardless of the Judge's ruling, I WILL do everything within the
letter of the Law to protect the children of this Community," Long
wrote on Facebook.

Sheriff Long also offered a link to the sex offender registry in
the Oct. 21 social media post. Yurachek said in a statement that
all parties involved in the lawsuit are "extremely concerned about
the safety of the children in this and every other community."

"It is particularly concerning to us that the head law enforcement
officer for Butts County believes that he may exceed the already
substantial legal authority which the Georgia Sex Offender Registry
grants him to compel these Petitioners, none of whom are currently
on probation or parole, to speak as he wishes them to speak," read
the statement.

In full, the signs read "WARNING! No trick-or-treat at this
address!! A community safety message from Butts County Sheriff Gary
Long." The lawsuit alleges that sheriff's deputies last year "made
overt threats to arrest or punish the registrants if they did not
comply." [GN]


CARE OPTIONS: Dobbins Files Suit in Ca. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Care Options
Management Plans and Supportive Services LLC. The case is styled as
Marilyn Dobbins, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Care Options Management Plans and Supportive Services
LLC, Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00269065-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 14, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other employment".

Care Options Management Plans & Supportive Services, LLC was
founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes providing
counseling, welfare, and referral services including refugee,
disaster, and temporary relief.[BN]


CARRA LLC: Tarax Suit Seeks Overtime Wages for Restaurant Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
NAZARIO TARAX SONTAY, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARRA LLC (D/B/A DOG & BONE),
SINEAD C NAUGHTON , SUSAN VASQUEZ , AYA EGAWA , and LUIS DOE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10137 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks
to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Tarax was employed as a dishwasher and a food preparer at the
Defendants' restaurant. He alleges that he worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that he worked.

The Defendants own, operate or control a restaurant, located at 338
3rd Avenue, in New York City, under the name "Dog & Bone."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CEPHEID: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Lopez Labor Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Lopez, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. CEPHEID, a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV358827
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against
the Defendant for their violation of the California Labor Code and
the requirements of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wages Order.

The Defendant required the Plaintiff and California Class Members
to work without paying them for all the time they were under the
Defendants' control, the Plaintiff alleges. Specifically, he
asserts, the Defendant required him to work while clocked out
during that was supposed to be his off-duty meal break. He adds
that he was from time to time interrupted by work assignments while
clocked out for what should have been his off-duty meal break, and
there were days where he did not even receive a partial lunch.

As a result, the Plaintiff and other California Class Members
forfeited minimum wages and overtime compensation by working
without their time being accurately recorded and without
compensation at the applicable minimum wages overtime rates, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in California from
February 2018 to April 2018.

The Defendant is a California molecular diagnostics company that
develops, manufactures and markets fully integrated systems for
testing in the clinical market, and for application in its original
non-clinical market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          Web site: http://www.bamlawca.com/


CHEMOURS CO: Saw Sues Over PFAS-Related Decline in Share Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
YU SAW, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, MARK P. VERGNANO, and
MARK E. NEWMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02074-UNA (D. Del.,
Oct. 31, 2019), seeks to recover damages to investors, including
the Plaintiff, caused by the Defendants' violations of federal
securities laws.

The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Chemours' securities between February 16, 2017,
and August 1, 2019.  The claims asserted are alleged against
Chemours and certain of the Company's senior executives, and arise
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The case concerns Chemours' misrepresentations to investors that
concealed the true extent of the massive environmental liabilities
the Company incurred from decades of producing and releasing a
variety of chemicals that have been linked to cancer and other
serious health consequences by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
Chemours' former parent company prior to its spin-off, and by
Chemours itself.

The truth concerning Chemours' actual exposure was revealed in a
series of corrective disclosures. On May 6, 2019, Glenview Capital
Management's Larry Robbins gave a presentation at the Sohn
Investment Conference that disclosed significant new facts about
Chemours' environmental liabilities, including a detailed analysis
estimating the Company's true perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) exposure was actually between $4 billion to $6
billion.

In response to this disclosure, Chemours stock declined from $34.18
per share on May 3, 2019, to close at $31.61 on May 6, 2019--an
over 7.5% decline that wiped out over $415 million in shareholder
value.

On August 1, 2019, after the close of the market, Chemours issued a
press release reporting second quarter results and lowered
full-year guidance, including reducing full-year free cash flow
outlook to $100 million--down from prior guidance of over $550
million. In the Form 10-Q the Company filed the next day, Chemours
disclosed significant increases in the Company's estimated
liabilities, including numerous new legal and regulatory actions
related to PFAS.

Following the release of these results, analysts slashed their
ratings on the Company's stock. For example, analysts at SunTrust
downgraded their rating on Chemours from buy to hold, and cut their
price target on the Company's stock by more than half (from $36 to
$16), citing "$2.5B for PFAS" and the liabilities revealed in the
Delaware Complaint.

Following disclosure of the Company's results, Chemours shares fell
dramatically and closed down 19% from $18.16 per share on
August 1, 2019, to $14.69 on August 2, 2019, on unusually high
volume, erasing over $560 million in shareholder value, the lawsuit
says.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have long known about
the extent of environmental liabilities that have only recently
been disclosed to investors. For example, when it was still
DuPont's Performance Chemicals division, in the 1950s, Company
scientists began documenting the health effects of PFAS; by the
1970s, they knew that PFAS was building up in the blood of humans
and staying there for long periods of time; and by the 1980s,
DuPont became concerned about liver damage and birth defects among
its own PFAS exposed workers.

Chemours is a spin-off of DuPont and produces a wide range of
industrial and specialty chemicals products for various
markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          David M. Sborz, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          3801 Kennett Pike
          Building C, Suite 305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 504-4957
          E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
                  cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
                  dsborz@andrewsspringer.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


CHRISTIAN FAITH: Literary Agents Class Certified in O'Brien Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ELISSA O'BRIEN, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CHRISTIAN FAITH PUBLISHING,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00024 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. William L. Campbell,
Jr., granted in part, and denied in part, the Plaintiff's Motion
for Expedited Approval of 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) Court-Supervised
Notice and Consent Forms and to Order Disclosure of Current and
Former Employees.

Through the Motion, the Plaintiff seeks an order (1) conditionally
certifying a class of plaintiffs, who worked as literary agents for
Defendant Christian Faith Publishing; (2) directing the Defendant
to provide a list of last-known names, addresses, e-mail address,
and telephone numbers for all putative class members; and (3)
equitably tolling the statute of limitations for prospective class
members during the opt-in period.  The Defendant filed a response
in opposition, and the Plaintiff filed a reply.

Ms. O'Brien filed this action as a purported collective action
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
She alleges that she and other similarly situated employees worked
remotely for the Defendant as literary agents selling publishing
services for the Defendant.  She contends that she and other
literary agents were improperly classified as "independent
contractors," regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, and at
times were paid nothing, in violation of the minimum wage and
overtime pay requirements of the FLSA.

In his Memorandum and Order, Judge Campbell conditionally certifies
a class of plaintiffs, who worked as literary agents for Defendant
Christian Faith Publishing within the past three years.

Judge Campbell also rules that (i) within 15 days, the Defendant
shall provide Plaintiff a list of names, and last-known e-mail and
mailing addresses of potential class members, and (ii) within
fifteen days of the entry of this Order, the parties shall confer
and submit agreed notice and consent forms.  If the parties cannot
agree, the Plaintiff shall file her proposed forms, and the
Defendant may file its specific objections thereto, both by the
same deadline.  The Plaintiff may respond to the Defendant's
objections within five days.[CC]


CITIGROUP INC: Bid for Class Certification in Gertler Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 motions for
certification of class actions alleging manipulation of foreign
exchange markets have been consolidated into a single proceeding in
the Tel Aviv Central District Court in Israel. Subsequently, an
amended motion for certification of a class action was filed and
served on Citibank. The consolidated case is captioned GERTLER, ET
AL. v. DEUTSCHE BANK AG.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.

CITIGROUP INC: Bid for Reconsideration in NYPL Class Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 in the case, NYPL,
ET AL. v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL., the court has denied
plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the court's earlier denial of
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add new
allegations concerning credit card, ATM, debit card, and wire
transactions.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss Allianz 2nd Amended Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 defendants are
awaiting a court ruling on their motion to dismiss a second amended
complaint in the case, ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS, ET AL. v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended
complaint on July 25, 2019.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 in the case, IN RE
GSE BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, the court has issued an order
granting without prejudice CGMI's and other defendants' motion to
dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaint.
The court order was entered on September 3, 2019.  On September 10,
plaintiffs filed a third consolidated amended class action
complaint. On September 17, CGMI and the other previously dismissed
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, which the court denied.


Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Suit over GoTo Services Spinoff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Citrix 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,
together with LogMeIn, Inc., continues to defend a class action
suit related to the company's 2017 spin-off of Citrix's GoTo family
of service offerings.

On July 25, 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed against Citrix,
LogMeIn and certain of their directors and officers in the Circuit
Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making alleged misstatements and omissions in
LogMeIn's Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in connection
with the 2017 spin-off of Citrix's GoTo family of service offerings
and subsequent merger of that business with LogMeIn. The complaint
seeks among other things the recovery of monetary damages.

Citrix Systems said, "We believe that Citrix and our directors have
meritorious defenses to these allegations; however, we are unable
to currently determine the ultimate outcome of this matter or the
potential exposure or loss, if any."

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

Citrix Systems, Inc., incorporated on April 17, 1989, offers
Enterprise and Service Provider products, which include Workspace
Services solutions and Delivery Networking products. The Company's
Enterprise and Service Provider products include Cloud Services
solutions, and related license updates and maintenance, support and
professional services. The Company's NetScaler nCore Technology is
an architecture that enables execution of multiple packet engines
in parallel. The company is based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


COLORADO CAPITAL: Haque Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colorado Capital
Investments, Inc. et al. The case is styled as Mohammed Haque, on
behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Colorado Capital Investments, Inc., Colorado Capital
Asset Management Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06516
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2019).

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

Colorado Capital Investments is an infamous "debt buyer", buying up
portfolios of old debt from banks, credit card companies,
hospitals, doctors, cell phone companies and car companies for
pennies on the dollar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
          Fagenson & Puglisi
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
          New York, NY 10123
          Phone: (212) 268-2128
          Fax: (212) 268-2127
          Email: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


CONAGRA BRANDS: Aleisa Sues over Mislabeled Cocoa Products
----------------------------------------------------------
MISHARI ALEISA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-07520 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2019) is an action against the
Defendant for false and misleading promotion of cocoa products.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant sells "Swiss Miss Simply
Cocoa Dark Chocolate Hot Cocoa Mix", which is advertised as being
"Simply Cocoa" and "Made with Real Cocoa". However, the Defendant's
product consist of alkalized cocoa, which is a highly processed
cocoa of substantially inferior quality compared to its all-natural
counterpart.

Conagra Brands, Inc. manufactures and markets packaged foods for
retail consumers, restaurants, and institutions. The Company offers
meals, entrees, condiments, sides, snacks, specialty potatoes,
milled grain ingredients, dehydrated vegetables and seasonings, and
blends and flavors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Nick Barthel, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  nicholas@kazlg.com


COVETRUS INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Sundial Growers Inc. (SNDL)
Class Period: securities issued either in or after the August 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 25, 2019
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-sndl/           

Covetrus, Inc. (CVET)
Class Period: 2/8/2019 - 8/12/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 29, 2019
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-cvet/           

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights 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, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

KSF, 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.

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

Contact:

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



DEEP SENTINEL: Guglielmo Suit Asserts ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deep Sentinel Corp.
The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Deep Sentinel Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10606 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019).

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

Deep Sentinel is a home security company that produces a series of
cameras powered by deep learning that can evaluate threats on a
property.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
          Stein Saks PLLC
          285 Passaic St., Suite 5
          Hakensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com


DETROIT CITY, MI: Bottner Asks Appeals Ct. to Review Case Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Leah Bottner filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled LEAH BOTTNER v. CITY OF DETROIT, Case No.
19-004507-CZ, in the Wayne Circuit Court.

The appellate case is captioned as LEAH BOTTNER v. CITY OF DETROIT,
Case No. 351020, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BOTTNER, LEAH/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED is
represented by:

          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
          2401 West Big Beaver, Suite 100
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 649-5667
          Facsimile: (248) 649-5668
          E-mail: mark@wasvarylaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC.
          23380 Goddard Rd.
          Taylor, MI 48180
          Telephone: (734) 287-3664
          Facsimile: (734) 287-1277
          E-mail: aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee CITY OF DETROIT is represented by:

          Sheri L. Whyte, Esq.
          CITY OF DETROIT LAW DEPARTMENT
          1010 City County Bldg.
          2 Woodward Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48226- 3437
          Telephone: (313) 237-3076


DEWINE: Class Settlement in Ball Suit Obtains Preliminary Court Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Disability Rights Ohio on Oct. 23 disclosed that the Honorable
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio has granted preliminarily
approval to a comprehensive settlement agreement in the class
action Ball v. DeWine (Case No.: 2:16-cv-282), in the United States
District Court Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division,
Disability Rights Ohio (DRO), the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP,
the Center for Public Representation (CPR), and attorney Sam
Bagenstos brought the class action lawsuit in March 2016 on behalf
of individuals with developmental disabilities and their families,
and The Ability Center of Greater Toledo. The parties include the
state of Ohio, the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities
(DODD), the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM), Opportunities for
Ohioans with Disabilities (OOD), and the Ohio Association of County
Boards of Developmental Disabilities (OACBDD). DODD has agreed to
continue and expand programs that will allow more people with
developmental disabilities the option to live and work in their
communities with the supports they need.

Under the agreement, DODD will:

   * Expand options counseling and pre-admission counseling
programs.

The two counseling programs provide people with information about
community-based waivers and the opportunity to discuss their
options to receive services in the community. The Department and
county boards of developmental disabilities will extend these
programs to people who live in eight-bed intermediate care
facilities (ICFs).

   * Maintain peer-to-peer and family-to-family programs and
exploratory community visits for people who have not yet made a
decision.

The Department will continue to fund programs that connect people
who are considering community living with families and individuals
who are already living and working in community settings. The
Department and county boards of developmental disabilities will
continue to provide opportunities to visit community programs and
see what types of service options exist in a person's preferred
geographic area.

   * Expand access to state-funded Individual Options waivers for
people who choose a waiver.

The Department will provide a total of 700 waiver slots over the
first two years of the agreement, with first priority for people in
ICFs who want waivers to live in the community and for people who
have applied for admission to an ICF with eight or more beds but
want a waiver to remain in the community. For the next two years
the Department will request additional funds based on an assessment
of the future needs of people across Ohio.

   * Support and expand programs for integrated, affordable
housing, and integrated employment and day services.

The Department will provide $24 million in capital housing
assistance for State Fiscal Years (SFY) 2019 and 2020, to be
primarily available for people receiving exit, diversion or
conversion waivers. In SFY 2021 and 2022, the Department will
project the continuing need for capital assistance and request
budgetary approval, for not less than $12 million dollars. In
addition, the Department will request $250,000 to fund new
transformation grants for providers delivering integrated day and
employment services.

   * Continue follow-along visits for people after they have left
ICFs.

The Department's Community Resource Coordinators will continue to
visit people who have moved to the community to assist in resolving
any service problems they may have. These visits occur 60, 180 and
365 days after transition from an ICF of 8 or more beds.

Under this agreement, no one who currently lives in an ICF will be
required to move into the community, and those who are considering
ICF care will still be able to make that choice.

In 2017, a group of guardians for individuals in ICFs, formally
intervened in this lawsuit. These intervenors have negotiated a
separate settlement agreement with the state and county board
defendants. That agreement is separate from and will not impact the
class-wide settlement described above.

"We are pleased that we have arrived at an agreement that protects
the civil rights of the plaintiffs and class members," says Michael
Kirkman, Executive Director of Disability Rights Ohio. "Individuals
with developmental disabilities in Ohio will now be offered more
robust options that will allow them to live in and participate more
fully in their communities."

The public will have the opportunity to submit comments on the
Settlement Agreement before the final hearing is held. The Notice
to Class Members
(https://www.disabilityrightsohio.org/assets/documents/00579010.pdf)
explains how to submit comments. More details, including the
Proposed Settlement Agreement, can be found on DRO's website,
http://www.disabilityrightsohio.org.

Disability Rights Ohio is the federally and state designated
Protection and Advocacy System and Client Assistance Program for
the State of Ohio. The mission of Disability Rights Ohio is to
advocate for the human, civil and legal rights of people with
disabilities in Ohio. Disability Rights Ohio provides legal
advocacy and rights protection to a wide range of people with
disabilities. http://www.disabilityrightsohio.org

The Center for Public Representation is a non-profit, public
interest law firm that seeks to improve the quality of life for
individuals with disabilities -- especially those who are
institutionalized and discriminated against -- and to enforce their
legal rights to exercise choice and self-determination in all
aspects of their lives. http://www.centerforpublicrep.org

The Ability Center of Greater Toledo is a non-profit Center for
Independent Living (CIL) serving northwest Ohio. The Center is
located in Sylvania, Ohio, and has a satellite office in Bryan,
Ohio. The Ability Center believes in and supports equitable and
inclusive communities for people living with disabilities. The
mission of The Ability Center is to assist people with disabilities
to live, work and socialize within a fully accessible community.
http://www.abilitycenter.org

                       About Sidley Austin LLP

With 2000 lawyers in 20 offices around the globe, Sidley --
http://www.sidley.com-- is a premier legal adviser for clients
across the spectrum of industries. Since our founding in 1866,
Sidley has cultivated a tradition of, and commitment to, pro bono
service. Sidley's lawyers and staff devote more than 100,000 hours
annually to serving those most in need. [GN]


DOMINION ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss RICO Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, 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 individual
defendants' motion to dismiss in the class action suit related to
the unlawful racketeering enterprise in violation of The Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), is pending.  

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed, and
subsequently amended, against SCANA Corporation (SCANA), Dominion
Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) and certain former executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that SCANA, DESC and the
individual defendants participated in an unlawful racketeering
enterprise in violation of RICO and conspired to violate RICO by
fraudulently inflating utility bills to generate unlawful proceeds.


The DESC Ratepayer Class Action settlement contemplates dismissal
of claims by DESC ratepayers in this case against DESC, SCANA and
their officers. In August 2019, the individual defendants filed
motions to dismiss. This case is pending.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


DOMINION ENERGY: Cooper Voluntarily Consents to Stay Cross Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, 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 Santee Cooper has
voluntarily consented to stay its cross claims against Dominion
Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC).

In September 2017, a purported class action was filed by Santee
Cooper ratepayers against Santee Cooper, Dominion Energy South
Carolina, Inc. (DESC), Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and
Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in the State Court of
Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the Santee Cooper
Ratepayer Case).  The allegations are substantially similar to
those in the DESC Ratepayer Case.

The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants may
not charge the purported class for reimbursement for past or future
costs of the NND Project.

In March 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including
as additional named defendants, including certain then current and
former directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA. In June 2018, Santee
Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original Jurisdiction with
the Supreme Court of South Carolina which was denied.

In December 2018, Santee Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
fourth amended complaint and filed cross claims against DESC.

In October 2019, Santee Cooper voluntarily consented to stay its
cross claims against DESC pending the outcome of the trial of the
underlying case. This case is pending.

In July 2019, a similar purported class action was filed by certain
Santee Cooper ratepayers against DESC, SCANA, Dominion Energy and
former directors and officers of SCANA in the State Court of Common
Pleas in Orangeburg, South Carolina. In August 2019, DESC, SCANA
and Dominion Energy were voluntarily dismissed from the case. The
claims are similar to the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case. This case
is pending.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


DOMINION ENERGY: Metzler Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, 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 "Metzler" lawsuit.

In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against
Dominion Energy and certain former directors of SCANA Corporation
(SCANA) and Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) in the
State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina (the
Metzler Lawsuit).

The allegations made and the relief sought by the plaintiffs are
substantially similar to that described for the City of Warren
Lawsuit. In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In August 2018, the case was
remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland
County.

Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was
consolidated with the City of Warren Lawsuit.

In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the order remanding the case to state court. The case is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


EAZE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Schroyer, writing for Marijuana Business Daily, reports that a
class action lawsuit filed against cannabis tech platform Eaze -- a
major player in the California marijuana delivery world -- was
dismissed by a federal judge, who ordered the plaintiff to enter
into arbitration with the company.

U.S. District Court Judge James Donato dismissed the lawsuit
brought by former Eaze customer Farrah Williams, after ruling that
she had entered into a legally binding contract with the company
that requires her to go through arbitration.

Williams filed suit against Eaze in May 2018, alleging the company
had violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
sending her unsolicited text messages advertising cannabis sales.

But Donato sided with Eaze, ruling that because Williams agreed to
Eaze's terms of service -- which required arbitration for any legal
disputes -- she would be forced to use that process.

"This ruling is enormously important for the entire industry, as
contracts across California and nationally could have been
invalidated had the court found for the plaintiff," Andrea Lobato,
chief risk officer at Eaze, said in a news release.
An attorney for Williams told Marijuana Business Daily that she
plans to appeal.

According to court records, Eaze is also on the brink of finalizing
a settlement agreement with another plaintiff, Kristine Lloyd, who
filed suit with similar TCPA complaints to Williams', in August
2018. [GN]


EL POLLO: Receives $18.1MM from Insurance Proceeds
--------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, 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 25, 2019, that during the
39 weeks ended September 25, 2019, the Company received insurance
proceeds of $10.0 million related to the settlement of a securities
class action lawsuit.

During the 13 and 39 weeks ended September 26, 2018, the Company
received insurance proceeds of $2.0 million and $6.1 million,
respectively, related to the reimbursement of certain legal
expenses paid in prior years for the defense of securities
lawsuits.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary El Pollo Loco,
Inc., develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service
restaurants under the El Pollo Loco name. The company was formerly
known as Chicken Acquisition Corp. and changed its name to El Pollo
Loco Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Costa Mesa, California.


EL POLLO: Settlement Approval Seen in 2020 First Quarter
--------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, 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 25, 2019, that the company
is anticipating that the settlement in the Olvera Action, Perez
Action, Vega Action, and Gonzalez Action will be approved by the
Court in the first quarter of 2020.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco,
Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) (the "Olvera
Action") on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly
employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of
California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and
failure to provide itemized wage statements.

The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement
of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific
amount of damages sought was specified in the complaint.

The parties reached a settlement in principle on January 24, 2019
of all claims brought on behalf of approximately 32,000 putative
class members in the Olvera Action, as well as all claims for
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal
periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage
statements brought in the class actions captioned Martha Perez v.
El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC624001)
(the "Perez Action"), Maria Vega, et al. v. El Pollo Loco, Inc.
(Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC649719 (the "Vega Action"),
and Gonzalez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No. BC712867) (the "Gonzalez Action") and codified such
settlement on April 26, 2019.

The settlement reached in the Olvera Action, Perez Action, Vega
Action, and Gonzalez Action resolves all potential claims from
April 12, 2010 through April 1, 2019 that the Company's California
based restaurant employees may have against El Pollo Loco for the
failure to pay all compensation owed, failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks and
failure to provide itemized wage statements, among other wage and
hour related claims.

It is anticipated that the settlement will be approved by the Court
in the first quarter of 2020. A $16.3 million accrual of an
expected settlement amount related to this matter was recorded as
of December 26, 2018. Purported class actions alleging wage and
hour violations are commonly filed against California employers.

The Company fully expects to have to defend against similar
lawsuits in the future.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary El Pollo Loco,
Inc., develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service
restaurants under the El Pollo Loco name. The company was formerly
known as Chicken Acquisition Corp. and changed its name to El Pollo
Loco Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Costa Mesa, California.


EL POLLO: Settlement Paid in Turocy-Huston Case
-----------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, 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 25, 2019, that all
settlement payments in the consolidated Turocy-Huston class action
suit were made during the 39 weeks ended September 25, 2019.

Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case
No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron
Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No.
8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on October 22, 2015.

The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs
and class counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed on January
29, 2016, on behalf of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly
situated, alleging violations of federal securities laws in
connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise
acquired and the purchase of call options or the sale of put
options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the "Class
Period").

The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance
Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC, Trimaran Capital
Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the "Controlling
Shareholder Defendants"). Among other things, Plaintiffs allege
that, in 2014 and early 2015, Holdings suffered losses due to
rising labor costs in California and, in an attempt to mitigate the
effects of such rising costs, removed a $5 value option from the
Company's menu, which resulted in a decrease in traffic from
value-conscious consumers.

Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings
and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false and
misleading statements that concealed the effect that these factors
were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings stock
continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As a
result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class
allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
Holdings' stock during the Class Period.

In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants and
Controlling Shareholder Defendants had direct involvement in, and
responsibility over, the operations of Holdings, and are presumed
to have had, among other things, the power to control or influence
the transactions giving rise to the alleged securities law
violations. In both cases, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages, as well as costs and expenses (including attorneys'
fees).

On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without
prejudice, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend
their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2016.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 20,
2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint and granted
Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint.  

Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint on April 17, 2017.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on or
about May 17, 2017. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss
the third amended complaint on August 4, 2017. On December 8, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and on July 3,
2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion and certified a class as
to all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants filed a petition for
appellate review of a portion of the Court's July 3, 2018 class
certification order. On October 19, 2018 the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals denied the petition.

On January 23, 2019, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement and
Joint Request for Order to Stay Proceedings, stating the parties
have reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims and
allegations in the action and are negotiating the terms of a
Stipulation of Settlement. On January 24, 2019, the Court ordered
that all proceedings in the action be stayed until April 3, 2019,
on or before which the parties were to file a Stipulation of
Settlement and a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.


On April 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the Stipulation of Settlement
and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. On May 13,
2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On
July 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and Approval of Plan of Allocation and the
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Awards to
Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4), which
was granted by the Court on August 26, 2019.

A $20.0 million accrual of an expected settlement amount related to
this matter was recorded as of December 26, 2018 and all settlement
payments were made during the thirty-nine weeks ended September 25,
2019.

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary El Pollo Loco,
Inc., develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service
restaurants under the El Pollo Loco name. The company was formerly
known as Chicken Acquisition Corp. and changed its name to El Pollo
Loco Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Costa Mesa, California.


ESL INVESTMENTS: James Darr Files Affidavit and Verification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned James Darr, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated v. ESL INVESTMENTS, INC., EDWARDS S.
LAMPERT, RBS PARTNERS, L.P., ESL PARTNERS L.P., TRANSFOORM HOLDCO
LLC, TRANSFORM MERGER CORPORATION, HOMETOWN MIDCO LLC, WILL POWELL,
E.J. BIRD, JAMES F. GOOCH, JOSEPHINE LINDEN, KEVIN LONGINO, ELBERTO
FRANCO and JOHN E. TOBER, Case No. 2019-0929 (Del. Ch., Nov. 20,
2019), James Darr filed an affidavit and verification pursuant to
the Court of Chancery Rules 23(aa) and 3(aa) in connection with the
filing of a Verified Class Action Complaint.

Mr. Darr discloses that he held shared of Sears Hometown and Outlet
Stores, Inc. continuously throughout the wrongs alleged in the
Complaint. He has reviewed and authorized the filing of the
Complaint against the Defendants in this action and is familiar
with the allegations of the Complaint. He confirms that he verified
and reviewed the Complaint and that the allegations as to him and
his own actions, and all other allegation are true and correct.

Mr. Darr also attests that neither him, nor anyone else affiliated
with him, have received, been promise or offered, and will not
accept any form of compensation, directly or indirectly, for
prosecuting or serving as a representative party in this action
except for (i) such damages or other relief as the Court may award
him as a member of the class; (ii) such fees, costs or other
payments as the Court expressly approves to be paid to him or on
his behalf; or (iii) reimbursement, paid by his attorneys, of
actual and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by him
directly in connection with prosecution of this action.[BN]


EUBA CORP: Class Settlement Approved; Buckles Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Walter H. Rice grants the Unopposed Motion for Settlement
Approval in the lawsuit titled Mary Buckles, On behalf of herself
and those similarly situated v. EUBA Corp., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00355-WHR (S.D. Ohio).

Judge Rice approves the Settlement and Release Agreements executed
by Mary Buckles, and the terms and conditions therein.  The lawsuit
is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear their own
respective court costs, attorney's fees and expenses.  The Court
shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.[CC]



FL RETAIL: Dominguez Files ADA Class Action in NY
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FL Retail Operations
LLC. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FL Retail Operations
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10624 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019).

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

FL Retail Operations LLC is a retail store services specializing in
athletic and leisure clothing and footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


FOOT LOCKER RETAIL: Faces Dominguez Suit Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foot Locker Retail,
Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Foot Locker Retail,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10635 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019).

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

Foot Locker Retail, Inc. is an American sportswear and footwear
retailer, with its headquarters in Midtown Manhattan, New York
City, and operating in 28 countries worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


FOOT LOCKER: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Foot Locker, Inc. The
case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all others
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Foot Locker, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10628 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019).

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

Foot Locker, Inc. is a leading global retailer of athletically
inspired shoes and apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com



FRANCESCA'S COLLECTION: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Francesca's
Collections, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Francesca's
Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06508 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 18, 2019).

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

Francesca's Collections Inc. retails apparel products. The Company
manages a chain of retail clothing stores where it sells a variety
of apparel for men, women, and children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
          Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 317-2453
          Fax: (516) 706-4692
          Email: ds@lawsolo.net


GENISYS CREDIT: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hilary Garcia, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GENISYS CREDIT UNION and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
2:19-cv-13430-VAR-RSW (E.D. Mich., Nov. 20, 2019), arises from
GCU's policy and practice of assessing an overdraft fee or
Non-Sufficient Funds Fee on transactions when there was enough
money in the checking account to cover, or pay for, the
transactions presented for payment.

The Defendant GCU wrongfully charged the Plaintiff and the Class
Members overdraft fees and Non-Sufficient Funds fees, according to
the complaint. The charging of such overdraft NSF fees breaches
GCU's contracts with its members, including the Plaintiff and the
members of the Class. The charging for such overdraft fees also
violates federal law.

Because GCU failed to describe its actual overdraft service in its
Opt-In Agreement by, inter alia, failing to describe accurately in
its Opt-In Agreement the actual method by which GCU calculates its
overdraft fees, and because GCU also violated or did not fulfill
other prerequisites of Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer
Act, before being allowed to charge overdraft fees, GCU was
prohibited from assessing overdraft fees for automated teller
machine (ATM) and non-recurring debit card transactions, but GCU
did so anyway, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Westland, Michigan and was a member
of GCU.

GCU is and has been a federally chartered credit union with its
headquarters located in Auburn Hills, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Goodman, Esq.
          HUBBARD SNITCHLER & PARZIANELLO, PLC
          801 W. Ann Arbor Trail, Suite 240
          Plymouth, MI 48170
          Phone: 248-760-2996
          Email: PJGoodman1@aol.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Phone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          Email: rdm@mccunewright.com
                 ejk@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Phone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          Email: Taras@Kicklawfirm.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Amended Complaint filed in 1MDB Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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
plaintiffs in the 1MDB class action lawsuit pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York have filed a
second amended complaint.

On December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Group Inc. and certain former officers of the firm
alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange
Act with respect to Group Inc.'s disclosures concerning 1MDB and
seeking unspecified damages.

The plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on October 28,
2019.

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

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Cert. in Interest Rate Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the putative class action related
to the Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation remains pending.

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

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

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


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

Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual
action and the district court dismissed the state common law claims
asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and
otherwise limited the state common law claim in the putative class
action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from
2013 to 2016.

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

On March 13, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion in the
putative class action to amend their complaint to add allegations
related to 2008-2012 conduct, but granted the motion to add limited
allegations from 2013-2016, which the plaintiffs added in a fourth
consolidated amended complaint filed on March 22, 2019.

The plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class
certification on March 7, 2019.

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

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Adeptus IPO-Related Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, that the
defendants in the class action suit related to Adeptus Health
Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO) have sought dismissal of the
newly asserted additional misstatement and omission claims in a
second amended consolidated complaint.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in October 2016 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In addition to the
underwriters, the defendants include certain former directors and
officers of Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), as well as Adeptus'
sponsor.

As to the underwriters, the consolidated complaint, filed on
November 21, 2017, relates to the $124 million June 2014 initial
public offering, the $154 million May 2015 secondary equity
offering, the $411 million July 2015 secondary equity offering, and
the $175 million June 2016 secondary equity offering.

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

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

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

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

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 motion
to dismiss the suit initiated certain by direct purchasers of
foreign exchange instruments that opted out of a class settlement
reached with, among others, GS&Co. and Group Inc., is pending.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the
defendants named in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on November 7, 2018 by certain
direct purchasers of foreign exchange instruments that opted out of
a class settlement reached with, among others, GS&Co. and Group
Inc.

The second amended complaint, filed on June 11, 2019, generally
alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust and state
common laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate
the foreign currency exchange markets and seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive, treble and other damages.

Defendants moved to dismiss on July 25, 2019.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Lawsuit over Uber's $8.1 Billion IPO
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) together with Uber Technologies, Inc.'s
(Uber), faces a putative securities class action related to Uber's
$8.1 billion May 2019 initial public offering.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September
25, 2019 in California Superior Court, County of San Francisco,
relating to Uber Technologies, Inc.'s (Uber) $8.1 billion May 2019
initial public offering.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Uber and
certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 35,864,408
shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $1.6 billion.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suit over Alnylam's Nov. 2017 IPO
------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC, together with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has
been named as a defendant in a putative securities class action
suit related to Alnylam's $805 million November 2017 public
offering of common stock.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September
12, 2019 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to
the Alnylam IPO.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Alnylam and
certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 2,576,000
shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $322 million.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: Ill. State Court Suit over Camping World IPO Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 an Illinois
state court action related to Camping World Holdings, Inc.'s $303
million May 2017 offering and a $310 million October 2017 offering
has been stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss in a
similar lawsuit pending in Illinois federal district court.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, New
York Supreme Court, County of New York, and the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, beginning in December
2018.

In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Camping
World Holdings and certain of its officers and directors, as well
as certain of its stockholders.

As to the underwriters, the complaints relate to three offerings of
Camping World common stock, a $261 million October 2016 initial
public offering, a $303 million May 2017 offering and a $310
million October 2017 offering.

GS&Co. underwrote 4,267,214 shares of common stock in the October
2016 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $94 million, 4,557,286 shares of common
stock in the May 2017 offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $126 million and 3,525,348 shares of common
stock in the October 2017 offering representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $143 million.

GS&Co. and the other defendants moved to dismiss the New York state
court action on February 28, 2019, the Illinois state court action
on April 19, 2019 and the Illinois district court action on May 17,
2019. The Illinois state court action has been stayed pending
resolution of the motions to dismiss in the Illinois district court
action.

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: NY Securities Class Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
stayed the proceedings in a securities class action pending an
appellate court's decision.

Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s
public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in
the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm's conflict
of interest management.

The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which
names as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former
officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and seeks unspecified damages.

The defendants have moved for summary judgment. On December 11,
2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted the defendants'
petition for interlocutory review of the district court's August
14, 2018 grant of class certification.

On January 23, 2019, the district court stayed proceedings pending
the appellate court's decision.

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

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


GRANDVIEW APARTMENTS: To Be Fumigated; Tenants Still Being Evicted
------------------------------------------------------------------
KSBY News reports that city and county officials have ordered the
Grandview Apartments in Paso Robles, California, to fumigate for
bed bugs and cockroaches.

The move comes as dozens of tenants are being evicted from the
apartment complex.

In May, tenants filed a class action lawsuit against the owners of
Grandview Apartments, claiming they were living in units infested
with insects, vermin and mold.

After the court allowed the owners to inspect the property to see
how costly repairs would be, the owners decided to instead shut
down their business and sell the property.

An attorney representing the tenants says that while the fumigation
will be an inconvenience, it will allow the tenants to take their
belongings with them when they move out.

The city and county are reportedly working on finding temporary
housing for the tenants who will be affected during the fumigation
process.

Grandview's owners have been ordered to pay $1,000 to each unit for
having to relocate and return the full security deposit within a
week after moving out. [GN]



HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Coverage Criteria Too Limiting, Smith Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA SMITH, on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughter,
under her pseudonym, JANE SMITH, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION
and MCG HEALTH, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07162 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 31, 2019), arises from MCG's creation of, and HCSC's adoption
and use of, clinical coverage criteria for determining when
residential treatment of mental health conditions and/or substance
use disorders is medically necessary and, thus, covered by the
welfare benefit plans administered by HCSC.

Ms. Smith is a participant in the Telephone and Data Systems, Inc.
Health and Well-Being Plan (the "Smith Plan"), which is sponsored
by Ms. Smith's employer. Her daughter, referenced by the pseudonym
"Jane Smith," is a beneficiary of the Smith Plan. She has been
designated as her daughter's agent pursuant to a Power of Attorney.
The Plaintiff and her daughter are residents of Wisconsin.

Ms. Smith contends that HCSC should reprocess the claims for
residential behavioral health treatment that it previously denied
(in whole or in part) under the MCG Acute RTC Guidelines or any
other MCG Guidelines containing the same restrictive criteria,
pursuant to new guidelines that are consistent with generally
accepted standards of medical practice.

Although purporting to summarize accepted standards of medical
practice, the criteria MCG created and HCSC used in administering
benefit plans were much more restrictive than those generally
accepted standards, Ms. Smith asserts. As such, she points out,
they contradicted the Plan's written terms of and violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

HCSC is a Mutual Legal Reserve Company that is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. HCSC issues and administers health insurance
plans in five states (Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and
Montana) as a licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.
HCSC is the fourth-largest health insurance administrator in the
country, with more than 16 million members. As of January 2019, it
was responsible for processing mental health claims on behalf of
more than 1.7 million members, including more than 727,000 members
suffering from depression.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George F. Galland, Jr., Esq.
          David Baltmanis, Esq.
          MINER, BARNHILL & GALLAND, P.C.
          325 N. LaSalle St., Suite 350
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 751-1170
          E-mail: ggalland@lawmbg.com
                  dbaltmanis@lawmbg.com

               - and -

          D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          485 Madison Ave., 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-9600
          E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
                  jcowart@zuckerman.com
                  creynolds@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Meiram Bendat, Esq.
          PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
          8560 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 500
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 598-3690
          E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com


INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Edgardo Canez Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent Systems Corporation 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 Court
appointed Edgardo Canez as lead plaintiff in the class action
lawsuit initiated by Michael Skrzeczkoski.

On or about July 9, 2019, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-03949) by Michael Skrzeczkoski,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against the company, our executive officers, and each member of the
Board of Directors.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the
company's press releases and SEC filings were misleading as a
result of the failure to disclose alleged related party
transactions affecting revenue recognition and the absence of
disclosure regarding certain allegations against former director
Parker H. Petit in connection with his former position with MiMedx,
Inc.

The complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs and
unspecified damages on behalf of purchasers who acquired the
company's stock during the period from January 23, 2019, through
May 29, 2019, and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result
of the alleged misleading statements.

On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed Edgardo Canez as lead
plaintiff on behalf of the putative class.

Intelligent Systems said, "We dispute these claims and intend to
defend the matter vigorously. We have not determined the likelihood
of loss to be probable nor is any potential loss estimable at this
time, therefore we have not recorded any related liability as of
September 30, 2019."

Intelligent Systems Corporation, incorporated on November 8, 1991,
is engaged in the business of providing technology solutions and
processing services to the financial technology and services
market. The Company's financial transaction solutions and services
(FinTech) operations are conducted through its CoreCard Software,
Inc. (CoreCard) subsidiary. The company is based in Norcross,
Georgia.


IQVIA INC: Certification of Class Sought in Fischbein TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned 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.), the Plaintiff
moves for entry of an order certifying this class:

     All persons and entities who received one or more facsimiles
     at any time after November 13, 2015 from Quintiles, IMS or
     IQVIA inviting them to participate in a study in exchange
     for points in a rewards program.

Mr. Fischbein asserts that he files this Motion in conjunction with
the filing of his Class Action Complaint in order to avoid any
attempt by the Defendant to moot his individual claims.  However,
he notes, in this case, additional discovery is necessary for the
Court to determine whether to certify the class he seeks to
represent.  As a result, he will seek leave to pursue class
discovery as soon as practicable.

In his complaint, Mr. Fischbein alleges that the Defendant violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending fax
advertisements.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          P.O. Box 7255
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (800) 601-0808
          Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          Molly E. Stemper, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com
                  david@classlawyers.com
                  tod@classlawyers.com
                  molly@classlawyers.com


JOSEPH NASTASI: Faces Galie Suit Alleging Violation of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Galie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JOSEPH NASTASI, LLC and JOSEPH P. NASTASI, Case No.
2:19-cv-05456-AB (E.D. Pa., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Defendants' conduct represents the very sort of abusive debt
collection practices the FDCPA was enacted to prevent: mainly,
misrepresenting the rights of purported debtors, and the steps
necessary for them to take to avoid waiving the rights and
protections provided to them under the FDCPA, the Plaintiff
contends. The Defendants violated the FDCPA by: (1) misleading the
Plaintiff that he could dispute his debt through a phone call or
fax; (2) misrepresenting the amount of time he had to respond to
the Letter; (3) misrepresenting the amount of time he had to make a
payment; and (4) omitting from the Letter that he must dispute the
debt in writing, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of Pennsylvania.

Joseph Nastasi, LLC, dba Nastasi Law, is a law firm and debt
collector incorporated in Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Matthew Wolfe, Esq.
          4256 Regent Square
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Phone: (215) 387-7300
          Email: Matthew@Wolfe.org


JPMORGAN CHASE: Leitzke Moves to Certify Class of Investigators
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled DUSTY LEITZKE, On Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A., Case No. 8:19-cv-02174-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla.), moves the Court
for an order granting conditional certification of her collective
action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and notice to
similarly situated investigator employees.

Chase is a large trillion dollar international bank, which offers
customers a variety of banking services.  The Defendant employs
Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) Investigators, Investigator
Specialists, and other investigative employees with similar titles
(collectively as "Investigators") who perform computer-based
production work to the daily production goals the Defendant
mandates.

Specifically, the Plaintiff asks that the Court enter an order:

   (a) conditionally certifying the nationwide FLSA Collective of
       Investigators that the Defendant employ(ed) in the last
       three (3) years;

   (b) requiring the Defendant to produce in an electronic or
       computer-readable format the full name, address(es),
       e-mail address(es) (including personal e-mail addresses to
       the extent they are available), and dates of employment
       for each Investigator;

   (c) authorizing notice and a consent form to the members of
       the Investigator FLSA Collective, disseminated by U.S.
       Mail and e-mail, and returnable via mail, e-mail, or fax;
       and

   (d) authorizing reminder notices halfway through the 60-day
       notice period.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          8201 Mission Road, Suite 250
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 766-5585
          Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
          E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sari Alamuddin, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          77 West Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60601-5094
          Telephone: (312) 324-1158
          Facsimile: (312) 324-1001
          E-mail: sari.alamuddin@morganlewis.com


JUICE GENERATION: Camacho Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juice Generation Inc.
The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Juice Generation Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06506 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2019).

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

Juice Generation is New York's premier juice bar. It promotes
health & wellness through antioxidant and nutrient-rich juices,
smoothies and acai bowls.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darryn G Solotoff, Esq.
          Law Office of Darryn G Solotoff PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Ste 280
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 317-2453
          Fax: (516) 706-4692
          Email: ds@lawsolo.net


JUST BRANDS: CBD Leads to Failed Drug Test, Trucker Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schremmer, writing for Land Line Media, reports that Trevor
Darrow had been a truck driver for about 10 years. According to his
attorney, he had never failed a drug test during that time.

Then, earlier this year Darrow failed an employment drug test with
a motor carrier because of the presence of THC in his system.

"He was shocked because he hadn't ever failed a drug test," said
David Fish of the Fish Law Firm in Naperville, Ill. "He had to have
a drug test for his driving jobs for some time. He couldn't believe
it. He thought it had to be a mistake."

However, Darrow said he purchased JustCBD gummies in July from a
retailer in Illinois, because he believed the product would help
him sleep. According to Darrow, the product was labeled as not
containing THC, which is the main psychoactive chemical found in
marijuana.

On Oct. 28, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Darrow filed a class action complaint against Just Brands
USA, alleging the Florida-based company violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act by mislabeling
their JustCBD products as having "no THC."

"It boils down to this," Fish said. "There needs to be federal
labeling. Consumers, including truck drivers, need to know what
they are getting into before they buy something."

According to Fish, it took Darrow a couple of months to regain
employment after the failed drug test.

"Plaintiff purchased the JustCBD product because he reasonably
expected the product would help him sleep and that it did not
contain any THC, as defendants had advertised on the product
label," the class action complaint stated. "Defendants' 'no THC'
representation was false and misleading to plaintiff and other
similarly situated consumers."

The class is open to any person who within three years of the
filing, purchased JustCBD products with the "no THC" label in the
state of Illinois. The class is not limited to truck drivers, nor
those who failed a drug test as a result.

Attempts to reach JustCBD regarding the complaint were unsuccessful
on Friday, Nov. 1. [GN]


KELLOGG: Settles False Advertising Class Action for $20 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Watson, writing for Food Navigator, reports that Kellogg has
agreed to allocate $20 million to a fund to settle a class action
lawsuit alleging it falsely advertises some cereals as healthy and
nutritious when they are also high in sugar, highlighting the risks
facing manufacturers as the Plaintiff's Bar homes in on added
sugar. [GN]


LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Jan Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings 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, Jan
v. Laboratory Corporation of America.

On July 1, 2019, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit, Jan v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California for the County of
Sacramento.

Plaintiff alleges that non-exempt employees based in California
were not properly paid meal and rest break premiums, did not
receive compliant wage statements, and were not properly paid wages
upon termination of employment. Plaintiff asserts these actions
violate various California Labor Code provisions and constitute an
unfair competition practice under California law.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, injunctive
relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.



LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Tanious Counsel Withdraws from Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Landstar System, 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 28, 2019, that the court has
granted a motion by counsel for Hany Tanious to withdraw from the
class action suit.

On January 25, 2019, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino against Landstar System, Inc. and Landstar Ranger, Inc.


The complaint purports to bring this action on behalf of Hany
Tanious, as an individual, and "all owner operators who performed
work for the Defendants, and who were classified as independent
contractors, during the four years preceding the filing of this
action through the present."

The complaint asserts claims based on the alleged misclassification
of Mr. Tanious as an independent contractor and alleges violations
under California law relating to overtime, minimum wage, meal and
rest breaks, failure to reimburse certain expenses, wage
statements, waiting time and unfair competition. Mr. Tanious was a
truck owner-operator and formerly an independent contractor who was
a party to an independent contractor operating agreement with
Landstar Ranger, Inc.

On June 11, 2019, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal that
resulted in the removal of the case from state court to federal
court, where it was assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer of the United
State District Court for the Central District of California.

On August 22, 2019, the Court issued an order (i) granting a motion
filed by counsel for Mr. Tanious to withdraw from the case, (ii)
striking all class allegations from the complaint and (iii) stating
that this matter would proceed as an individual action. Mr. Tanious
subsequently retained new counsel.

Landstar said, "Due to a number of factors including the
preliminary status of this matter, the Company does not believe it
is in a position to conclude whether or not there is a reasonable
possibility of an adverse outcome in this case or what damages, if
any, the plaintiff would be awarded should he prevail on all or any
part of his claims. However, the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and it intends to assert these defenses
vigorously."

Landstar System, Inc. provides integrated transportation management
solutions in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Transportation
Logistics and Insurance. Landstar System, Inc. was founded in 1968
and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.


LANE BRYANT: Faces Mendez Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Gift Cards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Himelda Mendez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LANE BRYANT, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-10772 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
sell store gift cards to consumers that contain writing in Braille
and to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its store gift
cards and, therefore, denial of its products and services offered
thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, says the complaint. Because the Defendant's store
gift cards are not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its store
gift cards will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
requires Braille, which is a tactile writing system, to read
written material, including books, signs, store gift cards, credit
cards, etc.

Lane Bryant operates multiple retail locations in the State of New
York and is one of the largest retailers in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 770-2639
          Email: brad@markslawpc.com

               - and -

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


LIPOCINE INC: Abady Sues over 71% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------
SOLOMON ABADY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIPOCINE INC.; MAHESH V. PATEL; and MORGAN
R. BROWN, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00906-PMW (D. Utah, Nov. 14,
2019) is a federal securities class action consisting of all
persons who purchased or acquired Licopine securities between March
27, 2019 and November 8, 2019, seeking to recover damages against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company's lead product candidate is TLANDO (LPCN 1021), an oral
testosterone replacement therapy. The Company has previously
submitted New Drug Applications ("NDA") for TLANDO twice and, bot
times, received Complete Response Letters ("CRL") from the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") rejecting the NDAs.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants materially false and
misleading statements regarding its business, operational and
compliance policies. The Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) the results from
Licopine's clinical studies of TLANDO were insufficient to
demonstrate the drug's efficacy; (ii) Licopine's third NDA for
TLANDO was highly likely to be found deficient by the FDA; (iii)
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading.

On November 11, 2019, Licopine issued a press release announcing
receipt of a CRL from the FDA regarding its NDA for TLANDO. In the
press release, Licopine advised investors that the FDA had again
rejected the NDA for TLANDO, this time because an efficacy trial
had not met three of its secondary endpoints.

On this news, Licopine's stock price fell $1.93 per share, or
70.7%, to close at $.80 per share on November 11, 2019.

Lipocine, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company. The Company improves
therapeutic performance of established drugs by solving drug
delivery problems. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Scofield, Esq.
          PETERS SCOFIELD
          7430 Creek Road, Suite 303
          Sandy, UT 84093-6160
          Tel: (801) 322-2002
          Fax: (801) 912-0320
          E-mail: dws@psplawyer.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


LJM FUNDS: Settlement Fairness Hrg. Set for June 3 in Sokolow Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
STATE OF ILLINOIS

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

TO:

All persons and entities who, during the period from February 28,
2015 through February 7, 2018, inclusive, purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of the LJM Preservation and Growth Fund, whether or
not those shares were Class A, Class C or Class I (the "Settlement
Class")

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to the Illinois Rules of Civil
Procedure and an Order of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, that the Plaintiff and Defendants LJM Funds Management,
Ltd. and Anthony Caine (the "LJM Defendants") in Sokolow v. LJM
Funds Management, Ltd., Case No. 18-CH-11880 (the "Action") have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $1,225,000 in cash,
as well as an assignment of twenty percent of any recovery by Mr.
Caine in any future case that is brought on behalf of LJM Funds
Management, Ltd. (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will
resolve all claims against the LJM Defendants in the Action.

A hearing will be held on June 3, 2020 at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Raymond Mitchell at Courtroom 2601 of the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, 50 W. Washington Street, Chicago, IL
60602, to determine whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against the LJM Defendants, and the
Releases specified and described in the Settlement Agreement should
be granted; (3) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved
as fair and reasonable; (4) Class Counsel's motion for an award of
attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Fund and
payment of litigation expenses of up to $25,000 from the Settlement
Fund; (5) Class Counsel's motion for a service award for Plaintiff
in the amount of $10,000; and (6) any other matter related to the
Settlement that the Court deems appropriate.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Long-Form Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies
of these documents by contacting the Settlement Administrator at:
Sokolow LJM Funds State Action, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box
173057, Milwaukee, WI  53217, 1-877-234-6578. Copies of the Notice
and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained
by the Settlement Administrator, LJMFundStateLitigation.com.   

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form so that is received by the Settlement
Administrator no later than April 30, 2020.  If you are a
Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you
will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net
proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than January 13, 2020,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.   

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, or Class Counsel's request for a service
award for the Plaintiff must be filed with the Court and delivered
to Class Counsel such that they are received no later than March 2,
2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Long-Form Notice.

If you have questions regarding this publication notice, please do
not contact the Court.  All questions about this notice, the
proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Settlement
Administrator.

Requests for the Long-Form Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Sokolow LJM Funds State Action, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box
173057, Milwaukee, WI 53217; (877) 234-6578 toll free; or
LJMFundStateLitigation.com.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Long-Form Notice and Claim
Form, should be made to Class Counsel: Michael E. Criden, Esq.,
Criden & Love, P.A., 7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515, South Miami,
FL 33143; (305) 357-9000.

Dated:   October 23, 2019

By Order of the Court
Circuit Court of Cook County
State of Illinois
[GN]


LOAD TRAIL: Cheated Undocumented Workers of Overtime, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Eiserer and Mark Smith, writing for WFAA.com, report that one
of the nation's largest trailer manufacturers hit last year with a
major immigration bust now faces a class-action lawsuit by former
undocumented employees.

More than 60 former workers of Sumner, Texas-based Load Trail claim
they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each week but were not
paid all their overtime. The workers were mostly welders and other
manual laborers.

"We (were) working there 55 hours on average," said Salvador Leon,
who told WFAA he used to work at Load Trail as a welder.

The lawsuit claims that Load Trail, located on a 100-acre complex
about a two-hour drive northeast of Dallas, violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act. It also claims workers were paid in different pay
schemes "to avoid paying" overtime.

Federal labor law requires employers to pay overtime to manual
workers, whether they're documented or undocumented, according to
the lawsuit.

An attorney for Load Trail declined to comment but has denied any
wrongdoing.

The former workers also claim the company withheld several thousand
dollars of their pay on the promise that it would go towards
getting their immigration statuses legalized, but that never
happened.

"We cannot complain because they told us, 'Over there is the
door,'" said Miguel Oliva, another former Load Trail welder.

In 2014, Load Trail agreed to pay a $444,993 fine for "knowingly
hiring and continuing to employ unauthorized workers," according to
a federal report.

As part of the agreement, the company pledged to get rid of
undocumented workers and to ensure any new hires were legally
eligible to work.

However, last year, when federal agents returned to make a surprise
visit, they found and detained 160 undocumented workers.

At that time, the company's attorney denied Load Trail knew the
detained workers were undocumented. Load Trail has remained open
while a federal criminal investigation has continued.

"You can call it greed . . . The fact of the matter is they had a
workforce they could abuse and underpay," said Dallas attorney
Allen Vaught, Esq., who represents the workers.

Oliva and Leon were working when federal agents descended and
surrounded the Load Trail complex in 2018.

"I saw a helicopter really close," Oliva recalled. "I told my
partner, immigration is here."

The former workers claim Load Trail kept them on the payroll
despite the 2014 agreement.

"They knew that we was undocumented," said Oliva, whose records
indicate he worked as a Load Trail welder from 2013 until the 2018
raid.

"They came to us and they told us you don't need to worry, we're
going to pay the fine and you can continue working," added Ramirez,
whose records indicate he began working for Load Trail in 2009.

A former company insider, who spoke exclusively to WFAA last year,
also claimed Load Trail found ways to get around the 2014
agreement.

"They were a very successful company and could have been very
successful just where they were, not hiring any illegals, but that
wasn't enough," the insider told WFAA.

In the 2014 agreement, Load Trail was ordered to E-Verify all new
hires to make sure they could legally work. E-Verify allows an
employer to compare records provided by a worker with actual
government records.

But the insider, who agreed to speak to WFAA without being
identified, said the company found ways around E-Verify.

"We were under a court order," the company insider said. "I would
have to take the information and enter it into E-Verify. If it
kicked it back, then they would have me hire them under their other
company that was not under court order to E-Verify. I knew it was
wrong. I knew what they were trying to do."

Leon said he saw first-hand how Load Trail allegedly circumvented
their agreement. He told WFAA that undocumented workers were hired
under a second company known as "4T."

"And they hired illegal people, and they transferred to Load Trail
after that," Leon said.

Leon and others also claimed they were misled into believing Load
Trail was working to get them permits to work legally. Payment
records show the company deducted a total of $2,000 from their
paychecks in $200 increments.

"We filled out papers, and we paid $2,000 and never get a permit,"
Leon told WFAA.

Ramirez told WFAA that Load Trail blocked employees from leaving
their company to work at nearby trailer factories, and they were
even required to sign "confidentiality" agreements.

"When we arrived to the other company that we was trying to join,
they told us Load Trail already called them (and) don't hire them,"
Ramirez said.

According to the suit, while employees used time cards to clock in,
their supervisors were able to manually change the times, creating
an "inaccurate and unreliable tracking and payment of actual hours
worked."

Vaught said hiring undocumented workers can have broad effects.

"The reason a U.S. citizen should care about undocumented workers
being overly worked and not being paid overtime wages is because it
suppresses other people's wages," Vaught said. "When they drive
down the cost of labor for that targeted workforce that is being
abused, it actually drives down the cost of labor for U.S.
citizens, too."

Load Trail referred WFAA's questions to an attorney, who declined
comment, citing the pending lawsuit and an ongoing criminal
investigation.

However, in a prior interview, Gene Besen, Esq., an attorney for
Load Trail, told WFAA that the company promises to cooperate with
federal investigators.

"There was nobody exploited," Besen said. "The important thing that
everybody needs to understand is that these undocumented workers
were not taking American jobs."

He said Load Trail was continuously hiring and there was a shortage
of labor in that area.

North Texas has been a flashpoint for immigration enforcement
action.

The past year, North Texas led the nation in immigration arrests
and detentions, with major one-site busts ⁠— first at Load
Trail and then at a cellphone repair business in Allen.

A Pew Research Center study found that the biggest percentage
increases in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests were
in Florida, northern Texas and Oklahoma.

The Dallas area had a 71 percent spike in ICE arrests for fiscal
2017.

Also, two of the nation's biggest workplace busts occurred in the
Dallas area, including Load Trail in August 2018 and at Allen
Technology in April 2019.

During the Allen raid, 280 workers were taken into custody.

Former Load Trail workers like Leon said he prays for justice and
doesn't flinch about filing the lawsuit against Load Trail.

"When you say the truth, you have nothing to lose," he said.

Leon faces an immigration hearing later this year. He said he
hasn't given up hope that he'll be able to stay in the United
States.

"I wish I can stay in this country forever," he said.

Vaught said employers who gain an unfair advantage over other
competitors need to face stiff punishment for violating labor
laws.

"If the worst thing that happens is a slap on the wrist--and it is
not the managers and owners that are getting walked away in
handcuffs, but it's the workers--it's the cost of doing business,"
Vaught said. "And there is zero deterrent unless ICE wants to focus
on the employers who are asking these workers to come here and
work." [GN]



MARSHALLS OF MA: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marshalls of MA, Inc.
The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez and on behalf of all others
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Marshalls of MA, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10626 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019).

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

Marshalls of MA, Inc. operates a chain of department stores. The
Company manages a number of stores retailing clothing, furnishings,
luggage, cosmetics, and accessories for men, women, and
children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
          The Marks Law Firm PC
          175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


MDL 2804: Village of Great Neck Opts Out of Opioid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Pelaez, writing for the islandnow, reports that the Village
of Great Neck Board of Trustees on Oct. 22 elected to opt out of a
nationwide class-action lawsuit over opioids and pursue a separate
suit.

The class-action lawsuit was filed against the distributors and
manufacturers of opioids on behalf of government municipalities
that have suffered financial and health impacts as a result of the
opioid crisis.

A recent report by the Fiscal Policy Institute found that this
crisis caused $8.2 billion in economic damage to Long Island in
2017.

A total of 617 opioid-related deaths occurred on Long Island that
year, which is the highest on record, according to the report.

According to village Attorney Peter A. Bee, most local
municipalities on Long Island have received notice of a proposed
class-action settlement, with the option to opt out and file a
separate claim or to remain in the litigation.

"Virtually every municipality in the country is listed as a
class-action member in litigation against the manufacturers and
distributors of opioids," Bee explained.

He added that there is no guarantee that a settlement would be
reached or what the amount of the settlement would be.

Under a sample billion-dollar settlement, the Village of Great Neck
would receive $1,800.

"Based on the advice that I gave this board, I believe this board
would entertain a motion to opt out of this class-action to retain
special counsel from the law firm of Tate, Grossman, Kelly &
Iaccarino," Bee said.

After unanimous approval, the firm will file a case in federal
court in the Eastern District of New York.

The case will then automatically transfer to the Northern District
of Ohio, where all opioid cases have been consolidated under Judge
Dan A. Polster.

Polster announced a $260 million settlement between two Ohio
counties and three major drug distributors and an opioid
manufacturer on Oct. 21, according to The New York Times.

The deal is a combination of cash payouts and donations for
addiction treatments, according to The Times.

The firm said it believes the case can be settled within the next
two years.

If a settlement is reached, the firm will collect 25% of the
amount, which is lower than the customary 33% that firms charge for
related cases. [GN]


MITCHELL SIMONE: Guglielmo Files Suit in New York under ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mitchell Simone, LLC.
The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mitchell Simone, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10607 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019).

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

Mitchell Simone partners with global brands to provide a complete
ecommerce solution for the brand's website. It is in the Women's
Clothing Stores business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
          Stein Saks PLLC
          285 Passaic St., Suite 5
          Hakensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com


MYER: Shareholders' Class Action to Go to Judgment in Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for The Guardian, reports that shareholders
have won the first class action lawsuit to go all the way to
judgment in Australia -- but are unlikely to see a cent from
defendant Myer because the stock market didn't believe inflated
profit forecasts made by the retailer's chief executive, a judge
has found.

The landmark judgment, handed down on Oct. 24 by the federal court,
is likely to be of more help to shareholders in future lawsuits,
because Judge Jonathan Beach accepted that it was not necessary to
prove Myer misled every investor individually.

Instead, drawing on a journal article he wrote while a barrister,
Beach found that it was enough to show the market at large was
misled.

Shareholders in the case, which was organised by the Melbourne
solicitor Mark Elliott, alleged Myer misled the market in September
2014 when its then CEO, Bernie Brookes, told analysts and
journalists the company's profit would be higher in the 2015
financial year than the $98.5 million posted in 2014.

But in March the following year, the company admitted profits for
the 2015 financial year would probably be down on the previous
year, at between $75 million and $80 million, because of stagnant
sales and soaring costs.

Myer's share price immediately fell more than 10%.

Beach found Myer engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by
failing to correct Brookes's statement on multiple occasions
between September 2014 and March 2015.

But the judge said he was "not convinced that the applicant and
group members have suffered any loss flowing from such
contraventions" because Myer's share price "already factored in an
NPAT [net profit after tax] well south of Mr Brookes's rosy picture
painted on 11 September 2014".

"In other words, the hard-edged scepticism of market analysts and
market makers at the time of the contraventions had already
deflated Mr Brookes's inflated views," Beach said.

"So any required corrective statement that should have been made at
the time of the contraventions, if it had been made, is likely to
have had no or no material effect on the market price."

However, Elliott told Guardian Australia he would now ask for
access to the Myer share register so that he could write to
shareholders "and invite them to individually prove their loss".

"That's the upshot of the decision and it's a slog but very
doable," he said.

"We have registered 1,200 [shareholders] already and expect double
that easily."

In a victory for class action lawyers and potential plaintiffs,
Beach said he accepted the theory of "market-based" or indirect
causation, where harm is done to investors because the price of
securities they buy is inflated by incorrect information.

This is significantly easier to prove than showing that an investor
directly relied on the misleading statements made by the company
when deciding to buy shares.

The rosy picture painted by Brookes evaporated within weeks,
evidence before the court shows.

By October 20, 2014, internal Myer forecasts predicted profit would
be at most $95 million, and could be as little as $84 million.

And a few days later, on November 2, 2014, Brookes sent an email to
the board titled "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" in which he said
that despite good recent sales figures, the overall picture was
"'ugly' and even with $6 million of cost reduction we will need the
'sales start' to the quarter to continue".

By this time, Myer's internal profit forecasts were 5% more than
those of analysts, Beach said.

"But instead of announcing anything to the market, despite all of
the negative news in the first quarter of FY15 and its internal
profit projections showing the unlikelihood of FY15 NPAT above
$90m, Myer appears to have thereafter created a series of internal
profit projections which 'targeted' profit figures at the same
level as the budget had originally proposed in July 2014," he
said.

Myer's share price has continued to fall since 2015 amid continuing
consumer gloom.

Shares that changed hands for about $1.70 in mid-2015 closed at 10c
on Oct. 24.

"As this matter relates to historical events and may be appealed,
Myer will not provide any further comment on the judgment," the
company said in a statement to the ASX. [GN]


NAI TAPAS RESTAURANT: Teran Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES EMETERIO TERAN, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, Plaintiff v. NAI TAPAS RESTAURANT CORP., and RUBEN
RODRIGUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-10134 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31,
2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants 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.

In September 2011, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to
work as a food runner for their restaurant business located at 85
2nd Avenue, in New York City.

During his employment, the Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week.
Specifically, he was scheduled to work for 7.5 hours on Monday and
Wednesday, 9.5 hours on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and 6 hours
on Sunday.

However, the Plaintiff contends he had to work during lunch break.
He was also required to open the door for the restaurant and accept
deliveries off the working hours. As a result, he asserts he had to
work approximately two hours off the schedule.

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


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hart Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jared Hart,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-04596-JMS-DLP (S.D. Ind., Nov. 18, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 554-9099
          Fax: (713) 554-9098
          Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL VEHICLE: Calusinski's Bid for Class Certification Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Jorge L. Alonso denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled
Paul Calusinski, et al. v. National Vehicle Protection Services,
Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-05680 (N.D. Ill.).

According to the Court's Notification of Docket Entry, for the
reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is denied as premature, without prejudice to refiling
at a later date.

The minute entry also states that the Parties' MIDP disclosures
shall be served by December 2, 2019, and that all fact discovery
shall be noticed in time to be completed by June 30, 2020.

The case is referred to the magistrate judge for discovery
supervision, with authority to modify, set and extend deadlines,
and a settlement conference.[CC]


NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit in NJ Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation 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's
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit remains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient
Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown,
and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak
Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations
of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

These cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in March 2019 and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in
April 2019. The Company has denied the allegations and intends to
vigorously defend itself.

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NAVIENT CORP: Continues to Defend Lord Abbett Fund Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation 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 defnd a class action suit entitled, Lord Abbett
Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al.

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

These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court,
with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff.

The caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated
Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs
filed their amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016.

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

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

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

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NAVIENT CORP: Suits over Breach of Consumer Laws Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation 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 class action suits over alleged violations of
consumer protection laws.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases alleging violations of various state and federal
consumer protection laws including the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010 ("CFPA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and various other state
consumer protection laws.

In January 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the
"CFPB") and Attorneys General for the State of Illinois and the
State of Washington initiated civil actions naming Navient
Corporation and several of its subsidiaries as defendants alleging
violations of certain Federal and State consumer protection
statutes, including the CFPA, FCRA, FDCPA and various state
consumer protection laws.

In October 2017, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania initiated a civil action against Navient Corporation
and Navient Solutions, LLC ("Solutions"), containing similar
alleged violations of the CFPA and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Additionally, in 2018 the Attorneys General for the States of
California and Mississippi initiated similar actions against the
Company and certain subsidiaries alleging violations of various
state and federal consumer protection laws. We refer to the
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, California, and Mississippi
Attorneys General collectively as the "State Attorneys General."

In addition to these matters, a number of lawsuits have been filed
by nongovernmental parties or, in the future, may be filed by
additional governmental or nongovernmental parties seeking damages
or other remedies related to similar issues raised by the CFPB and
the State Attorneys General.

Navient said, "As the Company has previously stated, we believe the
suits improperly seek to impose penalties on Navient based on new,
unannounced servicing standards applied retroactively only against
one servicer, and that the allegations are false. We therefore have
denied these allegations and intend to vigorously defend against
the allegations in each of these cases."

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

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


OHIO: Settles Suit Over 'Needlessly Institutionalized' Patients
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kasler, writing for WKSU News, reports that a disability
rights group has settled the class action lawsuit it filed against
the state of Ohio four years ago over its claims that people are
being needlessly institutionalized in state and private run
facilities.  

The settlement expands access to 700 state-funded waivers that
allow people with disabilities and their families to choose to
receive services in the community or in institutions. Disability
Rights Ohio filed the suit in federal court in 2016. Its executive
director Michael Kirkman says this affects the six original
plaintiffs, and since it's a class action, there are potentially
3,000 more.

"These folks are generally very pleased because they have been
expressing a desire to move to the community for some time and have
not been able to get services."

The state will spend $24 million in the next year on housing
assistance, and the settlement also expands employment and day
services. The Department of Developmental Disabilities said in a
statement the settlement is "fair and reasonable". [GN]



ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Galestan Class Action Concluded
-------------------------------------------------
OneMain Holdings, 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 class action
suit entitled, Galestan v. OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., has been
concluded.

On February 10, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit, Galestan v.
OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants
the Company and two of its officers.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly
making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material
information concerning alleged integration issues after the OneMain
Acquisition in November 2015, and was filed on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 25, 2016 and November 7, 2016.

The complaint sought an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
an award of interest, reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees and
other costs, and equitable relief as the court may deem just and
proper.

On April 23, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement,
which received final approval from the Court on August 9, 2019.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the action was dismissed with
prejudice. The settlement contained no admission of liability by
the Company and the other defendants.

OneMain Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides consumer
finance and insurance products and services. The company operates
in two segments, Consumer and Insurance, and Acquisitions and
Servicing. OneMain Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1920 and is based
in Evansville, Indiana.


OZARK PIZZA: Kindle Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kindle, Jr., individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. OZARK PIZZA COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
2019CH13419 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought
against the Defendant, its subsidiaries and affiliates, to redress
and curtail their unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure
of the Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric data.

The Defendant's employees are required to have their fingerprints
scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time
cards--which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised--fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric
identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes the
Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from such situation,
Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.

Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collects, stores, disseminates, and uses its
employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, says the complaint.
Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate
BIPA because it did not and continues not to: properly inform the
Plaintiff in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for
which their fingerprints were being collected, stored, and used, as
required by BIPA; receive a written release from the Plaintiff to
collect, store, or otherwise use their fingerprints, as required by
BIPA; provide a publicly available retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's fingerprints, as
required by BIPA; and obtain consent from Plaintiff to disclose,
redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their fingerprints to a third
party as required by BIPA.

Plaintiff Sean Kindle Jr. is a natural person and a citizen of the
State of Illinois.

Ozark Pizza Company, LLC is a franchisee of Papa John's Pizza. The
Defendant owns and operates multiple Papa John's Pizza locations
throughout Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 233-1550
          Fax: (312) 233-1560
          Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                 jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                 cmitchell@stephanzouras.com


PACIFIC GAS: Investors File Class Action Following Power Outages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
amid power outages affecting 179,000 customers--and another one
coming that could affect nearly 900,000--Pacific Gas and Electric
executives were hit with a federal class action on Oct. 25 claiming
they misled investors about the company's preparedness for
pre-emptive blackouts.

The complaint accuses PG&E CEO William "Bill" Johnson and three
former and current executives of making false and misleading
statements about the company's wildfire safety efforts and
readiness for fire-prevention power cuts.

"PG&E's purportedly enhanced wildfire prevention and safety
protocols and procedures were inadequate to meet the challenges for
which they were ostensibly designed," the 33-page complaint states.
"As a result, PG&E was unprepared for the rolling power cuts the
company implemented to minimize wildfire risk."

According to the lawsuit, the "truth emerged" on Oct. 12 after a
New York Times expose revealed new details of PG&E's ill
preparedness for widespread power outages affecting 738,000
customers in 35 counties between Oct. 9 and 10.

The company faced tough questions from state regulators over the
blackout blunders. PG&E's top executives and board members faced
complaints of poor planning, insufficient coordination with local
governments, a downed website, an overwhelmed call center and a
failure to set up emergency resource centers in affected
communities, among other problems.

The company's stock price tanked $0.35, or 4.4%, on Oct. 12,
followed by a $1.00, or 12.2%, tumble on Oct. 24 after the company
announced plans to cut power to 179,000 homes and businesses.

Other defendants named in the lawsuit include former CEO Geisha
Williams, who left the company in January 2019, and former interim
CEO John R. Simon, who served from January to May 2019. PG&E's
current chief financial officer, Jason Wells, is also named as a
defendant.

"The individual defendants possessed the power and authority to
control the contents of PG&E's SEC filings, press releases, and
other market communications," the complaint states.

The complaint cites 14 press releases issued between Dec. 11, 2018,
and Oct. 11, 2019, that contained "materially false and misleading"
statements about the company's safety protocols and preparedness
for power outages.

Lead plaintiff Christopher Vataj seeks class certification, damages
and attorneys' fees. He is represented by Jennifer Pafiti of
Pomerantz LLP in Los Angeles.

PG&E did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment on
Oct. 25.

On Oct. 25, the utility announced another round of dry windy
weather forecast to blow into Northern California beginning on Oct.
26 could mean more pre-emptive blackouts to about 850,000 customers
in 36 of California's 58 counties.

If it occurs, it would be PG&E's largest planned shutoff so far.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                         https://is.gd/WgFofp


PARETEUM CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 23 Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Pareteum Corporation (TEUM) from
December 14, 2017 and October 21, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important December 23, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline
in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Pareteum investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Pareteum class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1701.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) it was not true that Pareteum's purported success was the
result of hyper-demand for Pareteum's unique products or
exceptional service, or the Company's competent management; but, in
fact, defendants had propped up Pareteum's results by manipulating
Pareteum's accounting for revenues, income, and the important
Backlog metric; (b) defendants had materially overstated Pareteum's
profitability by failing to account properly for the Company's
results of operations and by artificially inflating the Company's
financial results; (c) it was not true that Pareteum contained even
the most minimally adequate systems of internal operational or
financial controls necessary to assure that Pareteum's reported
financial statements were true, accurate, and/or reliable; (d) it
was not true that the Company's financial statements and reports
were prepared in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules; and (e) as a
result of the aforementioned adverse conditions, defendants lacked
any reasonable basis to claim that Pareteum was operating according
to plan, or that Pareteum could achieve the guidance sponsored
and/or endorsed by defendants. 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-1701.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.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

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
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 cases@rosenlegal.com
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]



PARETEUM CORP: Schall Law Investigates Securities Law Breach Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Pareteum Corp. (NASDAQ:TEUM) for violations of the securities
laws.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. Pareteum disclosed on October 21, 2019,
that it would restate its financial statements for the full year
ending December 31, 2018, as well as the interim periods ending
March 31, 2019, and June 30, 2019. The Company admitted that, "The
decision to restate these financial statements is based on the
Company's conclusion that certain revenues recognized during 2018
and 2019 should not have been recorded during that period. For
certain customer transactions, the Company may have prematurely or
inaccurately recognized revenue." Based on this news, shares of
Pareteum traded down sharply on October 22, 2019.

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

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

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

Contact:

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



RE/MAX HOLDINGS: 2 Antitrust Class Action Complaints Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
RE/MAX Holdings, 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 two putative class action suits over alleged
violations of federal antitrust law.

In March and April of 2019, three putative class action complaints
were filed against National Association of Realtors ("NAR"),
Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc, RE/MAX
Holdings, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.

The first was filed on March 6, 2019, by plaintiff Christopher
Moehrl in the Northern District of Illinois. The second was filed
on April 15, 2019, by plaintiff Sawbill Strategies, Inc., also in
the Northern District of Illinois. These two actions have now been
consolidated.

A third action was filed by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and four other
individual plaintiffs in the Western District of Missouri.

The complaints (collectively "Moehrl/Sitzer suits") make
substantially similar allegations and seek substantially similar
relief. The plaintiffs allege that a NAR rule requires brokers to
make a blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation
when listing a property, resulting in inflated costs to sellers in
violation of federal antitrust law.

They further allege that certain defendants use their agreements
with franchisees to require adherence to the NAR rule in violation
of federal antitrust law. Amended complaints add allegations
regarding buyer steering and non-disclosure of buyer-broker
compensation to the buyer.

Additionally, plaintiffs in the action filed by Sitzer et al allege
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. By
agreement, RE/MAX, LLC was substituted for RE/MAX Holdings as
defendant in the actions. Among other requested relief, plaintiffs
seek damages against the defendants and an injunction enjoining
defendants from requiring sellers to pay the buyer broker.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims.  

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

RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. is one of the world's leading franchisors in
the real estate industry, franchising real estate brokerages
globally under the RE/MAX(R) brand, and mortgage brokerages within
the U.S. under the Motto Mortgage(R) brand. RE/MAX is a global
franchisor of real estate brokerage services with more than 125,000
agents operating in over 110 countries and territories. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.


S-L DISTRIBUTION: Sued by Maranzano for Diverting IBOs' Earnings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Maranzano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. S-L DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-01997-JEJ (M.D. Pa., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for its violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

The Plaintiff works for the Defendant, who refers to the workers as
"IBOs." The Plaintiff uses vehicles to transport the products from
the Defendant's warehouses to the customers.

The Defendant diverts the earnings of the Plaintiff and other IBOs
by requiring them to personally pay for work-related expenses such,
inter alia, gas expenses, vehicle maintenance/repair expenses, and
insurance expenses, the Plaintiff alleges. He estimates that during
the past 6 years, the Defendant has subjected him to pay
withholdings and diversions far exceeding $100,000.

The Defendant, according to its Web site, "is a wholesale
distributor of various snack food products manufactured by
subsidiaries and affiliates of Snyder's-Lance, Inc."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          Twining Office Center, Suite 211
          715 Twining Road
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Phone: (215) 884-2491

               - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew Thomson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: (617) 994-5800

               - and -

          Chad Hatmaker, Esq.
          J. Keith Coates, Esq.
          WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC
          Post Office Box 900
          Knoxville, TN 37901
          Phone: (865) 215-1000


SABER GRILLS: Guglielmo Files ADA Class Action in NY
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saber Grills, LLC.
The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Saber Grills, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10611 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019).

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

Saber Grills, LLC manufactures compact grills with full-size
cooking capacity and a side burner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
          Stein Saks PLLC
          285 Passaic St., Suite 5
          Hakensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com



SANTANDER CONSUMER: Sued by Jones for Violating Interest Rate Cap
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda M. Jones, individually and on behalf of all Arkansans
similarly situated v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Case No.
4:19-cv-00811-BRW (E.D. Ark., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought for
declaratory judgment under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act arising from the Defendant's violation of the Arkansas
Constitution's interest rate cap of 17%.

The Defendant acquired through written assignment a Simple Finance
Charge Agreement (hereinafter the "Financing Agreement") between
the Plaintiff and the Arkansas limited liability company, who at
the time was doing business as Landers Chrysler Jeep Dodge, in
Benton Arkansas and that hereafter, along with its predecessors and
successors in interest, and irrespective of the various registered
Arkansas fictitious named utilized by any of the foregoing,
constitutes the entity/ies referred to herein as "LANDERS."

On April 12, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased a 2013 Dodge Avenger
from LANDERS. As part of this transaction between the Plaintiff and
LANDERS, they also entered into the Financing Agreement. The annual
percentage rate of the Financing Agreement between the Plaintiff
and LANDERS, an Arkansas LLC indisputably subject to the Arkansas
Constitution, was 19.55% per annum, reflecting an interest rate
exceeding the mandatory constitutional interest threshold of 17%
per annum. LANDERS proceeded to sell and assign the Financing
Agreement between LANDERS and the Plaintiff to the Defendant
Santander, who remains the current owner of the Financing
Agreement.

The Defendant immediately began to, and to this day continues to,
demand and collect principal and interest payments from the
Plaintiff on a monthly basis under the terms of the Financing
Agreement in violation of the unambiguous usury prohibitions of the
Arkansas Constitution, the Plaintiff contends.

As a result of this violation of the Arkansas Constitution, the
Plaintiff and the Class seek an Order declaring the principal and
interest provisions of their Financing Agreements held by the
Defendant to be void and awarding them judgment against the
Defendant in an amount equal to the amount of such principal and
interest payments collected by the Defendant in violation of the
Constitution of the State of Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Arkansas.

Santander is a foreign for profit corporation doing business in the
State of Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Streett, Esq.
          STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
          107 West Main
          Russellville, AR 72801
          Phone: (479) 968-2030
          Email: James@StreettLaw.com

               - and -

          Joe P. Leniski Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          The Freedom Center
          223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Email: joeyl@bsjfirm.com


SCHOOL OUTFITTERS: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against School Outfitters
LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. School Outfitters
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10618 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019).

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

School Outfitters is an online retailer of school furniture and
equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
          Stein Saks PLLC
          285 Passaic St., Suite 5
          Hakensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com



SECURITY BENEFIT: Faces Clinton Suit Alleging RICO Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ella Clinton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SECURITY BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Kansas
corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-24803-PCH (S.D. Fla., Nov. 20, 2019),
seeks to halt and remedy Security Benefit's scheme to use certain
indices to induce the sale of annuities to United States residents
in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

An equity-indexed deferred annuity ("EIA") is a type of fixed
annuity that is distinguished by the interest yield return being
partially based on an equities index, typically the S&P 500. The
general appeal of EIAs is to moderately conservative investors who
like having some opportunity to earn a higher investment return
than what's available from traditional fixed-rate annuities, while
still having some protection against downside risk. An annuity is
essentially an investment contract with an insurance company,
traditionally used for retirement purposes.

Instead of utilizing a reputable index, such as Standard & Poor
500, Security Benefit's fraudulent scheme included the development
and marketing of a series of misleading and deceptive EIAs
purporting to provide above-market returns through purported
"uncapped" 100% participation in the gains in certain "proprietary"
indices artificially engineered specifically for use in these new
EIAs.

The Plaintiff contends that Security Benefit's marketing of
"uncapped" and "100% participation" in the returns on these
proprietary indices was false and misleading without a clear
statement that they were in fact designed to have much lower
returns than the stock indices traditionally used in EIAs. This
fraudulent scheme could only be accomplished with the assistance of
third parties, such as Advisors Excel.

Through this fraudulent racketeering scheme, Security Benefit
wrongfully induced the Plaintiff and thousands of similarly
situated individuals to purchase the Annuities through materially
false and misleading representations and half-truths, says the
complaint. Security Benefit's perpetration of this overarching
scheme was conducted as part of an enterprise that has committed
and is committing an ongoing pattern of racketeering activity such
that their conduct violates the RICO act, alleges the Plaintiff, a
citizen and resident of the state of Florida.

Security Benefit is a life insurance company organized under Kansas
law, with its principal place of business located at Topeka,
Kansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 740-1423
          Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                 howard@moskowitz-law.com
                 joseph@moskowitz-law.com


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces Tabat Suit Over Illegal Pay-to-Pay Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA TABAT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
d/b/a SPS, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01264-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla.,
Oct. 31, 2019), alleges breach of contract and violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, borrowers nationwide struggle enough to
make their regular mortgage payments without getting charged extra,
illegal fees when they try to pay by phone or online ("Pay-to-Pay
fees"). Federal and state debt collection laws strictly prohibit
these charges unless expressly agreed by the borrower, but these
Pay-to-Pay fees are found nowhere in the standard Mortgage
Agreement.

SPS pays a third party to process these Pay-to-Pay transactions at
a cost of about $0.20 each. Despite this low cost, SPS charges
homeowners an excessive $5.00 to $20.00 Pay-to-Pay fee for each
online or pay-by-phone mortgage payment transaction, pocketing the
difference as profit, the Plaintiff contends. She argues that SPS
must be held accountable for its actions.

SPS has long known these fees are illegal, but charges them anyway,
violating the FDCPA and Florida law by demanding excessive
Pay-to-Pay fees, and violating its mortgage contract by charging
fees not expressly allowed under the uniform contractual
obligations contained in standard form mortgage loan agreements,
the lawsuit says.

SPS services mortgages throughout the United States, including
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Kauffman, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com


SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal court in California
ruled in favor of the Service Employees International Union Local
1000 in a class action dispute relating to "fair-share" fees,
finding that the union collected the fees in good faith before the
Supreme Court's recent decision in Janus v. AFSCME.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order Re: Cross-Motions for Summary
Judgment, Motion to Decertify the Class, and Motion to Amend Class
Certification Order is available at:

                     https://is.gd/Eq8mDG


SKINNYCORP LLC: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skinnycorp, LLC. The
case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Skinnycorp, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10605 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019).

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

skinnyCorp, LLC, doing business as Threadless, provides online
technology that allows user-submitted designs. The Company
specializes in printing the user-submitted arts on apparels,
pillows, smart phone cases, bags, and other items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
          Stein Saks PLLC
          285 Passaic St., Suite 5
          Hakensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com



SOKAOGON CHIPPEWA: Blackburn Files RICO Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against officers of the
Sokaogon Chippewa Community Mole Lake Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa. The case is styled as Sherry Blackburn, Isabel Deleon,
Jonathan Armstrong, Whitney Bedwell, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Garland McGeshick Chairman
of the Sokaogon Chippewa Community Mole Lake Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa, Arlyn Ackley, Jr. Vice Chairman of the Sokaogon Chippewa
Community Mole Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Vicki Ackley
Treasurer of the Sokaogon Chippewa Community Mole Lake Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa, Carmen McGeshick Councilman I of the Sokaogon
Chippewa Community Mole Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa,
Kenneth Vanzile Councilman II Councilman I of the Sokaogon Chippewa
Community Mole Lake Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Ronald Quade
Secretary of the Sokaogon Chippewa Community Mole Lake Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa, Jimmy Landru, Jr. Chief Executive Officer of
Sokaogon Finance, Inc., John Doe Nos. 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00847-MHL (E.D. Va., Nov. 14, 2018).

The Plaintiffs filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Sokaogon Chippewa Community, or the Mole Lake Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa, is a band of the Lake Superior Chippewa, many of
whom reside on the Mole Lake Indian Reservation, located in the
Town of Nashville, in Forest County, Wisconsin. The reservation is
located partly in the community of Mole Lake, Wisconsin, which lies
southwest of the city of Crandon.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Kelly & Crandall PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 424-7570
          Fax: (703) 591-9285
          Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                 aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com


SULLIVAN COUNTY, TENN.: $3-Mil. Lawsuit Filed Over Inmate Assault
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lurah Lowery, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that a $3
million class-action federal lawsuit has been filed against
Sullivan County, Sheriff Jeff Cassidy, Chief Jail Administrator Lee
Carswell, former corrections officer Christopher Sabo and other
unnamed Sheriff's Office employees over the assault of an inmate
last year.

Sabo was charged with assaulting Travis Bellew on Oct. 29, 2018. A
lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Greeneville earlier this
week claims Sabo "without warning or provocation" violently knocked
Bellew to the floor and into a closet, out of camera view. During
the altercation, Bellew hit his head on a mop bucket and Sabo beat
him "about the head and body with his closed fists," according to
the suit.

Sabo pleaded guilty to the assault charge, according to the
lawsuit. Online court records indicate he was placed on pretrial
diversion.

Sabo's conduct was largely due to the "violent culture created by
decrepit jail conditions," the suit states. Overcrowded conditions,
understaffing, untrained officers, the absence of an inmate
classification system to separate violent and nonviolent inmates as
well as a poorly designed and unsafe jail are listed as issues that
"cause corrections officers to unreasonably react violently to
inmates, even when presented with no real threat," the suit
states.

All the men and women who have been incarcerated in the jail since
2014, those currently incarcerated and those who will be in the
future are at "substantial risk of serious harm" and are listed as
plaintiffs in the suit.

The suit accuses Sabo of violating Bellew's civil rights by using
excessive force, assault and battery and violating Tennessee's
Governmental Tort Liability Act by causing false imprisonment
through restraining Bellew. Sabo will be back in Bristol General
Sessions Court for a status hearing in January.

All of the defendants are being accused of violating federal civil
rights laws by failing to protect Bellew while he was in custody,
violating Tennessee's Governmental Tort Liability Act by not
providing a safe environment for him and for outrageous conduct and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. Sullivan County is
being sued for failing to train and supervise officers, for unsafe
jail conditions and false imprisonment.

Sheriff Jeff Cassidy said he was advised to decline comment on the
lawsuit by County Attorney Dan Street.

The suit requests a jury trial, a declaration that the county is
violating federal and state law and an injunction compelling it to
provide inmates with protection from violence by corrections
officers and other inmates.

The suit's request for injunctive relief would have a greater
effect on the county than the $3 million being sought, Street
said.

"The court would have the power to order certain things; for us to
take certain action," he said. "Other than that, it's just monetary
damages and attorney fees should they win."[GN]



SUNDIAL GROWERS: Kahn Swick Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:

Sundial Growers Inc. (SNDL)
Class Period: securities issued either in or after the August 2019
Initial Public Offering.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 25, 2019
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-sndl/           

Covetrus, Inc. (CVET)
Class Period: 2/8/2019 - 8/12/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 29, 2019
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-cvet/           

If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights 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, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.

If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.

KSF, 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.

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

Contact:

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



SUNSHINE 39 WINDOWS: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Aquapan Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL AQUAPAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUNSHINE 39 WINDOWS & GLASS, INC.; and SLIM
SIEW SENG, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06446 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 14,
2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Aquapan was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employee.

Sunshine 39 Windows & Glass, Inc., a New York Corporation, engage
as a window and door company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212) 679-5000
          Fax: (212) 679-5005


SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Alfaro Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA ALFARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 9:19-cv-81554-RAR (S.D. Fla., Nov. 14, 2019) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as a specialty
pharmaceutical company. The Company develops and markets
proprietary drugs for the treatment of central nervous system
diseases and disorders. Supernus Pharmaceuticals offers portfolio
of clinical stage drugs to address neurological and psychological
problems such as epilepsy, conduct disorder, Parkinson's disease,
ADHD, and depression. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          Steven N. Saul, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Tel: (954) 889-3359
          Fax: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com
                  JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                  SSaul@JusticeEarned.com


SURESCRIPTS: Falconer Pharmacy Files Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Falconer Pharmacy filed an
federal antitrust class action against Surescripts, RelayHealth and
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, claiming they conspired to
monopolize the markets for electronic prescription routing and
eligibility, inflating prices.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

                      https://is.gd/lzBnev



T.E.H. REALTY: Northwinds Apartments Residents Seek Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Bogan, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that two
residents of Northwinds Apartments in Ferguson are asking a judge
to grant class-action status to a lawsuit that alleges affiliates
of T.E.H. Realty have refused to make repairs to the 438-unit
complex.

"The clients aren't asking for a bunch of money in this lawsuit,"
said Lee Camp, one of the attorneys handling the case at public
interest firm ArchCity Defenders. "They are essentially asking for
a court order to force their landlord to deliver habitable housing
that complies with the law in the state of Missouri."

In documents sent to St. Louis County Circuit Court on Oct. 23,
Tahata Brooks and Destani Matthews allege that they have been
"plagued by unsafe and unsanitary living conditions that are the
result of Defendants' failure to maintain and repair the homes in
the complex, as well as the apartment grounds," including ceiling
collapse, flooding and mold.

T.E.H. Realty is a major provider of affordable housing, but many
of its local properties are in bad shape. Here's coverage of those
conditions.

T.E.H. Realty and its affiliates have come under fire in recent
years regarding living conditions at several of its properties in
the St. Louis region, which are mainly occupied by low-income
tenants. On Oct. 23, a reporter's phone call to Northwinds went to
an overloaded voicemail system. An investor in the company wasn't
aware of the filing yet.  

The lawsuit seeks to include hundreds of other Northwinds residents
because they have allegedly "suffered a similar injury, being
forced to live in unconscionable conditions that create a risk to
their life, health, and safety." [GN]


TAPPAN GOLF: Garzon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mardonio Salazar Garzon, Genaro Carbajal, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated v. TAPPAN GOLF PRO SHOP
INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-10780 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought
against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York State Labor Law for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiffs an overtime premium, to pay a minimum wage, and to pay
wages due and owed for hours employees were required to report to
work, ready to perform work and actually performed work duties.

The Plaintiffs allege they were required to work 60-80 hours a week
but they were never paid time and a half for hours worked in excess
of 40 each week. Due to the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiffs the minimum wage to which they are entitled and the
overtime premium for hours over 40, they have lost significant
income during their employment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendant as general laborers.

TAPPAN GOLF PRO SHOP INC. is a Domestic Limited Liability Company
duly authorized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jesse C. Rose, Esq.
          THE ROSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3109 Newtown Avenue
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Phone: (718) 989-1864
          Fax: (917) 831-4595
          Email: Jrose@theroselawgroup.com


TARGET CORPORATION: Smith Sues Over Illegal Reduction of Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SMITH, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00999-C (W.D. Okla., Oct. 31, 2019), seeks compensation for
the Defendant's violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a Senior Team Leader for Target Corporation
at a Target store in Yukon, Oklahoma. While working as an hourly
Senior Team Leader, the Plaintiff periodically acted in the
capacity of the store's Leader on Duty (LOD), in which case he
would be the senior store manager on duty.

In the LOD capacity, the Plaintiff was required to be continually
on duty, in order to meet any need that might arise. He was the
senior-most Target employee in the store. Despite being always on
duty while in the LOD capacity, the Plaintiff alleges that Target
subtracted 30 minutes from his daily pay for meal breaks when he
was acting in the LOD capacity.

The subtraction of 30 minutes from daily pay constituted an illegal
reduction of pay under the FLSA, which requires payment of wages
for all hours worked, including overtime wages when appropriate,
the lawsuit says.

Target Corporation is a massive U.S. Retailer with its headquarters
in Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristopher E. Koepsel, Esq.
          RIGGS, ABNEY, NEAL, TURPEN, ORBISON & LEWIS, PC
          502 West Sixth Street
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Telephone: (918) 587-3161
          E-mail: kkoepsel@riggsabney.com

               - and -

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  kruf@glancylaw.com


TEREX CORP: Ace Tree Appeals N.D. Georgia Ruling to 11th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ace Tree Surgery, Inc. and Brown's Tree Service, LLC,
filed an appeal from a court ruling in entered in their lawsuit
styled Ace Tree Surgery, Inc., et al. v. Terex Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00775-SCJ, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut and assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01120.  The case was
later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta).

The case asserts product liability-claims.

The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing lifting and
material handling solutions for a variety of industries, including
construction, infrastructure, quarrying, recycling, energy, mining,
shipping, transportation, refining and utilities.

The appellate case is captioned as Ace Tree Surgery, Inc., et al.
v. Terex Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-90018, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners ACE TREE SURGERY, INC., and BROWN'S TREE
SERVICE, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2350
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
          E-mail: earonowitz@gelaw.com

               - and -

          H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
          Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq.
          Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
          Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, PC
          P.O. Box 4160
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com
                  archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com
                  dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
                  leslie.pescia@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Kenneth S. Canfield, Esq.
          DOFFERMYRE SHIELDS CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC
          1355 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-8900
          Facsimile: (404) 881-3007
          E-mail: kcanfield@dsckd.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER, LLC
          10 N Dearborn St., 11th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: dferri@dicellolevitt.com
                  alevitt@dicellolevitt.com

Defendants-Respondents TEREX CORPORATION, TEREX SOUTH DAKOTA, INC.
and TEREX UTILITIES, INC., are represented by:

          Jennifer A. Adler, Esq.
          Frederick Lamback Cooper, IV, Esq.
          Mark R. Johnson, Esq.
          Frederick N. Sager, Jr., Esq.
          Gary J. Toman, Esq.
          Clare Tian Zhang, Esq.
          WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL, LLC
          3344 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 2400
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 832-9523
          E-mail: jadler@wwhgd.com
                  dcooper@wwhgd.com
                  mjohnson@wwhgd.com
                  rsager@wwhgd.com
                  gtoman@wwhgd.com


TORRID LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Torrid LLC. The case
is styled as Marcos Calcano on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Torrid LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10594 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019).

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

Torrid LLC is an American women's retail chain formerly owned by
Hot Topic. While it is still owned by Sycamore Partners, owners of
Hot Topic, in 2015 the company branched off to become Torrid, LLC.
The store offers plus-size clothing and accessories for women size
10-30.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Kudatsky Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Kudatsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tyler Technologies, Case No. 3:19-cv-07647 (N.D. Cal.,
Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against the Defendant to remedy its
failure to pay appropriate overtime compensation, to pay waiting
penalties, and to provide accurate wage statements, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant suffered and permitted
the Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals to work more
than 40 hours per week, and over eight hours per day without
overtime pay. The Defendant has been aware, or should have been
aware, that the Plaintiff and the other Implementation Reps
performed non-exempt work that required payment of overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff asserts that he complained to his managers about
working overtime hours. In response, his managers were either
dismissive or informed the Plaintiff that he needed to work
overtime hours in order to complete all of his work and meet the
deadlines, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Implementation
Consultant from July 2016 to March 2019.

Tyler is a Delaware corporation that specializes in creating
software solutions and providing related services, generally to the
public sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 277-7235
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
          Email: helland@nka.com


               - and -

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-256-3200
          Facsimile: 612-338-4878

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
          Michael Brown, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Phone: (443) 320-7417
          Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
                 mbrown@nicholllaw.com


UNITED PARCEL: Must Face Drivers' Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dailey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a
meritorious affirmative defense can't stop a proposed class action
against United Parcel Service Inc., the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled.

Delivery drivers Todd A. Szewcyzyk and Juan Dones-Cruz and driver
helper Kimberly Rucker sought to represent themselves and other UPS
workers in a class and collective action, alleging overtime
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act, and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

UPS argued that the FLSA and PMWA claims were barred by the Motor
Carrier Act's FLSA overtime exemption, which has an identical
counterpart in the PMWA. [GN]


UNITI GROUP: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Uniti Group Inc. (NASDAQ: UNIT) between April 20,
2015 and February 15, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Uniti investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Uniti class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1707.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) Uniti's financial results were not sustainable because
its customer Windstream had defaulted on its unsecured notes; (2)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Uniti's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
30, 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-1707.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
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
[GN]




UNITI GROUP: 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 Uniti Group
Inc. (NASDAQ:UNIT) for violations of Sec. 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 April 20,
2015 and February 15, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before December 30, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Uniti's customer, Windstream, defaulted
on unsecured notes, rendering the Company's financial results
unsustainable. Based on this fact, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about Uniti, 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]



URBAN ONE: Lucas Seeks OT Wages; Alleges Pay Bias and Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Desiree Lucas and Dominique Hinton, individually, and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. URBAN ONE, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-05271-SCJ-JSA (N.D. Ga., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against
the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages owed to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendant's willful failure to pay
them the overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular rate
for all hours worked above 40 hours in a given workweek. The
Plaintiffs also challenge the Defendant's failure to pay them
commensurate with similarly situated male employees.

In addition, the Plaintiffs challenge the Defendant's retaliation
against them, after they complained of a sexual harassment in the
workplace. The Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to recover
overtime wages, back pay, liquidated damages, compensatory damages,
punitive damages, plus interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and
costs.

The Plaintiffs were hired to work as a production assistant and as
a board operator for the Defendant.

Urban One is a media conglomerate and broadcasting company that
operates over 50 radio stations throughout the United States, a
cable television network, and an online portfolio of digital
brands.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward D. Buckley, Esq.
          BUCKLEY BEAL, LLP
          600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30308
          Phone: (404) 781-1100
          Facsimile: (404) 781-1101
          Email: edbuckley@buckleybeal.com


VICTORIA SECRET: Cortes Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Elia Cortes, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated v. VICTORIA SECRET STORES, LLC; a Delaware
limited liability company, L BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
LIMITED BRANDS SOURCING, INC., a Delaware corporation; LIMITED
BRANDS DIRECT HOLDING, INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 to
50, inclusive, Case No. 19CV355810, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
Nov. 20, 2019.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-07639 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims under the California Labor Code for:
(a) an alleged failure to provide meal periods; (b) an alleged
failure to provide rest breaks; (c) an alleged failure to pay
hourly wages, including overtime; (d) an alleged failure to provide
accurate wage statements; and (e) an alleged failure to timely pay
all final wages. Plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair
competition pursuant to California Business and Professions
Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Phillip J. Eskenazi, Esq.
          Kirk A. Hornbeck, Esq.
          Jeff R. R. Nelson, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Phone: (213) 532-2000
          Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
          Email: peskenazi@HuntonAK.com
                 khornbeck@HuntonAK.com
                 jnelson@HuntonAK.com


WATERFORD ON PIEDMONT: Faces Makeen Suing Alleging ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Akeem Makeen, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. THE WATERFORD ON PIEDMONT APARTMENTS, Case No.
1:19-cv-03277 (D. Colo., Nov. 20, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for its violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Mr. Makeen stayed at the Waterford on Piedmont Apartments while
staying in Atlanta. He parked on the handicap parking space and
placed his valid handicap platter hanging from the rear view mirror
and went up to his room. When the Plaintiff returned later that
day, the car rental was not there. The Plaintiff later found out
that the car was towed because it was in the handicap parking space
for "Ms. Parker," and that the security guard on duty was the one
who had it towed.

The Plaintiff asked the security guard why he had it towed and only
said it was reserved space even though it was reserved for all ADA
persons that have valid handicap parking permit, according to the
complaint. The Plaintiff has testing to do the next day for an
organ transplant and has no means on getting there, because the
testing started early in the morning and the towing company had
informed the Plaintiff that it would need a release letter from the
car rental company and that it couldn't get the Plaintiff one until
the next day.

The Plaintiff contends that he has sustained severe emotional
trauma, distress and harm as a result of the Defendant's
negligence. He argues that the Defendant has acted intentionally
and/or recklessly with its conduct that violated the ADA.

Mr. Makeen is an African American that is a person protected under
the ADA, who has been classified as a person with a qualified
disability.

The Defendant is incorporated under the laws of Georgia.[BN]


WESTBRAE NATURAL: Barreto Sues Over False Vanilla Soymilk Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Barreto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Westbrae Natural, Inc., Case No. 7:19-cv-09677-CS
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2019), arises from the Defendant's
misrepresentation of its "Vanilla" soymilk products.

The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
unsweetened soymilk beverages purporting to be characterized by
vanilla under their Westsoy brand ("Products").  The Products are
available to consumers from retail and online stores of
third-parties.  The Products' front labels and/or advertising makes
direct representations with respect to their primary recognizable
and characterizing flavor, by the word "Vanilla" and/or vignette.

During the class period, the Plaintiff purchased one or more of the
Products for personal use.  The Plaintiff contends that the
unqualified, prominent and conspicuous representations as "Vanilla"
is false, deceptive and misleading because the Products contain
flavoring other than vanilla, as revealed by "Natural Vanilla
Flavor With Other Natural Flavors" on the ingredient list.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com


WHOLE FOODS: Burke Sues Over Misleading Vanilla Soymilk Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walleta Burke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-05913 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's misrepresentation of its soymilk beverages with respect
to their primary recognizable and characterizing flavor, vanilla.

Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells soymilk beverages purporting to be characterized
by vanilla under the 365 Everyday Value brand ("Products").  The
Products are sold in sizes, including 64 and 32 ounces, and their
front labels and/or advertising makes direct representations with
respect to their primary recognizable and characterizing flavor, by
the word "VANILLA" and/or vignette.

During the class period, the Plaintiff purchased one or more of the
Products for personal use, consumption or application based on the
Defendant's representations.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
unqualified, prominent and conspicuous representations as "Vanilla"
is false, deceptive and misleading because the Products contain
flavoring other than vanilla, as revealed by "Natural Flavor" and
"Organic Natural Flavor" on the ingredient lists.  Had the
Plaintiff and class members known the truth about the Products,
they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for
it, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com


WIDEOPENWEST INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in NY Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
WideOpenWest, 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 defendants are
awaiting a court ruling on the motion to dismiss the consolidated
class action suit in New York related to the company's initial
public offering.

In June and July of 2018, putative class action complaints were
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and Colorado
State Court against WideOpenWest, Inc. and certain of the Company's
current and former officers and directors, as well as Crestview
Advisors, LLC ("Crestview"), Avista Capital Partners ("Avista"),
and each of the underwriter banks involved with the Company's
initial public offering (IPO).

The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the IPO. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased
stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO.

The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.


The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these
actions.

The Colorado actions have been stayed while the New York cases have
been consolidated with the court staying discovery until after a
determination has been made with respect to the Company's Motion to
Dismiss for which a hearing was held by the court on July 10, 2019.


A decision by the court on the Motion to Dismiss is not expected
for at least several months.

WideOpenWest said, "The Company is unable at this time to determine
whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact
on the Company's results of operations, financial condition, or
cash flows."

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

WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high speed data, cable television, and
digital telephony services to residential and business services
customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as
WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc.
in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in
Englewood, Colorado.


WORLDWIND SERVICES: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WORLDWIND SERVICES,
LLC. The case is styled as Alejandro Rodriguez, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. WORLDWIND
SERVICES, LLC, a California limited liability Company, Defendant,
Case No. BCV-19-103236 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Nov. 18,
2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".

World Wind Services LLC operates as a renewable energy maintenance
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by EDWIN AIWAZIAN, ESQ.



YNAP CORPORATION: Guglielmo Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against YNAP CORPORATION. The
case is styled as Joseph Guglielmo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YNAP CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-10613 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2019).

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

YNAP CORPORATION a/k/a YOOX NET-A-PORTER Group is an Italian online
fashion retailer created in October 2015 after the merger between
Yoox GROUP and THE NET-A-PORTER GROUP.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russel Craig Weinrib, Esq.
          Stein Saks PLLC
          285 Passaic St., Suite 5
          Hakensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rweinrib@steinsakslegal.com


[*] Class Actions in Canadian Cannabis Industry Expected to Rise
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Clark, writing for Law.com, reports that even small cannabis
companies in Canada should begin building an internal compliance
regime to avoid increasing regulatory enforcement and securities
class action suits, according to the Canadian Securities Litigation
Outlook report published on Oct. 23 by Cassels Brock & Blackwell.

Wendy Berman, a Cassels partner in Toronto who co-authored the
report with fellow partner Lara Jackson and lawyers across the
firm's national securities litigation group, said in an interview
on Oct. 23 that there will be a greater focus from Canadian
securities regulators.

"There is a lot of interest and a lot of investment [in the
cannabis industry]," Berman said.

In September, Health Canada suspended CannTrust's license to
produce its own cannabis products. Since then, the company has
faced class action suits, and the Ontario Securities Commission
indicated it began an enforcement investigation relating to
CannTrust's disclosure. Berman said before the CannTrust
enforcement investigation, the commission put out a report finding
the majority of cannabis companies' disclosures to be weak.

In light of these developments, Berman said, now is the time for
smaller companies without the resources to begin looking at
building a compliance program.

"You have to make sure you're complying with a number of regimes,"
Berman said.

She said the compliance effort should begin with an enterprise risk
assessment and in-house counsel need to make sure their company's
quarterly disclosures are in order. Because of how new the industry
is, compliance may not be immediately feasible.

"It's difficult," Berman said. "[The companies are] not generating
revenue and as a result, they have to be wise on how they spend
their dollars. You're going to have companies that don't comply
because they don't have the resources to direct toward
compliance."

The problem with not working toward compliance, Berman said, is it
taints the newly legalized industry, Berman said.

Another issue outlined in the report surrounding disclosures is
that a handful of securities class action suits are being filed
against cannabis companies in Canada.

"Almost immediately following CannTrust's stock tumbling, four
Canadian law firms and as many as 14 U.S. law firms launched class
action lawsuits against the company and certain directors and
officers alleging misleading and inaccurate disclosure by the
company regarding its operations and financial position," the
report says.

Berman said companies and their counsel should be making sure their
disclosures are truthful and not misleading. Much of the work to
become compliant with Canadian federal securities law will help
companies mitigate the risk of a securities class action suit.
[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 ***